Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Who Rules Sweden?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Gladstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 25th, 2008 @ 09:35 PM
    United States United States
    Ohio Ohio
    The Taft Hotel
    Single adult
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Question Who Rules Sweden?

    An analysis of the situation in Sweden

    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.

    Electronic media

    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 ethic.

    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 corporation.

    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 broadcasts.

    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 intellectualism.

    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!

    Printed media

    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.

    The Consequences

    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 simple-minded.

    I read today an article in the Express online: Thorburnbjorn 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":

    "Cultural Diversity

    "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 economic debates.

    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 lawn.

    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 dollars]."

    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, 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 America.

    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.

    Turman found a copy of The Graduate, and thought highly enough of the story that he made a movie he considered to be 90-percent faithful to the book.

    But Turman and director Mike Nichols made one key adaptation, changing the Braddocks from WASP-y blonde characters into a dark-haired, more ethnic-looking family.

    From NPR's Present at the Creation

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Braveheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 27th, 2006 @ 04:47 AM
    Don't know
    New Jersey
    White nationalist
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    1 Post


    The march for Daniel Wrestolm in Sweden:

  3. #3
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Progressive Collectivist
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    28 Posts

    Post Situation in Sweden...

    Swedens situation with its immigrants...look yourself:
    Magna Europa est patria nostra

  4. #4
    Theudanaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 11th, 2010 @ 12:22 AM
    Mixed Germanic
    Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, English, Scottish
    United States United States
    Married, happily
    Gnesio evangelical catholick
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Situation in Sweden...

    The situation is as bad as I have heard many times before, yet every time it sends a shock through my nerves. What is a realistic way to solve this problem? I guess, force them back to their home countries when they are stabilized. That is not only sensible, it is the only way. But they won't do it. They are not seeking asylum, but easy riches.

    Once upon a time a wild fever swept through the dog population of a dusty village far to the east. The dogs viciously tore apart the town, killing without sense all animals as well as the poor villagers. Within a day and a night the entire village was desolate, but for packs of wild dogs loping around with glazed eyes and blood-soaked fur. There was nothing to eat. In the heat of the summer, disease and pestilence soon spread around, and the wild dogs, lean with hunger, left the desolate village in search of food. Their rage-induce wanderings sent them barking and yelping through unkown territories over vast distances, through ice-floes and fiery deserts, till at last they came to the outskirts of a great city, with a towering wall and shining minarets peaking above. They followed the wafting smells of delicate meats for three days until they arrived at the steep gate. Few dogs were left. Some had died on the way from starvation. Others had fallen to the fangs of their own brothers. They were tired and now, but for a strange look in the eye, seemed almost tame. When the few dozen dogs arrived at the city, night had long since fallen. The gates were shut tight. The dogs were determined, and they yelped and howled and scratched at the doors in vain for many hours. Finally the watchman was wakened, and the mayor was notified. A team of animal-handlers was sent out to examine the poor beasts, which were presently brought inside the gates to the warmth and safety of the great city. The dogs, they noticed, though strange in appearance, as though coming from far away (for they had not seen such breeds before) did not seem to pose a threat at first as they went through the gates. They were lean and tired, and followed willingly. But when the smell of roasting meat and the sight of other dogs native to the city then incited their lusts, the madness awoke again in their spirit. They tore away from the dog-handlers and soon fell upon the citizens, striking to the left and right, ripping babies out of cradles, preying upon the elderly citizens, satisfying their lusts upon the native bitches, and plundering cupboards to take their fill of food. In two weeks the great city became as quiet as it had been thousands of years before it had been built. Only the buzzing of flies and the intermittent shrieking of vultures disturbed the slumbering ruin....

    They did not fight for their lands, but took advantage of the humanity of their enemies. Thankless swine. So what if they develop "attachments" to the great white protestant-founded country and its social net? They have a deeper and more inimical detachment within them, in their blood, that will always repel them from European soil and European ways. Things will worsen before getting better, and then; I can envision even leftists and socialists supporting the humanitarian goal of "restabilizing" the asylum-seekers' home wretched countries and sending them back once and for all. I cannot envision racewar (initiated by Europeans). The world is too small and paranoid. But looking at this video I thought of one thing in particular: let the followers of those who once burned churches in the name of Odin now realize their main enemy is now not the white Christ, but together they have a common enemy more ruinous, whose towering domes of unholy Mahomet-worship call in challenge for fiery cleansing.

Similar Threads

  1. Sweden Rules 'Gender-Based' Abortion Legal
    By ladybright in forum Sweden
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 13th, 2009, 09:01 PM
  2. Guy's Rules
    By Ominous Lord Spoonblade in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Saturday, February 21st, 2004, 03:42 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts