kajsa ekis ekman Aftonbladet 15 oktober 20

Tack.

Finally someone who addresses what my book is about. What made his looting possible. And what was the reason I thought the book was important to write – for others, för alla. This is what violence looks like. This is how a strong can, healthy, independent, happy man is broken down.

I've been horrified all along – actually shocked by – that not a single critic who has written about my book The Destroyer has mentioned the violence he subjected me to, the violence – psychological and physical – which enabled him to also ruin me and almost make me homeless.

It has been dizzying, in a negative way, to notice that people who are believed to be intellectuals, which has a place to express itself in the media, who will read books in a professional way – tror man – falls back into the simplified, aggravated old narrative where the blame always lies with the victim / woman. I've seen it now, in review after review year 2020 in Sweden and wondered where the person was actually mentally while they were reading 587 the pages. Probably in another story. The old and life-threatening conservative story about how things like these go and in that story the violence is certainly there, but does not count as important – and is somehow, implied the victim (the woman's) own fault. I have read that I am ”grounded”. That I am ”idiot”, to ”how can an adult be deceived like that”. That I have ”betrayed everyone by letting me fool”.

As I have written before; these reviews are counterproductive except that they are unintelligent and naive. If someone was about to take the step from hell staged by a person in their vicinity who is practicing mentally – and often also physically – violence , strengthened by the interviews with me which have evidently strengthened some, so you can expect them to back into the dark after reading how my book was received in Sweden's most influential newspapers because that's where the world shouts” SHAME ! Idiot! He was a clown! How to be fooled by a clown! Shame on you!”

It's bigger than my own resentment over this and shock over how to read it. Much much bigger. For these conclusions ( called reviews) if the book manifests to a large extent the silent power of violence, most often violence against women, in society, in time, for the future, from the present back. They are clear concrete expressions of how violence against women does NOT count.

This is what makes Kajsa Ekis Ekman's text in Aftonbladet important far beyond the titles Fjärilsvägen and Ödeläggaren. And it's very, very creepy. Take a look at SVT play and the documentary series ” Violent love” so you get a glimpse of how dangerous this denial and conservative attitude is.

I have thought quite a lot about how I would have written the book so that it became clearer that I was exposed to psychological violence – and physical violence, and a methodically insidious and at times quite sadistic breakdown of my brain, my movement room, my self and that it was the whole condition for him to ruin me and I now have to live below the subsistence minimum for the rest of my life. I thought I had described it, sometimes quite detailed, through the 587 the pages. I should have bothered that he did not let me sleep a whole night, starting as soon as he entered my home? I should have taught the reader how devastating it is for a human being not to have the opportunity to rest? Not everyone knows that they use the method of not letting people sleep properly to take power over them? I have thought afterwards, when I read these upset texts about how stupid I was – that how much do they mean to endure? Not even the fact that the man in question after the personal investigation in connection with the trial was ”very dangerous to other people” has bitten the critics; nä, the woman in question was stupid who let herself ” luras”!

For most people, having a needy person goes a long way, exposed, weeping, appealing stranger at home who is then also there in your office when you hope to be left alone in order to end up in imbalance. A couple of days is enough and if the night's sleep is disturbed several times during the time, you are quite tender. That you then lose a loved one to death in the middle of it all, may not help either? And then we have not even touched on the more insidious psychological violence that soon intensified – and not at all the physical. Nor the complicated psychological game in which everything took place with responsibility for a vulnerable child and so on. I have really wondered how much Jonas Thente in DN and Clara Block in Svd think that you should be able to cope in your daily life because I was such a ” idiot” som ” went on” och ” lurades” by ”pajasen” och ” betrayal” both my close ones and everyone who admired me as a writer! Hallå!

Som sagt, the violence is neglected. Varför? If you overlook it? Or do you consider man ( I in this case ) earn it? Do you understand that you take a stand by not mentioning the violence in a word? Probably not, it seems completely unreflective. I have been surprised that the critics' reading of my book has been so blinded by unsorted emotions, upset slightly accusatory formulations about how stupid I was. After the description of degradation and violence I offer, it's a bit like a slap in the face. Where is the sharp thought, analyzes? I'm surprised, but I have overlooked it, as one must as an artist, and I have chosen not to keep silent about the destruction. But I have thought that if I were a psychopath I would eagerly seek out these people because they would definitely never understand what happened when I caught them.

It is an interesting dimension in that Fjärilsvägen is still written by a man. It would be easy to think that since a man writes about the mental and physical violence against a woman, perhaps he would be interested in it in a different way, one might even admit it? Nej, not even with a man as a messenger, do you give violence any significance in the course of events, although it is absolutely crucial. The event and the outcome of the course of events are explained in a completely different way. Kajsa Ekis Ekman describes it clearly and distinctly in her article.

I have wondered if the violence would have been noted by the critics if it was a man who was exposed to it instead of a woman. Had one written about the event in the same diminishing tone then? Jag tror inte det.

I think the woman's refined and insidious psychic terror against the man had been appalled. They had even noticed the detail that she was constantly disturbing his sleep every night and they had understood what it meant for the poor man. I think one might have almost understood how mental violence makes physical violence possible. It had probably been written about how the physically weaker woman in passing pushed her fingers into the man's mouth and tricked his throat. With horror it had been realized that psychological violence against an entire man had wiped him out so much that he would not have protested, but just suppressed it, and tried to handle the situation as constructively as possible. The moments of abuse described in the book had become ingrained in critics. The violence would have simply appeared in its entirety if it had been carried out by a woman against a man. ( and this very violence is also going on out in the silence, notice well!)

Thanks Kajsa Ekis Ekman. The article highlights something incredible, extremely serious. Something very dangerous. Something that goes on and on and on. The acceptance of violence against women.