In the struggle for human hights for All, for gender equality, and the fighting against supremacists of all kind:
THIS – and NOT other – is what Professors blogg has stated on issues related to radical “feminism”, in the context of the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
Gil Elvgren’s famous arte piece “Come on honey! Blondes have more fun!!” Retouched with a fancy cap by Professors blogg
The aim of this article – the second is a series of three – is to set the facts straight about what Professors blogg has in fact written on issues related to radical “feminism”, in the context of the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
As an addenda to my article Christensen vs WikiLeaks? I would like here to point out that Christensen is not only confounding political organization with political ideology (see twitter 1 below); he is also confusing “cause” (or “partial cause”) with “contributing factor” (twitter 2). In science, at least in Epidemiology, phenomena are used to be described as having a multi-causal etiology. Yet “cause” is not “factor”.
While Professors blogg have only referred to the participating role played by certain radical “feminist” groups in the anti-Assange campaigns – mainly opportunistic, and aimed to mover their positions for a further radicalization of legislation they advocate- we have explained the political context in the “Swedish” case against WikiLeaks and Assange as having a wider scope, in which both domestic and geopolitical factors are primarily involved.
Texts by Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Italy
This I have already put forward in Swedish Radio incorrectly referring Professors Blogg’s theses on Swedish case against Assange
Facts on Swedish “feminists” and the Assange case
To state that a variety of known Swedish feminists have used the Swedish case against Assange as a platform to politically agitate further radicalization of the legislation is to state only facts.
A panorama of the actual relationships played by these sort “feminism” in the case Assange are explained in the article “Feministerna i Assange-härvan gör våld på feminismen”, by Helene Bergman, the celebrated feminist and former program director of the known feminist program ”Radio Ellen” in Swedish Radio.
Known right-wing “radical” Swedish feminists have themselves stated, “Julian Assange is a symbol” for their cause, and actively participated in mediatic anti-Assange campaigns or even publicly celebrated its success. Organizations of left-wing “radical” Swedish feminists – to the best of my knowledge – have never taken distance from such deeds or positions. Moreover, the chairman of the Swedish Party Feminist Initiative, Gudrun Schyman, has publicly associated the case Assange with the need of “a better legislation than the one we have”.
Right-wing social democratic politicians with a recognized ultra “feminist” agenda – such as Bordström & Borgström – take pride themselves in representing the plaintiff accusing Assange. For instance Thomas Bodström – a former Minister of Justice – with his own words, in his blog “Bodström Samhället” — as I have referred already in Newsmill. His partner, the social-democratic politician, known fundamentalist feminist and former Ombudsman for gender issues, declared himself in the Guardian 8 December 2010 being instigator of the legal case against Assange. Equally public are the positions of prominent politicians of the “Left Party” (formerly “The Communists”) such as the Member of Parliament Eva Brinck for whom, as she wrote in Newsmill, the support given to Assange by Left profiles such as Ken Loach and John Pilger “stinks”.
1. Critic to feminist gender-supremacists is one thing. Support to the principles and the struggle for gender equality is another.
Professors blogg is not an “enemy” of feminism insofar feminism would transparently struggle or implement the aim of universal gender-equality. This can only be reached by an understanding and cooperation between all progressive segments of society. Hence, this column has repeatedly condemn the notion of gender-war, the hatred of men or the hatred of women.
We instead promote and practice the struggle for a society with equal opportunities for all regardless gender, social class, ethnicity. This includes fighting towards the final achievement of equal opportunities for women and men in all spheres of society, such as equal salary [See Note 1]; But this column have been also, and always shall be, opposing all forms of authoritarianism and oppression, which includes the vigilance towards those “who merely seek to replace one authoritarian system with another“.
True egalitarian feminism and extreme state-feminism are two different things, and are expressed in different grades. State-feminism is the cultural and political movement aimed to establish – with the help of the authority – institutional privileges or legislation favoring women. Some of these measures adopted by State Feminism have been inspired in a notion of gender hatred or contempt. For the extreme feminist ideology behind the architecture of State-feminism, the gender-egalitarianism mantra is just a tactical cover in their strategic to achieve gender supremacy. In this sense, State-Feminism is the replacement of one abusive rule for another.
b) Feminism has become populism and radical-feminists seek to seize political power by means of psychological deceit
Many call themselves “feminist” in Sweden. It has became cultural fashionable but also a politically correct strategy for survival. Feminism has become populism. One after the other the Swedish political parties have seized the noun as an adopted family name (“XX Party, feminist”). However, few of them deploy in reality a consequent activity towards real equality. 
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 criticism 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 criticism 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 criticism 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 criticism to the legal management of the Assange case.
With regard to the “peculiar” position of de Swedish Judiciary and its outmost
artificially constructed proceeding in the Assange case.
These proceedings fit instead one hundred percent in the perspective-analysis of an active involvement of some Swedish officials, or institutions, as instruments in the geopolitical design of the foreign power they apparently obey.
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:
“that in this way attempt to circumvent it and make it appear that their rights are worth very little, I think that’s regrettable.”
• “Criticism to extreme “feminists” or “feminist” gender-supremacists is one thing. Support to the principles and the struggle for gender equality is another. We instead promote and practice the struggle for a society with equal opportunities for all regardless gender, social class, ethnicity. This includes fighting towards the final achievement of equal opportunities for women and men in all spheres of society, such as equal salary; But this column have been also, and always shall be, opposing all forms of authoritarianism and oppression, which includes the vigilance towards those “who merely seek to replace one authoritarian system with another“. 
• “Professors blogg – a publication (see banner on top) “On Human Rights For All” – have clearly stated that strongly support the same struggle for gender equality in society that true egalitarian feminists pursue. This have included active propositions on equality in salary form the part of the Swedish State towards academics with similar merits regardless gender. My positions on these regards are well known.” 
• “One of the main myths spread refer to Julian Assange as “enemy of feminism”. The statement cannot be more far from truth. His liberationist platform clearly comprises the struggle for equal rights as identified by the international feminist movement. Conspicuous feminists, such as Naomi Wolf or in Sweden Helene Bergman have expressly given their support to Julian Assange’s struggle for justice in the context of the Swedish case against him. In strict ideological sense, left radical-feminists would find in true an identification of their societal purposes for justice and equality for all genders in the liberationist message of WikiLeaks as well as the actual statements of Julian Assange. Radical-feminists should not permit their spirit been kidnapped by right-wing opportunists, which in the base defend a political system opposing equality of all kinds. What has happened in Sweden is that a limited number of self-proclaimed “radical feminists”, for the most part right-wingers, have initiated or participated in campaigns ad-hominemagainst the WikiLeaks founder. And that in my opinion is NOT left radical feminism; it is simply opportunism.” 
• My conviction is still that the campaign in Sweden against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been initiated/implemented by a limited number of political officials, a limited number of journalists, or a limited number of opportunist “feminist” activists -mainly right wingers. Altogether they do not represent Sweden as a whole, their political parties as a whole, all Swedish feminists, or the total ranks in the journalist collegium. The main part have not yet express their opinion and as the happenings approach they will most certain feel ethically obliged to declare their stance, about what is truth, what is justice, and what is history. 
Over and over again I have made clear what my positions are on those regards. And also cared to give some concrete examples about my own participation in such struggle for gender equality and social justice. The site Justice For Assange has even linked an articlethat especially treats this disclaimer under the title “Professor Ferrada Noli on the nature of ‘State Feminism’ in Sweden”.
I wrote the following about the political aspects in the Swedish case on Assange in “This is why“:
A. The political aspects
In its turn, the political aspects determining or influencing the reporting appear being twofold:
On the one hand we have the change in the foreign policy and military-strategy main perspective of the Swedish government, namely, abandon of the neutrality-stand and identification with NATO and the geopolitical interests this organization represents. In this line, the government would demonstrate – as they have done in the Afghanistan and Libyan cases – that Sweden is a “loyal partner” and long away from the late Olof Palme’s policy of alignment with the Third World countries.
It is worth to note that changes in those regards started already by the times of the former social democratic government of Göran Persson. This can be illustrated with secret agreements on cooperation with USA services which otherwise had became known through the rendition-flight episodes (political refuges in Sweden handed over in secret to the American services to be transported to interrogation centres elsewhere, as in the case of the Egyptians refugees).
Sweden’s acting in the apprehension of a USA’s number-one enemy – as Julian Assange is characterized – might be a confirmation of the above.
For these ends, the government have naturally got the support of all the political parties favouring the NATO approach, including the “opposition” (mainly the social democratic party).
Although is natural and legitimate that a Swedish government – as the USA or any other sovereign country – decides the foreign policy they think it best would serve their national interests, the problem here is of another kind. It has to do with important decisions that have been adopted in secret by government officials and hidden to the Swedish Parliament and the public. It is about the transparencyissue.
Yet another issue is whether that “double play” from the part of the Swedish government is really necessary in the interest of Sweden’s foreign policy (DN-debatt 10/12 2009).
It is worth to mention that the Assange accusers, and notably members of the prosecution and police apparatus that have actively pursued or dealt with the Assange case are members of the same radical-feminist organizations or share their ideology.
In sum, the Swedish crusade against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has shown being compact and having the characteristic of a national cause.
The above have generated a strong populism-factor around the case, and hence also a profitable source for other political or cultural opportunists in the Swedish forum, in the blogosphere and others authors not previously known as embracing political correct positions. The critical voices on the Assange case in Sweden have became fewer, and had to pay a high price for their objective and ethical stand.
2. The expected effect of the above among the Swedish constituencies is double fold: a) on the one hand finding an explanation to replace the real causes that are behind such international deterioration of Swedish prestige. As this is undoubtedly related to issues of Sweden’s foreign policy, this measure represents also an attempt to stop the analyses on such relationships with foreign powers; b) on the other hand, by obtaining a national cohesion behind the government that “defends” Sweden  and shows being ready to “process and punish” Sweden’s Number One enemy, the rulers use the “chauvinist trick” of having people to switch attention from economic or domestic political issues to issues of “national interest”.
3.One remarkable feature regarding the above is that in Sweden very seldom are legal aspects of the case against Assange ventilated in the press – actually it has occurred only in very few occasions. Instead, what has been a constant action presented particularly by the State owned media (National Television channels, Radio, etc.) is the blaming of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, accused of having an anti-Sweden political agenda. This has reached extremes as to publicly accuse Assange and WikiLeaks of blackmailing Sweden or implied WikiLeaks would be protecting Russian’s interests (Sweden’s “arch enemy”). See this analysis under “Sweden’s Plan “Z”, Phase 6: Swedish State Television explaining “why” WikiLeaks should be viewed as detrimental for the “interests of our nation”, in Part II of this series: “Plan Z: the latest national chauvinist campaign anti-WIkiLeaks in the Swedish media”. 
4.Domestic political factors regarding the opportunity being used by local political organizations, such as fundamentalist groups, that, voided of a large mass-support, are bound parasitically from highly publicized media-events in order to move forward their political agenda through some journalists in their ranks employed by the MSM. These organizations have not made secret that the Julian Assange case is a symbol for their struggle , a campaign seeking the further radicalizing of the legislation in Sweden towards, among other things “only sexual contact after written consent”, a national tax imposed to all men (mansskatt) in Sweden  (“to compensate Swedish women of centuries of men patriarchal dominance”), and the increasing in the penalty for sexual-related offences attributed to the “nature” of men (“men are animals”, as expressed by the President of the State-supported nation-wide organization ROKS).  In the ranks of this multifaceted fundamentalist cohort are found people of different professions, not only journalists. Example of notable Swedish politicians which have advocated for such further radicalization of the law are Thomas Bodström (the former minister of Justice) and the former Ombudsman for gender issues Claes Borgström. They also established the Law firm Bodström & Bogström, which is the law firm that defended the plaintiffs in their “accusations” against Julian Assange. Marianne Ny, the prosecutor in the case has been also participating in the preparation of the present “radical” legislation – under which the Swedish State has asked to “investigate” Julian Assange.