|President Anna Ardin (center, seated)|
Heart, Believers Social Democrats in Stockholm
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." -FDR, 1st Inaugural Address, 1933
There are radicals in every movement. The cause of nearly every radical is the same- to bring massive and uncompromising change to a political structure. A radical sees the current political structure as irreparably broken. The radical defines people associated with that system as either corrupt or corrupted by that failed political structure.
The average person may look upon a radical as a singular person or small ineffective group with little chance of achieving their ideologically pure goals. This is a dangerous falsehood. Radicals will exhaustively work for the advancement of their reactionary goals. They gain power through incorporating their polemic into the existing legal and political structures of our society- in order to destroy them. The Tea Party is a perfect example of this in our own country.
The radical feminist movement in Sweden has been extremely successful at incorporating their principles into legislation that is now Swedish law. Politicians fear radicals and try to placate them, by incorporating the least radical of their ideas into the overall political platform. This is a mistake and is exactly what radicals expect from a corrupt system. Their foot is now in the door.
In the United States, the fundamentalist Christian movement integrated itself into the Bush administration and brought their narrow-minded belief system into our country's armed forces. It has been widely reported that there were political and military leaders who believed our invasion of Iraq would expedite the second coming of Christ. Ridiculous, right? Radical, yes? We invaded Iraq on false pretense, based upon cherry-picked misinformation from unreliable sources. Was this a coincidence or a well-execute plan by radicals within our own government?
And so it is with the radical feminists of Sweden, who have successfully lobbied for their own Minister in the government cabinet, have worked tirelessly to get new rape definitions placed into law. Rape is a horrible, violent and demeaning act. In the U.S., the rape is legally defined as a criminal offense of forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will. Lack of consent is the critical determinate in deciding whether a person has been raped. But not so in Sweden- where a consensual sexual act is considered to be rape if the male is simply irresponsible in his use of contraceptives. Are there no female contraceptive devices in Sweden?
The expansion of the rape law is not enough to soothe radical feminists like Anna Ardin, or Belardin as she prefers to be called. She continues to post about the male having more muscle mass than the average female, naturally placing the female in an inferior position and placing her at risk. In Belardin's view. there must be laws that provide clear advantage to women. This is the sad mentality of a radical. Justice must be blind to attitudes and be based upon facts in order to be fair.
We should never imprison the innocent in order to protect a class of people from the guilty. We can never pass laws that would find a man guilty of being male before proceeding with a trial for his alleged male-related crime. This is absurdity. This is anarchy. These radical women are declaring war on male of the species.
Creating laws that are weighted to one sex, or one race, or one religion is grossly unfair and untenable. This is a slippery slope the Swedish Government has built for themselves, and exactly what the radical feminists want in order to advance their warlike agenda.
Wikileak's Julian Assange is at a serious risk in Sweden's rape investigation. His accuser, Anna Ardin, admits freely that they had consensual sex. Then she accuses him of not being responsible with his use of contraceptives. That is how she was raped. She has also affirmed on her own blog that she is a radical feminist. Is Mr. Assange her sacrificial lamb to advance a radical agenda?
Yet Anna has mixed so many different philosophies together, it is hard to understand any longer how she can justify any of them. In her recent posts and in defense of her posts, she has clearly stated that Islam is misunderstood by the West. She believes Islam is a religion that respects tolerance. While Islam may be misunderstood in the West, Islamic fundamentalism is not. Any religion that treats women as second-class citizens, inferior to males, that uses stoning and murder as punishment for being a victim of rape- the same type of rape that Belardin believes is a result of the physical differences between the sexes- is not a religion a radical feminist should encourage her followers to accommodate.
Now that she has been conveniently appointed to the position of President of her Swedish Christian Brotherhood organization (now renamed now that she has spent time in the Middle East helping families of diverse religions co-exist in the same village, perhaps she should now admit that her radical views towards the male of the species is indefensible.
Her own words place her in a compromising position. She should admit that she is a woman scorned, and tell the Swedish Government that she will not participate in a mockery of a trial, or use her disappointing star-fucking experience as an excuse to send an innocent man to Guantanamo Bay.
But chances are she will continue to advance her personal vendetta behind the guise of radical feminism and people will fear her power. Julian Assange should not not fear this woman. She is her own worst enemy. When the major media finally gets their claws in her, she will understand that being attacked against your will is not limited to a consensual sexual act in a Swedish bedroom- it can come flying at you through the lens of a CNN camera. There is no defense from that, no condom law, no tiny village in Israel to to hide for the rest of your life. That is where fear itself will be a most effective weapon.
Just as an afterthought, Anna. There is no such person as a half-vegan. You are either a Vegetarian or you are not. Vegan is a type of Vegetarian. If you eat meat, you're not half anything. You're omniverous. You sure do enjoy tossing names at people who disagree with you. But you can't even be honest about your own diet. (Quoting an excerpt from Belardin's March 11th blog "Eftersom det igen bara kommer bli en halv veganism så behöver jag komplettera med nåt tänker jag.")