Stieg Larsson



He was also a freaking communist and the money spent on his books go to far-Leftist causes. So it’s one of the reasons I boycott his material, regardless how good of a thriller it might be. There are other things to buy and read as/more fulfilling and entertaining. KGS

NOTE: Larsson was the quintessential Swede/Nordic author and Leftist socialite who viewed Europeans the worst evil known to man. It’s much the same kind of mentality that keeps Jew-hatred alive.

H/T: Fjordman

Stieg Larsson was an extremist, not a feminist

The bestselling author’s attitude to the abuse of immigrant women was truly shocking

For all the surrounding silliness, feminism holds the story together and gives it a strange power. The persistence of the abuse of women by men, and men’s expectation that they can get away with it, explains the novels’ crimes and the determination of the heroes to solve them. There is something truly thrilling in the notion that the bestselling thrillers of the past decade were written by that modern rarity – a leftwing, male feminist.

Except that Larsson wasn’t a feminist – or not a consistent one. He wrote with real anger about the oppression of women with white skins. When others tried to do the same about the oppression of women with brown skins, he denounced them as racists. My friend and colleague Johan Lundberg, the editor of the Swedish journal Axess, has done what I should have done and read Larsson’s obscure book on honour killings. He waited for the release of the film to give us his findings.

Larsson did indeed break off from writing the Millennium trilogy to intervene in the debate about the “honour killings” of two Kurdish women in Sweden. Far from worrying about the suffering of women, Larsson and his co-author said those who campaigned for the rights of women in immigrant communities wanted “to portray all male immigrants as representatives of a single homogeneous attitude towards women”. They had sexist as well as racist motives. They only talked about honour crime because they wanted to divert attention from how white men raised in the “patriarchal structures of Swedish society” abused and murdered women as a matter of course.

If all Larsson wanted to say was that the rights of women should be upheld, regardless of colour or creed, then no one could argue with him. He came close to asserting the opposite. Believe that western legal systems, for all their faults, were preferable to forced marriages, religious courts where the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man and the stoning to death of adulterous women and you were a “rightwing extremist”, carrying on the fascist tradition. In a final descent into paranoid dementia, he accused those who disagreed with him of preparing to unleash “special operations forces, which are ready to begin the ethnic cleansing”.

Read the trilogy or watch the film and you can trace Larsson’s beliefs by his errors of omission. He includes every variety of male violence against women, except the violence inspired by religious and cultural misogyny. I do not wish to be too priggish. A work of art – high or popular – lives or dies on its own merits. Larsson was also a brave man, who faced down death threats from Scandinavian Nazis. That he could propagate brutish ideas in his political pamphlets on occasion does not change his anti-fascist record or invalidate his fiction.

More here.

2 Responses

  1. “He wrote with real anger about the oppression of women with white skins. When others tried to do the same about the oppression of women with brown skins, he denounced them as racists.”

    Liberalism is a morally and culturally relativist philosophy, therefore, they look at whether or not something is wrong within the context of the culture or society it occurred. Something that might be considered wrong for a European, Christian male to do would be perfectly acceptable for a middle eastern, muslim male because relative to the society they live in their actions are viewed as moral or immoral differently.

    This is true of “modern feminism” as well, but not “classical feminism”. Classical feminists, which includes the vast majority of conservatives, promotes equal rights, equality before the law, equal protections, equal status and equal pay of women and men. Modern feminism is best described as Misandry (hatred or dislike of men or boys) and pro-abortion. It’s not concerned about women in non-western countries because it’s a liberal philosophy and, therefore, morally and culturally relativist. If women in a non-western country/society/ethnic group did not have the same rights and equality with men it is seen as part of their culture and, therefore, acceptable.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.