Who Rules Sweden?
by Fredrik Haerne
June 24, 2002
CNN's website carried a headline yesterday declaring "Israel calls up
reservists to fight terror," which means that the Israelis are going to occupy even
more Palestinian territory. Do we even notice the distortion of the language
anymore? I do, but I have a major advantage: I am not a U.S. citizen, and so
the codewords used in American broadcasts haven't been hammered into my
brain day after day. Instead I only see them when I access American
newssites, and the codewords -- the Newspeak that George Orwell warned us
about -- become more striking since we don't use them where I live. "Hate,"
for example, is still just one feeling among many to my fellow Swedes; it
can be either good or bad, depending on what it is you hate - just like the
value of your love or mistrust or anything else is dependent on the object
of the emotion. Curious, then, to see "hate" being used as a Newspeak
substitute for "pro-White" overseas. Would I notice the trick if it had been
invented here in Sweden instead? I hope so.
This doesn't mean that we don't have Newspeak words of our own. Perhaps it
is interesting to learn that we have our very own media oligopoly in Sweden,
producing a result very similar to that in other European countries, and the
United States. Perhaps some of you think that European media are freer
than your own -- I used to think the same thing about the United States. The
study Who Rules America? at the National Alliance website opened my eyes
completely to the peril we face, and since then I have made a point of
studying the media owners in my own part of the world.
When it comes to television the study is easy. Until the beginning of the
nineties, the Swedish government had a complete monopoly on both television
and radio, and they used this in a way you can expect from a socialist
government - ruthlessly. I cannot emphasize enough how these media were used
as a propaganda tool, enabling the Social Democratic Party to keep power
nearly without interruption for seventy years. Decade after decade
television hammered into Swedish minds the message that we lived in the best
of nations, since we had the most socialist government of all Westerners,
and therefore the best. The relative economic prosperity in the country was
attributed to this, although our economy was in fact simply riding high on
our being neutral in World War II (saving our industries from being blown to
smithereens), combined with the natural result of the strong Nordic work
The consequences of this media control were sometimes appaling. During the
Vietnam War, Swedes were whipped into an anti-American frenzy, and
television's support for North Vietnam and communist dictatorships in
general was hardly disguised at all. One scene especially comes to mind: the
prime minister Olof Palme marching, torch in hand, together with a North
Vietnamese representative in a pro-Viet Cong rally, causing the United
States to close its embassy in Stockholm. Palme, this greasy, arrogant
Estonian socialist, knew he could do whatever he wanted: television was his
loyal cheering section every day of the year.
This doesn't mean people couldn't choose what to watch; oh no, they had
Channel One and Channel Two! The difference between them was...err...well, they had different logos at least. Funnily enough, they both had their
own news broadcasts, giving Swedes a delightful choice between two
waiters serving the same dish.
And yet, nothing good lasts forever. The first satellite dishes struck fear
into the hearts of all orthodox socialists, and the Party had serious
discussions about how to deal with this new threat. The problem was clear:
for the first time Swedes could listen to news from abroad! The
horror! The children might even start watching entertainment that was not to
fifty percent indoctrination (like the Swedish saying goes: it must be bent
in time, that which crooked shall be). The possibility of banning the
dreadful dishes was seriously discussed, and abandoned only with great
angst, falling on its own absurdity.
The Party was in luck, however. The only other news broadcasts in Sweden
today are found at the privately owned TV 3 and TV 4. TV 3 is owned by
super-capitalist Jan Stenbeck, who to date has shown no other aspirations in
life than to produce the trashiest entertainment possible. His news program
is a joke, and the rest of the time the channel simply broadcasts whatever
it can get at a cheap price from Hollywood. Stenbeck also controls ZTV, a
Swedish version of MTV. Both are exactly the same, with the announcers at
ZTV trying hard to look like their better-paid colleagues at Redstone's
TV 4, on the other hand, has some aspirations to quality, which doesn't help
us much since this is the Jew's playground. Its main shareholders are the
Jewish Bonnier Family and the Finnish media group Alma Media. A quick look
at Alma Media's website reveals its largest shareholder by far to be -
Bonnier, as luck would have it.
Finally, Channel Five, owned by the Belgian SBS Group, which owns TV and
radio channels all across Europe. Its Chairman is Harry Sloan, a Gentile,
but its Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is Michael Finkelstein, a
Jew and U.S. citizen.
If you pay for cable, you will have the privilege of watching Canal+. This
movie channel and many other are owned by Vivendi, a Parisian-based entity
that happens to be Europe's largest media corporation. Its largest
shareholders are the Jews in the Bronfman family, and at least seven of its
directors are Jews. It wasn't always like this, but it is now.
Now for a quick look at the radio business. The conservative parties won the
election in 1992, because of the economic crisis that had started a year
earlier, and they took the opportunity to auction off broadcasting rights
before the socialists regained power. Unfortunately, most of these
rights were bought by the large media conglomerates, so radio is basically a
mirror of television.
A sidenote: the socialist media and the state-controlled schools worked
non-stop at making it appear that the economic crisis was the conservatives'
fault, and most people, having a memory like a goldfish, believed them after
a while. Today very few remember that the crisis actually started a year
before the conservatives came to power, and you need to show very precise
evidence to convince people of this fact. A valuable demonstration of the
power of television.
Perhaps television's power will be even stronger in the future. Let us have
a look at the Ministry of Culture: its boss is Lena Hjelm-Wallén, a
hard-core feminist and former communist turned Social Democrat who was one
of the stubbornest opponents of legalizing satellite dishes in Sweden.
She is now using taxpayers' money to buy propaganda aimed at making us buy
the "digital box," a device that would make it possible to view digital
The whole point of her effort is that the Ministry of Culture gets to decide
which channels can use the digital box, with those favoring socialism getting the nod. Commentaries from those
involved in the project reveal that they long back to the days when Channel
One and Two reigned supreme, and could fill the ether with socialist
Unfortunately for the Ministry of Culture -- which, come to think of it,
would be more appropriately named the Ministry of Propaganda -- the digital
box hasn't sold very well, and not many media corporations have expressed
the wish to submit to Hjelm-Walléns' feminist and leftist criteria. Few
channels, few viewers, lots of tax money wasted. This won't do at all. True
to form our former communist has demanded the right to heavily subsidize the
digital box, meaning that since Swedes don't want to pay for it, we will be
forced to pay for it.
Before we leave the ether waves I would like to say a few words about the
movies and TV shows being made in Sweden. These are not kind words, so I
won't say them after all, but instead describe the business. Understandably,
with such a small domestic market this industry does not lead an easy
existence. Hollywood dominates the distribution completely, and as I switch
on my TV now I see...on Channel One, an early-century documentary for the
retired; on Channel Two, a Star Trek episode; on TV 3, a movie about a
dancing Negro; TV 4, another Hollywood movie; Channel Five, actually Fawlty
Towers with John Cleese; ZTV and MTV, more dancing Negroes.
The only Swedish work, then, is the documentary on Channel One; the rest is
foreign, mostly American. No, the domestic movie industry does not lead an
easy existence, but many of its bosses do; showered with money by the Ministry
of Culture, they are able to produce any pet project they want without much
fear of running out of cash. Witness Ingmar Bergman. If you have heard of
this particularly boring and self-centered director, maybe you have been led
to believe that Swedes enjoy his work. Let me assure you, we do not. In
fact, we hate the guy who has given us a reputation of being
more-boring-than-death intellectuals abroad. Practically the only ones who
like these so-called intellectual movies are the ones receiving our tax
money for making them!
Sweden has four newspapers that are sold nationwide: Expressen, Aftonbladet, Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet. In a rough translation I am going to call these the Express, the Evening Post, the Daily News and the Swedish Daily. These newspapers have only three major owners: the Express and the Daily News belong to Bonnier, and the Evening Post and the Swedish Daily are owned by the large Norwegian media family Schibstedt. The Evening Post is also part-owned by the LO; more about that later.
Let us have a look at the Bonnier corporation's holdings. As I imagine this
could be interesting to any North Europeans reading this, a list of
Bonnier's newspapers and other companies can be found here:
Good news for Zion: not only do the Bonniers own the Daily News and the
Express, they also own Sydsvenska Dagbladet and Goteborgsposten ("GT" in the link above). These are the two largest regional newspapers. We also find the country's largest business magazine, Dagens Industri, on the list, along with several other goodies.
Neighbors reading this, take note: The Bonniers are interested in expanding
to other countries, preferably as much as possible (says Carl Bonnier
jokingly). Their purchases include Tammi in Finland, Business a.m. in Great Britain, Cappelen in Norway, Delovoj Peterburg in Russia, Dienas Bizness in Latvia, and Putz Biznesu in Poland, to name a few.
The socialist Evening Post is owned to 49.9 percent by Schibstedt, who are
responsible for the management of the newspaper. The other 50.1
percent belong to the extremely powerful Land Organization, the LO, which is
a labor union with strong ties to the Socialist Party. It goes like this:
they donate huge sums of the members' fees to the Party each year, and in
return the Party gives an even larger sum from the public treasury to the
LO. The Party members cannot give this money directly to themselves,
according to law, but it is legal to give it to independent organizations.
Also, the LO gains the right to actually force workers to join them. If
those working at a particular company do not want to sign on to the
LO-regulated terms for wages and working conditions, and give money to the
LO for the privilege of doing so, the company will be put in a "blockade,"
where no other company with LO members in it is allowed to do business with
it. An average of fifty companies are driven to bankruptcy this way each
year, while the LO has become the by far largest labor union in Sweden
(which is the reason Sweden has the largest percentage of union members in
the world). And this legal mafia, this subsidized racketeering entity,
controls the contents in the country's largest newspaper, the Evening Post.
Because, hey, it's very profitable for the Party.
Curiously the Schibstedt Corporation is the sole owner of the conservative
Swedish Daily, at the same time as it owns half of the socialist Evening
Post. This goes to show that it is concerned only with profit, not with
following the voice of its heart in an effort to enlighten people. Right
or left doesn't matter, as long as the newspapers yield a profit and keep
within the Correct guidelines.
Interestingly, there are no major newspapers in Sweden owned by private
Swedes. They are all owned by either Jews, the LO or foreigners. Jews
dominate the scene, even though there are only 60,000 of the tribe in
Sweden. I guess they are born that way. They don't dominate any other
business in Sweden, but the media -- this they understand.
When you look at the privately owned TV channels and newspapers, it seems
like it doesn't matter much anymore whether they are owned by Jews, the
government or Big Business. The result is basically the same. It seems like
the big capitalists have decided not to fight the Jews and the government in
a cultural war, as it is more profitable if all are pulling in the same
direction. The agents of Correctness move quite freely from company to
company nowadays, as they all want basically the same thing. The Swedish
Daily is supposedly conservative, but it seems their conservatism, like that
of the parties it supports, is only concerned with economic policies. The
social policies are just kosher Correctness all the way, if not by active
pushing then by quiet consent. The Daily News was supposed to be "liberal,"
which here in Europe means libertarian; however, a few years ago Bonnier
decided to color it redder, and fired its political editor because she
wasn't "marching in lock-step" as it so eloquently put it.
The Express used to call itself liberal as well, but its latest political
editor has decided that it should be more "center," meaning it should move
more to the left. The Evening Post is outspokenly and aggressively
socialist, and has chosen a clever strategy to reach its audience; to fill
about fifty percent of its pages with images, and to use as simple language
and as little facts as possible. You know the drill. Works with the
I read today an article in the Express online: Thorbjorn Larsson, formerly
the boss at TV 4, becomes the new chairman at the Express. In his interview
he laughs merrily at questions about his earlier active support of
communism; during the Cold War he was a member of communist "cells," and a
sympathizer of the Swedish Communist Party. It has later been revealed that
this party received both funding and orders from the KGB. The main order: to
support pacifism at all times. (This follows a pattern shown all across
Europe: the French Communist Party received funding and the same order from
the KGB. Curious how communists in the West were always shouting for less
arms, while their bosses in the East were always producing more of them)
So, this communist, this traitor, has been in charge of our largest
Jew-controlled television channel, and is now becoming the chairman of our
Jew-controlled second-largest newspaper. Names flicker back and forth across
the screen, switching places, but the main players and their agendas remain
the same. Always the government, with its TV channels, its radio channels,
its bought-and-paid-for servants in the movie industry and art. Always the
Jews, ever expanding, buying more and rarely if ever selling to a non-Jew.
The remains picked up by Big Business, caring only about money as you need
to in order to reach the top these days, knowing fully well that if you
can't beat 'em it is more profitable to join 'em.
Now, if anyone believes that the media don't try to affect people's
opinions, I have only one thing to say: get to know the business. I have two
acquintances who study journalism, and they both confirm that the media's
role in shaping opinions is considerable. It is openly discussed in their
seminars. It is studied by professors in journalism, and it is discussed
by journalists in editorials. Pick up one of those editorials, and show it
to those who say that "newspapers only give people what they want."
Tell them to think of the media as a magnet affecting a large piece of iron:
if it moves too quickly, it loses the connection, and the iron remains where
it is. If it keeps just close enough however, the magnet can make the piece
of iron slowly follow its lead. And of course, if you have several magnets
all pulling in the same direction in, say, matters of race, then you have a
powerful accumulated effect indeed.
Need some proof? Look at the "corporate visions" available on the Internet.
They don't say "Hey, there is nothing we can do to affect people's opinions,
they would only buy another newspaper if we tried." Instead they state in
what direction they are pushing, and the assumption that they are part of
molding people's minds is taken for granted.
Witness the Jew-controlled Vivendi's corporate vision, as it discusses the company's "values":
"We recognize and value our multi-cultural background as a company. We draw
on this wealth of diversity as a unique strength to preserve, promote and
protect the rich cultural character of countries, communities and local
regions. We value the variety of our dynamic content, which represents our
heritage and the world's cultural diversity, and we strive to deliver
competitively superior services to local markets."
Forget this part: "to preserve, promote and protect the rich cultural
character of countries, communities and local regions." This is fog. They
are selling Hollywood movies, nothing else, and I don't think many of those
are made in Bavaria or Prague. The key Newspeak word here is "diversity,"
and it has nothing to do with preserving European culture.
Now let us look at the Jewish Daily News. At any given day you will find an
interview with at least one Negro poet, Latino writer, or communist-feminist
who has just received more of the taxpayers' money to produce her latest
film. The Daily News specializes in anti-White editorials more than economic
ones, reaching an unrivaled level of aggression in this matter. Today's
chief editorial reads "They Give Us Our Jobs," and tells us how good it is
to have more and more immigrants in the country. The Jews love this, as they
get more allies. The socialists love this, as they get more votes. The
"liberals" love this, as their doctrine demands open borders. The
conservatives keep their mouths shut and nod, saving their energy for
As with all European leftism, anti-Americanism is thrown in almost
automatically. The second editorial is about how terrible the death penalty
is in that hopelessly deranged country on the other side of the Atlantic,
where people are stupid conservative racists in cowboy hats, the whole lot
of 'em (there was a lot of cheering going on in Sweden after September 11,
by those who reason the more dead Americans, the better). America
symbolizes capitalism and White oppression. Needless to say, most Europeans
have no knowledge at all of American domestic politics.
The "vision" for the Daily News is short: "During a time of great changes
the DN will with new sharpness promote the open society's basic values, such
as enlightened reason and a tolerant climate." Nothing about promoting
Sweden's interests, nothing about finding out what is good for Swedes. The
key Newspeak word here is "tolerance," meaning the same as "diversity." Some
Newspeak is the same on both sides of the Atlantic; it is invented in the
U.S., and then travels here via Hollywood. I expect editorials to start
using "hate" any time now.
Friends from Finland confirm that parts of their media influenced by the
Bonniers have significantly changed their tune, from pro-Finnish to
anti-White. Fins are being told to feel guilt because of their low influx of
immigrants, and the result is an increased darkening of the Finnish
Fatherland. No matter where you look, the Jews have the same plans for all.
The other newspapers are pushing the same theme, more or less: whenever they
discuss race relations, it is from the angle of what is good for the dark
races, not what is good for Swedes. The most sinister journalists refer to
non-Whites as "Swedes" simply because they live in Sweden, which is about
the same thing as calling someone an Aryan just because he is living in
Europe -- or a member of my family just because he is standing on my front
Perhaps we shouldn't pay so much attention to the written media, however.
Studies show that most Swedes spend only eighteen minutes a day reading
newspapers (a few minutes more than in the U.S.). This includes the time
spent on sports pages and the TV section. Far more dangerous is the
government control of Channel One and Channel Two. Every time I look at
their news broadcasts I am amazed that people can watch this without
realizing they are being fed propaganda. The dramatic wording, the choice of
news, the assumptions and insinuations -- it is all anti-conservative and
anti-White. This, combined with the schools, has shaped entire generations
of Swedes, and kept us cut off from the rest of the world and from reality.
And now we also have the choice of Jew News on TV 4.
Suppression of free speech
A few years back people could still wear any political symbols they wanted
in Sweden. The Justice Department gnarled at this, complaining that
conservatives were too adamant in their opposition to banning this free
expression of political loyalties. Then it had a stroke of luck: someone
found an old law from the thirties called the "uniform law" that banned
political uniforms. Perfect! This was immediately put into new use, not only
for uniforms, but for buttons and anything else.
The Minister of Justice was quick to explain, however, that we shouldn't
regard this as an infringement on our right to free speech. The law would
only be used against nationalist symbols. Police officials nodded and
repeated: only those wearing symbols of the extreme right would be
prosecuted, no one else. This may be difficult to accept, but it is true: our
own politicians told us in plain Swedish that a law would be used
selectively. There was no attempt to stealth: they said it without so much
as flinching. And Swedes, most of them receiving their news from Government
TV, never stopped to question this, since the reporters didn't.
This is nothing unusual in Europe, as the argument goes: Sweden was actually
too slow at inventing infringements on free speech (only because of the
government's television monopoly, which made such laws pretty much
unnecessary). Remember the boycott of Austria when the Austrians dared vote
for Haider's party? That is the European Union in action. Visit Germany,
Belgium or France and speak your mind about things, and count how many
minutes it takes for the police to reach you. The Minister of the Interior
in France can actually shut down any newspaper he doesn't like. Although he
doesn't have the power to close down the newspaper per se, he does have the
power to prevent it from being printed. Very clever.
Usually the oppressive laws are like that, a patchwork that doesn't come right out and order you to obey the establishment, but that prevents dissent
anyway. That way, when you discuss these matters you have to show a number
of separate laws, bury yourself in details, and therefore lose the interest
of your audience. It also keeps everybody on his toes, because
no one is sure just what the law actually says, and which law says it.
You only hear on TV of someone going to jail for doing something "racist,"
and you get the message.
Let us look at an example that perfectly expresses the climate in
Swedish media. I will quote from an article in the Swedish Daily, written on
March 7 this year. It begins: "The editor of the Evening Post's website was
convicted today of instigation against ethnic groups. A court in Stockholm
released him on probation and fined him 36,000 crowns [about 3,600
Perhaps I should have mentioned that we nowadays don't have freedom of
speech in Sweden, not in racial matters or matters concerning the sexes, or
homosexuals. You can be convicted, even sentenced to jail, for saying or
writing something "racist," "sexist," or "homophobic." Also, we don't have
trial by jury, and never have. A judge and his four advisers convict us, and
the judges are not elected officials but appointed from above.
So, what was the crime? The article continues: "The newspaper's website has
a debating forum for the public. In October 2000 four posts were made by
anonymous writers [as if not everybody is anonymous on a message board] who
among other things wrote positive comments about Adolf Hitler."
And for that the writers could be prosecuted, if they had been successfully
traced. Inadequate message board, there. But what does this have to do with
the editor? We read on: "A private citizen reported the website to the
Justice Chancellor who prosecuted the editor for instigation against ethnic
groups, a crime against the Constitution."
Yes, it is unconstitutional in Sweden to say anything pro-White, or
"hateful" as it would be called in the U.S. It is "instigation against
ethnic groups." Even to allow someone else to say it, like this editor did,
is forbidden. The article goes on to say that the prosecuted editor agrees
that the posts are criminal, he just hadn't seen them yet -- if he had,
he would have deleted them, the way he does with all "racist" and "sexist"
messages. He pleads his innocence and promises to repent, but the court is
unsatisfied: "The court determines that the editor was aware that forbidden
messages could slip through, but he was prepared to take the risk since he
wanted a broad and public debate on the website."
He wanted a broad and public debate! Well, then, off with his head. Let us
hope that this editor knows his place from now on.
Those who thought that free speech was safe on the Internet were mistaken.
Another example: the Passage, found at http://passagen.se, is Sweden's largest
chatsite. An odd feature here is that your IP-address shows up when you are
chatting, and the Passage informs you that anyone writing "racist" messages
in chat will be traced and charged with "instigation against ethnic groups."
Chatters are actually encouraged to report thoughtcriminals to the site's
owners. A quick look at the ownership of Passage informs us
that it is part of the Eniro media group, which in turn is owned by Telia,
which has the government as majority shareholder. (As a sidenote, the
state-created Telia used to have a monopoly on phone services in Sweden,
resulting in high costs and lousy service. The moment private entrepreneurs
were allowed on the market the prices dropped drastically.)
Americans, do not think that this couldn't happen in your country. It has
happened to everyone else in the West, so why not to you? Your Constitution?
We have constitutions as well. Constitutions can be changed, as the
socialists gleefully state in debates, "so they aren't any more important
than any other law." The Evening Post, for example, has said many times that
nothing must stand in the way of "the will of the people," which is their
Newspeak word for the government. From my many hours spent debating in
American political chatrooms, I know that your "liberals" would like to write
the same thing, but so far it is taboo to say it out loud.
Besides, existing laws can be twisted and turned to your heart's content.
Again, look at the way Austria was treated. The EU officials quoted laws in
that case too, knowing fully well that they were distorting the meaning of
those laws, in much the same spirit our Swedish politicians have given the
order to use the uniform law selectively.
I have been visiting American news sites for many years, and never have I
seen such blatant propaganda as what has been pushed after September 11. It
is very clear to me that your government and media masters have a plan with
this. The threats they paint in people's minds don't fit reality -- even
European media have started to voice concern about what is happening
overseas (they can't resist the opportunity to spit at the U.S. for
silencing debate, even as they themselves do so at home). Great Britain,
Germany, France, Spain and Italy have all faced domestic terrorism, but they
have never restricted freedom because of it the way your government did the
first chance it had. In Sweden it is "instigation against ethnic groups" that
silences people, and even puts them in jail; in the United States I could
very well imagine that it will be "instigation to terrorism."
You realize that the VNN website would be closed down, and everyone
contributing to it fined or jailed, if it had been made in Western Europe
instead of in the United States? This is what must not happen; it would end
the last free speech in the Western world. Neither I nor any other Swede
would know what the Jews are doing in the United States and here if we
hadn't read it on the NA website. And such a website is only possible in
The media here not only approve of oppression, they promote it and help
sustain it. In this they all work together. The depth of their partnership
in crime was shown with all desirable clarity in November 1999, when all
four major newspapers printed the same article: a multiple-page list of
the names of active nationalists, complete with their photographs. The
message was clear: resist, and we will harrass you any way we can. The
desired effect was also obtained: several men and women on this list lost
their jobs, or were suspended from university studies, and some were
attacked and beaten by immigrant gangs. That they were socially ostracized
by the ignorant and cowardly is something I take for granted, just as I know
this was the purpose of the media assault.
It is to these patriotic men and women that I dedicate this article. Fully
aware of the risks they take they are all spending their lives contributing
to the defense of Sweden, and what they have sacrificed for me and other
Swedes cannot be underestimated. I am still young, but seeing such courage I
know it is my duty to follow their lead. The first step is to know our
enemy; the second, to fight.