The Sweden Democrats Party– one of Sweden’s largest political parties as well as the only party in the country that opposes cultural suicide and Islamization, has come under fire for several incidents the national media and their opponents are calling ‘anti-semitic’.
One, involving party member Carina Herrstedt, was really more of what most would refer to as an ‘off-color joke’, and had little to do with Jews specifically. As one can see below, it was basically a stereotypical sports joke invoking various ethnic and cultural groups for use in puns and crude humor. The set-up is about assembling a soccer team:
“First you get a couple of Jews, because under law it is forbidden to persecute them,” the joke began. “You strengthen the team with a negro, a Chinaman and an Indian, because they’re more colourful. At the rear, you recruit two gays, to have more force from behind. As the goalie you deploy a 40-year-old nun, because she hasn’t let anything in for 40 years. As reserve goalie, you get a gypsy, because they take absolutely everything!”.
These were actually not even words that she spoke but rather just a chain email she forwarded. But nevertheless the other political parties and media establishment used the incident to brand her a “Nazi” anyway, as is their wont to do.
This built on a similar incident that had occurred just days before it, as The Local explains:
The latest scandal comes just two days after a recording was released of the party’s finance spokesman Oscar Sjöstedt laughing as he told an anecdote about working in an abattoir with Germans who kicked dead sheep, joking that they were “the Jews”.
While both of these incidents revolved around ethnic based jokes and humor, a third, involving MP Anna Hagwell, involved a political discussion of very real questions of media monopoly and bias. Her comments, and the official reaction against them, are very interesting.
This is The Local’s account of the situation:
A member of the Sweden Democrats is being accused of anti-Semitism after she called for a ban on ‘ethnic groups’ owning more than five percent of media, singling out the Bonnier family.
Anna Hagwall, a member of parliament for the anti-immigration Sweden Democrat party, was widely criticized on Thursday, including by her own party, after she put forward a motion to scrap press support, state subsidies available for newspapers in Sweden, to stop the Bonnier Group’s “control” of media.
“Eighty percent of media is owned and controlled by the same owner. That is not acceptable. Therefore, media ownership needs to be spread over more independent companies and people. To change this I suggest scrapping press support,” Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet quotes the motion as saying.
The concept of press support was launched in Sweden decades ago to secure the survival of local newspapers and avoid monopolies. It is usually awarded to the second largest newspaper in each town.
The Bonnier Group is Sweden’s largest media company, owning titles such as Expressen and Dagens Nyheter. Fact check: it owns around 25 percent of the daily newspaper industry in Sweden today.
It also receives none of the direct press support of 436 million kronor ($50.60 million) handed out to media each year, writes Aftonbladet, but does get a share of the so-called 50 million kronor distribution support.
But Hagwall writes in an email to Aftonbladet, Sweden’s largest newspaper and owned by Norwegian media company Schibsted: “Most small newspapers are controlled directly or indirectly by Bonnier and why it should get paid by Swedish taxpayers is a mystery. Small rural newspapers have become direct or indirect mouthpieces for DN/Bonnier.”
“No family, ethnic group or company should be allowed to directly/indirectly control more than five percent of the media,” she adds.
The reference to an “ethnic group” was widely slammed in Sweden as anti-Semitic on Thursday, interpreted as a slur on the Bonnier Family, whose ancestor Gerhard Bonnier was Jewish.
“Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have obviously made it from the swamps of the internet to proposals in the Swedish parliament. This should make it clear to all decent parties in the Swedish parliament that the Sweden Democrats are not a party to count on,” said Culture and Democracy Minister Alice Bah Kuhnke, who represents the Green Party in the government.
“This is an elected member of parliament writing this proposal, in other words a person of power. It is so distasteful words cannot describe it,” she told Aftonbladet.
Senior members of Hagvall’s own party have also criticized her motion.
“Anna Hagvall’s motion does not mirror the party’s support for public service and media politics in general. The actions have damaged our confidence in her. This is going to have consequences for her future work in the party and parliament,” writes Mattias Karlsson in a press statement issued by the Sweden Democrats late on Wednesday.
Footnote: In her motion, Hagwall adds that Swedish broadcaster SVT should return to how it operated in the 50s and 60s, broadcasting only for one hour in the morning, one hour in the afternoon and three to four hours in the evening to stop it “supplying a politically correct agenda”. She also suggests that it should broadcast the same type of programmes as in the 50s and 60s, “but this needs to be thought through”.
There is much that could be said regarding all this, but in brief these are my thoughts:
-There is nothing really anti-semitic about pointing out that the majority of the media apparatus in Sweden is owned by the Bonnier family, or even in being totally direct and pointing out that majority of it is owned by Jews. This is merely statistical in nature, and is either true or not true. While The Local article above tries to state via ‘Fact Check’ that it is not the case, many other sources say that it is (and I am inclined to agree with them based upon my cursory research).
-Hagwell states that no single family, (foreign) ethnic group, or company should be able to exert majority control over the media either, which seems quite commonsensical to me. Indeed, you could imagine how the Progressives would view a European family or ethnic Europeans in general having majority control over the media in a country such as Kenya or New Guinea where they make up only 2% of the population.
-It seems to me that it should be clear to pretty much everyone that the government of Sweden giving money to media organizations which in turn support the Swedish government’s actions and attack its enemies is just about as incestuous and undemocratic process as one could imagine. Of course we see the exact same thing in most of Western Europe, in Canada, and even to a small extent in the United States.
-Ideologically, I believe the mask is coming off the media in the West. We see this strongly in America right now, where the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of neutrality and journalistic impartiality. They are openly supportive of Hillary and wanton in their attacks on Trump. Everyday people are seeing this more clearly than ever before. Similarly in Europe, we see regular Germans attacking the corrupt ‘Lugunspresse’ more stridently than any time since the 1930’s.
-In terms of the question of Jewish influence in the media there is something similar going on. Again, I think this is true no matter your view on the subject. Even if you are a complete philo-semite and love Israel, you must acknowledge that of course Jews are massively over-represented in the media and in media ownership. The same thing is the case in other areas as well such as finance, the judicial system, the entertainment system, etc . As we previously reported, Jewish Breitbart columnist Milo Yiannopolous said this himself. Similarly, last week a Canadian academic study came out showing that 50% of Hilary Clinton’s donations come from people of Jewish background. No matter one’s thoughts on this, it is nothing but a boldfaced lie to claim that this is only a ‘vile stereotype’.
Our People’s Future
With this pernicious corruption from the openly globalist, anti-Occidental media being so increasingly front and center in the discourse, it is worth speculating on what its future will look like, for it is interconnected with our future, and the dangerously fluid situation in Europe.
To do so I will start with a quick detour to a similar but different industry: publishing. Obviously I am a big fan of self-publishing, and as a result I am well aware of the fact that its rise on Kindle has effectively destroyed the mainstream publishing industry. There are great articles on this all around the web. You can see one here and another here. Big name authors are jumping ship from large publishing companies left and right, the large companies earnings are in the tank, and countless new authors with controversial voices (such as myself) are selling books that never would have been published by the big publishing companies. Those publishing companies- who are owned in the same manner and by roughly the same people who own all the large newspapers across the West- are increasingly irrelevant and largely bereft of their former power.
What I hope is that the ‘news’ industry (roughly large-circulation newspapers and cable news) will follow suit. Certainly we have seen the beginnings of this: there was a lot of scuttlebutt about newspapers ‘dying out’ a few years ago when the internet was first providing them competition. There seem to have been two results so far however: 1) some of the newspapers have been able to go online and retain their former earnings through online advertising, while 2) some are no longer profitable at all, but have become the mouthpieces of powerful establishment (read: Globalist, Progressive) oligarchs. Cases in point are Jeff Bezos with the Washington Post and Carlos Slim with the New York Times (or ‘Carlos Slim’s blog‘ as Mike Cernovich calls it lol).
These individuals buy these newspapers despite the fact they are no longer profitable, merely to be able to influence the public discourse. That is quite telling when you think about it: these are rich establishment figures with Progressive/Globalist political views who buy newspapers knowing they will be perennial money-losers, purely to attempt to sway public opinion and control how people think.
The question is whether and in what form this landscape changes. I do not know the answer to this but would love to get reader feedback, for the corrupt globalist/progressive/echo-filled news monopoly possesses a huge portion of guilt for the horrors being perpetrated on modern Europe. I think we can get a hint of how things may evolve by looking at a couple up and coming ‘alternative’ outlets though, and I will throw them out there as examples and as catalysts for discussion.
Breitbart – Breitbart started as a small website/blog/news organization, and after growing exponentially for the last decade is now far ahead of many of the ‘traditional’ news journals in numbers of readers and total revenue. While it isn’t perfectly aligned with my views it is certainly a million times closer to them than NBC or PBS and is thus a hugely welcome contribution to the media landscape.
Red Ice Radio– Red Ice Radio– where I was honored to be interviewed last summer– is a particularly important example in my opinion. While nowhere near as big as Breitbart, Henrik and Lana are doing things in terms of video, radio, and live news that Breitbart is not doing and that are extremely exciting. They are exciting because they show that as technology continues to improve, it is very possible to have small groups of people hosting shows just as visually appealing and technologically savvy as anything on CNN or its competitors. To steal the monopolistic power of cable news would be a huge victory and development, and Red Ice is suggestive of a future in which that may be very possible.
Of course, as globalist oligarchs continue buying failed newspapers and as sick Suicidalist governments like the ones in Sweden and Germany continue funding corrupt news outlets to push their vile propaganda, it will remain difficult for our people to compete. The internet has already allowed for vast successes though and I am optimistic that just as the publishing world has been flattened, the news and media world will be too.
At that point perhaps the demographic responsible for the majority of news coverage in Sweden will be the Swedes themselves. Surely a ‘vile’ vision to some, but a sacred one to us.
Editor’s Note: I would love to get feedback on what people see happening in this arena. Not just in Europe even but in America, etc. It’s a topic I am fascinated by but I really don’t have any predictions I am confident in making.
Will television ‘stations’ be replaced by websites as the two converge and terms like ‘cable’ and ‘satellite’ becoming meaningless? Will Youtube ‘newscasters’ become the modern day Walter Kronkites? Will Donald Trump purchase the New York Times in a hostile takeover and name Richard Spencer editor-in-chief? What news outlets will young Europeans read from the trenches in 2019?