EDITORIAL • The analyses and reactions of the politically correct media, as well as those of left-wing politicians, following the bestial dismemberment murder committed by a pedophilic, sadistic trans individual, are laughable if they weren’t so deeply tragic. The explanatory model that “masculinity” must change isn’t just banal, but nearly Kafkaesque, when the same PC establishment simultaneously defends gender identity madness. The analysis becomes even more absurd when their own political actions consistently contribute to increased violence and greater insecurity. The depth of their reasoning is moreover about as impressive as the depth of a teaspoon.

Many commentators and pundits on the right – or at least people with a bit of common sense – have already pointed to the Kafkaesque hypocrisy the left is now guilty of as they express outrage over “men’s violence against women” after the two recently publicized murders of women, one in Stockholm and one in Boden.

The confusion is total. If the left had merely bothered to follow their own logic to its conclusion, the contradictions would become obvious. On the one hand, they continue to refer to the dismemberer as “Vilma” and “she” – something Samnytt was first to expose – thereby accepting the idea that gender is something one can self-define. On the other hand, they simultaneously discuss “masculinity” as a social problem. These two thoughts cannot co-exist in this case – and yet they do, completely unproblematically.

The left-wing newspaper Dagens ETC is just one of several fresh examples. There, two texts are published virtually at the same time that illustrate this mindscape.

Even if one is an opinion piece, it still reflects the schizophrenic intellectual world in which the left operates. A man is a woman if he says he is – and we’re expected to play along. But when the man pretending to be a woman commits something evil and brutal, then suddenly he is a man again. Of course.

This extreme and bizarre mental leap permeates PC media these days, but seems to completely pass leftist journalists and left-wing politicians by.

Making it worse

The other obvious hypocrisy is that basically every pundit now criticizing men or “masculinity” has simultaneously acted consistently to make society less safe.

They vote for left-wing parties. Or, if they are politically active themselves, they vote in parliament against proposals for tougher crime policies. They support a lax immigration policy that fills the country with people from cultures where violence – especially against women – is normalized. If they work in media, they push exactly the same line: against harsher sentences, against stricter immigration rules, against expulsions and against revoking citizenships and residence permits.

Or for that matter, vote to allow people to change their gender, enter the same changing rooms as women, be housed in the same prisons as women, compete against women in sports, and in the same way encourage insecure or mentally unstable girls to remove their sex, their breasts, and permanently destroy their bodies.

The leftist commentators who now are horrified by “men’s violence against women” or women’s safety and integrity, in practice take every opportunity to exacerbate precisely this problem. And as usual, they completely lack insight into their own counter-productivity.

Shallow analysis of reality

The reason is, as so often, the left’s extremely shallow analysis of reality. In all societal issues, there are different analytical levels. Regardless of the topic, you can always ask the questions “who” and “why.” Let’s take crime as an example.

A first level of analysis is to note that it is people who commit crimes against other people. That is quite correct – and moreover something the entire political spectrum can agree on. But why stop there? Why aren’t we satisfied with this correct conclusion?

Because it is too coarse. Too superficial. And thus, practically meaningless. It does not help us understand the problem in a way that leads to solutions. That is precisely why all serious analyses dig deeper. You segment, refine, and specify.

If level one is “people,” the next obvious division is men and women. So when we have gone from “people commit crimes,” we arrive at the fact that it is primarily men who do so. This too is correct – and something both conservatives and leftist commentators acknowledge.

But here, the left’s analysis ends. This is their terminal stop. But just as “people” was too broad and meaningless a category, so too is “men.” And deep down the left knows this. The reason they nevertheless cling to this broad analysis is simple: they know what the next level means. And that is where their whole worldview falls apart. Thoroughly.

That is why they refuse to go further

The left stopping at the “men” level of analysis is no coincidence. It is a deliberate stop. Because the next step in the analysis is politically and ideologically deadly for them.

In the case of the dismemberer, the reason is obvious. If you go further with the analysis, you are forced to acknowledge that it’s not about “masculinity” in general, but about an extreme deviation – a man with severe sexual perversions, sadistic traits, and a gender identity issue that the left at all other times refuses to problematize. Addressing this would mean questioning their entire ideological package: that gender is a feeling, that men should have access to women’s changing rooms, that any questioning is “hate.”

Therefore, the analysis must stop before it gets there. Otherwise, you risk having to admit that trans ideology is not harmless, that in some cases it coincides with severe mental illness, sexual sadism, and dangerous behaviors – and that society has sacrificed women’s safety on the altar of identity politics.

In the other case, the mechanism is the same but even more politically charged. Going beyond “men,” one is forced to see which men are involved. What environments. Which cultures. Which normative systems. Then one inevitably ends up in questions of immigration, segregation, and cultural patterns where violence against women is significantly more widespread than in the Swedish majority society.

And the analysis absolutely cannot go there. Because then the left has to confront the fact that their own migration policy has imported insecurity, female oppression, and severe violence – while they morally pose as defenders of feminism.

So the analysis freezes. They point to “men” in the broadest sense, because that is the last level that does not threaten their own ideology. Anything beyond that risks exposing uncomfortable connections between politics, ideology, and real-world consequences.

This is why the left never solves the problems they claim to fight. Not because they lack information, but because the truth is politically impossible for them to acknowledge.