&quot;Gudrun Schyman: Name issues with their names!&quot;. The Assange case and Swedish statsfeminism

Gudrun Schyman - the notable former leader of the militant-feminist political party Feminist Initiativ – have manifested that regardless the ”clumsy” aspects in the process against Assange: a) the matter is about accusations of rape and sexual molestation, b) the matter is not about freedom of expression, and c) the matter is really about the right for women to be free from [men's] violence (see for instance Den radikala eliten sviker kvinnorna).

Thereafter, the Swedish Prime Minister in person, Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt, expressed nearly exactly the same in declarations published by Aftonbladet. 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)"

Nevertheless, one of Gudrun Schyman's article commentators summarized with the following:

“Name issues with their names!" [Kalla saker vid sitt namn!]

The advances of radical feminism in Sweden can be clearly seen in the uncontested penetration their ideology has seized government and public institutions (therefore the name “statsfeminism”), as well as all the established political parties. All Swedish main political parties declare the label “feminist” adjunct to their name presentations, as fulfilling the “quality mark” imposed by stats feminists.

In simplified terms, the main ideological feature in Statsfeminism is the interpretation of the societal phenomena according to a structural “patriarchal-domination” thesis according to which – for being structural in society - all men have oppressed women, all men are prone to oppress women and exercise violence against women. Men are seen basically as perpetrators and, as the leader of the largest feminist organization (ROKS, financed by the government since the social democratic era) has put it publicly, “men are animals”. The state has the main duty of “educate” its citizens – even at university level - according to “gender perspective”. A governmental decision was obtained for that purposes by Margareta Winberg, a radical feminist close associated with ROKS, while been minister during the social democratic government of Göran Person. She tells herself how did she managed to get through the radical-feminists positions in the Person government - so these positions became official and compulsory for all Swedes:

Hence, and according to the above characterized theoretical assumption, the state is to provide or secure (by ensuing legislation or by sponsor or direct cultural/educational programs with “gender perspective” in state-owned media) the right for women to be free from [men's] violence. And this has been taken up, uncontested, by the Swedish governments and politicians since the social democratic time of Göran Person.

It is about populism.

And the Assange-case has served as a populist instrument to agitate that core radical-feminist issue among the public. That is why the focus IS NOT in the legal aspects of the case and therefore the irregularities and human-right violations in the Assange-case are named "clumsy aspects”.

Also in the context of the radical-feminists’ offensive, the names of MALES have in various cases been published by the media and subjected to scandalous public exposures in spite that those men have not been declared guilty by any court – such the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

According to Flashback forum, in these very days a huge trial against 26 women accused of child-abuse related crimes is held in Sweden. In spite of the unusual enormous, record I would believe, number of women under process in one trial accused for such type of crime, not a single word is published in these days Swedish press - to the best of my knowledge - or other media about this trial. In my opinion, that discretion is legitimate because their cases is under process at the court and the women, although charged, have not been sentenced.

In contrast, in the case of Assange, while he has not even charged with any crime, his name was leaked by the own prosecutor offices, or the police, to the media. This wrong doing has newly been judged by a chief-prosecutor as "correct", as the matter would correspond just to personal assessments - a "bedömningsfråga" (see item 4 in Swedish updates on the Assange case).

But the FEMALES accusers should not be named. They should not be known by the public and their “integrity” should be respected. All according to the novel tradition of "gender perspektiv" brought to Sweden in statsfeminism. Assange is the male in the construction (also referred by feminists in Sweden as "alfa man") and after all men are "animals" according to the radical-feminists leadership. Why should they have integrity?

And neither should it be known by the public the proceedings of the trial itself. This will be held in close doors.

There should the verdict say - decided by judges appointed by the Swedish political parties – that the accused male accuser is guilty. Exactly as they have said in the past in similar accusations in which only the word of the women accusers have prevailed even considering that NONE EVIDENCE have been presented to sustain her versions. I am referring here concretely to the verdict against the Chilean political refugee and world-known opera tenor Tito Beltrán, in a case set up against him by state-feminist forces led by the social democratic politician Tomas Bodström (signaled as CIA facilitator in the renditions flights of politicals prisoners held n Sweden). Tomas Bodström and one of the Assange accusers (also signaled as collaborating with CIA-financed organizations) belongs to the same political group - the "Christian brotherhood"- inside the Social Democratic Party of Sweden.

Sweden’s statsfeminism in a nutshell!

In my opinion, the reluctance or purported blunt opposition to name the accusers of Assange had also served as a trick to prevent investigations about the subjects involved. It is an alibi for the establishment press to hide the information to public for the public gets its own conclusions beyond the manipulation of the state institutions, the government and the media.

And of course I do not refer to all media, or all Swedish journalists. Because there are really brave ones, and although less and less of those journalists remain, also a plain truth is that most of Swedish journalists have demonstrated around the Assange case being alien to the moral codes of their noble profession.

This text was written in conjunction to the publication in Professors blogg of