of the series
“The Satanism-theses of Eva Lundgren and the psychiatric
origins of Swedish State-Feminism”
by Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Third Part: From demons exorcism to State-feminism. Further background on the Swedish case against Assange
This Fourth Part. Contents
- Swedish State-feminism: In the eve of the London verdict on Julian Assange’s extradition petitioned by Sweden, radical-feminist main ideologist Eva Lundgren is endorsed by the National organization of social workers in the company of three ministers of the Swedish government. What is going on in Sweden, are they really so stubborn supremacists that they cannot have some insight on what international shame is?
- The accomplice silence of the Swedish cultural and research establishment
- Investigating Eva Lundgren’s radical-feminist research. The phony “critic” of the Swedish Feminist-State
Swedish State-feminism in a nutshell
At the very same moment as I am writing here in Rome this Four Part on the Swedish “Satanist” series, today 1st of October 2011, Eva Lundgren – in an academic event installed by minister Maria Larsson (a Christian-democratic politician leader and currently minister in the Swedish government) – is delivering anew her biased and unscientific thesis on Swedish men’s violence against women. This time in a national conference taking place in Stockholm and with participation of the official establishment, at top level. The conference – called Socionomdagarna – is organized by Akademiker förbundet SSR, the Swedish organization of social workers and behavioural scientists working in the public Swedish Social services. Other two ministers in the current Swedish government also addressing the conference are Erik Ullenhag and Ulf Kristersson.
Theology Dr. Eva Lundgren is presented as “Professor of Sociology”, which is untrue. She does not any longer keep a chair at Uppsala University. Her theses and figures on “Swedish men’s violence against women” have been discarded on the ground of lack of scientific evidence and poor scientific proceedings (see below the devastating critics by the professors committee appointed by Uppsala University 2005). But what Swedish state-feminists would care about that. Or about objective and scientific epidemiological findings that proves against the political and ideological design of this “Christian”-radical-feminist anti-Assange crusade.
Minister Maria Larsson (right-winger Christian conservative) is not the first minister in a Swedish government notoriously participating in public events endorsing the unscientific theses of Eva Lundgren. We have already mentioned Margareta Winberg, the social democratic politician who as minister in the Göran Persson’s government endorsed publicly the theses of Eva Lundgren. She is also known for her statements to the press, such as she finds “”It is strange that not even more women hate men” [”Underligt att inte fler kvinnor hatar män”]. Margareta Winberg was also Sweden’s Vice Prime Minister and she is currently the President of UN-Women in Sweden. Further analyses on the relationships between these organizations in the context of Sweden’s international alliances can be read in Wikileaks cable on procedures at UN Women would help explain Sweden’s feminists campaign against Assange.
But that is not all, particularly in the context of the Swedish crusade by-proxy against Wikileaks. The notable architect of the dirty anti-Assange “#Prataomdet” campaign (described here, and here) the radical-feminist journalist Johanna Kljonen was afterwards rewarded with a position by by the minister of cultural affairs, and by the same time she was appointed as columnist in the establishment’s main newspaper Dagens Nyheter. This is State-feminist duck pond Sweden in a nutshell.
The accomplice silence of the Swedish cultural and research establishment
How could a theology-graduate specialized in how to drive away “demons”  and known propagator of unproven tales about widespread Satanist murder-orgies in Sweden become at the same professor in “scientific feminism” at the University of Uppsala in a special position instituted by the Swedish State, and main ideologist of Sweden’s radical feminists?
How could Lundgren’s theses – such as on “Swedish Satanism”, which would have been regarded in a psychiatric clinical context as simple patient’s delusions or fantasies – become so well disseminated not only among “normal” radical feminist circles at universities and among “normal” mainstream media journalists but also at levels of the State-Feminist apparatus?
And the most striking of all: how could the Swedish cultural and research establishment, the university authorities, etc., could let her continue in her academic position in spite of the falsehood of her thesis become publicly known in detail? Or even worst, how could they publicly declare on and on their support to Eva Lundgren’s “scientific research”?
Would their fear to lose governmental grants be enough to explain this flatness? Are all those women academics, but also men, “brainwashed” by Satanism-oriented explanations on that all Swedish “men are animals” and that the best way of correct the problem is to allow female-gender supremacist rule?
Could the explanation rests in the so called “inner sense of guilt”, the “collective sin” or rubbish of the like, all of that Freudian themes the public learn to trace in the fictional works of Strindberg, Ingmar Bergman (and nowadays the Nazi clown Lars Noren), etc.? And however they are – in fact – purely cultural hyper clichés about the “Swedish mentality” – a thesis never demonstrated having idiosyncratic links to a national behaviour? What is then the need to believe in such things?
What have this to do with the claim of feminists such as Claes Borgström & co., Gudrun Schyman and co., “Left Comunists”, ROKS and co., on that all men in Sweden ought to pay a “male-tax”  to redeem the sins committed by “all generations of men” during millenniums of gender oppression? What makes men to bite that horrible stinking hook?
The answers to the items above – beyond the primary focus of this essay – would be nevertheless pertinent to the tolerance of Sweden to the psychiatric-related theses of Eva Lundgren and their absolutely uncritical implementation.
Investigating Eva Lundgren’s research. The phony “critic” of the Swedish Feminist-State
In actual fact, the criticism in Sweden to Eva Lundgren’s research – content, conclusions and scientific quality – has been utterly reduced, especially viewed in relation to the weight politicians and governmental organizations have credited over the years to her academic activity (not to confound with academic productivity). When criticism had occasionally surfaced once or twice in the Swedish press, it has not elicited further echo in the academic circles, and, peculiarly, not even further commented by feminist journalists – as noticed in the worthy column “Strange silence after acquitting of Cannibalism researcher” (in Swedish) by Jan Gillou.
The most “recent” I can recall it was a debate-article authored by Political Science Professor Bo Rothstein in Dagens Nyheter 2007. The article “Uppsala University should be closed down”  contained a harsh critic to Lundgren’s research conclusions. Rothstein marked for instance that Eva Lundgren had in fact exaggerated “from five to six times” in her published research the figures about number of women that have been subjected to violence  , and that her public statements referring to hundreds of children killed in Sweden during sexual orgies had not whatsoever a single case of evidence to back the “research conclusion”. 
Before in 2005, when the University at Uppsala could not any longer stop a growing criticism  against Eva Lundberg – who had announced publicly she had scientific material proving that 47 per cent of all Swedish women have been victimised by men – the university appointed a two-man academic team (professors Margareta Hallberg and Jörgen Hermansson) to investigate Lundgren “deeds”. But this weird happened:
Eva Lundgren was asked to produce the material, interviews, etc. for instance about the research in which she based the contention (her “research results”) on that hundreds of children have been ritually sacrificed and killed during sexual orgies of Satanic kind. She answered, backed by the university, that she could not produce any material mainly because it was an old stuff and it was all destroyed away. What the investigators concluded then? That since they did not have access to the material, they could not either confirm or deny whether the said material supports what Lundgren has referred as research results.
In a series of argumentations similar to the above, the investigators and (or in accordance with) the University of Uppsala – which have appointed them especially for this task – concluded that Eva Lundgren have not done any thing wrong in terms of fabricating data as such, and that in the main she has not done anything calling to academic or scientific misconduct grievances. Instead of being double suspected for not producing the research material, she was instead acquitted!
Next for her was to present to the university a claim for a substantial economic compensation for the discomfort the investigation had brought about to her. The matter was of course settled in her benefit.
I would completely understand if the reader would have difficulties to believe the story above. I could not do that my self when I got to read the verdict and statement from the university of Uppsala.
The investigators, nevertheless, could not completely disregard the criticism or avoid mentioning “one or two flaws” – as it appeared the university ultimately minimized it – in Lundberg’s researching. The criticized aspects were instead of the most importance and directly relevant to the issue of scientific misconduct. The investigators mentioned for instance lack of self-problematizing towards her hypothesizing, biased research methods or conclusions lacking empirical support. This particularly referred on “Lundgren’s allegations of ritual child abuse“ (Hermansson). The other investigator (Hallberg) stated, “Altogether our inquiry has identified several serious problems in Lundgren’s research”. 
In spite of those remarks, the authorities of the State-own University of Uppsala chose to interpret the report as if Lundgren had been exonerated from each and every transgression of scientific conduct and the all mockery-process resulted finally in an anti-climax.
In a bizarre denial of the obviously academic wrongdoings from the part of both the investigated and the investigators (the State-own university), but also demonstrative of the wacky management of “operation saving ideologue Lundberg”, The Local did run as headline “Gender Professor cleared of dishonesty” while reported in the article that one of the actual investigators (Professor Hallberg) concluded, “The credibility of Lundgren’s work must be called into question”. ; Svenska Dagbladet headed “Eva Lundgren freed from suspicions” . For their part, authorities at Uppsala University (Berit Hagekull, the head of the Faculty of Social Science) declared satisfied, “Lundgren could not be accused of fabrication”.
However, in my interpretation the criticism contained in the report  are sufficiently aggravating as to indict Eva Lundberg of falsifying research results and also sufficiently to report her to the court of justice in consideration to the enormous damage produced to society (even legislations were, and still are based, in such false research reports and continue affecting vast numbers). Not to mention the issue of inappropriate using of public funds.
For my part – unfortunately in this regard – during all that time I was in a long-term lecturing and research assignment in Latin America on behalf of the Department of Social Medicine at The Karolinska Institute, and therefore I did miss the all spectacle.
My first first-hand academic contact with the research of Eva Lundgren occurred in 2010, as I had to study her research application to be reviewed by the Swedish Research Ethical Committee (EPN) in Uppsala. I was called to attend the EPN meeting in my position as alternative scientific member  of the Swedish Research Ethical Committee (EPN) in Uppsala, an appointment by the Swedish Government that I have had since several years. After a vivid discussion, the EPN board approved in that meeting professor Lundgren’s application with only one (mine) opposition vote.
The attitude of the solid majority at the referred EPN circle mirrors confidently the Swedish panorama as a whole, as I noted before, a quasi-absolute absence of criticism from the scientific-academic collegium towards the allegations or “research-conclusions” without empirical base and the poor quality or at times total absence of science in the radical feminists’ research. How all this could happen in the country that praises itself for open mindedness and high scholar standards? How is this compatible with the Swedish prestige abroad, the kingdom that yearly gets the international focus by giving the Nobel Prize to the best scientist in the world?
One plausible explanation would be found in the Swedish phenomenon Statsfeminism. And for this, both concepts “radical-feminism” and “State-feminism” in Sweden will deserve separately an introductorily social-psychiatric analysis.
 From the Swedish Wikipedia article on Eva Lundgren: ”
 Proposition presented by Gudrun Schyman and signed by several other members of the Swedish Parliament in 2004. ”Motion 2004/05:So616 Ansvaret för mäns våld mot kvinnor. Motion till riksdagen 2004/05:So616. http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/?nid=410&doktyp=mot&rm=2004/05&bet=So616&dok_id=GS02So616
 Gillou J, ”Märklig tystnad när kannibalforskaren frias”, Aftonbladet, 10/12 2006 http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/janguillou/article465107.ab
 Rothstein B, “Uppsla universitet måste läggas ned”, DN debatt, Stockholm 22-8-2007
 Rothstein: “Siffran för hur många kvinnor som utsätts för våld hade överdrivits mellan fem och tio gånger av Lundgren. Den visade också att hennes huvudtes, att det inte finns några skillnader mellan män som utövar våld och de som inte gör så, helt saknade stöd.”
 ” Efter det att hon i Sveriges Television i maj 2005 uttalat att 100-tals barn i Sverige ritualmördats i sexuella orgier, beslöt universitet att inleda en granskning av hennes forskning för att se om oegentligheter förelåg som kunde föranleda en anmälan till Vetenskapsrådet. Denna granskning resulterade i omfattande kritik och givetvis kunde man inte hitta belägg för påståendena om barnamorden.”
 “Eva Lundgren freed from suspicions” Svenska Dagbladet, 15/12 2005 http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/eva-lundgren-frias-fran-misstankar_488393.svd
 Margareta Hallberg and Jörgen Hermansson, Granskning av professor Eva Lundgrens forskning I enlighet med Uppsala universitets regler avseende förfarandet vid anklagelse om vetenskaplig ohederlighet. 9/12, 2005.
 [In Swedish: Vetenskapligt ledamot, suppleant]
 [EPN procedures. This is a board in which all scientific members, titular or alternate, are individually designed in a confidence-assignment by the Swedish government.]
 My appointment is from the time EPN started. The appointment has been renewed under different governments and I have served both in the Medical section of the Ethical Committee and in the General Research section.
Other articles on the Swedish case against Julian Assange in the Professors blogg
- 5 October 2011. From demon exorcism to State-feminism. Further background on the Swedish case against Assange
- 5 October 2011. Radical-feminism. What is scientific research and what it is not. End of story
- 3 October 2011. The Satanism-theses of Eva Lundgren and the psychiatric origins of Swedish State-Feminism. Part I
- 3 October 2011. Beaten lady (Slagen dam) in Stockholm’s Subway
- 30 September. Julian Assange as “symbolic issue” for the radical-feminists in Sweden
- 14 September 2011. Läkarkåren utpressar domstolen
- 14 September 2011. The Swedish case against Assange in Professors blogg. Updated links
- 8 September 2011 (22.14). Wikileaks cable on procedures at UN Women would help explain Sweden’s feminists campaign against Assange
- 8 September 2011 (08.21). A forensic scenario in the Swedish case against Assange
- 23 August 2011. The Case Assange and the Misuse of the PTSD Diagnosis in Swedish Rape Trials
- 3 August 2011. More on Feminism and State-Feminism. Strawman argumentation against critic to the state-feminism factor in the Assange case
- 29 July 2011. Pseudo-Science in Swedish Rape Trials. With an Introduction on the Origins of State-Feminism in Sweden
- 29 July 2011. Bloggers vs. Old Media: Who Wins and Why. By Andrew Kreig
- 6 July 2011. Name issues with their names. The Assange case and Swedish statsfeminism
- 5 July 2011. Julian Assange’s sex-crime accusers deserve to be named. By Naomi Wolf
- 3 July 2011. Swedish updates on the Assange case
- 18 April 2011. The affair Irmeli Krans in the case of Sweden against Assange
- 17 April 2011. Swedish authorities face yet another irregularity in their sex probe of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. By Andrew Kreig
- 15 April 2011. Sweden’s Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange’s Arrest. By Naomi Wolf
- 15 April 2011. Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. Part 3: “Men are animals”
- 15 April 2011. Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. Part 2: “Men that hate women”
- 15 April 2011. Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. PART 1: The Political Agenda and Dirty Tricks
- 14 April 2011. Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. CONTENTS
- 10 April 2011. Om Sverigedemokraternas utrikes politik är ”osvensk” vad är då Socialdemokraternas? Kampen för Assange och Mannings frihet fortsätter.
- 7 April 2011. The decreasing of Sweden’s credibility in the world. Why blame Julian Assange?
- 22 March 2011. NATO, Gaddafi and Assange
- 19 March 2011. Censorship of Assange-articles in the Guardian & Swedish press
- 12 March 2011. Opinions on Assange case and censorship in Swedish media
- 11 March 2011. Case Assange: Rights Activist Challenges Ethics of Swedish Courts, Media. By Andrew Kreig
- 10 March 2011. WikiLeaks aftermath. The Middle East Feminist Revolution, by Naomi Wolf
- 6 March 2011. Have Swedish Pirates Betrayed Assange?
- 3 March 2011. WikiLeaks, Revolution, and the Lost Cojones of American Journalism. By Naomi Wolf
- 28 Feb 2011. Mark Stephens: “Demand open justice for Julian Assange”
- 27 Feb 2011. Assange VS Pinochet
- 27 Feb 2011. Comments on Judge Riddle’s verdict & and lawyer Jennifer Robinson’s interview
- 26 Feb 2011. The Pirate Party should stand for their values. They should struggle for Assange and Wikileaks
- 24 Feb 2011, Assange’s case. Witness Statement of Professor Marcello Ferrada-Noli
- 22 Feb 2011, Swedish media’s censorship on Assange case
- 20 Feb 2011, Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?
- 18 Feb 2011. Anonymous Stop U.S. Business Plot Against, Bloggers, Unions, Rights Activists. Guest column by Andrew Kreig
- 13 Feb 2011. Karl Rove’s Swedish Connections: The Controversy And The Facts. Guest-article by Andrew Kreig
- 11 Feb 2011. Matching critic on Reindfelt’s involvement in the Assange case
- 11 Feb 2011. Partner At Firm Counseling Assange’s Accusers Helped In CIA Torture Rendition. Guest-article by Andrew Kreig
- 10 Feb 2011. Karl Rove, Sweden, and the Eight Major Aberrations in the Police Sex Crime Reporting Process in the Assange Case. Guest-article by Naomi Wolf
- 9 Feb 2011. Analysis: Assange’s lawyer’s error shouldn’t determine the case
- 9 Feb 2011. Strongest appeal to Swedish prosecutor – “Hamlet without princess”
- 9 Feb 2011. Hamlet utan prinsessan. Åklagaren Marianne Ny starkt utmanat av Asange’s advokat
- 8 Feb 2011. Objection to Sundberg-Weitman’s testimony irrelevant
- 6 Feb 2011. Q & A: The Assange case and Swedish extradition
- 4 Feb 2011. Key-witnesses severely contradict state-feminist Borgström & women-accusers in Sweden’s phony case against Assange
- 22 Jan 2011. Swedish PM Reindfelt lies in London on Assange extradition
- 13 Jan 2011. Bordström & Borgström VS. Wikileaks
- 11 Jan 2011. New analysis: Swedish political crusade against Assange and Wikileaks
- 29 Dec 2010. Assange’s message to Swedish journalists
- 29 Dec 2010. Asssange, criminal without a crime
- 26 Dec 2010. Sweden’s phony prosecution against Assange is POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL
- 14 Dec 2010. Attacks on Carl Bildt’s twittering absurd and erroneous
- 13 Dec 2010. Afghanistan, Vilks, bomb, Sweden
- 11 Dec 2010. Sveriges Assange-anklagelser i kriget mot Wikileaks OCH yttrandefrihet
- 9 Dec 2010. Is there a CIA connection in the Swedish Assange-plot?
- 7 Dec 2010. Analysis: Why Sweden revenge against Assange