At left, world-famous American writer Naomi Wolf, who is also considered a leading spokesperson of the third wave of the feminist movement. Naomi Wolf is an often linked columnist in the Professors blogg.
In sum, my critic to fascist radical-“feminist” positions does not compromise my support for the sound classical human-rights claims on equality issues for all, for social and gender justice in society.
As I sustain that the sectarian gender-supremacists’ campaign is not to be equated with feminism, I maintain also that the strategy of universal vendetta against men – argued in their thesis of historical patriarch domination – is merely a pretext to profit of positions of power in a new political order sized by psychological deceit:
Radical feminists seek the “collective guilt” of all men by means of a mass-psychological campaign agitated in the media they have access to, or control. In Sweden, these radical feminists have even proposed the obligatory (by law) payment of a “Male-taxation” from the part of all Swedish men. This law would compensate women for a sort of endemic patriarchal rule, according to the radical feminists. Conspicuous such radical-feminist politicians, such as lawyer Claes Borgström (initiative-author in the accusations against Julian Assange) are reported staunch supporters of such male-taxation.
Radical-feminism advocates the demise of nuclear family as central institution in society. New “modern” forms should replaced it. I believe instead that it is exactly Family as a whole, and the family as central institution, the best and only natural structure able to secure the ontogenetic and philogenetic destiny of humankind and their survival. Not the state, nor the anti-natural constellations posing as “modern”, not the self-proclaimed gurus of a self-pretended vanguard of social-ideas evolution such as the Swedish FI. I have already put it in my clearest terms:
The so-called Swedish “radical” feminist movement is anything but a progressive movement. Its ideological matriarchal formulations are on the regressive side of a wheel moved historically by thousands of generations towards human justice and equality.
The epithets of “anti-feminist”, “misogynist”, “anti gender-egalitarianism” and the like, thrown to us that oppose the abuse of power coming from a Feminist-State ideology is just a dirty trick from a movement in despair and pregnant of defeatism anxiety.
It just similar in its psychosocial mechanics to the easy and cheap “racist” accusation given to any critic to a given failed immigration policy. This demonization tactic is and old Stalinist trick used in decades in the past by square bolshevists and modern Party-communists. E.g. true revolutionaries and social-anarchists were labelled “anti communists” because we opposed the dogmatic and ill-fated strategy of the old and modern Stalinist nomenclatures. 
Summing up: Above any sympathy I would have for a true feminist struggle, paramount for me is the support for justice, equality and human rights for all genders, and all nations, in all societies. In other words I do not do a fetish of WASP feminism, and I certainly do not support the idea of a supremacist female-rule in society. Neither I would accept the rule of male chauvinism. I have put my life on the line for my convictions about justice. And I do it still.
2. Sound legislation is one thing. Legal system is another, and case process implementation is yet another thing
It is equally absurd, or preposterous, disqualify a critic regarding some structural flaw in a Swedish institution as anti-Swedish behaviour. The far most of Swedes can basically agree with the modern Swedish crime-legislation and think in general it could very well function as model-legislation elsewhere, and still be critic to aspects of the legal system. And in the concrete case of the affair Assange the questions posed by the many among the Swedish citizens are for instance the following:
- Are the authorities following that legislation in the case Assange?
- Is the Swedish legal system flawless?
- Is the Swedish legal system really independent from politics and ideology?
- Have or not the highest political authorities of Sweden publicly taken side and thus influenced the juridical out come of the case? 
I am not an expert in the Swedish juridical system, and even considering – as I believe – it is grounded in a sound legislation, I am although critic with regard to the implementation of such legislation in occasions the gender-factor is implicated.
Further, neither can the political factor in the Swedish courts be totally disregarded with simple official declarations that the courts are independent of the state. Judges-appointments at the courts (nämdeman, a kind of permanent jury) are politically made. In fact, these judges are designated directly by the political parties according to their representation in the Parliament. However, this principle does not mean that in each court there is an “even” distribution according to that one of the Parliament. At the contrary, the political constellation of judges – read ideological majority – within each court can vary enormously. Further, considering that all Swedish political parties have allegedly positioned themselves in the Assange affair (all parties, including the Pirate Party), I even speculate as whether the Assange case has served some times as a vendetta for ideological reasons, or some times as instrument for populist reasons. And also if the case has been used as a pretext for radical-feminists to give international publicity to their theses.
With regard to structural flaws in the legal system as such, I only can subscribe what Jens Lapidus and Johan Åkermark have pedagogically explained in their debate article in DN . It was also shown there that the majority of Swedish lawyers manifest critic to the legal management of the Assange case.
4. An hatred-ideology case
2. For instance, the social democratic politician and chairman of the worker’s union of Sweden (LO) Wanja Lundby-Wedin had in a nation-wide campaign an appeal for increase the wages of female workers. The enormous posters with her portrait spread all over the streets of Sweden read this “combat” text: “Let us diminish the gap between the salaries of men and those of women!”
I am aware how horrible and highly conspiratorial the above might sound, but I could myself hardly believe it was true – when I read an article in Expressen [8 Feb.] – that the very Prime Minister of Sweden Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt, whom this column have elsewhere referred as a politician with honourable marks – made public statements involving officially and openly the Swedish government in the London Court deliberations referring exclussively to protecting the rights of the accusers (the two women) involved in the Assange extradition process.
Let me first to recall that in my article published in Newsmill Jan 11 I clearly advanced the hypothesis on whether behind the Sweden case against Assange it truly exists the intention of making a pilot case of the event. Meaning, to use Assange’s celebrity to reassure or move forwards positions in the Swedish legislative process towards a radicalization in the penalty of sex-offences, or the enhancing of criminal conceptualization in that regard.
In declarations published in Aftonbladet “i samband med domstolsförhandlingarna om utlämningen av Julian Assange i London”, PM Reinfeldt “reveals” what would be “really” the issue at stake. Reinfelt said concretely:
“Let us not forget what is here at risk. It is the right for women to have their case tested in court as to whether what they have been subjected of is a criminal abuse (offence)”
– Låt oss inte glömma bort vad som riskeras här. Det är ju rätten för kvinnor att få prövat huruvida det har varit ett övergrepp som de har varit utsatta för.”
I put in serious doubt that Reinfeldt would really consider the content of his statement above as THE reason for the Swedish offensive aganist Assange and Wikileaks. For there is evidence that the “pilot-case factor” is only a part in the constellation of causes behind the Swedish political crusade against Assange and Wikileaks.
Nevertheless, Reinfeldt did try also to defend the integrity of the kingdom’s judiciary – which would be totally understandable for his position as surrogate head of state (Sweden is still a monarchy and Prime Ministers receive formally the assignment from the king). However, he just made things worst. What Reinfeldt in the main ended in pointing out – in the name of the Swedish government – was the publicly taking side on behalf of the two accusers-ladies, for which he demanded respect very much exclusively. This is what he stated in Expressen:
[“att på det här sättet försöka kringgå det och få det att framstå som att deras rätt är mycket litet värd, det tycker jag är beklagligt.“]