Part II of the Series on the origins of Sweden’s state feminism
by Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli
Eva Lundgren initiated her scholarly career in “demons exorcism”, decades ago, while she pursued Theology studies at the University Bergen, Norway. According to the Swedish Wikipedia biographic article, her original profession was mannequin. During her time at Bergen, she truly wrote down her “findings” in articles such as “A demon report”  and “Demons again”. She graduated 1978 in “Kristendomkunskap”, a wording which none of the dictionaries on-line I check could translate into English. I therefor suggest “Christian readings”, for Christian “science”, can that possibly be? The last mentioned being one theme of this essay:
In the research of Eva Lundgren there is no much place for science, according to what her academic critics have held , but plenty for religion, I would add. In spite some empirical research, what instead remains to the critical reader is a research journey depicting strong believes about men predestined to their vile societal or historical “original” sin: to use their evil social-structured power in the abusing of victimized women and their children.
There are quasi-hilarious things too, such as a mentioned explanation of why women normally have “less body” or “are shorter” than men. The reported explanation would be also related to the patriarchal discourse!
In the dramatic side, Eva Lundgren’s research “findings” are, literarily, a scary paraphernalia on Satanic men, sexual orgies, men killing and eating children, animals, wife abuse, rape, and all the stories capable to converge into the “scientific conclusion”, here summarized by hyper feminists: “To call a man an animal is flattering. He is instead a machine, a mobile dildo, an emotional parasite”. 
The above would become a favorite axiom of the Swedish radical-feminist movement. The formulations are therefore more or less simmilar to what Swedish readers see in the descriptions ad-hominem of Julian Assange in the mainstream media, particularly in the aggressive media-trial  some feminist journalists have maintained all along. That is what you also read between lines in the antagonizing interviews of Claes Bodström, the lawyer of vengeful Madame A.
They are all of them good followers of “Kristendomkunskap”. It was indeed the Christian social democratic “Brotherhood” which implemented the set up by proxy of Julian Assange, and the Christian social democrats that pursued the reopening of the case, and the Christian social democrats that collaborated with CIA to chain extradited prisoners (refugees) to rendition flights, to torture them who know where.
From demon exorcism, to Satanism research, and to State-feminism
Eva Lundgren got her doctorate at the Theology Faculty in Bergen, published also her book “Devil removal. Exorcism in Norway”  and was ready to move to Satanism in a more exuberant fashion. In 1994, after she had moved to Sweden and started o work at the University of Uppsala, in fact, after that she had been given a professor-chair in Uppsala directly positioned by the Swedish Government (see below), Eva Lundgren published her research book on the “widespread” Swedish Satanism and sex-ritual children killings, “Let The Small Children Come to Me. Children’s experience of ritual and sexual abuse”.
Sweden’s celebrity writer and legendary journalist Jan Gillou, also recently a President of the Swedish Publicist Club, summarized the following in his column “Strange silence after cannibalism-researcher acquits” [in Swedish].
He first notes that the only “scientific base” reported by Eva Lundgren in sustaining the widespread ritual cannibalism in Sweden (eating of new-born babies, etc.) – is her own participation as “participating observer” in three Satanist groups in Sweden and Norway during a period of ten years [”varit deltagande observatör i tre satanistiska grupper i Sverige och Norge under en tioårsperiod”, quoted by Gillou from Dagens Nyheter].
And Jan Gillou continues [follows a translation of Gillou’s text in Aftonbladet]:
“However, Eva Lundgren claims that during this participating research she has experienced amazing things. That the Satanic gangs…in addition to being dressed in caps and fancy costumes, as customary in these stories, eat small children at the end of, or in conjunction with, a sex orgy.”
“Since this alleged frequent cannibalism can hardly be conducted without abundant supplies of fresh children, and because there are very few children who disappear (in Sweden) without a trace, Eva Lundgren provided a lengthy explanation on that those children were refugee children from refugee camps, where, according to her ideation, they did not count their children that carefully.”
“When it became clear that the theory of missing children from refugee camps did not held, Professor Lundgren switched over to alternative explanations. One was that the Satanists – thanks to Caesarea operations performed by special collaborative midwifes – received the almost ready foetuses directly from the mothers’ wombs to their orgies.”
“Another explanation, narrated by a child-witness who Eva Lundgren said she has absolutely confidence in, was that the children were imported in small boats from the “other side of the Baltic”. At the mole, the children were packed in small cardboard boxes and then transported to the orgy headquarters. There the children were placed naked in small grid-cages that were hoisted up to the ceiling, and then the children were fed with porridge.”
“When the time for the orgy had arrived, a selected child was hoisted down and taken to the orgy-chamber. There, Eva Lundgren’s child-witness slaughtered the child with a knife and she was rewarded with immediately eating one of the victim’s eyes. Ensuing, the dead child was cut up and the Satanists began to sexually abuse the cadaver pieces”. “This story, and others of the like, are reproduced in Eva Lundgren’s scientific work Let the small children come to me [“La de smaa barnen komme till meg“], published in Oslo.”
“According to Eva Lundgren, a lot of left overs remained after the cannibal orgies. As one of her children-witness put it, “so, you can not eat everything.” The remains were thus buried in mass graves here and there all over the forests. The Swedish police have conducted numerous searches in those places where nearby children-witnesses of Eva Lundgren have pointed out as the location of the mass graves. Expectedly, no traces whatsoever were found.” [End of the translation of Jan Gillou’s text in Aftonbladet 10/12 2006]
What would be the psychiatric significance of all those stories above told by Eva Lundgren, some of them summarized here in text above by Jan Gillou? And what is the impact of such grotesque inventions for the actual Swedish policy formulation or legislation on “men”? Ergo, what would the social-psychiatric mechanism that makes a nation and their leading politicians or judicial authorities first to believe in such hysterically absurd nonsense and then to legislate in the base of such preposterous believes?
I understand that it would be difficult for the international reader to believe, or understand, that such things can actually be published as a scientific report or book in Sweden. Yet, this is Sweden in a nutshell.
No one, I repeat, no one from the Police or Investigation Authorities in Sweden – nor even the journalists that have interviewed Eva Lundgren specifically on such macabre and spectacular infant murders – have ever posed the question to her in the terms suggested by Gillou: What was really Eva Lundgren’s role in the Satanist sects as “participating-observer”?
And why did she not report to the police such monstrous murders during the “ten years” time in which she was “participating-observer”?
And in fact, Eva Lundgren has refused to provide documents showing a full-account of the monstrousness she reports in her book. No one seems to really care about that.
Instead, the Swedish Police, which if I get it right acts in such cases upon instructions of the Prosecutor Authority, actually did make searching and digging in the woods of Sweden looking for the mass graves. All this following what the “child-witness” character is said to have reported in Eva Lundgren’s book! Of course they did not find a thing. And they must have seriously expected such a finding, otherwise, why they would have cared to search and dig?
Moreover, after the events above the Swedish government entrusted Eva Lundgren further “research assignments” to sustain other equally spectacular hypothesis on evil men.
First State-feminist appointed professor
As mentioned previously, after to continue working for a while in Sweden in her field of theology, Eva Lundgren became “suddenly” a Professor of Sociology at the University of Uppsala, where she was, according to her biographical article, “installed with a military parade”. 
How come? The Swedish government, read the social democratic government, had imposed to the university – with the help of a specially delivered budget from the public funds – the creation of a chair (professorship) “to study the relation between power and gender in family and society, in particular men’s violence against women”. 
The very appointment of Eva Lundgren as professor has been the point of critic, beyond issues of academic merits. This, because her chair was instituted by a government decision and not, as it is customary, by the initiative of the university. The funds for her position have been paid yearly since 1993 by a special budget item set by the government. This formula of a direct intervention of the political government in the nomination of university professors is, according to many, comparable only with totalitarian regimes as in the former Soviet Union or in the fascist states.
In fact, this is one of the arguments presented by the detractors of State Feminism in Sweden in demonstrating the power and active intervention of the radical feminist movement, their actual control of important institutional apparatus. In this sense, the critic is not that a political movement, as the radical-feminists, would not have the right to prefer academics of their own political ideology that would serve better their strategic interests. The problem is that for those purposes the radical-feminists are using public funds, not those private or corporative of their own.
Further, the critic of Swedish professors colleagues goes in addition beyond the instauration of Lundberg’s chair and points out the anomaly regarding the provision of research funds for her radical-feminist religious or ideological “research”. This funds, at difference with what is the for the rest of Swedish professors, are in the main funnelled to “this bizarre activity” (Eva Lundgren’s) by governmental channels “outside the Swedish research-grant committees that distribute research funds and according to scientific evaluations (of the research projects)”, says Bo Rothstein and Marie Morhed.
Eva Lundgren had a spiritual mission, and her inaugural lecture was held with pomp and ceremony at the Cathedral of Uppsala. The theme was of course on sex and power. Politically she was, as said, member of the social democratic party  (Arbetarpartiet) which partly can explain the uncritical acceptance and coverage offered by the Swedish social democrats.
In 2003 Lundgren became head for her new instituted Department of Gender Studies at Uppsala University. In difference – a marked difference – with the rest or the professors and research workers at the Swedish universities, the research funds send to her by the State-Feminism establishment did not need to be cleared by scientific committees o for evaluations of research applications.
The real and scary societal impact of Eva Lundgren theses in Sweden
Judging from the current radical legislation on sexual-offences adopted in Sweden 2005, or the equivalent feminist ideological premises in the family-related legislation or the new law on violence against women (kvinnofrid), the impact or influence of Eva Lundgren’s theses in Sweden is clearly strong. Her biased intellectual deeds in the subject “Swedish men violence against women” are dramatically multiplied in each biased investigation among those lead by the frequent false reports on “abuse” and “rape”. But also the unscientific based conclusions on all-men violence and abuse-proneness echoes in nearly every case of divorce litigation in Sweden.
For the vast number of Swedish men against whom that legislation has been discriminatorily applied or medieval accusations raised out from utterly fiction; for the numerous children that have been for years deprived of their basic, natural human right of meeting their fathers; for the punished households, the persecuted souls, the tears of blood, misery and impotence; for all that social apocalypse and in addition for the increasing of Sweden’s scandalous international image, Eva Lundgren’s theses – and their radical-feminist followers and accomplice politicians – bear a most prominent responsibility.
But it gets worst. Eva Lundgren takes proud in announcing the main intellectual responsibility for the promulgation in Sweden of the obligatory teaching “gender-perspective” at the Swedish universities and scholar system. In fact, the implemented “gender-perspective” is a unilateral radical-feminist gender doctrine based in a religious-related theory of “patriarchy-evil” as the cause for a structural imbalance in distribution of “power” between the hetero and also homosexual “genders” in society. In addition includes the pseudo scientific notion of “normalization”, a phenomena that – according to Lundgren- explains both the alleged established drift of Swedish men for abuse and beat their woman and vice versa, the social-determined drift of women to accept it as cultural norm! Lundgren has stated that the whole 47 per cent of Swedish women are beat up by the men. [All these concepts are contested in this series].
Lundgren’s disciple and close associate, the former Vice Prime-Minister of Sweden Margareta Winberg (currently President of UN-Women Sweden), also a known radical-feminist, designed the implementation and governmental instructions in those regards  while being “Gender-equality” Minister at the social democratic government of Göran Persson. This was a fascist-like ideological imposition done in the best “brain-washing” spirit strait from the top at the government all down to the entire Swedish educational system.
 Lundgren E, Walaas E, “En demonrapport” 1982
 Lundgren E, Walaas E, ”Demoner nå igjen!”, Kirke og kultur 9/82
 Margareta Hallberg and Jörgen Hermansson, “Granskning av professor Eva Lundgrens forskning I enlighet med Uppsala universitets regler avseende förfarandet vid anklagelse om vetenskaplig ohederlighet”. UU, 9/12, 2005./ Rothstein B, “Uppsla universitet måste läggas ned”, DN debatt, Stockholm 22-8-2007 http://www.dn.se/debatt/uppsala-universitet-maste-laggas-ned .
 Statement adscribed to a true “feminist” in a Roks publication. See Ref. 8
 Ferrada.Noli, Marcello. “Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?” http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2011/02/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
 Djevleutdriverne. Eksorsisme i Norge, Oslo: Pax Forlag
 Gillou jan. “Märklig tystnad när kannibalforskaren frias”. Aftonbladet 10/12 2006 http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/janguillou/article11667278.ab
 Bo Rothstein and Marie Morhed are quoted in Aftonbladet’s article “Eva Lundgren frias från misstankar” 15/12, 2005: ”denna besynnerliga verksamhet i huvudsak finansieras med pengar utanför de forskningsråd som fördelar medel efter vetenskaplig prövning”.
 “Evangelisten”, Interview by Ingvild Wedaa Tennfjord, Dagbladet, Norway, 29/9, 2008
 ”en organisation med extrema feminister, som tror på berättelser om pedofilnätverk med satanistiska inslag”. Wikipedia article on ROKS http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksorganisationen_f%C3%B6r_kvinnojourer_i_Sverige
 Expressen, 19/7, 2005 http://www.expressen.se/debatt/1.230271/debatt-media-gar-fram-som-en-angvalt
 “Roks menar att mäns våld mot kvinnor, våldtäkt, incest, prostitution och pornografi har sin förklaring i den maktobalans som finns mellan könen i samhället”.
 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.
 Tito Beltrán was accused of rape on the basis of a Swedish woman’s declaration made nine years after the episode in reference. No evidence was needed. The lawyer of the woman-accuser who obtained the sentence was the social democratic politician and former minister of Justice Thomas Bordström, mentioned above.
The verdict stated: “According to this court, we found the plaintiff’s story credible and that fully meets the requirements to form the basis for a conviction”. The lawyer defending the plaintiff was the social democratic politician and former minister of Justice Thomas Bordström. The “evidence” mentioned later in the verdict against Beltrán referred to declarations of two friends of the plaintiff which would “have heard” an account from the part of the plaintiff after the alleged happenings. Also in this case, it was not the plaintiff who have made a complaint to the police against Beltrán. It was another woman (Monica Dahlström-Lannes, known in Sweden as activist and campaigner concerning sexual-offence cases) who after her own private investigations and interviews on the case filed the complaint to the police – nine years after!
Dahlström-Lannes was a board-member of the same organization, ECPAC, in which the social democratic politician and former minister of Justice Thomas Bordström was also a board-member. However, Bordström denied in the court hearings that he knew Dahlström-Lannes.