Viewing all articles in The disinformation of Swedish journalists > No free medium in Sweden

Stödja Blågula korset och Blågula insamlingsstiftelsen!

Monday, 14 June 2021 15:20

Jag vände mig för några veckor sedan till Blågula korset för att fråga om hjälp för en klient till mig som är invandrare från ett fattigt land. Det meddelades att det inte var något problem att hon är invandrare. Så alla som svärtar ner organisationen som rasistisk ljuger!


Svinaktigt hur TV4 Kalla fakta ljuger om Assange, förtiger FN:s Nils Melzers anklagelser mot Sverige!

Saturday, 12 June 2021 22:36

En vän bad mig nyligen att titta på TV4:s Kalla faktas inslag om kvinnan som anklagade Göran Lambertz för våldtäkt. Jag tycker efter nu ha sett det att kvinnan ger ett oärligt och falskt intryck. Hon kan inte förklara på ett trovärdigt sätt varför hon spelade in Lambertz i smyg på julafton innan de hade sex. Dessutom påstår hon att hon var hejdlöst berusad. Då tänker man knappast på en smyginspelning mot sin "pappa". Hon döljer sitt ansikte och mörkar delar av sina sms. Förmodligen var hon en honeytrap och Lambertz var mycket korkat att han inte upptäckte det.

Jag råkade efter det se Kalla faktas inslag om Assange från 25 januari 2021 med intervju av Anna Ardin, den misstänkta CIA-agenten som var en honeytrap mot Assange 2010. Mycket irriterande att fd KGB-agenten Jan Guillou får vilseleda åskådarna genom att utgå ifrån att CIA kunde ha hyrt in Ardin och den andra kvinnan. Det har aldrig påståtts. Mycket talar för att Ardin var en fast anställd CIA-agent.

Det som dock är mest upprörande är TV4:s förtigande av den schweiziske juridikprofessorn Nils Melzers forskning i Assange-fallet. Melzer är FN:s specielle sändebud mot tortyr, det s k språkröret. Hans mor är svenska så han kunde obehindrad läsa de svenska polisutredningar. Melzer hade därefter ställt så obekväma frågor till den svenska regeringen att åklagaren plötsligt kände sig hågat att lägga ner den fejkade förundersökningen om våldtäkt mot Assange.

Efter mitt möte med Melzer i februari 2020 i Geneve i lokalerna från FN:s råd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och vårt samarbete om Cybertorture kan jag garantera att Melzer är mycket ärlig och seriös. Här kommer fakta som Kalla "fakta" förteg om Assange-fallet:

"You say that the Swedish authorities were never interested in testimony from Assange. But the media and government agencies have painted a completely different picture over the years: Julian Assange, they say, fled the Swedish judiciary in order to avoid being held accountable.

(Melzers svar till den schweiziske journalisten) That’s what I always thought, until I started investigating. The opposite is true. Assange reported to the Swedish authorities on several occasions because he wanted to respond to the accusations. But the authorities stonewalled.

What do you mean by that: «The authorities stonewalled?»

Allow me to start at the beginning. I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.

«The woman’s testimony was later changed by the police» – how exactly?

On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.»

What does that mean?

S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.

Two rapes?

Yes, because there was the second woman, A. A. She didn’t want to press charges either; she had merely accompanied S. W. to the police station. She wasn’t even questioned that day. She later said that Assange had sexually harassed her. I can’t say, of course, whether that is true or not. I can only point to the order of events: A woman walks into a police station. She doesn’t want to file a complaint but wants to demand an HIV test. The police then decide that this could be a case of rape and a matter for public prosecutors. The woman refuses to go along with that version of events and then goes home and writes a friend that it wasn’t her intention, but the police want to «get their hands on» Assange. Two hours later, the case is in the newspaper. As we know today, public prosecutors leaked it to the press – and they did so without even inviting Assange to make a statement. And the second woman, who had allegedly been raped according to the Aug. 20 headline, was only questioned on Aug. 21.

What did the second woman say when she was questioned?

She said that she had made her apartment available to Assange, who was in Sweden for a conference. A small, one-room apartment. When Assange was in the apartment, she came home earlier than planned, but told him it was no problem and that the two of them could sleep in the same bed. That night, they had consensual sex, with a condom. But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. That is a contradiction that should absolutely have been clarified. If I don’t notice it, then I cannot know if the other intentionally broke it. Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence.

How did the two women know each other?

They didn’t really know each other. A. A., who was hosting Assange and was serving as his press secretary, had met S. W. at an event where S. W. was wearing a pink cashmere sweater. She apparently knew from Assange that he was interested in a sexual encounter with S. W., because one evening, she received a text message from an acquaintance saying that he knew Assange was staying with her and that he, the acquaintance, would like to contact Assange. A. A. answered: Assange is apparently sleeping at the moment with the “cashmere girl.” The next morning, S. W. spoke with A. A. on the phone and said that she, too, had slept with Assange and was now concerned about having become infected with HIV. This concern was apparently a real one, because S.W. even went to a clinic for consultation. A. A. then suggested: Let’s go to the police – they can force Assange to get an HIV test. The two women, though, didn’t go to the closest police station, but to one quite far away where a friend of A. A.’s works as a policewoman – who then questioned S. W., initially in the presence of A. A., which isn’t proper practice. Up to this point, though, the only problem was at most a lack of professionalism. The willful malevolence of the authorities only became apparent when they immediately disseminated the suspicion of rape via the tabloid press, and did so without questioning A. A. and in contradiction to the statement given by S. W. It also violated a clear ban in Swedish law against releasing the names of alleged victims or perpetrators in sexual offense cases. The case now came to the attention of the chief public prosecutor in the capital city and she suspended the rape investigation some days later with the assessment that while the statements from S. W. were credible, there was no evidence that a crime had been committed.

But then the case really took off. Why?

Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W.


The original copies of the mail exchanges between the Swedish police.

What did the policewoman change?

We don’t know, because the first statement was directly written over in the computer program and no longer exists. We only know that the original statement, according to the chief public prosecutor, apparently did not contain any indication that a crime had been committed. In the edited form it says that the two had had sex several times – consensual and with a condom. But in the morning, according to the revised statement, the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom. She asks: «Are you wearing a condom?» He says: «No.» Then she says: «You better not have HIV» and allows him to continue. The statement was edited without the involvement of the woman in question and it wasn’t signed by her. It is a manipulated piece of evidence out of which the Swedish authorities then constructed a story of rape.

Why would the Swedish authorities do something like that?

The timing is decisive: In late July, Wikileaks – in cooperation with the «New York Times», the «Guardian» and «Der Spiegel» – published the «Afghan War Diary». It was one of the largest leaks in the history of the U.S. military. The U.S. immediately demanded that its allies inundate Assange with criminal cases. We aren’t familiar with all of the correspondence, but Stratfor, a security consultancy that works for the U.S. government, advised American officials apparently to deluge Assange with all kinds of criminal cases for the next 25 years.


2. Assange contacts the Swedish judiciary several times to make a statement – but he is turned down

Why didn’t Assange turn himself into the police at the time?

He did. I mentioned that earlier.

Then please elaborate.

Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later, after the accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer being pursued. But proceedings related to the sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. He was questioned by the same policeman who had since ordered that revision of the statement had been given by S. W. At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. That is his right, and he was given assurances it would be granted. But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name.

Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials?

This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will. On the basis of the revised statement from S.W., an appeal was filed against the public prosecutor’s attempt to suspend the investigation, and on Sept. 2, 2010, the rape proceedings were resumed. A legal representative by the name of Claes Borgström was appointed to the two women at public cost. The man was a law firm partner to the previous justice minister, Thomas Bodström, under whose supervision Swedish security personnel had seized two men who the U.S. found suspicious in the middle of Stockholm. The men were seized without any kind of legal proceedings and then handed over to the CIA, who proceeded to torture them. That shows the trans-Atlantic backdrop to this affair more clearly. After the resumption of the rape investigation, Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick. Three weeks later, his lawyer finally wrote that Assange really had to go to Berlin for a conference and asked if he was allowed to leave the country. The public prosecutor’s office gave him written permission to leave Sweden for short periods of time.

And then?

The point is: On the day that Julian Assange left Sweden, at a point in time when it wasn’t clear if he was leaving for a short time or a long time, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He flew with Scandinavian Airlines from Stockholm to Berlin. During the flight, his laptops disappeared from his checked baggage. When he arrived in Berlin, Lufthansa requested an investigation from SAS, but the airline apparently declined to provide any information at all.


That is exactly the problem. In this case, things are constantly happening that shouldn’t actually be possible unless you look at them from a different angle. Assange, in any case, continued onward to London, but did not seek to hide from the judiciary. Via his Swedish lawyer, he offered public prosecutors several possible dates for questioning in Sweden – this correspondence exists. Then, the following happened: Assange caught wind of the fact that a secret criminal case had been opened against him in the U.S. At the time, it was not confirmed by the U.S., but today we know that it was true. As of that moment, Assange’s lawyer began saying that his client was prepared to testify in Sweden, but he demanded diplomatic assurance that Sweden would not extradite him to the U.S.

Was that even a realistic scenario?

Absolutely. Some years previously, as I already mentioned, Swedish security personnel had handed over two asylum applicants, both of whom were registered in Sweden, to the CIA without any legal proceedings. The abuse already started at the Stockholm airport, where they were mistreated, drugged and flown to Egypt, where they were tortured. We don’t know if they were the only such cases. But we are aware of these cases because the men survived. Both later filed complaints with UN human rights agencies and won their case. Sweden was forced to pay each of them half a million dollars in damages.

Did Sweden agree to the demands submitted by Assange?

The lawyers say that during the nearly seven years in which Assange lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy, they made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden – in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. The Swedes declined to provide such a guarantee by arguing that the U.S. had not made a formal request for extradition."

Läs mer på

Se även på WTV TV:

Anna Ardins Twitter avslöjar Assange konspiration;

Oskyldige Assange riskerar att lämnas ut, då Sverige är utpressningsbar;

FN:s Prof. Nils Melzer bevisar svensk rättsskandal mot Assange från polis, åklagare och regeringen;


Dr. Mikael Nordfors om Covid-lögn, mediciner emot och opålitliga PCR-test

Thursday, 10 June 2021 09:59

Här kommer den svenska versionen av den viktiga intervjun med Dr. Mikael Nordfors:

Läs även:


Blodet skadas svårt efter Covid-vacciner! Även nanobots dyker upp

Thursday, 10 June 2021 07:24

Tack för tipset M!

"I have a friend who is a Nutrition Microscopist. She is an expert in her field and has helped me immensely. She has many clients who took the so-called vax and asked them to come in for a free blood analysis. To her utter horror, this is what she saw. The top image is of completely healthy blood and blood cells before the ‘vax’ injection. The blood cells changed drastically over the next few days. The third picture (bottom center) shows countless, foreign nano particles (white specks) that show up in your blood shortly after the injection. Your body can NEVER detox from this and eventually those nano particles will enter every cell in your body.”

What this means, in short, is that you will never be the same and your health will be heavily impacted for the rest of your life…however short that many be. This is, without question, a crime of mass genocide against humanity.

Note the final picture just above, the fourth image, shows this person’s blood cells no longer being smooth and symmetrical. They are now covered with lumps and protrusions. This is an intentional world war on human blood. As Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and Dr. Luc Montagnier, and others, are saying, the injections will kill and will never stop killing. Dr. Montagnier, perhaps the world’s top Virologist, projects the life expectancy of all who have taken the kill shot injection is only 2 years. Remember the projections…only 99 million Americans will be alive by January 2025 …that’s just 3 and 3/4 years from now."



Dr. Mikael Nordfors on Covid and PCR-test lies, Tanzania without restrictions and Corona problems

Wednesday, 09 June 2021 09:31

Obs: MSB eller andra kriminella element i den svenska staten har blockerat min Bitchute video. Men för mig förespeglas den falska bilden att allt är ok. Mikael Nordfors ringde mig från Tansania nu på kvällen och klagade över att Bitschute filmen inte gick att se och då tog jag fram min gamla mobiltetelefon, och mycket riktigt, vår intervju gick inte att se på Bitchute.

Hoppas att det inte blir strul på Rumble också ...... nä, nu föll inbäddningen borta.

Dr. Mikael Nordfors has a very important homepage also:

Läs även på Samnytt:

Ny studie: Hydroxiklorokin kunde ha räddat hundratusentals