WHO THE FUCK IS NINA?
BACKGROUND AND INVOLVEMENT IN FUNDRAISING, A BIZARRE COMBINATION
NINA PALESA BONDE
A DOCUMENTATION OF HER ACTIVITIES
Nina Palesa Bonde, chairperson of the Danish Judges’ Association, has been involved in fundraising for Jotam Confino, a lobbyist and journalist at BT. While she claims neutrality, the funds are reportedly directed to lawyer Dam Moalem, head of the Israel Desk in Denmark, a Zionist legal organization. This raises concerns about whether the fundraising is part of a covert Zionist campaign targeting specific individuals, particularly a woman of Palestinian descent.
INVOLVEMENT IN ISLAM-CRITICAL EVENTS
Nina Palsea Bonde participated in a conference in Paris, organized by Dr. Florence Bergeaud-Blackler and CERIF, discussing the perceived threats from Islamist forces. Key speakers, including Lorenzo Vidino and Sameh Egyptson, highlighted the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism in Europe. Lorenzo Vidino emphasized, “We are looking at a transnational movement,” while Egyptson stressed financial networks linked to Islamist organizations.
Additionally, Nina Palsea Bonde took part in Folkemødet 2024 alongside Jotam Confino and Jaleh Tavakoli, discussing cancel culture and threats posed by woke culture in an event organized by the Islam-critical Free Press Society. ( Trykkefrihed)
POLITICAL AGENDA AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Nina Palsea Bonde has founded the organization PATY, named after the slain French teacher Samuel Paty, focusing on combating Islamism in the Danish school system. Her central role in Islam-critical movements raises questions about her true neutrality, particularly given her active participation in pro-Zionist initiatives.
Bonde’s activities suggest a clear connection between Islam-critical agendas and her affiliation with Zionist legal organizations. Her involvement in fundraising and participation in these conferences implies a political and ideological campaign against Islamist actors in Denmark. This warrants further investigation to determine if her actions represent a conflict of interest or concealed lobbying.
Here are relevant links that support the analysis of Nina Palesa Bonde’s activities:
- Investigation on Teacher Self-Censorship – PATY’s Fight for Free Speech and Safety: Gymnasieskolen
- Debate on Cancel Culture at Folkemødet: Folkemødet 2024
- Free Press Society and Islam-Critical Agenda: Trykkefrihed.dk
- Conference on Islamism in Europe: CERIF Messages
- YouTube Discussion on the Topic: Watch here
EXAMINING THE ETHICAL BOUNDARIES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
A CLOSER LOOK AT PUBLIC AFFILIATIONS AND FUNDRAISING INVOLVEMENT
I recently came across a post on Facebook that captured my attention and raised serious questions about the integrity of our justice system. Shared by a user named Memo, the post brought forward a striking inquiry about the ethical limits of judicial conduct:
MEMO’S INQUIRY
CAN JUDICIAL OBJECTIVITY BE MAINTAINED?
“Må man som dommerfuldmægtig i offentligheden ytre sine islamkritiske dagsordener og vise sine tilknytninger til zionistiske advokatorganisationer!? Mig bekendt er det med til at undergrave vores retsvæsen med den slags personer i offentligheden?”
(“Can a judge in public office openly express Islam-critical views and show associations with Zionist legal organizations!? To my knowledge, this kind of conduct in the public sphere undermines our justice system.”)
Memo directed these concerns to Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard and Nina Palesa Bonde, asking for clarification on how judicial neutrality should be maintained when personal and political affiliations enter the public sphere.
This raises troubling questions: Can a judge’s personal affiliations and support for fundraising remain unbiased in a system that depends on impartiality? Memo’s post challenges whether a dommerfuldmægtig (assistant judge) can ethically engage in activities that might shape public perceptions of judicial neutrality. Should participation in targeted fundraising be permissible, or does it risk compromising the justice system’s integrity?
FUNDRAISING AND LOBBYING
NINA PALESA BONDE’S INVOLVEMENT
Documented evidence connects Nina Palesa Bonde, who is associated with Københavns Byret (Copenhagen City Court), to fundraising efforts for journalist Jotam Confino, with funds reportedly funneled to attorney Dam Moalem’s office, linked to the Zionist-aligned “Israel Desk.” This connection raises questions about whether Bonde and Confino are coordinating with an organization engaged in political lobbying under the pretense of legal and political objectives.
INVOLVEMENT WITH ISLAM-CRITICAL NETWORKS
Nina Palesa Bonde’s involvement in conferences and debates underscores her links to Islam-critical networks, which promote a narrative that positions Islam as a perceived threat to Western values. Her dual role as a legal professional and active fundraiser in these settings suggests the possibility of political lobbying disguised as neutrality, which creates a need for thorough investigation.
ENSURING IMPARTIALITY IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
This situation presents a critical question: How can the public be assured that justice is truly impartial when those tasked with upholding it appear to participate in activities that challenge this neutrality? The issue becomes even more pressing when Bonde’s fundraising efforts potentially support Confino in a legal case he is filing against a woman. Such activities raise genuine concerns about conflicts of interest and erode confidence in the system’s fairness and impartiality. This matter demands closer scrutiny and potentially legal review to ensure that justice remains untainted by private affiliations and external agendas.
THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL
A HIDDEN, POWERFUL WAR LOBBY WITH GLOBAL LEADERS AND BUSINESS MOGULS
The Atlantic Council is one of the world’s most influential think tanks (tænketank), and it’s not just an academic institution or a discussion forum. It operates as a central war lobby, bringing together former heads of state, military chiefs, and leaders from some of the world’s largest corporations—many with close ties to the defence industry.
The organization is dedicated to advancing U.S. and Western foreign policy interests, often through military solutions. The Atlantic Council has a profound and far-reaching influence on how policymakers in the U.S., Europe, and the rest of the world make decisions about war, peace, defence, and energy policy. Over the years, the Council has been involved in legitimizing wars such as the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, and supporting Western military interventions in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
The Atlantic Council’s International Advisory Board members consist of former heads of state, business moguls, and defence experts who have shaped global affairs before and after the 9/11 attacks. This network of influential individuals continues to play a central role in driving militarized political decisions. However, their close ties to the defence industry and lack of transparency make this think tank a controversial actor on the international stage. Here’s a look at key individuals from the Atlantic Council and their influence both before and after 9/11.
STEPHEN J. HADLEY – FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
Before 9/11: Hadley was the deputy to President George W. Bush in the early years of the administration, focusing on creating a global security policy for the U.S. in the post-Cold War world.
After 9/11: Stephen J. Hadley became a central figure in the War on Terror. As National Security Advisor, he was one of the key architects behind the 2003 Iraq War, a decision made on false premises about weapons of mass destruction. He continues to promote military solutions through his role in the Atlantic Council.
Carl Bildt – Former Swedish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister
Before 9/11: Bildt was involved in peace negotiations in the Balkans and was a strong advocate for Sweden’s integration with the West through NATO and EU cooperation.
After 9/11: Bildt supported Western coalition efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. As Foreign Minister from 2006 to 2014, he helped strengthen Sweden’s role in the global War on Terror, despite Sweden not being a NATO member. Today, he works to promote Western cooperation and military buildup in his role with the Atlantic Council.
José María Aznar – Former President of Spain
Before 9/11: Aznar was a strong supporter of U.S. foreign policy and worked to strengthen Spain’s ties with the U.S. and NATO.
After 9/11: Aznar joined Spain to the “coalition of the willing” in the Iraq War, becoming one of George W. Bush’s most loyal European allies. His support for the Iraq War made him extremely unpopular in Spain and contributed to his electoral defeat in 2004 following the Madrid bombings. He continues to be a central figure in transatlantic politics through the Atlantic Council.
General Joseph F. Dunford – Former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff
Before 9/11: Dunford was a high-ranking officer in the U.S. Marine Corps but had not yet reached the top echelons.
After 9/11: Dunford became one of the most powerful military leaders in the U.S., helping lead efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he played a key role in shaping U.S. strategy in the War on Terror. Today, he serves in the Atlantic Council, advising on global defense strategies.
James Clapper – Former U.S. Director of National Intelligence
Before 9/11: Clapper worked in military intelligence and was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the 1990s.
After 9/11: Clapper was appointed U.S. Director of National Intelligence, playing a central role in expanding the U.S. intelligence network. His work was a key factor in the growth of global surveillance, especially following Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying. Today, he focuses on cybersecurity and intelligence at the Atlantic Council.
Helle Thorning-Schmidt – Former Prime Minister of Denmark
Before 9/11: Thorning-Schmidt was a Danish politician but had not yet reached her highest office.
After 9/11: As Prime Minister from 2011 to 2015, she supported Denmark’s participation in NATO missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Under her leadership, Denmark remained a strong ally in the U.S. War on Terror. She is now active in the Atlantic Council, promoting transatlantic cooperation and defense strategies.
Kevin Rudd – Former Prime Minister of Australia
Before 9/11: Rudd was a rising political star in Australia but had not yet become Prime Minister.
After 9/11: As Prime Minister (2007-2010, 2013), Rudd played a key role in Australia’s involvement in the War on Terror, especially in Afghanistan. Australia was a key ally in the U.S. coalition in the Middle East. Rudd now sits on the Atlantic Council, focusing on Asian security issues and transatlantic cooperation.
Aleksander Kwaśniewski – Former President of Poland
Before 9/11: Kwaśniewski was one of the main architects of Poland’s integration into NATO in 1999.
After 9/11: After the attacks, Poland became a strong supporter of the U.S. in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and Kwaśniewski worked closely with the U.S. government to secure Poland’s participation in the coalition. Today, he is a key advisor at the Atlantic Council, working to strengthen NATO and Eastern European security.
Charles T. Hagel – Former U.S. Secretary of Defense
Before 9/11: Hagel was a U.S. senator actively involved in foreign and defense issues.
After 9/11: Hagel became Secretary of Defense under President Obama, overseeing U.S. military strategy during the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He was responsible for steering the U.S. through a period of increased tension in the Middle East and a shift in its war efforts. He now serves on the Atlantic Council, focusing on global security strategies.
Why the Atlantic Council’s Influence is Undemocratic and Undermines Democracy? The Atlantic Council is a think tank with significant influence over Western governments, including the U.S. and many European countries. While it appears to promote transatlantic cooperation, in practice, it functions as a war lobby that often works closely with the defense industry and political leaders to push militarized solutions. Its influence is problematic because it undermines democratic processes, transparency, and popular control over decisions with far-reaching consequences for war, peace, and how public funds are used for defense and security. Here are several reasons why the Atlantic Council’s influence can be seen as undemocratic:
- Lack of Transparency and Public Accountability:
The Atlantic Council often operates behind closed doors, where its advice and analyses are given directly to governments and decision-makers without public insight. This creates a lack of transparency that undermines the core values of democracy, where decisions about war and peace should be made in the public eye.Hidden Lobbying: Many of the recommendations and strategies promoted by the Atlantic Council come from individuals and companies with strong financial ties to the defense sector, such as arms manufacturers like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. These companies profit directly from wars and arms buildup, meaning they have a financial interest in promoting militarized solutions. This lobbying often occurs without sufficient public scrutiny or debate, making it difficult for citizens to know who is influencing their government.Decisions Made Without Public Involvement: The policy recommendations from the Atlantic Council are often implemented without any form of democratic control or consultation with the public. This undermines citizens’ right to be heard in decision-making processes that can result in war participation, military buildup, or changes in foreign policy. - Conflicts of Interest Between the Defense Industry and Political Power:
Many members of the Atlantic Council, both in their International Advisory Board and in their daily operations, have close ties to the defense industry. This creates conflicts of interest where the same individuals who advise on war and defense policy also have financial interests in the decisions being made. - Promotion of Militarized Solutions Over Diplomacy:
The Atlantic Council has consistently promoted military solutions to international conflicts over diplomatic and peaceful initiatives. This creates an imbalance in the political decision-making process, where militarization is prioritized over dialogue and negotiation. - Undermining National Sovereignty:
The influence that the Atlantic Council has on national governments’ decisions on security and foreign policy can lead to an undermining of national sovereignty. Many countries, especially in Europe, face pressure from both NATO and the U.S. to follow the lines set by transatlantic institutions like the Atlantic Council.