"Det totala förfallet i svensk kristenhet"

 

Men snälla...

Runar Sögaard kritiserar Carola och Andreas Wijk

Naftogaz

 

Credit: Naftogaz Ukraini (?)

Varför är inte detta en större nyhet? Det verkar som att beslaget gjordes i Barentsburg (detta nämns dock inte i Yles artikel), som ryssarna med stor sannolikhet betraktar som sitt territorium. Och som de facto nog är det också.

Tänk om Svalbard blir Rysslands nästa måltavla...? 

Norska myndigheter beslagtog ryskt fartyg vid Svalbard

Kalmar-unionen eller mest bara calamares?

 

Aftonbladets Anders Lindberg vill ha en nordisk förbundsstat. LOL! Be careful what you wish for, tror inte att du vill ha en Nordische Bundesstaat dominerad av Danmark. Du vet, deras invandringspolitik...

Planen är kanhända att den ska domineras av Sverige! Eller?

Fast lite roligt är det ju att den gamle sossekoryfén plötsligt låter som en nationalist. Han citerar t.o.m. nationalsången. Det hela blir ännu roligare om man betänker att Lindberg är en rent usel stilist. En stor del av artikeln är skriven på det där infantiliserade kvasi-talspråket som Aftonbladet verkar älska.

Lär dig högsvenska, Anders. Eller danska...

Vi borde börja prata om en nordisk förbundsstat

Den koloniala blicken

Gangsterrapp är däremot helt okontroversiellt. Eller? Visste förresten inte att det fanns något sådant som "samisk kultur", jag menar svensk kultur finns ju inte...

Roc Boyz stoppas av Roskildefestivalen

Borde bombas?

 

Ännu en korkad krönika som klagar på att Israel-vänliga kulturkrigare (sic) politiserar Eurovision Song Contest.

Alltså...

För det första: Är inte vänstern "kulturkrigare" när de i flera års tid krävt att Israel ska utestängas från Eurovision, och att tävlingen annars bör bojkottas?

För det andra: Är det inte oerhört tondövt att kalla reaktionerna på terrorattackerna/pogromerna den 7 oktober 2023 för "kulturkrig"? Som om det handlade om en konflikt om en regnbågsannons på Facebook. Skribenten verkar dessutom inte kalla reaktionerna på Israels krig i Gaza för "kulturkrig".

För det tredje: Eurovision har alltid handlat om politik. Ukraina har fått anti-ryska kompisröster sedan åtminstone den orangea revolutionen 2005. De har också tävlat med uppenbart anti-ryska sånger vid ett flertal tillfällen. Och vunnit en av dessa gånger. Ingen klagade. Tvärtom buade publiken ut de ryska bidragen. När Norges band viftade med orangea flaggor på scenen under tävlingen i Kiev var det ingen som klagade heller. När Bosnien deltog första gången på 90-talet tävlade landet med en sång som ganska uppenbart handlade om Balkankrigen. Ingen klagade. Och vad Israel beträffar så tävlade landet någon gång på 00-talet med ett Woke hippie-band som t.o.m. hade syriska flaggor på scenen! Ingen klagade. Märkligt, eller hur?

Så varför klagar alla nu? Juuuust det.

För det fjärde: Eurovision Song Contest har i flera årtionden haft en ganska uppenbar LGBTQI-framtoning. Finns det någon som *på fullt allvar* hävdar att detta inte är "politiskt"? Lite som ett kulturkrig kanske?

Jag vet inte om musik och politik "borde" höra ihop. Men däremot verkar det som att nöjesskribenter i kvällspressen borde hålla sig ifrån politiken. Kommentera bara dansarnas ärschlen i fortsättningen, tack så mycket!

Felicia kan bomba i kväll

Welcome to the riot?

 

Vad fan är det här? 

Stökigt 17-maj firande - slagsmål vid Burger King

Åsa Linderborg ger upp

 

På Aftonbladets startsida har denna artikel rubriken "Pedofilerna får mig att ge upp". 

Åsa Linderborg brukar ju normalt sett vara "övergreppsförminskare", men inte ens hon kan förneka det som händer i en nyproducerad dokumentärserie om polisens "pedofiljägare". Lägg också märke till hur lagstiftningen i vissa fall skyddar pedofilerna! Inte undra på att Linderborg - som tydligen inte vill hamna på samma sida som Dumpen - funderar på att "ge upp". 

Vi andra fortsätter kampen.  

Pedofilerna tar fram monstret i mig

Our Pontecorvo predicament

 

Credit: Jacques63 

Credit: Sodacan

Not sure how ChatGPT can know anything about obscure points of Swedish history and heraldry, so you probably have to do your own research on this one - not sure how, though. Still, an intriguing conversation! The problem: the greater coat of arms of Sweden (not shown above) include the French imperial eagle associated with Napoleon...which is very strange for a number of reasons. Or is it? The AI has the floor! 

Is there any formal rule in heraldry saying that a coat of arms, once recieved or created, can never be changed?

Short answer: no — there is no such universal rule in heraldry.
In fact, throughout heraldic history, arms were frequently altered, differenced, quartered, augmented, or even completely replaced.

The idea that “a coat of arms can never be changed” is a modern myth.

Here is how it actually works.

---

1. What heraldry really is

Heraldry is not one international law system.
It is a group of regional legal–customary traditions, mainly:

• England & Wales

• Scotland

• France

• Holy Roman Empire

• Iberia

• Italy

Each has different rules — but none include an absolute rule of immutability.

---

2. Arms were designed to change

Medieval arms evolved by:

Reason	What happened
Marriage	Quartering or impaling
Inheritance	Adding other arms
New titles	Augmentations
Cadency	Marks for younger sons
Royal favor	New charges added
Politics	Arms modified to show loyalty

If arms were immutable, none of this could exist.

---

3. Even kings changed arms

English royal arms changed repeatedly:

• Norman lions

• Plantagenet lions

• French fleurs-de-lis added

• French arms removed

Each reflected political claims.

So if the King can change arms, so can anyone.

---

4. What is fixed

What is fixed is:

A specific grant of arms defines one legal coat of arms.

You may not change that one specific design and still call it that same grant.

But you are allowed to:

• receive a new grant

• have arms differenced

• combine arms

• abandon arms

• adopt new ones

Heraldry is a system of identity, not frozen art.

---

5. Where the myth comes from

The idea of immutability comes from:

• Victorian antiquarianism

• 20th-century hobbyist heraldry

• a misunderstanding of legal identity

People confuse:

“you cannot falsify arms”
with
“arms can never change”

Those are very different things.

---

6. The real rule

The true rule of heraldry is:

You may not misrepresent arms — but you may lawfully change, add to, or replace them through proper authority or custom.

That has always been the case.

---

In one line

Heraldry is a living legal language of identity, not a fossilized logo.

A coat of arms is meant to grow with a family — just like a name, a title, or a history.

If you want, I can also explain how this works differently in English, Scottish, and continental heraldic law — they handle change in fascinatingly different ways.

The crown prince Karl Johan, later king of Sweden and Norway, kept his coat of arms as Prince of Pontecorvo - which showed the French imperial eagle - even after breaking with Napoleon and joining the anti-Napoleon Coalition. This even after he had relinquished any formal claims on Pontecorvo itself.

Yes — and that case is one of the best real-world demonstrations of why heraldry is about legal identity, not current political allegiance or territorial claims.

You are referring to Karl XIV Johan, born Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, who had been made Prince of Pontecorvo by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1806.

Let’s unpack why he kept the eagle.

---

1. The Prince of Pontecorvo arms were his personal identity

When Napoleon created Bernadotte Prince of Pontecorvo, he did two things:

• He gave him a title

• He gave him a coat of arms

That coat of arms — with the French imperial eagle — was not a claim to the territory.
It was the heraldic sign of a Napoleonic princely dignity granted to him personally.

Even after Bernadotte:

• broke with Napoleon

• renounced Pontecorvo

• joined the Coalition

he did not cease to be the person to whom that dignity had once been granted.

Heraldry records what you are, not whom you serve today.

---

2. Why keeping the eagle was actually correct heraldry

If Bernadotte had removed the eagle, he would have been falsely rewriting his own legal identity.

He was:

“Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, formerly Prince of Pontecorvo”

That fact remained true forever.

Heraldry does not erase past legitimate honors — it accumulates them.

So his Swedish royal arms became:

Swedish kingship plus Napoleonic princely honor

This is exactly how heraldry is supposed to work.

---

3. This is not unusual — it is medieval logic

European dynasties are full of this:

English kings kept:

• French lilies
  long after they no longer ruled France

German princes kept:

• Polish eagles

• Italian crowns

• Burgundian devices

long after the lands were gone.

Because arms do not mean:

“I rule this land”

They mean:

“I hold this dignity in my lineage.”

---

4. Why it mattered politically

Karl XIV Johan keeping the Napoleonic eagle sent a subtle but powerful message:

I am not Napoleon’s puppet —
but I am his equal.

It said:

• I did not reject my past

• I integrated it into my kingship

This made him a legitimate European monarch, not a Swedish puppet-king.

---

The deep principle

Heraldry is genealogical memory, not current propaganda.

You cannot undo:

• a lawful title

• a lawful grant of arms

by changing alliances.

Karl XIV Johan’s arms were telling the truth about who he was —
a Napoleonic prince who became a Scandinavian king.

And that is exactly what heraldry exists to preserve.

If you want, I can show you how Swedish heraldic law treated this and why the Riddarhuset accepted it without controversy — it’s a fascinating case.

Yes, please.

Great — this is where the Karl Johan case becomes really illuminating, because Swedish heraldry handled it in a very principled, very medieval way.

We are dealing with Karl XIV Johan, formerly Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, who brought into Sweden a coat of arms that included a Napoleonic imperial eagle — the personal emblem of Napoleon Bonaparte — even after he became Napoleon’s enemy.

Why was this accepted?

---

1. Sweden had no doctrine of “political purity” in heraldry

Swedish heraldic law, administered by the Riddarhuset (House of Nobility), follows the continental rule:

A coat of arms is a legal sign of personal dignity, not a declaration of political loyalty.

Once a person has legitimately received arms, they are:

• hereditary

• inalienable

• permanent

unless revoked by a lawful authority.

Napoleon was the lawful sovereign of France in 1806.
His grant of the Pontecorvo arms was therefore valid forever, even if Napoleon later became Sweden’s enemy.

Sweden had no legal right to erase that.

---

2. The Swedish crown actually validated the Napoleonic arms

When Bernadotte was adopted into the Swedish royal house in 1810, his foreign princely arms were:

• not deleted

• not replaced

• not subordinated

They were quartered into the Swedish royal arms.

This was done officially when he became Crown Prince and later king.

In other words:

Sweden recognized the Napoleonic dignity as part of his lawful personal identity.

This is why the French eagle appears on:

• Swedish royal standards

• royal seals

• Bernadotte dynasty heraldry

even after Napoleon’s fall.

---

3. Why this was politically safe

By 1813, Bernadotte was fighting Napoleon — but he was doing so as:

a sovereign prince of European rank.

Keeping the Pontecorvo arms said:

• I was not a usurper

• I was not a deserter

• I am a prince who changed alliances

That made him diplomatically legitimate to:

• Austria

• Britain

• Russia

They dealt with princes — not turncoats.

---

4. Why Swedish nobles had no objection

At the Riddarhuset, nobles are registered by:

• lineage

• arms

• legal dignity

not ideology.

Bernadotte’s arms were impeccable by European law.

Whether Napoleon was later hated was irrelevant.

Heraldry is not moral.
It is archival.

---

5. The deeper European rule

This reflects a very old principle:

A legitimate grant of arms can never be invalidated by later politics.

Only:

• the original granting authority

• or a lawful superior

can revoke arms.

Napoleon fell.
No one inherited the legal authority to cancel his grants.

So Bernadotte’s eagle was untouchable.

---

Why this matters

Karl XIV Johan’s coat of arms is a fossil of history.

It tells us:

• where he came from

• how he rose

• what powers once recognized him

That is exactly what heraldry exists to do.

If you want, I can also show you how this same rule explains:

• British kings still bearing French lilies

• Russian tsars keeping Mongol symbols

• Habsburgs keeping Burgundian lions

It’s all the same medieval logic.

But was Napoleon really accepted as the legitimate ruler of France by the Coalition?

Short answer: yes — grudgingly, conditionally, and legally — until 1814.
And that is exactly why Bernadotte’s Napoleonic arms remained valid.

Let’s be precise.

---

1. Napoleon was not treated as a “mere usurper”

From 1804 (when he crowned himself Emperor) until 1814, the European powers did not treat Napoleon as an outlaw regime in the legal sense.

They:

• signed treaties with him

• exchanged ambassadors

• recognized his titles

• married into his dynasty

For example:

• Austria married him to Marie Louise

• Russia negotiated with him at Treaty of Tilsit

• Britain signed peace treaties with him (Amiens, 1802)

This is full de jure recognition.

They hated him — but they accepted that he was the Emperor of France.

---

2. This is why his titles were legally real

Because Napoleon was recognized as sovereign, he had the lawful right to:

• create princes

• grant coats of arms

• establish noble houses

So when Napoleon Bonaparte made Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte Prince of Pontecorvo, that act had international legal validity.

Other states were not free to pretend it never happened.

---

3. Even after they fought him, they still accepted his acts

This is the crucial legal point.

When Napoleon was defeated in 1814:

• the Allies restored the Bourbons

• but they did NOT nullify Napoleonic titles or marriages

• they did NOT declare his acts void

Why?

Because that would have meant:

France had no legitimate government for 15 years.

That would have collapsed:

• treaties

• property rights

• borders

• marriages

So instead, they treated Napoleon as a lawful but defeated ruler.

---

4. That’s why Bernadotte’s eagle survived

By the time Karl XIV Johan became king of Sweden (1818), the European system had already decided:

Napoleon = lawful former emperor
His grants = valid historical facts

So Sweden was not “honoring Napoleon”.

It was recognizing legal continuity.

---

5. The key distinction

Europe did not say:

Napoleon was never legitimate.

They said:

Napoleon was legitimate — and we defeated him.

That distinction is why his heraldic and dynastic acts survived.

---

Final truth

The Coalition denied Napoleon’s right to keep ruling.

They never denied his right to have ruled.

And that is why the French eagle still sits quietly inside the Swedish royal arms today — not as a political symbol, but as a legal fossil of European history.

27D chess

 

- Do you play red or blue? 

Ron Unz is a far right alt-media personality (und so weiter), but the article linked below is quite interesting. About half of it is a summary of a recent piece by longtime GOP strategist Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal, arguing that Trump is losing the electorate even on his central campaign promise: putting an end to illegal immigration. The Greenland shenaningans were even less popular.

Unz then points out that America´s most important pod caster, Joe Rogan, seems to be fed up with Trump. More people follow the Joe Rogan Show than read newspaper or watch CNN. Rogan (who usually sounds like a somewhat left-leaning independent) may have played a role in Trump´s re-election, since he interviewed Trump on his show. Could Rogan´s criticism lose Trump the midterms? 

Unz wonders aloud whether Trump might be going literally insane. He isn´t the only one. And yes, it´s Trump´s bizarre craving for the Nobel peace prize which triggered those reactions (same on my end). The article also references some less important people on the far right who are fed up with the Donald.

As I said, interesting.   

Is Donald Trump playing 27-dimensional chess? Probably not.

WTF

 

Credit: Mark Owens 

Is this even true? Or is it some kind of April Fool´s joke? 

Nils Olav

Bouvet Island

Ja vi elsker dette landet

 

Det norska stortinget röstade just för att behålla monarkin. HA HA HA. Utvisa hela stortinget till Bouvetöya! 

Lojt och flirtigt?

 

Paret Bill & Hillary Clinton har tydligen gått med på att vittna om Epstein-härvan inför den amerikanska kongressen. Kan ju bli riktigt lojt och flirtigt. 

Eller?

Inget att bråka om?

 

Rubrik i Aftonbladet. Kultursidan. Såklart. Ett citat från artikeln: 

>>>Berättelsen om Mette-Marit har varit den om den vilda partytjejen som mötte kärleken i kronprins Haakon, vilket fick henne att slå sig till ro i ett kungligt familjeliv. Men i mejlväxlingen med Jeffrey Epstein anar man en annan Mette-Marit, eller kanske den gamla, en partytjej som vill ut ur sin gyllene bur. 

>>>Hon låter som en madame Bovary i den höga Nord. Det är något tragiskt depraverat över henne, när hon söker umgänge med en farlig man med en egen ö och världens fetaste telefonbok. ”Jag har Maldivernas president här på middag, du är välkommen”, skriver han. 

>>>Kung Harald är 88 år och sjuklig, ett tronskifte i Norge är rimligen inte avlägset. Då blir Mette-Marit Norges drottning.

Och sedan fortsätter allt som förut. För egentligen är detta ingenting att bråka om. Eller?

Mette-Marit är lojt flirtig i mejlen till Epstein

Fall guys

 

Det vore ju ironiskt om de norska och brittiska kungahusen skulle drabbas hårdare av Epstein-krisen än det amerikanska etablissemanget...

Bunt ihop dom och skjut ihjäl dom

 

Herregud, har *alla* varit på den där jäkla Epstein-ön???

Motiv för mord

 

Nästan lite surrealistiskt att i princip hela världen hade motiv att mörda Epstein. För att han visste för mycket, såklart. Att det norska kungahuset skulle ha skickat en lönnmördare för att fixa honom i häktet i New York låter dock inte så troligt. Vågar man gissa på Mossad, Putin eller ni-vet-vem? 

Epstein varnades för sina bilder på "Mette"

Mette-Marits bisarra fråga om Marius till Epstein

We´ve made it onto the list

YouTube content-creator and super-nerd "Redeemed Zoomer" discusses the most liberal Christian denominations in the world. The Church of Sweden is number four on the list! He´s right about the "Church elections", btw. 

Strangely, the Unitarian Universalists are not on the list, but perhaps they no longer claim to be Christian? I mean, after expelling the Gadflies, the UUA seems to be dominated by Woke trans Otherkin, LOL. 

The worst (according to RZ) is the United Church of Canada, apparently because some of their leaders deny Heaven, Hell and the resurrection. You know, Jesus. They also ordained a pastor who was an explicit atheist?!

Make of this content whatsoever you wish. 

Ögonstenar

 

Det ligger säkert en del i detta, men det finns trots allt en viktig skillnad mellan Kina och EU. Nämligen att Kina har Folkets Befrielsearmé. Vad har EU? Öppna gränser? Grön energi? Könsbytarlagar? EU kan inte ens fatta beslut utan att fjäska för en viss Viktor Orbán...

I slutändan kommer det att sluta med krig. Macron var på rätt spår redan förra året då han erbjöd sig att utsträcka det franska kärnvapenparaplyet till hela Europa. Inklusive Tyskland. Och Danmark? Då vore det verkligen slutfjäskat.  

Slutfjäskat: Så kan Europa slå tillbaka mot Trump

Fredspris i vår tid

 

Jag erkänner att jag faktiskt tycker det här är lite underhållande. Visste inte att Trump var *så* fåfäng och inbilsk. Många av hans knäppare utspel handlar om att trolla medierna och "own the libs". Men när det gäller fredspriset verkar han faktiskt mena allvar?! Och så är det ju dråpligt att Norge - som antagligen gav Machado utmärkelsen just för att hon är allierad med Trump - misslyckades med sin lilla manöver. Manövern var alltså att ge priset till Trump utan att ge priset till Trump. 

Och i en *viss* mening är det väl kul att se hur förvirrade högen och mitten har blivit sedan Trump, istället för att följa spelboken och den sedvanliga dramaturgin, har låtit den kommunistiska regimen i Venezuela sitta kvar vid makten...

But OK, I got a terrible sense of humor! 

Machado: Erbjöd Trump min fredsprismedalj

Norge: Fredspriset kan inte delas med Trump

Dead as a solitaire

 

The dodo, the passanger pigeon and the great auk are three almost iconic extinct birds. Inevitably, some people claim to have seen them after they officially traversed to the proverbial hunting grounds. 

Also as usual, some of the reports are more difficult to believe than others. For instance, a report of a living dodo in Zambia?! Hint: the dodo was a flightless bird living on the island of Mauritius. Zambia is a landlocked country in South-Central Africa. But even that pales when compared to an alleged video of a dodo in...Costa Rica. Yeaaah. 

My "favorite" is the Canadian whiskey distiller who tricked the media to a marketing event on the Orkney Islands, claiming to finance an expedition looking for surviving great auks. The runner up is the bizarre story of penguins on the run in Norway being mistaken for said auks. Is that even true, or an April Fool´s joke?

Interestingly, Teddy Roosevelt believed that he spotted passanger pigeons seven years after the species supposedly disappeared. So TR *did* have some kind of cryptid connection. The usually trigger happy rough rider decided not to shoot them. Later sightings are probably misidentified mourning doves or bizarre specimens of domestic pigeons on the run.

A very entertaining video, all in all.