REGISTERED LETTER 10-' n1/t+ GEREGISTREERDE BRIEF
Service fee / Diensgeld OJ Gate R s!arr?p Insurance / Versekering
(with an insurance option/met 'n versekeringsopsie)
Total/ Totaal ,
cCc :::u(0 (..'1 rri ZI t.N c.,.;)
(jc -" I d,
Insured value of contents
Initial of accepting officer
The value of the contents of this letter is as indicated and compensation is not payable for a letter received unconditionally. Compensation is limited to R100.00. No compensation is payable without documentary letters only.
up to R2 000.00
INTERNATIONAl. REGISTERED LETTER
Die waarde van die inhoud van hierdie brief is soos aangedui en vergoeding sal nie betaal word vir'n briefwatsondervoorbehoud
word nie. Vergoeding
is beper1< tot R1DO.DO. Geen
sander dokumentere bewys betaalbaar nie. Opsionele versekering tot R2 000.00 is beskikbaar en is stegs op binnelandse
Paraaf van aaneembeampte
P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 South Africa
Mr. Anders Behring Breivik Postboks 150 1332 Osteras, Norway
Dear Anders, Honourable Transparency: Lippestad Attorneys Hi. Thank you for your letter.
Request Clarification: RE: Habeus Mentem, Amicus Curiae and Review Applications Filed: I am not quite clear. You acknowledge receipt of the legal applications I filed in the Norway v. Breivik matter, but refer to them as ‗my letter and email compaigns‘? Do you dispute their contents as being unworthy of being considered legal applications; and if so, could you clarify how and why you do so? Or why do you refer to these legal applications as ‗letters and emails‘. In terms of my definition of ‗honour‘; to be ‗honourable‘ is to legally acknowledge the application by responding to the issues raised therein, as part of court procedure. If you do not dispute them as legal applications: Could you please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order. Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’ Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that your claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: you did not subjectively believe your claims of necessity; its all just propaganda bullshit. Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence. So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity:
At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?
If he refuses: Why have you not publicly stated your lawyers refusal to follow your instructions and placed the dispute transparently before the court, as a matter of court record?
Or, is Lippestad telling the truth; and you really don‘t subjectively believe in your necessity claim towards innocence, you are simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda?
See Annex F: Letter to Mr. Lippestad: Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.
Moral Support for Rule of Law Free and Fair Trial does NOT Equate to Ideological Support: I must emphasize the following so that you are not under any false illusions. My support is not for your ideology. I am not a nationalist, nor a militant nationalist, nor have I ever claimed to be one. Nor do I discriminate against anyone who considers themselves a nationalist, however they may define ‗nationalist‘ or ‗militant nationalist‘. See attached: (Annex A: My ideology is Radical Honoursty: Honour and Personal Responsibility) and (Annex B: A Proposal for Defining the Feminist vs. Anti-Feminist Problem). Simplistically, if I interpret your ideology correctly (here is brief summary of my current working hypothesis, correct if inaccurate) there are large differences in our existential ideologies. Breivik Right Wing Patriarchy Divide and Conquer Domination Endorse & Advocate for the Breeding War Advocate against Eco-law Breeding Patriarchal Parasite Leeching European Militant Nationalist Europe for Europeans Endorse Western Civilisation Anti-Multiculturalist Propaganda PR Practitioner Militant Nationalist Fundamentalist Advocate Martyrdom for European Race Source of Problems identified as political ideology Endorse Pretend Problem Solving: Left vs. Right
Lara Beyond Left & Right Wing Matriarchy Libertarian Voluntaryist Tribal Apartheid Advocate against the Breeding War Endorse & Advocate Eco-Carrying Capacity Breeding Matriarchal Problem Solving Deep Green Ecology Ishmael Neo-Primitive Tribalist Earth for Eco-Honourable Problem Solvers Endorse destruction of Civilisation as source of Ecological destruction Apartheid Multiculturalist Fuck Propaganda: Radical Transparency Only Radical Honoursty Truthseeker Advocate Martyrdom for Honour & Justice (Rule of Law) Source of Economic and Political Problems is ecological reality Endorse Real Problem Solving: Confront Root causes of problems, with
Wing Divide and Conquer Parasite Leeching Blame Game Anti-Communist (don‘t differentiate between Patriarchal Breeding War Capitalists/Communists and Libertarian Non-Breeding War Eco Capitalists/Communists) Anti-Feminists (don‘t differentiate between Patriarchal Feminists (endorse patriarchal domination, simply wish to replace the dominant men with dominant women)
radical transparency and radical honesty Anti Fundamentalist Domination Capitalists and Anti Fundamentalist Domination Communists. Endorse & Advocate on behalf of Libertarian Volantarist Eco-Capitalism or Eco-Communism Anti Patriarchal Domination (whether by Patriarchal Men or Patriarchal Feminists); endorse libertarian gender tribalism (which includes the right for patriarchal feminists and masculinists to create their own tribe and practice their dominatrix bullshit on each other; and leave other Matriarchal Libertarian Eco-Harmony tribes not into domination and breeding resource wars alone.
Only Fascism I may Ideologically Support is Linkola’s EcoFascism: If you had committed your attacks in support of an ideology to destroy industrial civilisation, in support of a message of living in ecological harmony with nature, both in terms of procreation and consumption; some form of Ishmael neo-tribal primitivism; then my support for your right to a free and fair trial would coincide with my support for your ideology. For example: If I was to endorse fascism, it would never be that of European Militant Nationalists, but that of Eco-Fascist: Pentti Linkola‘s deep green ecology views: ―If there were a button I could press [to radically reduce world population], I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die.‖ - Pentti Linkola, Wall Street Journal Europe, May 1994 ―A minority can never have any other effective means to influence the course of matters but through the use of violence.‖ ―Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.‖ ―Foreign affairs: All mass immigration and most of import-export trade must stop. Cross-border travel is allowed only for small numbers of diplomats and correspondents.‖ ―Science and schooling: Education will concentrate on practical skills. All competition is rooted out. Technological research is reduced to the extreme minimum. But every child will learn how to clean a fish in a way that only the big shiny bones are left over.‖ ―By decimating its woodlands, Finland has created the grounds for prosperity. We can now thank prosperity for bringing us – among other things – two million cars, millions of glaring, grey-black electronic entertainment boxes, and many unnecessary buildings to cover the green earth. Wealth and surplus money have led to financial gambling and rampant social injustice, whereby ‗the common people‘ end up contributing to the construction of golf courses, classy hotels, and holiday resorts, while fattening Swiss bank accounts. Besides, the people of wealthy countries are the most frustrated, unemployed, unhappy, suicidal, sedentary, worthless and aimless people in history. What a miserable exchange.‖ – Pentti Linkola Linkola is one of the few voices who advocates: (1) No immigration; (2) Downsize population; (3) Kill defectives; (4) Stop rampant technology. In the eyes of the most credible sources, planet Earth can sustain a half-billion humans without any sizable destruction of our habitat, or any loss in species or stability of our ecosystem. Any numbers higher than that, no matter how much they recycle, will cause environmental chaos. The modern leftist-tinged environmental movement is terrified of telling anyone that they cannot breed and keep buying whatever strikes their fancy, but someone must do this in the future. The sooner we do it, the fewer people in the future will be left without a means of sustenance and thus require termination. As Linkola himself has said, "We still have a chance to be cruel. But if we are not cruel today, all is lost." Little known outside of Scandinavia, Pentti Linkola is a voice that deserves a wide audience. He is revered amongst radical environmentalists for his uncompromising stance on a variety of issues and for his works that show the breadth of his vision. Linkola shows that ―progressive‖ and humanistic dogma in collaboration with aggressive capitalism is leading the whole planet toward inevitable destruction. Greed and consumerism, the opiates that (for many) mask the sheer banality of much of what constitutes modern life, are leading us into the abyss. There has to be another way. Rather than obsessing on ―the Rights of Man,‖ Linkola underscores the duty that man has to Life in its entirety. In doing so, he offers pointers to a more authentic and fulfilling mode of existence – one in harmony with the whole biosphere and, therefore, the natural order of things. Thus, we are treated to original and rigorous critiques of modern society‘s obsession with soulless technics, the acquisition of non-essential consumer goods, uncontrolled human fecundity and population growth, and other activities ruinous not only to the environment as a whole but also to the actual quality of human life itself. To those effectively brainwashed by the contemporary ―Cultural Dictatorship of the Left‖ (ironically sponsored by big business and the mass media) which virtually deifies the freedom of humans to do anything they wish regardless
of the long-term consequences, much of his thinking is likely to be considered ―offensive.‖ However, when one considers what is at stake, to leave these things unsaid is more offensive still. Even left-wing conservationists (an obvious contradiction of terms when one comes down to it) may not like Linkola‘s conclusions as he eschews most of the inanities of Political Correctness – implicitly demonstrating the dangers of this modern day pseudo-religion. Indeed, Linkola once famously said ―The composition of the Greens seems to be the same as that of the population in general — mainly pieces of drifting wood, people who never think.‖ Perhaps Linkola is not always right, but he most usually is. Nevertheless, because of the gravity of the issues which he addresses, his thoughts (and those of others like him) certainly deserve more attention. We ignore them at our peril. Ideas and Quotations: ―What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship‘s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.‖ ―A minority can never have any other effective means to influence the course of matters but through the use of violence.‖ ―Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.‖ ―The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness – even though all the proofs in history have shown that only need and striving cause a life worth living, that material prosperity doesn‘t bring anything but despair. These priests will still believe in technology when they choke in their gas masks.‖ ―That there are billions of people over 60kg weight on this planet is recklessness.‖ ―Alternative movements and groups are a welcome relief and a present for the society of economic growth.‖ ―We will have to . . . learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the National Socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves.‖ ―A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life are been organized on basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her. . . . Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole. . . . In this time and this part of the World we are heedlessly hanging on democracy and parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. . . . In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most. . . . Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen.‖ ―If the present amount of Earth‘s population is preserved and is reduced only by the means of birth control, then: - Birthgiving must be licensed. To enhance population quality, genetically or socially unfit homes will be denied offspring, so that several birth licenses can be allowed to families of quality. - Energy production must be drastically reduced. Electricity is allowed only for the most necessary lighting and communications. - Food: Hunting must be made more efficient. Human diet will include rats and invertebrate animals. Agriculture moves to small un-mechanized units. All human manure is used as fertilizer. - Traffic is mostly done with bicycles and rowing boats. Private cars are confiscated. Long-distance travel is done with sparse mass transport. Trees will be planted on most roads. - Foreign affairs: All mass immigration and most of import-export trade must stop. Cross-border travel is allowed only for small numbers of diplomats and correspondents. - Business will mostly end. Manufacture is allowed only for well-established needs. All major manufacturing capacity is state owned. Products will be durable and last for generations. - Science and schooling: Education will concentrate on practical skills. All competition is rooted out. Technological research is reduced to the extreme minimum. But every child will learn how to clean a fish in a way that only the big shiny bones are left over.‖ Many people struggle to understand this perspective of mine. They confuse my support for a terrorist‘s right to a free and fair trial (as I supported both McVeigh and Bin Laden‘s rights to a free and fair trial) with my supporting the particular terrorist‘s ideology. Most people don‘t even support the free and fair trial for those who share their own ideology. They cannot comprehend how someone is capable of supporting a free and fair trial, for someone I have fundamental ideological disagreements with.
Radical Honoursty Definition of Honour: Honour is very important to me, like it is to you; although I don‘t know if we define it similarly. To me honour means I practice what I preach. So if I say I support the rule of law, then I must challenge myself to support the rule of law for those I consider my enemies. To support the rule of law for friends only means I support mobjustice, not the rule of law. Honour also means that I never gossip about someone, if I have a problem with anyone, I tell them of my opinions to their face. I don‘t pretend, and I don‘t do two-faced political correct sycophancy with anyone. Finally to me honour means you don‘t ask someone to do something you are not willing to do yourself. If I ask you to put yourself forward to be charged with treason and the death penalty, then I demonstrate my integrity, seriousness and commitment to the request, by asking of myself the
same consequences. You are willing to die for your ideological beliefs, for saving your people and your culture; I am willing to risk death, to challenge your country to give you a free and fair trial, so that we can examine the truth about your evidence. I don‘t doubt your sincere belief that the evidence you wish to bring before the court is as serious as you believe it to be. My worldview seriously doubts certain of your allegations and perspectives; but I am willing to put my perspectives to the serious test. I would be happy to risk death in support of seeking the truth and to encourage others to support the rule of law, particularly for those whom they consider their enemies. My honour and truthseeking is my identity (Annex A). Parasite Leeching Left or Right Wing Fundamentalists ideology is not ‗capitalism‘ or ‗conservatism‘ or ‗communism‘ but ‗parasite leeching‘. Parasite Leeching is their identity, and whichever ideology they pretend to hold, is just a bullshit the public relations smokescreen. They are ideological fundamentalists. It is important for them to propagandize in favour of their fake ideology and to silence any opposing ideology which may expose their ideologies inaccuracies, or their failure to practice their alleged ideology. In my case, I am a Truthseeker. The AntiCivilisation EcoFeminist Primitivist ideology I practice is not my identity, simply a map I use to interpret the political, economic and ecological reality of existential reality. If your ideology provides a more accurate map for navigating political, ecological, economic and spiritual reality, then I am happy to discard my ideological map and use yours; but I am not interested in adopting your ideological map as my truthseeking identity. If another map comes along with an even more accurate picture and analysis of reality, then I am happy to use that. So, in your case it is honourably important for me to be able to step out of my worldview and my ideological map of reality and to do my best to ‗walk in your shoes‘ to put on your ideological worldview, and do so with an open enquiring mind, to be able to determine whether your worldview can teach me something, or provides a more accurate analysis and picture of existential reality. That is the essence of Matriarchal Feminism: ACTIVE IMPARTIAL EVIDENTIARY FOCUSSED TRUTH-SEEKING ENQUIRY LISTENING I am incapable of making an impartial enquiry into your militant nationalist worldview, when the goddamn fucked up gutless coward political correct Norwegian government denies you the right to a free and fair trial, where your experts can be cross examined on every little piece of argument and evidence, to determine what is bullshit and what is truth. I am as pissed off with those coward Norwegian politicians, as I am with the gutless spineless coward Anti-Jihadists like Fjordman and Bauwer and Herland who were too petrified to have their arguments cross examined under oath! (Annex C (Hanne Nabintu Herland OpEd Political Witchhunt stating her Contempt of Court Refusal to Testify in Breivik Case; indicate lack of understanding of Breivik’s defence: Necessity) & D (Teflon Jellyfish Patriarchal Conservatives Bruce Bawer and Peder Jensen (Fjordman) endorse White Supremacy StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trials for Political Dissidents?) Problem solving only works amongst individuals who are willing to: (A) sincerely and actively listen, by stepping outside of their worldview, to hear/see their opponents worldview; and (B) have the psychological courage to commit ego/identitysuicide, should a new worldview provide them with root cause problem solving information that contradicts their ego/identity ideology. Unequivocal Non-Censorship Consent to Blogging Your Views: I was unaware that my efforts on behalf of a free and fair trial for you, was a topic of national discourse. I doubt my efforts were understood, as I imagine, most Norwegians, including Nationalists, ain‘t got fuck all sense of honour (certainly not the radical honesty and most certainly not the radical honoursty definition of honour). Its rather hilarious, I think – if I interpret your notions of honour correctly – that a feminist understands your perspective towards honour and your commitment to it, better than most of your fellow ideological white nationalists, for whom honour has very little practical value, except as self delusional bullshit feel-good rhetoric. I am happy to accept any information you wish to publish. I don‘t practice censorship, so have no desire to censor anything you wish to publish. If or where I imagine any information you wish to publish is against the law, I shall simply file an application with the court for a declaratory order on the issue. I suspect the reason the courts were petrified of acknowledging my applications in your case, is cause I have about as much regard for corrupt ‗innocence for sale‘ lawyers and judges who have fuck all commitment to natural law and due process, as Martin Luther had for corrupt ‗indulgences forgiveness for sale‘ bishops and priests.
VERY VERY IMPORTANT TO READ AND COMPREHEND: They will do everything possible – including exposing themselves as massively corrupt – to avoid having to engage me in a sincere truthseeking conversation about any issue related to your trial. I am both their and potentially your worst nightmare. I am a problem solving truth seeker. They are pretend problem solving parasite leeches. I don‘t give a fuck about garnering myself a following or a fanclub. I practice fuck all bullshit-the-public relations image management. To the contrary, I make it clear to anyone who does indicate any interest in being a ‗follower‘ that I have a very very strict honour code they will have agree to in writing. I ain‘t interested in no fanclub or follower who does not take the time to understand my message, but thinks that I am advocating on behalf of their rights, who later finds out that is not the case, who then accuses me of betraying their sorry fucked up ass, cause they were too lazy to find out whether we were in fact in agreement or not on any issues. Most right wing and left wing parasite leeches have no agenda of problem solving, but every agenda of pretending to problem solve, so that they can gather themselves a large fanclub, in their left vs right wing parasite leeching pretend problem solving propaganda blame game breeding war. So their agenda is driven by their bullshit the public relations image management agenda, not by sincerity or honour or truth seeking.
I will talk to anyone, whether right or left wing extreminst to find common ground and clarify common disagreement to honourably agree to disagree upon. I won‘t bullshit them either. I will tell them my honest opinion to their face. I will never ignore anyone‘s question, or evidence or argument, just cause it is controversial or problematic, or may piss some ignorant asshole off, who thinks they are my follower. Left and right wing parasite leeches couldn‘t give a fuck about truthseeking, only about growing the size of their parasite leeching host fanclub; so they avoid controversial issues, and they definitely avoid issues that could lead to real problem solving. Cause when problems are solved, then the source of their parasite leeching political or financial status dries up.
PREPARE YOURSELF FOR AN ‘INSANITY’ VERDICT: I know you ain‘t gonna like this, but I think you should prepare yourself for an ‗insanity‘ verdict. Hope I am wrong, but for various reasons, I think it is highly unlikely you will get a sanity verdict. Let me make it clear: My statement has fuck all to do with your sanity. While I have fundamental disagreements about many issues with you; I don‘t endorse White Supremacy Pharma-Psychiatry Witchhunting. I have more respect for savages who don‘t pretend that their persecution of witches is founded upon scientific evidence; or for Muslims who simply stone the ‗Kuffars‘ to death who disagree with them, than White Supremacist bullshit the public relations artists who don‘t have the honour to admit that their ‗psychiatry‘ bullshit is simply about white cultural supremacy projected onto any individual who violates their cultural norms, or against other cultures who are considered more savage or such shit. As a matter of honour, there is fuck all way I will ever accuse another person of insanity, while there is fuck all scientific evidentiary foundation for such an allegation. Intellectual goddamn midgets without an intellectual, psychiatric or emotional backbone accuse those they disagree with of ‗insanity‘. So I don‘t think you are insane; but I, strongly conclude that the Oslo court is going to find you to be ‗insane‘. Reasons for my conclusion: (1) Conveniently absolves Norwegian gov & Prosecution from serious enquiry into innocence/guilt issue, to examine subjectively and objectively the evidence for your necessity defence; (2) Nowegian law on insanity requires beyond reasonable doubt certainty on behalf of sanity; and any doubt is considered in favour of insanity. They will focus on this aspect of the law, as Holden and Engh did; (3) You – or your defence counsel, or both of you -- provided the court with sweet fuck all evidence from critical psychiatry experts – Thomas Szasz, Margaret Hagen, etc, - who would have testified about the fraud that is psychiatr; you called no experts to expose psychiatry as a massive goddamn fucking legal fraud. If you had done so, you would have a much much stronger case for a ruling of sanity.
NECESSITY DEFENCE IDEAS: Two ideas on Necessity evidence argument to address the necessity clause of ‗impending danger‘. Reasonably speaking, there is a massive difference in terms of ‗impending danger‘ for the skipper of a 40ft motorboat and the skipper of a 882 ft Titanic. To avoid ‗impending danger of a reef‘ means he can alter course to avoid said reef, from 20 feet away, or less, and depending on the size of it, avoid the danger. For the 882ft Titanic, impending danger is maybe a mile away; because changing course or even turning off the engines, is not enough to avoid collision, within a particular distance. So, if I were you, I would have placed the jurors – and more importantly media and audience – on the Europe Titanic with you. Islam is your iceberg. You perceive Islam as an iceberg; and what do you do? Your fellow passengers think it is a white sailing yacht, or are drunk in the bar. Your fellow conservatives, disagree as to how far away it is, how fast the Titanic is going, or think that even if it is an iceberg, the Titanic is ‗unsinkable‘; and will simply cruise through the iceberg like a icebreaker. You need to get your fellow Nabintu-Herland/Fjordman Anti-Islamicists to confirm their subjective reality about the speed they think Titanic is sailing at, the distance from iceberg, and the ‗final alteration of course D-Day‘; and then ask them: what happens if once their ‗D-Day distance arrives, beyond which collision is certainty, is 77 passengers lives worth saving 770 million? [Personally I‘d be happy with a world reduced to less than 500 million primitivists, so won‘t whine about the extermination of 770 million European hypocrit consumers whose consumption is helping destroy the planet; but honourably, perhaps I can convert you? ;-))]. So – for example -- you need to prove (a) islam is an iceberg; and (b) Europe Titanic is not unsinkable; (c) Europe Titanic is not an icebreaker; (d) collision shall damage hull and cause sinking; (e) considering the current speed, what is the distance from the iceberg that the Titanic would need to drastically alter course or terminate engines, so as to avoid collision; (f) your 22/07 actions were to awaken the 770 million EU Titanic passengers to their impending collision with the iceberg. It may help to make Islam, not an iceberg, but another massive ship, maybe an aircraft carrier. However the large ship analogy is very good to explain the concept of ‗immediate danger‘ to people whose only concept of avoiding ‗immediate danger‘ is that which is less than a few minutes or seconds away. Any and every captain or sailor on a large ship, would know and agree with you, that taking action to avoid a collision has to be done from a particular distance (depending on current, speed and engine capacity), and beyond a particular ‗collission‘ point, there is fuck all to be done; to avoid the collision; while passengers on deck, may be totally clueless, there is any chance of a collision ahead, because their total worldview is based upon the response time of a car. I don‘t know if your evidence justifies your actions, but, honourably, anyone who sincerely supports the rule of law, must demand you get a fair trial, for it to be impartially investigated, to find out. I‘d like to get this letter off to you tomorrow, so it‘s a bit rushed and unedited. Regards, Lara Johnstone Encl: A,B,C, D & E + PS: Enclosure of Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist vs. Knights Templar Anders Breivik coverpage (http://ecofeminist-vbreivik.weebly.com); should you wish to engage honourably and transparently.
P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 Cell: (071) 170 1954 12 August 2012 Adv. Geir Lippestad Advokatfirmaet Lippestad Grensen 12, 0159 Oslo email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org CC: Advokatfullmektig Odd Ivar Grøn E-post: email@example.com
Advokat/partner Vibeke Hein Bæra E-post: firstname.lastname@example.org
Advokat Tord Jordet Tlf 22 94 10 20 E-post: email@example.com
Anders Breivik PO Box 150 1332 Osteras, Norway
Dear Mr. Lippestad,
Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence. Questions I have: 1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik‘s claim of necessity? 2. Is it common for Norwegian Prosecutors to refuse to provide the court with the Prosecutor‘s Office assessment of an accused‘s evidence for their claim of necessity? 3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity? 4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik‘s claims of necessity? 5. Why did your Defence of Breivik state that the only issues before the court – as the media have been reporting and you said to the court – are the sane/safety issue? 6. How exactly can the only issue before the court be the ‗sane/safety‘; since when is the ‗guilt/innocence‘ issue irrelevant in a political criminal trial? 7. If Lippestad attorney‘s are denying the court to be required to seriously examine the necessity evidence for Breivik‘s guilt or innocence; upon what grounds and authority did Lippestad Attorney‘s find Breivik to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt? 8. Or is it a matter of first ascertaining Breivik‘s sanity; and then if, or when Breivik is finally deemed sane, does he then get a new trial with a focus on ‗guilty/innocence‘ issue; to determine his innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence for and against his necessity defence?
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
9. If not, when exactly is Breivik entitled to an impartial trial where the issue before the court is Breivik‘s ‗guilt/innocence‘ and Prosecutors and Defence Counsel are required to seriously legally examine the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence?
As you are aware, I recently filed a Press complaint with PFU against News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'. In summary, according to my paralegsal understanding of the law: ―The prosecutor‘s irregular decisions to ‗refuse to touch Breivik‘s invocation of Necessity‘ does not: (a) have the power to nullify Breivik‘s invocation of necessity; (b) grant the court the authority to ‗refuse to touch Breivik‘s invocation of necessity‘; (c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik ‗guilty‘ in a ‗trial by media ignorance of the law‘. A Norwegian friend responded to my complaint to the PFU with: I would rather think this would be grounds for requesting a retrial due to gross neglect by his counsel. My thinking is that they all simply ignored his claim of necessity hoping that if all did the same no one would call out the bluff, the bluff being the absence of an imperative to discuss the claim of necessity. If both prosecution and defense behave as if it is simply so ridiculous that by ignoring it they "spared" Breivik of the humiliation of being confronted with how insane and ludicrous it is, then the court, the media and, more importantly, the public would by into that fraud as well.
My understanding of Norwegian and International/Foreign Law on Necessity Norwegian Law and Precedence on Necessity LAW-2005-05-20-28: Lov om straff (straffeloven). | Act on Punishment (Penal Code)1, says: § 17. Nødrett
§ 17 Necessity
En handling som ellers ville være straffbar, er lovlig når
An action that would criminal, is legal when
a) den blir foretatt for å redde liv, helse, eiendom eller en annen interesse fra en fare for skade som ikke kan avverges på annen rimelig måte, og
a) it is being undertaken to save lives, health, property or any interest from the danger of injury that can not be averted in any other reasonable manner, and
b) denne skaderisikoen er langt større enn skaderisikoen ved handlingen.
b) the risk of injury is far greater than the risk of injury by the action.
LAW-1998-03-20-10-§ 5: Forskrift om sikkerhetsadministrasjon | Regulations relating to security management2 allows for ―security breaches without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self defence in criminal law law § 47 or § 48 is met.‖ § 5-3. Sikkerhetsbrudd ved nødrett og nødverge
§ 5-3. Security breaches at the principle of necessity and self-defense
Sikkerhetsbrudd foretas uten straffansvar dersom vilkårene for nødrett eller nødverge i straffeloven § 47 eller § 48 er oppfylt.
Security breaches made without criminal liability if the terms of the principle of necessity or self-defense in criminal law § 47
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
Forholdet skal rapporteres i samsvar med § 5-4 til § 5-6.
or § 48 is met. The relationship must be reported in accordance with § § 5-4 to 5-6.
I could only find two cases on a Lovdata search for nødrett. This one was interesting though. Norwegian Necessity Judgement: Subjective and Objective Test: In LE-2012-76983 Eidsivating Appeal – Judgment3 of 29 May 2012, an Eritrean man was accused of several Perjury related Immigration offences to help his sister to come to Norway. He admitted the facts, but claimed necessity. In court he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal suspended the appeal to test his conviction on one point (whether the court a quo had seriously enquired into his necessity defence). The court agreed with the Defendant‘s argument that asserted that the court a quo had not considered the circumstances that were invoked as the basis for the existence of a principle of necessity situation. The judgement stated that it is clear that ―the courts statement of reasons does not show that the court has considered this argument. Thus it is also clear that the Court‘s statement of reasons in so far are inadequate.‖ It would appear that Norwegian law has both a subjective and objective enquiry test into the necessity defence, which is similar to South African law; namely to test whether objectively there was a situation of necessity, and secondly whether subjectively the defendant sincerely believed there was a real situation of necessity thereby motivating his conduct. Hovedforhandling i saken ble holdt 23. februar 2012. Tiltalte erkjente å ha opptrådt som beskrevet i tiltalen, men nektet straffeskyld. Han påberopte dels nødrett, dels – i forhold til tiltalens post I og III a – at hans handlinger falt inn under straffrihetsbestemmelsen i utlendingsloven § 108 fjerde ledd bokstav b annet punktum.
The main hearing in the matter was held on 23 February 2012. The defendant acknowledged having performed as described in the indictment, but denied culpability. He claimed partly necessity, partly - in relation to attractive's mail I and III that his actions fell under straffrihetsbestemmelsen in the Immigration Act § 108 fourth paragraph, second sentence b.
[..] Når det gjaldt anførselen om nødrett, straffeloven § 47, fant tingretten ingen holdepunkter for at tiltaltes søster reelt sett hadde vært i noen nødrettssituasjon i Sudan, eller at tiltalte hadde oppfattet det slik.
[..] Regarding the argument about the principle of necessity, Penal Code, § 47, the court found no evidence that the defendant's sister in real terms had been in a situation of necessity in Sudan, or that the defendant had seen it that way.
[..] Slik lagmannsretten oppfatter støtteskrivet, gjøres det for det første gjeldende at tingretten ikke har oppfattet og tatt stilling til det som tiltalte gjorde gjeldende som nødrettssituasjon. Tingretten har vurdert om søsterens situasjon i Sudan var slik at hun var i en « paa anden Maade uafvændelig Fare ». Men det var ikke det tiltalte gjorde gjeldende. Han gjorde derimot gjeldende at søsterens plan om å flykte til Israel via Sinaiørkenen, noe hun truet ham med at hun ville utføre hvis han ikke hjalp henne til Norge, var jevngodt med å true med selvmord. Dermed var han i en nødrettssituasjon da han hjalp henne til Norge. I praksis var han også i en tilsvarende situasjon da han begikk de øvrige overtredelsene etter at hun hadde kommet inn i Norge. Grunnen var at han gikk ut fra at hvis han ikke fulgte opp historien overfor norske myndigheter, ville
[..] As the appellate court consider supporting letter, made for the first claim that the court has considered and taken a position on what the accused did the current situation as a necessity. The court has considered whether the sister's situation in Sudan was such that she was in an "on the candidate Maada uafvændelig Danger." But it was not the defendant was valid. He did however claim that her sister's plan to flee to Israel via the Sinai desert, which she threatened him that she would perform if he helped her to Norway, was tantamount to threatening suicide. Thus, he is in a situation of necessity when he helped her to Norway. In practice, he was also in a similar situation when he committed the other offenses after she had come to Norway. The reason was that he assumed that if he did not follow up the story to the Norwegian authorities, would his sister be sent
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
søsteren bli sendt tilbake til Sudan. Og i så fall ville hun ta opp igjen planen om å flykte gjennom Sinai på nytt. [..]
back to Sudan. And so, she would take up the plan to escape through the Sinai again. [..]
Nødrettsanførselen På bakgrunn av redegjørelsen i støtteskrivet oppfatter lagmannsretten det slik at denne delen av anken først og fremst reiser spørsmål om tingrettens saksbehandling, nærmere bestemt domsgrunnene. Det tiltalte i realiteten gjør gjeldende, er at tingretten ikke har vurdert de omstendighetene som ble påberopt som grunnlag for at det forelå en nødrettssituasjon.
Nødrettsanførselen On the basis of the statement in support letter perceive the Court of Appeal so that this part of the appeal primarily raises questions about the court proceedings, specifically judicial reasons. The defendant actually asserts is that the court has not considered the circumstances that were invoked as the basis for the existence of a principle of necessity situation.
Lagmannsretten oppfatter møtende aktors påtegning til statsadvokaten slik at aktor bekrefter at tiltaltes forklaring om nødrettssituasjonen var som anført av forsvareren i støtteskrivet. Det er på det rene at tingrettens domsgrunner ikke viser at tingretten har vurdert denne anførselen. Dermed er det også på det rene at tingrettens domsgrunner for så vidt er mangelfulle.
The Court of Appeal consider attending prosecutor's endorsement of a public prosecutor that the prosecutor confirmed that the defendant's explanation of the principle of necessity situation was that led by the defense in the support letter. It is clear that the Court's statement of reasons does not show that the court has considered this argument. Thus, it is also clear that the Court's statement of reasons in so far are inadequate.
However since the both the Prosecution and the Defence counsel refused to enquire into the subjective and objective evidence for Breivik‘s necessity defence argument, focussing solely on the ‗sane/safety‘ issue; when shall the court seriously and impartially enquire into Breivik‘s ‗innocence/guilt‘ issue by examining the evidence for and against him in accordance to objectively and subjectively testing his necessity defence arguments evidence?
Oslo Court: Breivik Defence of Necessity: On 17 April 2012, the Oslo Court tweeted4 to Journalists attending the Breivik trial: Wrong translation in the 22-7 trial yesterday: Breivik said ―nodrett‖, Correct translation: ―Principle of Necessity‖, not ―self defence‖.
The principle of Necessity is enshrined in Norwegian Law in Section 47 of the Penal Code5: "No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone's person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act."
According to Lovdata.no: 22. juli-saken – flere ord og uttrykk | 22. July issue - several words and phrases6: Nødrett Straffbefriende omstendighet som består i at en ellers straffbar handling foretas for å redde en person eller verdier fra en ellers uavvendelig fare, og omstendighetene berettiger den handlende til å anse denne faren som særlig betydelig i forhold til den skade som kan forvoldes ved handlingen. 4 5 6
Necessity Penalties Liberating circumstance is that an otherwise criminal act carried out to rescue a person or values from an otherwise inevitable danger, and the circumstances warranting the traders to regard this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that could cause the action.
https://twitter.com/#!/Oslotingrett/status/192198581803945984 http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19020522-010-eng.pdf http://www.lovdata.no/nyhet/forside/20120423-soketips.html
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
Under disse omstendigheter blir ikke handlingen straffri, men også rettmessig.
Under these circumstances is not only the action impunity, but also legitimate.
Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‘Refuse to touch Breivik’s Principle of Necessity’: The following reports indicate that Prosecutor Engh and Holden violated – what would in South African law be -- their duty of objectivity in terms of (a) impartially enquiring into and/or responding to the Accuseds‘ Defence; and (b) providing the court with the Prosecution‘s evaluation and conclusion of the evidence for and against Breivik‘s invocation of his Necessity Defence. In her closing statement, Prosecutor Engh acknowledge‘s that: (1) Norwegian prosecutors have a duty to conduct their investigation with objectivity; (2) Norwegian law allows for an accused to plead to necessity and/or self defence, (3) Where an accused does invoke necessity, it is the court and prosecutor‘s duty to investigate the accused‘s necessity defence arguments and evidence; (4) If an accused successfully invokes a necessity defence, this can and must result in either mitigation of sentence and/or a verdict of innocence; (5) Breivik invoked the defence of necessity; (6) Despite the fact that Breivik invoked the necessity defence, both Prosecutor Engh and Holden ‗refuse to touch the principle of necessity‘. Document.NO: Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part I (Inga Bejer Engh Procedure Part I) 7 I Norge har vi fire vilkår for at noen kan straffes Det må foreligge en handling som rammes av et straffebestemmelse, det må ikke foreligge nødrett, det må foreligge subjektiv skyld og gjerningsmannen må ha vært tilregnelig. Jeg vil i min prosedyre ta opp faktum, min kollega vil ta opp tilregnelighet. Ingen av oss vil berøre nødrett. Til tross for at det var det han påberopte seg.
In Norway, we have four conditions that someone can be punished There must be an act within the scope of a criminal provision, there must be no necessity, there must be subjective guilt and the perpetrator must have been sane. I want my procedure to record the fact, my colleague will address accountability. None of us will touch the principle of necessity. Despite the fact that it was what he claimed.
NRK: Rettssaken - dag 42 (The trial - day 42)8 kl. 12.15 Engh: - I Norge har vi fire vilkår som må foreligge for at noen kan straffes: det må foreligge objektiv sett en handling som rammmes av et straffebud i straffeloven, det må ikke foreligge nødverge eller nødrett, og det må forligge subjektiv skyld hos gjerningsmannen.
at. 12.15 Engh: - In Norway, we have four conditions that must exist that someone can be punished: it must be objectively seen an act rammmes of a penal provision in criminal law, there must be no selfdefense or necessity, and it must forligge subjective guilt of the perpetrator.
VG: Ord-for-ord - dag 42 prosedyren til aktoratet (Word-for-word - day 42 procedure for prosecutors)9 Nå skal jeg gå over til å si litt om hvordan vi har delt inn prosedyren, slik at det skal være lettere å følge I Norge har vi fire vilkår for at noen skal 7 8 9
Now I'll go over to say something about how we have divided the procedure, so it will be easier to follow Norway has four conditions for someone to
http://www.document.no/2012/06/inga-bejer-engh-prosedyre-del-i/ http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/rettssaken---dag-42-1.8216159 http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10066042
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
kunne straffes. Disse vilkårene vil danne grunnlaget for strafferammen. Fir det første må det foreligge en handling som rammes av et straffebud i straffeloven.
be punished. These terms will form the basis for the penalty. Fir the first there must be an act within the scope of a penal provision in criminal law.
- For det andre må det ikke foreligge nødverge eller nødrett. For det tredje må det foreligge subjektiv skyld hos gjerningsmannen. Og sist, men ikke minst det vanskeligste: gjerningsmannen må ha vært tilregnelig når han begikk de straffbare handlingene. Jeg vil i min del av prosedyren går gjennom del én og tre. Og gå gjennom de lovbrudd som er gjenstand for vurderiung. Min kollega Holden vil ta for seg spørsmål om tiltalte er tilregnelig eller ikke, om vilkåret er tilstede.
- Second, there must be no self-defense or necessity. Thirdly, there must be subjective guilt of the perpetrator. And last but not least, the most difficult: the perpetrator must have been sane when he committed the offenses. I want my part of the procedure goes through part one and three. And go through the offenses that are subject to vurderiung. My colleague Holden will address the question whether the defendant is sane or not, whether the condition is present.
- Når det gjelder villkår nummer 2, nødrett eller nødverge. Hverken jeg eller Holden vil berøre temaet nærmere. Dette til tross for at tiltalte påberopte seg dette for sin frifinnelse.
- When it comes to Conditions No. 2, necessity or self-defense. Neither I nor Holden will touch the topic further. This despite the fact that the defendant claimed that for his acquittal.
NRK: Rettssaken - dag 43 (The Trial – Day 43)10 kl. 09.10 Lippestad: - Spørsmålet som tiltalte har reist, er om det finnes straffefrihetsgrunner. Han sa innledningsvis at han påberopte seg nødrett.
at. 09.10 Lippestad: - The question that the defendant has raised is whether there is impunity reasons. He said initially that he invoked the principle of necessity.
kl. 09.29 Lippestad: - Så kommer jeg til å se på metodebruk og drøfte litt av de andre sakkyndige som har vært inne i saken. Så kommer helt kort litt om nødrett og til slutt litt om forvaring.
at. 09.29 Lippestad: - So I'm going to look at the methodology and discuss some of the other experts who have been inside the case. Then comes the very short bit about the necessity and finally a little bit about detention.
kl. 10.21 Bistandsadvokat John Christian Elden til NRK i pausen: – Jeg synes prosedyren er god fordi den fokuserer på det som er interessant for retten. Lippestad har sagt han ikke vil bruke så mye tid på nødrett og frifinnelse, men argumenterer tilregnelighetsspørsmålet.
at. 10.21 Lawyer John Christian Elden to NRK during the break - I think the procedure is good because it focuses on what is of interest to the court. Lippestad has said he will not spend as much time on the principle of necessity and an acquittal, but argues sane safety issue.
kl. 11.28 Lippestad: - Helt kort til slutt, og av rent formalistiske grunner: Breivik sa selv at han skjønner at han blir starffet for disse handlingene, men han påberoper seg av formelle grunner nødrett.
at. 11.28 Lippestad: - Completely cards at the end, and of pure formalistic reasons: Breivik said that he realizes that he is starffet for these actions, but he invokes the principle of necessity formal reasons.
kl. 14.45 Breivik: - Dommerne som sitter her i dag, kan dømme meg som de selv føler for. Hvis dere velger å anerkjenne min påstand om nødrett, vil dere på en svært effektiv måte sende sjokkbølger til alle de legitime regimer i Europa.
at. 14.45 Breivik: - The judges who sit here today, you can judge me as they feel. If you choose to acknowledge my claim of necessity, you will in a very efficient way to send shock waves to all the legitimate regimes in Europe.
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
Breivik: - Jeg kan ikke anerkjenne straffeskyld. Jeg påberoper meg nødrett for å ha kjempet for mitt folk, min kultur og mitt land.
Breivik: - I can not acknowledge guilt. I claim necessity for having fought for my people, my culture and my country.
kl. 14.51 Breivik: - Angrepet 22. juli var et preventivt angrep til forsvar for det norske urfolk.
at. 14.51 Breivik: - The attack on 22 July was a preventive attack in defense of the Norwegian Indigenous Peoples.
kl. 14.51 Breivik: - Jeg krever derfor at jeg blir frifunnet for de aktuelle anklager.
at. 14.51 Breivik: - I require that I be acquitted of the charges in question.
The Necessity Defence: The rationale of the necessity defense is not that a person, when faced with the pressure of circumstances of nature, lacks the mental element which the crime in question requires. Rather, it is this reason of public policy: the law ought to promote the achievement of higher values at the expense of lesser values, and sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law. 11
The principle of the necessity defence is rooted in common law12 and any accused pleading to necessity argues that their actions were justified or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants who plead to necessity – whether common law necessity, political necessity (civil disobedience) or military necessity - argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as being criminal, because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm. Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid. [..]The doctrine of necessity, with its inevitable weighing of choices of evil, holds that certain conduct, though it violates the law and produces harm, is justified because it averts a greater evil and hence produces a net social gain or benefit to society. 13 Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: ―[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.‖ 14 He offers this example: Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil.15
Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law: Crimes of War16 and Diakona17: Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, 11
WAYNE R. LAFAVE, CRIMINAL LAW, § 5.4, at 477 (3d ed. 2000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law See Joseph J. Simeone, ―Survivors‖ of the Eternal Sea: A Short True Story, 45 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 1123, 1141 (2001). 14 GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW 198 (1957). 15 GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW 198 (1957). At 199-200 16 http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/military-necessity/ 17 http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=888 12 13
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.
Onus of Proof: Norwegian State or Breivik to Prove Necessity? In South African law the Onus of Proof lies on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. In S v Pretorius 1975 (2) SA 85 (SWA) Judge AJ Le Grange found that ‗Despite the accused‘s plea of guilty, it appears from all the evidence on the record that an offence was not committed. In the result, the conviction and sentence, must, be set aside.‘  The accused who had no legal representation, referred, despite his plea of guilty, to circumstances which materially gave rise to the defence of necessity. This defence made it necessary for the magistrate to decide in the first instance not what the accused‘s frame of mind had been, but whether necessity was present and whether it justified the accused‘s conduct. .. The Judge ‗could find no cases and the Court did not refer to any where the question had been finally decided whether the test for necessity relates to an objective emergency or to a subjective frame of mind (or fear)…..  There is, however, nothing in my humble opinion, in the cases referred to or in any other cases, which I could find, which could serve as authority for the proposition that necessity cannot also be viewed as ―a ground of justification‖. The question whether the defence of justification amounts to a ground of justification or to a circumstance excluding fault, has been thoroughly canvassed by De Wet and Swanepoel in their said work as well as by Burchell & Hunt in their revised edition of S.A. Criminal Law and Procedure, Part 1….  The onus of proof in a defence of necessity as in self-defence rests on the State to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity. It is not for the accused to satisfy the court that she acted from necessity (p 293). [(proceed) by gathering an objective view of the circumstances from the evidence itself, and the magistrate‘s finding whether the prevailing circumstances were ‗alarming‘ if viewed objectively…. Viewed objectively… was the accused confronted with a situation that …… lives were in danger….  [If the evidence gives a picture of threatening danger and fear, which gave rise to necessity and which would have justified the accused‘s conduct, provided the accused did not exceed the limits of necessity…. Proceed to consider whether the proven circumstances satisfy the tests for necessity set out by B & Hunt at p. 285 of their work: (a) the threatening disaster endangered the accused‘s legal interests. This in fact gave rise to a duty to act. (b) the danger was threatening and imminent. The fact that symptoms relating to the danger may only appear later does not detract from the situation… if it cannot immediately be ascertained whether or not the symptoms are dangerous, necessity arises… (d) the chances that harm would have resulted and it would have been of a serious nature.. the greater the harm, the greater the necessity…
If Norwegian law also places the Onus of Proof to lie on the State in a defence of necessity, to rule out the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity; it would appear that the Prosecutor‘s decision to ‗refuse to touch the principle of necessity‘ should weigh heavily in Breivik‘s favour. Even if Norwegian law places the Onus of Proof on Breivik in a defence of Necessity, to prove the reasonable possibility of an act of necessity, the Prosecutions decision to ‗refuse to touch the principle of necessity‘ should again weigh heavily in Breivik‘s favour; unless the Prosecution could and did provide a reasonable argument for their failure to uphold their duty for impartial objectivity to enquire into the evidence for the Defendant‘s Necessity defence.
Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
In Regina v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, three crew members and a cabin boy escaped a shipwrech to spend eighteen days on a boat, over 1,000 miles from land, with no wanter and only two one pound tins of turnips. After four days, they caught and ate a small turtle. That was the only food that they had eaten prior to the twentieth day of being lost at sea. Ultimately, two of the crew members killed the ailing cabin boy and ―fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days.‖ Four days later, they were rescued. Two of the men were charged with murder. The court found that the cabin boy would likely have died by the time they were rescued and that the crew members, but for their conduct, would probably have died as well. The Queen's Bench Division Judges held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was subsequently commuted to six months' imprisonment. In Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the Texas Criminal Appeals Court allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), it was a necessity that he break the law, by accompanying them in their escape. In United States v. Ashton, 24 F. Cas. 873, 873-74 (C.C.D. Mass 1834) (No. 14,470), sailors prosecuted for mutiny were found not guilty, after arguing the necessity for their mutiny based upon the dangerously leaky ship and that this danger had been concealed from them until after they left port. Circuit Justice Story found them not guilty of mutiny. In United States v. Holmes, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383), Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of twenty dollars. In the 1919 Arizona decision of State v. Wooten, commonly referred to as the Bisbee Deportation case, Professor Morris18 describes the acquittal of a Sherrif based upon the ‗necessity‘ for committing Kidnapping as follows: On April 26, 1917, soon after the United States entered World War I, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) called a strike of copper miners in Cochise County, Arizona. On July 12, 1917, the county sheriff led a posse that rounded up and deported over 1,000 members of the IWW. One of the posse was brought to trial on charges of kidnapping. He offered to prove that the strikers were trying to obstruct the war, had stored up a large amount of ammunition, and had threatened citizens; that help from federal troops had been sought to no avail; and that the leader of the local strike had told the sheriff he could no longer control his men. On these facts, he asserted the defense of necessity. The judge recognized the defense. He ruled that evidence of necessity could be excluded only if it were completely inadequate as a matter of law to establish the defense, and that the weight and sufficiency of the evidence were for the jury to decide—even in a case which ―aroused great public interest.‖ The jury heard the evidence, deliberated for fifteen minutes, and returned a verdict of ―Not Guilty‖ on the first ballot.
In Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), a large fire threatened the unburned half of the then small town of San Francisco. A public officer ordered the destruction of houses to
Norval Morris, The Verswami Story, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 948, 989 (1985); see also The Law of Necessity as Applied in the Bisbee Deportation Case.
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
create a firebreak and was subsequently sued by one of the owners. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the action was proper because: The right to destroy property, to prevent the spread of a conflagration, has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and the natural rights of man, independent of society and the civil government. "It is referred by moralists and jurists as the same great principle which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing overboard goods in a tempest, for the safety of the vessel; with the trespassing upon the lands of another, to escape death by an enemy. It rests upon the maxim, Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private." [Necessity leads to privileges because of private justice].
Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing: According to Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence19: [If] the [necessity] defense is allowed, the jury is called upon to weigh controversial political issues and to function as the ―conscience of the community.‖ ―Reflected in the jury‘s decision is a judgment of whether, under all the circumstances of the event and in the light of all known about the defendant, the prohibited act, if committed, deserves condemnation by the law.‖ 20 In cases where judges have been persuaded to allow the necessity defense, juries have, often enough, delivered not guilty verdicts. [..] When judges have allowed the necessity defense to go to a jury in civil disobedience cases, more often than not the defendants are acquitted.21 There are a number of cases in which charges were dropped after the judge announced that the necessity defense would be permitted.22
In State v. Mouer (Columbia Co. Dist. Ct., Dec. 12-16, 1977), dozens of protestors in Oregon who were conducting a civil disobedience sit-in at a nuclear power plant were arrested and charged with criminal trespass. At trial, the judge allowed the defendants to raise the state necessity defense (called the choice of evils defense) and the defendants were acquitted by the jury. In People v. Brown (Lake County, Jan. 1979), protesters in Illinois blocked the entrance to a nuclear power plant and were charged with criminal trespass. Relying on the defense of necessity, they argued that they had not created the situation that they had sought to correct and had reasonably believed that their conduct was necessary to avoid the harm of a nuclear accident. A doctor testified for the defense about the damaging effects of low-level radiation. All of the defendants were subsequently acquitted. In People v. Block (Galt Judicial Dist., Sacramento Co. Mun. Ct., Aug. 14, 1979), eleven California protestors were charged with trespass and resisting arrest in connection with a March 31, 1979 demonstration at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant. The defendants had climbed over a fence and staged a sit-in on the grounds of the plant. At trial, the judge allowed the necessity defense to be presented to the jury. ―After seven weeks of trial, nine of the defendants received a split jury verdict and one was acquitted, apparently because he had a long history of activism and had convinced the jury that he had exhausted all legal means to stop the harm‖ posed by the power plant. The cases against those defendants who received a split jury verdict were eventually dropped.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520106/ Everett v. United States, 336 F.2d 979, 985–86 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (Wright, J., dissenting). When the necessity defense is actually submitted to the trier of fact in civil disobedience cases, defendants have usually been acquitted. See Bernard D. Lambek, Necessity and International Law: Arguments for the Legality of Civil Disobedience, 5 YALE L. & POL‘Y REV. 472, 475 (1986), note 7, at 473. 22 People v. Gray, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 853 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1991). 20 21
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
In California v. Lemnitzer, No. 27106E (Pleasanton-Livermore Mun. Ct. Feb. 1, 1982) the trial of a protestor who condemned the development of nuclear weapons at the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California ended in a hung jury after the court allowed the presentation of evidence supporting the necessity defense. On retrial, the protestor, John Lemnitzer, was acquitted. In Vermont v. Keller, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR (Vt. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 1984) protestors staged a sit-in at the Vermont office of United States Senator Robert Stafford in an effort to get a public meeting about American policy in Central America. These actions resulted in their arrest on trespass charges. At trial, the court allowed the defendants to raise the defenses of necessity, international law, including the Nuremberg principles, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court allowed a number of impressive experts23 to testify about human rights atrocities in El Salvador and Nicaragua, as well as the important role of protest in American foreign policy. The defendants further testified they had attempted ―every reasonable manner to communicate‖ with the Senator.24 The jury acquitted all of the defendants. In Michigan v. Jones et al., Nos. 83-101194-101228 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1984) the State of Michigan held nine separate trials prosecuting fifty-one defendants who blocked access to a plant where cruise missile engines were being manufactured. The defendants were charged with trespass, disturbing the peace, blocking access, and conspiracy. In a trial where the necessity defense was allowed, the jury acquitted the defendants of all charges except failure to obey a traffic officer. In other cases where the necessity defense was allowed, the juries acquitted the defendants on all charges. In trials where the judge did not allow necessity defenses, the defendants were convicted on several counts. In Michigan v. Largrou, Nos. 85-000098, 99, 100, 102 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1985), three protestors at a Michigan cruise missile plant were charged in 1985 with trespass and criminal damage to a fence. The court found that although the defendants willfully violated the law, they did so without malice and for the public purpose of protest. All three were acquitted. In People v. Jarka, Nos. 002170, 002196-002212, 00214, 00236, 00238 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 15, 1985), an Illinois jury acquitted twenty defendants who protested against the American military invasion of Central America by conducting a sit-in which blocked the road to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. The protestors successfully invoked the doctrine of necessity and were allowed to put eight expert witnesses on the stand to offer evidence of the effect of nuclear weapons, American intervention in Central America, and international law. The trial judge gave the jury an instruction25 that stated that the threat and use of nuclear weapons violated international law. In Chicago v. Streeter, Nos. 85-108644, 48, 49, 51, 52, 120323, 26, 27 (Cir. Ct., Cook County Ill. May 1985), a jury was faced with eight protestors who were charged with trespass for refusing to leave the office of the South African consul. The jury was allowed to hear expert evidence about the defense of necessity and international crimes committed by the apartheid policies of South Africa. It took the jury two and a half hours to acquit the defendants. In Washington v. Heller (Seattle Mun. Ct. 1985), eight doctors were charged with trespassing for protests staged on the porch of the home of the South African consul. They were allowed to raise the defense of necessity and admit expert testimony about the medical and other effects
The expert witnesses included: Sonya Hernández (political violence in El Salvador), Janet Shenk (human rights in El Salvador), Phil Bourgois (Salvadoran refugees), Shaila Sherwin (refugees), David Rosenberg (United States/contra war on Nicaragua), David McMichael (contra aid), Richard Garfield (health programs of Nicaraguan Government), John Stockwell (CIA activities), Howard Zinn (history of American protest movements), Matthew Countryman (American military aid to Central America), Gladys Sánchez (government repression of Salvadoran churches), Richard Falk, and Ramsey Clark (citizens‘ role in American foreign policy). See also National Lawyers Guild 1985 Convention Workshop, Creative Defense s in Civil Disobedience Cases, 42 GUILD PRAC. 97-98 (1985) 24 People v. Gray, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991) quoting Keller, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR. 25 The jury was instructed: ―The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is a war crime or an attempted war crime because such u se would violate international law by causing unnecessary suffering, failing to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and poisoning its targets by radiation.‖ FRANCIS ANTHONY BOYLE, THE CRIMINALITY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE 41 (2002).
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
of apartheid. The Seattle jury acquitted after little more than an hour and made a post-trial statement supporting anti-apartheid protests.26 In Colorado v. Bock (Denver County Ct. June 12, 1985), twenty-two Pledge of Resistance members were charged with trespass for occupying the office of a United States Senator from Colorado to protest American policy in Central America. The jurors, who were allowed to hear evidence of necessity, were instructed that the defendants could use civil disobedience only as an ―emergency measure to avoid imminent public or private injury‖ but that the injury did not have to be directed against the defendants. The jury acquitted all of the defendants. In Massachusetts v. Carter, No. 86-45 CR 7475 (Hampshire Dist. Ct. 1987), the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, Amy Carter, was arrested with fifty-nine others and charged with trespass and disorderly conduct at Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recruitment activities on the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The fifteen defendants were allowed to present evidence to support the necessity defense, international law, and the Nuremberg principles. The defendants argued that the crimes they committed were of far lesser harm than those being committed by the CIA in Central America and offered testimony by a former contra leader and former CIA and government officials. The judge instructed the jury that they could acquit the defendants if they concluded that the defendants acted out of a belief that their protest would help stop the clear and immediate threat of public harm. The jury acquitted them in three hours. In Washington v. Bass, Nos. 4750-038, -395 to -400 (Thurston County Dist. Ct. April 8, 1987), several dozen students of Evergreen State College sat in the Washington State Capitol in support of an anti-apartheid disinvestment bill. Seven students refused orders to leave and were arrested and charged with trespass and disorderly conduct. At their trial, the defendants were allowed to admit statistical and expert evidence of necessity, international law, and the Nuremberg defense about the situation in South Africa. The jury acquitted all of the defendants. In Illinois v. Fish (Skokie Cir. Ct. Aug. 1987) twenty-six people were arrested for trespassing at the Arlington Heights Army Reserve Training Center. The trial court allowed the jury to hear evidence about the necessity defense. All of the defendants were acquitted. In State v. McMillan, No. D 00518 (San Luis Obispo Jud. Dist. Mun. Ct., Cal. Oct. 13, 1987), fourteen protestors blockaded Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to prevent the loading of fuel rods. The trial judge allowed fourteen expert witnesses to offer testimony about related potential harm for the area and allowed the defendants to testify about their own related fears. The judge applied the necessity defense and acquitted the defendants. In 1988, a North Carolina court acquitted two Tuscarora Indians of charges in connection with their taking of twenty hostages at the office of a local newspaper to protest the alleged corruption of county officials.27 In Massachusetts v. Schaeffer-Duffy (Worcester Dist. Ct. 1989), five defendants tried to pass out leaflets to employees at a GTE nuclear weapons facility and prayed outside the building when they were denied entry. The judge denied the prosecutor‘s motion in limine to prevent evidence of necessity. The jury was allowed to hear the defendants‘ testimony about their personal efforts to stop nuclear weapons and their religious beliefs, and expert testimony about the threats of the MX missile, religious teachings against nuclear weapons, and the historical effectiveness of civil disobedience. The jury acquitted the defendants of trespass.
In post-trial comments, the jury stated: ―only when arrests made in protests against apartheid were efforts made to reform the system.‖ Val Varney, Eight Apartheid Protestors Win Acquittal, SEATTLE TIMES, Aug. 8, 1985, at D2. 27 Two Carolina Indians Acquitted in Hostage Taking, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 15, 1988, at 9.
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
In 1990, in Omaha, Nebraska, a jury acquitted seventeen anti-abortion protestors because of the necessity defense. The trial judge relied on the defense to overturn the trespassing convictions of an additional eighteen defendants.28 IN West Valley City v. Hirshi, No. 891003031-3 MC (Salt Lake County, Ut. Cir. Ct., W. Valley Dept. 1990), protestors were charged with criminal trespass after entering property on which Trident II nuclear missile engines were being manufactured in Salt Lake City. The trial judge permitted evidence and instructed the jury on defenses based on necessity, international law, the First Amendment, and the Nuremberg Principles. The jury acquitted the defendants. In People v. Gray, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 861-62 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991), a two-day bench trial resulted in the acquittal of six protestors for disorderly conduct because of the necessity defense. The protestors had blocked traffic in Manhattan to protest the opening of a bike and pedestrian lane to vehicular traffic. Judge Laura Safer-Espinoza issued a forty-two page decision reviewing dozens of decisions involving the necessity defense and provided the most extensive judicial overview of the necessity defense in state courts to date. In 1991, a Chicago jury acquitted a Catholic priest of criminal charges for damage to the innercity neighborhood where he was pastor after he admitted painting over three tobacco- and alcohol-related billboards. The defendant argued he should not be convicted because of the necessity defense. The jury deliberated ninety minutes before acquitting the defendant.29 In 1993, a jury acquitted a Chicago AIDS activist charged with illegally supplying clean needles because of the necessity defense.30 In California v. Halem, No. 135842 (Berkeley Mun. Ct. 1991), the jury came to the same conclusion after hearing evidence that dispensing clean needles without a prescription, though illegal, was necessary to protect people from the spread of the AIDS virus. In Washington v. Brown, No. 85-1295N (Kitsap County Dist. Ct. N. 1985), twenty-four protestors held a vigil in Washington State in protest of a ―white train‖ carrying nuclear weapons. The state arrested twenty of the protestors and charged them with criminal trespass and conspiracy. The defendants filed extensive briefs on the right to present particular defenses to the jury, in support of their motion to dismiss conspiracy charges, and in opposition to the government‘s motion in limine. The judge dismissed the conspiracy charges and did not admit evidence on the necessity defense, but it did allow Daniel Ellsberg to testify as an expert on why first-strike nuclear warheads on a train are a potential threat to peace. One defendant pled guilty to both charges. The jury acquitted the remaining nineteen defendants. In Washington v. Karon, No. J85-1136-39 (Benton County Dist. Ct. 1985), four defendants blockaded a federal Plutonium-Uranium extraction facility at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. They were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and failure to disperse. The defendants filed motions in limine to raise necessity, Nuremberg principles, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions as defenses. The trial judge allowed Nuremberg and necessity defenses, permitted expert testimony regarding radiation contamination, and refused expert testimony regarding nuclear war. The court agreed to give international law instructions to the jury. Immediately after the court ruling permitting scientists to testify on radiation contamination, the prosecution moved to dismiss the case and the court granted the motion. In United States v. Braden (W.D. Ky. 1985), twenty-nine demonstrators entered the office of a United States senator as part of the Pledge of Resistance. At their arraignment, the defendants announced their intent to use Nuremberg, necessity, and First Amendment defenses (freedom of 28
Judge Says Actions of Anti-abortionists at Clinic Justified, OMAHA WORLD-HERALD, July 17, 1990. In a seventeen-page order discussing necessity and the priority of life over property rights, District Judge Robert Burkard reversed the convictions for trespassing. An additional seventeen abortion protestors were acquitted by a jury on similar grounds in June 2000. 29 Terry Wilson, Acquittal Answers Pfleger‘s Prayers, CHI. TRIB., July 3, 1991, at 3. 30 Andrew Fegelman, AIDS Activist Found Innocent of Charges in Needle Exchange, CHI. TRIB., Jan. 28, 1993, at 4.
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
speech includes freedom to be heard; today the only way to be heard is to act). The government dropped all charges prior to trial. In California v. Jerome, Nos. 5450895, 5451038, 5516177, 5516159 (Livermore-Pleasanton Mun. Ct., Alameda County, Traffic Div. 1987), more than thirty protestors blocked the main gate to the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in a nonviolent sit-in. They were arrested for traffic offenses of blocking and delaying traffic. The Traffic Commissioner agreed to consider expert testimony on the necessity defense and international law (including Nuremberg Principles, Geneva Protocols, and the Hague Convention) via affidavits. The defendants filed affidavits for Daniel Ellsberg (on the effectiveness of nonviolent protests in arousing citizen action), Frank Newman (on international law) and Charles Schwartz (on the role of Livermore Lab in promoting the arms race). Before trial, the judge granted the prosecution‘s request to drop all charges. I would appreciate it if you could provide the answers to my questions: 1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik‘s claim of necessity? 2. Is it common for Norwegian Prosecutors to refuse to provide the court with the Prosecutor‘s Office assessment of an accused‘s evidence for their claim of necessity? 3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity? 4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik‘s claims of necessity? 5. Why did your Defence of Breivik state that the only issues before the court – as the media have been reporting and you said to the court – are the sane/safety issue? 6. How exactly can the only issue before the court be the ‗sane/safety‘; since when is the ‗guilt/innocence‘ issue irrelevant in a political criminal trial? 7. If Lippestad attorney‘s are denying the court to be required to seriously examine the necessity evidence for Breivik‘s guilt or innocence; upon what grounds and authority did Lippestad Attorney‘s find Breivik to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt? 8. Or is it a matter of first ascertaining Breivik‘s sanity; and then if, or when Breivik is finally deemed sane, does he then get a new trial with a focus on ‗guilty/innocence‘ issue; to determine his innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence for and against his necessity defence? 9. If not, when exactly is Breivik entitled to an impartial trial where the issue before the court is Breivik‘s ‗guilt/innocence‘ and Prosecutors and Defence Counsel are required to seriously legally examine the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence?
Lara Johnstone Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
12/08/12 Lippestad: Breivik Necessity Def. norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr
My ideology is HONOUR and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY; Whats Yours? 13 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty This draft is- an existential ideological working hypothesis truthseeking enquiry, to the question: Who Am I?. My ideology is HONOUR and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Whats your ideology: backstabbing lying two-faced coward; pretending to be a 'communist' or 'capitalist' or 'environmentalist' or 'socialist' or 'nationalist'????? All of those 'ideologies' are nothing but tools: Use the appropriate tool (hammer/screwdriver) for the appropriate problem (nail/screw) and you solve your problem. Use a hammer on a screw, and you got yourself a never ending problem. Same thing with ideologies: communism is wonderful for two people or more, who make a fully informed consensual agreement to pool their resources and reap the benefits from them (like couples do when they get married); and it is a fucked up ideology to force upon people who are not committed to contributing towards the resource pool. Any ideology can work for any group of people when (A) all individuals are fully informed about what the definitions of the ideology entail: the ideologies social contact; (B) hence they are fully informed about what that ideologies rules are; (C) they are able to make fully informed consensual commitments and agreements to each other to abide by the particular ideologies rules; (D) the ideologies rules do not conflict with reality; particularly resource realities. For an extreme example: Imagine you get 20 people who are cannibals: they like eating human meat. Knowing how much they enjoy eating another humans meat, they understand that another cannibal would get as much enjoyment from eating their own meat. They can establish a tribe whereby they have rules about how anyone gets chosen to be the next feast dinner meal. They can make rules on how they breed and educate their children about how and why they have the rules they do, and the benefits and liabilities. If everyone is clear about the rules, that enjoying another meat, which allows them to be a cannibal, also means one day, they shall be selected to be eaten and enjoyed in a particular feast. They are able to make fully informed decisions and commitment to join, they can be happy about eating each other, and about sacrificing themselves to be eaten by others, knowing their death is appreciated by their tribe. Everyone knows the rules, and everyone abides by the rules, even though some other tribe may think its a savage social contract, or whatever. The point is: (A) clear rules; (B) Fully informed consensual commitments agreement to the rules; (C) the rules apply to everyone, including leaders, nobody is excluded from the rules. CANNIBALISM can WORK! Any ideology can work. Most ideologies do not work because: (A) the leaders prefer to use vague ambiguous terminology, for fear they shall not be able to get enough slaves and cannon fodder followers to make a commitment to joining their ideology tribe, so as to manipulate the rules that they are not beholden to the rules, but benefit from good rules, and are excluded from the rules they don't like, but expect all followers to follow; (B): hence the followers are unable to make fully informed decisions and hence their commitment is not sincere nor serious, and (C) the followers fight amongst themselves, because they are unclear about the rules; while the leaders live like parasites on the followers, while keeping the followers focused on arguing with each other, and not on the fact that the leaders ideological rules and definitions are deliberately vague, for the purpose of their benefit from the situation. This results in people becoming pissed off with their 'ideology' and turning to another ideology for answers, or digging in deeper and blaming the other ideolgies as being the causes of their problems. You heard the victim me pity parties: OH ITS THE JEWS.. , its the COMMIES.. its the CAPITALISTS!! When the underlying problem is: NO HONOUR, NO HONESTY, NO CLARITY, NO CLEAR DEFINITIONS, NO FULLY INFORMED CONSENT. It is never: WE HAVE MET THE PROBLEM AND IT IS US!! We are not committed to setting clear simple rules for our ideology (whatever the ideology is); establishing a tribe of members who all commit to the rules, and to making fully informed consensual agreements to abide by the rules. I have no followers; cause my followers have to read my definitions for what I mean by honour, and they have to be very crystal clear about what I demand of a follower: I ain't interested in no ignorant schmuck who thinks they can
pretend to join a ideology of 'honour' and 'personal responsibility' without knowing what is going to be required of them to do so. So they got to inform themselves. HONOUR: Brutal Honesty: A commitment to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 24/07; to anyone and everyone; and to be committed to remain in a conversation with anyone who is also so committed, to resolve any misunderstanding to completion. To look someone in the eye, and consider them worthy of my respect that they are capable of hearing my honest opinion about any issue relating to our relationship or of interest at the time. RESPECT: I respect someone if I consider them intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually capable of hearing my honest opinion. I show respect to someone, by having the courage to inform them to their face of my honest opinion. If I believe someone is incapable of my respect (my honest opinion about them or any issue); I am willing to disrespect them: to believe they are intellectually inferior and incapable of hearing or wanting to hear my honest opinion. I always get their consent that they wish to be disrespected: I ask them: Do you want to hear my honest opinion, or do you want me to lie to you with with two faced hypocrisy deception disrespect? It is my personal opinion that approximately 99% of citizens couldn’t give a sincere and serious flying fuck about solving the alleged problems they complain about. They are only interested in whining like goddamn fucking 13 year old spoilt brats who have not been brought up by an adult mother or father. Any citizen who is serious about problem solving knows this:
You have to accurately identify the SOURCE of the problem
You have to possess the WILL TO ACT to eliminate the source of the problem
If you lack the will to either accurately identify or eliminate the problem; it is far more honest for you to simply tell yourself: I AM NOT SERIOUS ABOUT SOLVING THIS PROBLEM. I should stop complaining about it being a problem.
Citizens don’t even lack the honour or integrity to do the latter: to admit that they are NOT SERIOUS ABOUT PROBLEM SOLVING; but that they are just a bunch of whining brats, who endlessly whine about problems they have NO interest or sincerity in fixing. Instead they elect a bunch of farm managers for their problem farm, and blame the farm managers that there is not enough milk (for their pity me parties), or too much cow dung (crime). Most farm managers go along with this farming slavery plantation charade, because the slavery and cannon fodder plantation farming system has evolved to the point that nobody appointed to farm manager positions can in fact solve any of the problems. The good one’s do their best to mitigate the symptoms; and the corrupt ones just exploit their status as farm manager. Group Problem Solving Requires Every Individual to (A) agree on the SOURCE of the problem; (B) have the will, or be willing to agree to mutual coercion at times when they are struggling; to ACT to eliminate the source of the problem. In my personal opinion – based upon the evidence I have collected and analysed – most of these problems other citizens whine endlessly about are a result of (A) citizens who lack honourable problem solving skills; and (B) overpopulation colliding with declining or scarce resources. Both of these are a direct and indirect result of citizens who have been bullshitted, bamboozled and lied to by their legal, political and religious farmers; who in turn were themselves bullshitted, bamboozled and lied to by their predecessors. The system may not have been devised to be a bullshitting, bamboozling and deception system, it may have simply evolved to such a state, as a result of ignorance, collective denial and the conformity and herdlike behaviour of humans in a crowd. The Pied Piper as such need not be any ‘evil individual’ or even ‘evil group of individuals’ but purely the ‘evil memes’ which we all allowed due to ignorance, self-deception, addiction to conformity, etc. to hijack our critical thinking faculties; to force us into ever tighter intellectual and relational straight-jackets. Any individual sincerely or seriously committed to awakening his or her particular animal farm’s citizens to even consider the ideas that the source of their problems are a result of: (A) citizens who lack honourable problem solving skills and refuse any and every opportunity to learn problem solving skills; and (B) overpopulation colliding with declining or scarce resources; is going to be consciously or unconsciously ignored or crucified. An analogy: Any serious and sincere ‘rehabilitation’ expert who has helped individuals to rehabilitate themselves from a life of crime and drugs, like Delancey Street has; can tell you that you cannot help anyone addicted drugs, until they themselves have hit rock bottom, to such a horrific extent, that they finally get slapped in the face with their problem, and decide they are serious about needing help to help themselves. The ultimate lesson being: YOU CANNOT HELP ANY ADDICT TO OVERCOME THEIR ADDICTION; IF THEY ARE NOT DEAD FUCKING SERIOUS ABOUT WANTING TO BE HELPED. The worlds farms are populated by citizens of which I’d guess about 92% are HAPPILY addicted to being Duhmockery lied to, bamboozled and deceived.
That’s fine, but I am not going to wrap myself in a fucking straight-jacket to run for office of being some kind of 'leader', to promise a bunch of 13 year old brats, more bullshit for free shit; on a planet that is experiencing overpopulation with declining resources.
Shibumi in Radical Honesty In the teaching of the practice of Radical Honesty, Brad Blanton refers to Seven Samurai: The story about the Samurai, hired to protect some farmers, and his subsequent choice to find 'followers/colleagues' (other Samurai) to accomplish his task of protecting the farmers from their crops being raided.
Akira Kurosawa - Seven Samurai (Shichinin no Samurai) (1954) (04:11): Seven Samurai is frequently described as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made. Akira Kurosawas Seven Samurai (Shichinin no samurai) tells the story of a sixteenth-century village whose desperate inhabitants hire the eponymous warriors to protect them from invading bandits.
He put a samurai in the doorway behind a curtain, with instructions to chop off the head of new recruits walking in the room; and if the new recruit was enough in their body/senses (not their abstract mind - illusion) to sense the samurai's attack, and blocked it, then they would be hired. In Radical Honesty sense it is the principle of interrupting our minds, by our senses. Using our senses as our primary guidance, not our minds illusions. One of my interpretations of he Japanese word for this 'state of being' -- of living in your senses, not in your minds illusions -- is the word SHIBUMI. Kambei Shimada: As a matter of fact, I'm preparing for a tough war. It will bring us neither money nor fame. Want to join? Shichirōji: Yes! Kambei Shimada: Maybe we die this time. Shichirōji: (smiles) ---- Seven Samurai, an epic film about the extinction of the Samurai culture
Shibumi, by Trevanian Shibumi is a novel issued in 1979, written in English by Trevanian, a pseudonym of Rodney William Whitaker, an American academic who remained mysterious throughout most of his life. Shibumi is set in the 1970s and details the struggle between the "Mother Company", a conspiracy of energy companies that secretly controls much of the western world, and a highly-skilled assassin, Nicholaï Hel. Excerpt between Nicholai and his General mentor about Shibumi: ". . . Tell me, Nikko. Will you miss Shanghai?" Nicholai considered for a second. "No." "Will you feel lonely in Japan?" Nicholai considered for a second. "Yes." "I shall write to you." "Often?" "No, not often. Once a month. But you must write to me as often as you feel the need to. Perhaps you will be less lonely than you fear. There are other young people studying with Otake-san. And when you have doubts, ideas, questions, you will find Otake-san a valuable person to discuss them with. He will listen with interest, but will not burden you with advice." The General smiled. "Although I think you may find one of my friend's habits of speech a little disconcerting at times. He speaks of everything in terms of Go. All of life, for him, is a simplified paradigm of Go". "He sounds as though I shall like him, sir." "I am sure you will. He is a man who has all my respect. He possesses a quality of . . . how to express it? . . . of shibumi." "Shibumi, sir?" Nicholai knew the word, but only as it applied to gardens or architecture, where it connoted an understated beauty. "How are you using the term, sir?" "Oh, vaguely. And incorrectly, I suspect. A blundering attempt to describe an ineffable quality. As you know, shibumi has to do with great refinement underlying commonplace appearances. It is a statement so correct that it does not have to be bold, so poignant it does not have to be pretty, so true it does not have to be real. Shibumi is understanding, rather than knowledge. Eloquent silence. In demeanor, it is modesty without pudency. In art, where the spirit of shibumi takes the form of sabi, it is elegant simplicity, articulate brevity. In philosophy, where shibumi emerges as wabi, it is spiritual tranquility that is not passive; it is being without the angst of becoming. And in the personality of a man, it is . . . how does one say it? Authority without domination? Something like that."
Nicholai's imagination was galvanized by the concept of shibumi. No other ideal had ever touched him so. "How does one achieve this shibumi, sir?" "One does not achieve it, one . . . discovers it. And only a few men of infinite refinement ever do that. Men like my friend Otake-san." "Meaning that one must learn a great deal to arrive at shibumi?" "Meaning, rather, that one must pass through knowledge and arrive at simplicity." Plot Nicholaï Hel is an assassin, born in Shanghai in the 1930s and raised in a cosmopolitian fashion by his mother, a deposed member of the Russian aristrocracy and a general in the Japanese Imperial Army who has been billeted in Nicholaï's mansion. Under the general, Hel is introduced to the concept of shibumi and the game go, eventually being sent to Japan, where he trains under a famous master of the game, becoming 'culturally Japanese'. The master of this school discovers Nicholai's ability to mentally escape from reality and come back rested and refreshed. When Japan surrenders in 1945, Hel, after long months of hunger, finds (thanks to his knowledge of many languages) a job as an interpreter in the US Occupation Army and becomes a decoder agent in United States Intelligence. Hel learns that the general who raised him is being held as a prisoner of war by the Russians and faces an ignominious show-trial for war crimes, and decides that the only way he can show his gratitude for the man's raising him in Shanghai is to kill him and help him avoid the embarrassment of the trial. He achieves this through his skills at the art of "Naked/Kill", a martial discipline that trains in the use of ordinary items as instruments of death. Hel is then tortured by the Americans and held in solitary confinement without trial, Hel being a citizen of no country. In prison, his physical and mental discipline, along with studying the Basque language from some old books abandoned by a missionary, help him to retain his sanity, although, due to the torture and drugs used in his interrogation, he is no longer able to fully escape mentally and reach his state of peaceful ecstasy. He even develops, in his solitude, a "proximity sense" through which he is aware of any being drawing near (along with its amicable or hostile intentions), and which also allows him to find his way in complete darkness. After three years, Hel is recruited out of his cell by the US Intelligence Service. They are in desperate need of an agent able to cause severe discord between Russia and China. They need someone who has nothing to lose, who has European features, and can speak fluent Chinese and Russian. Hel succeeds in his mission, taking for payment the names and locations of those who tortured him, and goes on to become one of the highest-paid and most skillful assassin in the world. The novel begins with Hel, retired in his late fifties in a small castle overlooking a village of the Haute-Soule, in the mountainous Northern Basque Country. He is an honorary member of the local Basque population, and his best friend among them is Beñat Le Cagot, a truculent Basque nationalist and bard, with whom he shares an immense love for freedom and an addiction to spelunking. Hel thinks he is now allowed to enjoy life in a shibui way (mingling discreet epicureanism with fatalism and detachment) and he slowly improves his Japanese garden, enjoys restrictive gastronomy, and practices highly esoteric sex with his concubine. Hel's shibumi existence is interrupted by the arrival of the niece of a man who saved Hel's life many years ago, herself the only survivor of a Jewish commando unit which took up arms to terminate the last of the Black September terrorists, the rest of the small unit having been gunned down in an Italian airport by agents of the CIA, acting on behalf of the Mother Company, a vast conglomerate of energy interests that control much of the western world. She begs Hel to help her finish her mission and eliminate the terrorists, and gain revenge on the Mother Company. Structure Shibumi is, broadly, a parody of the spy novel genre, but Trevanian also incorporated pieces of philosophy and highly-specific cultural observations in the work, most obviously with his portrayals of American (and, more generally, western) culture after World War II. Trevanian himself echoed his hero Hel's dislike of western materialism in the few interviews he gave to the press.
Philosophy: Professor Kagan explores the issue of how confronting the reality of death; influences the way in which we choose to live. (47:50)
The book contains 6 chapters of unequal length, each of them bearing the name of a go game figure:
Fuseki: The opening stage of a game when the entire board is taken into account. Sabaki: An attempt to dispose of a troublesome situation in a quick and flexible way. Seki: A neutral situation in which neither side has the advantage. A "Mexican stand-off." Uttegae: A sacrifice play, a gambit. Shicho: A running attack. Tsuru no Sugomori: "The confinement of the cranes to their nest," a graceful maneuver in which the enemy stones are captured.
Trevanian's (Whitaker's) character Hel was supposed, in the novel, to have written an analysis of Go which was in fact a spoof of the game. In the book-within-a-book, the commentator's attempts to attach spurious significance of life and philosophy to what were, in fact, clumsy and amateurish maneuvers was a part of the satire. The use of subtly mis-stated Go figures to rationalize the structure of a novel that was in itself a spoof of the highly rationalized incompetence of people who believe they run the world is an indisposable pillar of the satire. » » » » [Wikipedia :: Trevanian]
[A] A Proposal for defining the Feminist vs Anti-Feminist Problem 19 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik I have been writing this post in response to my request for a discussion with Eivind Berge on the issue of Breivik, feminism and multiculturalism et al; for two days in my head now. Hopefully it comes out as clearly articulated as I manage to explain it to myself in my head! Insincere KnowItAllers and Sincere Truthseekers: In my worldview there are two types of people and you find these two types of people in any group, race, tribe, religion, nation, etc. There are insincere conservatives, liberals, communists, Christians, muslims, feminists, racists; and there are sincere conservatives, liberals, communists, Christians, muslims, feminists, racists. Put differently the Insincere could be called KnowItAllers and the sincere could be called Truthseekers. The degree of anyone‘s KnowItAller vs Truthseeking cognitive communicative and listening capabilities on any issue/s is directly proportional to their Ego-Identity Psychological Investment into any strong group identity associated to that particular issue. For example: I upset allot of people from feminists to anti-feminists, racists to anti-racists to black/white nationalists, Christians, muslims, liberals, conservatives, communists, capitalists, because I refuse to join either their own ideological, racial or religious group or its anti-thesis. If I refuse to join their own group, the least I can do is join their opposition and thereby provide them with opposing credibility. At heart, I consider myself a Constitutionalist. What this means to me, is that I am willing to give my life for constitutional principles that shall benefit every single race, ideology, religion, gender equally. I am not willing to give my life on behalf of white people superiority or survival, women‘s superiority or survival, liberals or conservative‘s superiority or survival. I am not willing to give my life for any of the ideas that Anders Breivik‘ holds dear, from anti-feminism, to antimulticulturalism, or European survival. I am willing to give my life to ensure and strengthen the constitutional principle and legal foundation of every citizen accused of a politically motivated criminal act, irrespective of their ideology, ethnicity or religion to be given a free and fair trial to present their evidence and for the evidence submitted in the matter -- not politics -- to be the final arbiter, as to their guilt or innocence. I am willing to give my life to ensure and strengthen the constitutional principle and legal foundation of every single individual accused‘s right to legal sanity: the right to take personal responsibility for their criminal acts. Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored: Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Judge Nina Opsahl: Application for Writ of Habeus Mentem & Certiorari/Review (C) in accordance to Radical Honoursty socio-political-legal cultural practices of honour; to support Mr. Breivik to be charged with treason and if found guilty, in a free and fair trial -- of the same standard as provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African Government -- to be executed along with my client, by firing squad. ..  the court is to take notice of Breivik‘s intention to plead to the Political Necessity Defence to the relevant charges, in accordance to his motivations to disturb the liberty and security of the Storting (in defence of the multi-culti political elite‘s disturbances of the Storting by means of massive illegal foreign immigration), and consequently requests to be charged in accordance to Article 85: Treason. Our Unknown Unknowns: What We Don‟t Know About Our Ego‟s ―Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.‖ – Donald Rumsfeld Briefly, my generalized psychological analysis of these two groups are that the insincere individuals choose their ideological, racial, religious tribe unconsciously based upon their own psychological insecurities; belonging to the group enables them to feel a sense of belonging and psychological superiority and security. Being a constitutionalist means you are always standing up for a constitutional principle for some individual or group of individuals from a group of people who don‘t consider you to be one of them; and whose victimhood pity party generally only demands that their racial, ideological, gender or religious group be allowed certain rights. If you are a really outspoken Constitutionalist, and you have spoken up on behalf of the Constitutional rights of some seriously despised groups, such as those who believe in UFO‘s, then you can smell their fear. Heaven forbid that anyone shall associate them with those who believe in UFO‘s. Of course they personally want their rights; but heavens above, they can‘t be associated with anyone who thinks that everyone should be given these rights – including those wacko‘s who believe in UFO‘s!
Same thing with racial matters: speak up on behalf of the rights of niggers, and when you speak up on behalf of the rights of crackers also, the niggers/crackers get the shit fits! Don‘t you know that they only want these particular rights for crackers/niggers only, not for niggers/crackers, not for spics, not for UFO freaks, not for feminists, not for gays and lesbians!! It is the same old story with every single group: they want their respective rights for their group, but could care less if every other group is denied those same rights! Conversely a sincere conservative or liberal or Christian is in search of the truth, and their truthseeking path requires them to sincerely investigate the theoretical principles of whichever ideology or religion they are exploring, to apply such principles, and to determine whether these principles work in any given circumstances and are worthy of implementing in their life. They are not in search of belonging to a superior tribe, but to know the truth: to confront reality as it is, not as various ideologies, races or religions public relations departments pretend it to be. A sincere racist is effectively an oxymoron, as a result of how they hold their belief. To hold your alleged ‗racist‘ belief sincerely means that you actually have verifiable evidence for your beliefs about your superiority. If the factual truth is that Venus Williams is superior to me at tennis, it cannot be racist to state such factual truth. A fact cannot be racist; only how an individual chooses to hold their beliefs can be racist or sexist. A sincere black/white racist has no personal experience and no evidence available to him, demonstrating that there are indeed blacks or whites who are his superior in any given task or multiple tasks. A sincere racist‘ belief that he is superior is sincere: he has no evidence to the contrary. When a sincere racist is sincerely confronted with information or evidence proving that in a particular or multiple circumstances another race is superior to his/her own; he appreciates this new evidence and information. S/he is capable of amending their ‗racist‘ belief to a new working hypothesis, that may read something like: ‗Generally speaking my race is superior in particular circumstances, such as this, this and this; but in other circumstances this or that race is superior to my race.‘ Hence we may conclude that neither the idea, thought or proposition that there are racial differences can be racist, since no thought or proposition can itself be morally bad – and if it can‘t be morally bad it can‘t be racist. Thus, neither the possible fact nor the actual fact of such differences can be racist, since facts, actual or possible, are not and cannot by themselves be morally bad, sinful or wicked. (Gedaliah Braun: What is Racism?; or How Philosophy can be Practical) An insincere racist – for example – has life experiences and or evidence available to him, demonstrating that there are indeed blacks or whites who are superior to him, or that indeed there are races or religions or ideologies that are superior to his race, ideology or religion in any particular circumstance/s; however as a result of psychological and spiritual insecurities, the insincere racist lacks the intellectual integrity to admit to these realities of particular inferiority. We cannot overcome our inferiority in any given task, if we are in denial of confronting its reality: Accepting one‘s underdevelopment begins the process of development, just as admitting a disease leads to a cure while denial aggravates it. Admitting the positive role of others in one‘s life facilitates the process of incorporating and transcending those influences, whereas the failure to do so leads to repression, which damages the psyche. Both denialism and blame promote anti-development and self-deprecating syndromes among blacks — and this is only encouraged by an ill-meaning government. (Business Day: Meshack Mabogoane: Denial and blame stand in way of development) Sincere Truthseekers of all ideologies seek individuals from both within their own current ideology, they are truth seeking in; as well as contrarian ideologies to provide them with information and evidence; irrespective of whether the evidence contradicts their current working hypothesis ideological evidence, or confirms it. They are seeking the truth, and hence they are interested in the quality of another‘s evidence and the quality of their experiences. Insincere KnowItAllers are interested only in covering up their own insecurities (their fear of confronting that which they do not know, and are afraid to know), by means of asserting their chosen ideologies superiority at all cost. They ignore any and all evidence to the contrary and will exaggerate any and all evidence proving their ideology to be superior, and hence confirming that they themselves are superior, as a result of belonging to this alleged ‗superior tribe‘. If you provide them with any evidence to the contrary -- instead of addressing your actual evidence, that they prefer not to confront and investigate and enquire into, and if of sufficient evidentiary worth, to incorporate into their conclusions by amending their conclusions on the issue to a new working hypothesis; -- they respond with allegations of some type of label, to distract the conversation and to enable them to avoid confronting the evidence. They will respond with ‗racist‘, or ‗feminist‘ or ‗misogynist‘ or ‗sexist‘ or ‗insane‘ or ‗crazy‘, etc. Sincere (Problem Solving) vs. Insincere (Power Addiction Blame Game) Leaders It is impossible for a problem solving leader to be elected to a position of political leadership in any organisation or nation in our current exponential population growth Ideological Avoiding Problem Solving Parasite Modus Operandi Ponzi Scheme economic paradigm; because (A) the majority of individuals (Stanley Milgram studies: 65-92%) in any ideological group of any race, religion or ideology belong to the Insincere KnowItAll groups, not to the Sincere Truthseeking groups; and (B) the exponentially available cheap energy economic and population growth paradigm has provided a never ending exponentially growing amount of ideological investors in all of the economic paradigms ideological and financial ponzi schemes. The Insincere KnowItAll groups are not remotely interested in solving the problems they complain about; only in blaming others for the problem, in order to confirm their own alleged superiority; so as to continue to sociopolitically and financially benefit from the status quo.
For example: Consider the pro-choice and anti-abortion debate. Sincere Truthseeker Problem Solvers Action: Problem is easily solved by addressing it at its root cause. Provide men and women with the legal, educational and communication skills and contraception capabilities and opportunities to avoid all unwanted pregnancies, and if there are no unwanted pregnancies, then it is impossible for any woman to want an abortion, since every child conceived is a wanted child. Insincere KnowItAll Ideological Parasite Ponzi Action: If the alleged problem of ‗unwanted pregnancies / abortions‘ is solved, that means both the pro-choice and anti-abortion KnowItAll groups would no longer be necessary. Solving the problem means terminating the need for their existence as an ideological group, including terminating the psychological and socio-political ‗feel good‘ status they receive from pretending to solve the problem, and most of all the financial status they generate from pretending to solve the problem. If there ain‘t no unwanted pregnancies and no abortions, then there is nobody required to lobby on behalf of solving a problem that does not exist. Hence these groups are not interested in solving the problem of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, but in perpetuating and increasing the problem of unwanted pregnancies and abortions (blamed on each other of course), so as to sociopolitically and financially benefit from the unsolved problem. They are socio-political and financial parasites who need to maintain the existence of their host: unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The Insincere KnowItAll StatusQuo Parasite leaders on both the Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion reinforce their opponents existence, by deflecting and manipulating their followers emotions in blame game rituals, so that both sides leaders can continue to socio-politically and financially benefit from NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM (Fake Left Wing v. Right Wing Political Control Paradigm Explained). Insincere KnowItAll StatusQuo Parasite leaders silence all sincere truthseekers within their own ideological tribe from being heard or by bribing them to silence by means of enabling their financial parasitism by means of token parasitism positions in the KnowItAll StatusQuo Ponzi Scheme. Similarly to a financial Ponzi Scheme it relies on the ideological investments of growing number of fresh/new Ideological investors, rather than from profits of having actually solved the relevant problem its mission statements pretend to solve. The Ponzi Scheme entices these new recruits by pretending to solve their problem, by deliberately avoiding providing the new recruits with information and skills to address the root causes of their problems. Any sincere individual who joins the ideology can be bribed to remain silent about the Ponzi Scheme‘s intentional parasitical nature, by being promoted to receive a socio-political or financial status ‗return on their ideological investment‘. Ideological Status Quo Ponzi Schemes are destined to collapse like all other ponzi schemes that rely on benefits of exponential population growth for new ‗investors‘. These ponzi schemes are capable of bribing most of their sincere investors to benefit from the parasitical socio-political or financial returns, only for as long as population growth provides a continued increase of new ideological investors. (Exponential Economic & Population Growth World Economy Runaway Train Ponzi Scheme; heading for Cliff of Finite Resources!) Put differently a significant number of Maddoff‘s rich investors who were highly literate on issues of exponential growth in relation to ponzi scheme operations, remained silent, while they were able to receive their higher returns on their consciously fraudulent investments. (RT: Word of the Day: Exponential Function; Crash Course: Exponential Growth) Similarly there are – I suspect – dozens, perhaps hundreds of individuals in the various Ideological StatusQuo fake Problem Solving Ponzi Schemes, from the pharmaceutical industry, to most of the poverty pimping Non-profit industry, who are very conscious that their industry has no sincere interest in solving the problems it pretends to be solving; but is instead deliberately and intentionally perpetuating the problem, so as to enable as many people as possible to socio-politically and financially benefit from pretending to solve the problem. Once it becomes glaringly obvious – which it is now becoming, and in the near future shall be to anyone with eyes to see – that population growth has and is colliding with declining resources (energy, water, water, timber, agricultural products, minerals) these Ideological Ponzi schmes – just like social security, medicare, and fiat currency banking ponzi schemes – shall face economic collapse. US ARMY & TRADOC UNIFIED QUEST 2012 Fact Sheet Resources: The rise of Brazil, China, and India, as well as accelerating global population growth, will continue to tax the finite supply of natural resources (water, timber, agricultural products, minerals, and fossil fuel). Disproportionate lack of resources in countries experiencing accelerated population growth. Increased competition will precipitate ad hoc coalitions. Environmental exhaustion will spur mass migration resulting in societal instability. The demand for energy will increase in the future as populations migrate to urban areas. Key Take-Aways: As the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - Water is the new oil. Scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade. The Insincere KnowItAll Blame Gamers shall do what they always do, blame each other, while avoiding confronting their socio-political and financial benefit participation and silence related to their participatory motives in their ideological ponzi scheme. Hypocrisy of Criticising Feminists for Adopting the Ideological Ponzi Scheme Modus Operandi Parasite Business as Usual Model practiced by legal industry, pharmaceutical industry, psychology industry, nonprofit industry, etc.
I have not come across any anti-feminists or feminist truthseekers in search of the root causes of the feminist and anti-feminist problem. It appears to me that the majority of feminists who have taken leadership roles in the feminist movement, either consciously or unconsciously observed the many other parasitical modus of operandi financial and nonprofit Ponzi scheme business management models, and decided that they too could socio-politically and financially benefit from pretending to solve their ‗feminist‘ cause problems. Why not? The poverty pimping non-profit industry can pretend to solve the problems of poverty by deliberately avoiding educating the poor about how to really terminate getting themselves into poverty and getting out of poverty; and instead perpetuate poverty, so as to socio-politically and financially benefit from deliberately avoiding the causes of poverty. (The Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business; The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity; Masters of Illusion the World Bank and the Poverty of Nations). The pharmaceutical industry can pretend to solve people‘s illnesses, while in fact creating new illnesses for people to suffer from, thereby to generate more profits from perpetuating the problem of disease. (The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry; Big Pharma: Reaping Profits from Disease Mongering; Drug Companies Increase Profits by Creating Fear of Diseases (and Even Diseases)). The legal industry can pretend to solve issues of order and chaos, while in fact deliberately only requiring licensing for those human endeavours that they would like to control (hunting, fishing, marriage, etc) and financially benefit from, and deliberately avoiding requiring licensing for those human endeavours that generate more chaos and more crime (voting and breeding), from which they can reap more profits. (Laws create criminals; New Gang Laws create more gangsters and crime) Complaint to International Criminal Court: Communication and Complaint under Art.15 of the Rome Statute: Charges of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, in terms of Art 5(1)(a) & (b), 6(c) and 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute. [d]
[i] „Kaffir Behaviour‟: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition: Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc. [ii] „Kaffir Etymology‟: Original Etymological Definition for „Kaffir‟: The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R ―to cover‖. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and ―cover up‖ the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as ―Kuffar.‖ Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning ―a person who hides or covers‖; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth. [iii] „Kaffir Legislation‟ = Inalienable Right to Breed‟ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for „peace‟ and „human rights‟. Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‗Right to Breed‘, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc. Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‗Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war. Psychologists and Psychiatrists can pretend to solve people‘s emotional and psychological problems, while in fact deliberately avoiding addressing the root causes of these problems, and instead simply creating new fictitious mental illness diseases, which they can diagnose onto healthy dissenting and enquiring minds, so as to financially benefit from a society confused about the meaning of mental health. (Marketing of Madness: Are Independent Thinkers Mentally Ill?;Who‘s Teaching the Doctors?: Drug Firms Sponsor Required Courses – and See their Sales Rise) Blacks, Hispanics, Gays and Lesbians can pretend to solve the problems of misunderstanding between races, by deliberately avoiding encouraging honest and sincere conversations, and instead providing media platforms for their opposing racial antagonists who play the game of emotionally and psychologically manipulating their respective followers into greater racial and gender hatreds and animosity; thereby ensuring their socio-political and financial profit from the continued and worsening problem. (Paved with Good Intentions: Failure of Race Relations in America) “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” -- Albert Einstein In part two I intend to focus on my sincere opinion about the root causes of the problem that resulted in a group of individuals known as feminists and their opposing group of anti-feminist. I think the root causes goes way back much further than either the insincere feminists or insincere anti-feminists admit. The ‗problem‘ each party identifies as the alleged problem in the opposing side, is in fact not the original root cause problem, but like in most ideological Ponzi scheme fake problems solvers dogma, simply the symptom.
The tap is causing the bath to overflow, and instead of focussing their followers on shutting off the tap, they are focussing their followers on the poor me victim pity party wet floor that requires never ending mopping, because the water keeps overflowing. The last thing they want done is for the tap to be turned off, and the bath to naturally stop overflowing, because if there is no more poor me pity party victimhood to mop up, the reason for their ‗feminist‘ or ‗anti-feminist‘ socio-political and financial existence is terminated. We must acknowledge that in each camp of feminists and anti-feminists the majority of individuals either consciously or unconsciously (as a result of their being manipulated by their respective Ideological Ponzi Parasites) are insincere KnowItAlls, and we do not begrudge them their right to exist. Their ponzi scheme is destined to collapse, and their leaders are destined to antagonize them to consume each other. Stop wasting time feeding the insincere KnowItAlls in either camp. Focus on finding sincere truthseekers in either camp who are aware of the impending collapse of the ideological ponzi scheme, and are serious about root cause problem solving. In the litemind article: Einstein’s Secret to Amazing Problem Solving (and 10 Specific Ways You Can Use It), the author writes: Einstein is quoted as having said that if he had one hour to save the world he would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem and only five minutes finding the solution. This quote does illustrate an important point: before jumping right into solving a problem, we should step back and invest time and effort to improve our understanding of it. Here are 10 strategies you can use to see problems from many different perspectives and master what is the most important step in problem solving: clearly defining the problem in the first place! I welcome any feedback on aforementioned ideas (apologies for lack of editing and freeflow writing, if anyone was irritated thereby), and if interested hope to provide my opinion on (A) defining the problem and (B) finding the solution; in part two. » » » » [Eivind Berge :: Breivik/Feminism post]
Hanne Nabintu Herland OpEd Political Witchhunt stating her Contempt of Court Refusal to Testify in Breivik Case; indicate lack of understanding of Breivik’s defence: Necessity. Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 21 May 2012
From: Habeus Mentem Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:13 PM To: Hanne Herland (**@hannenabintuherland.no); Helle Skjervold (**@aftenposten.no); Geir Salvesen (**@aftenposten.no) Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden. MJus: Grete Faremo (**@jd.dep.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Police Directorate (**@politiet.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (**@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (**@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (**@advokatstabell.no) Subject: Hanne Nabintu Herland: Heller fengsel enn å vitne i Behring Breivik-rettssaken Hanne Nabintu Herland @HanneNabintuHer CC: Aftenposten CC: Breivik Court Parties Ms. Herland, Aftenposten: Politisk heksejakt and Heller fengsel enn å vitne i Behring Breivik-rettssaken / Political Witchhunt and Rather Prison than Testifying in Breivik Case; indicate your lack of understanding of Breivik’s defence: Necessity. I read your OpEd in Aftenposten wherein you state that you informed the court that you refuse to testify in the Breivik case, even if you are found to be in contempt of court. You refuse to „run the gauntlet in the twisted killer‟s show where he and his defenders reel in people with so-called „media appeal‟ to give the killer sympathy.‟ You further state that you were not a „witness‟ to the July 22 Attacks. Brief Introduction (lengthier background info at end of the letter): I am a deep green ecology Feminist member of the Radical Honoursty culture. I am unaware of any court of law that has found Mr. Breivik guilty of any crime. As far as I am aware, the principles of „Western culture‟ which you profess to be a supporter of are founded upon the principle of „innocent until proven guilty‟. Mr. Breivik‟s defence – political necessity – requires that he admit to the acts charged, but that does not necessary mean he is „guilty‟. Do you consider yourself the judge in the matter, that you have already found Breivik „guilty‟ of a crime which he has not yet been found guilty of by an impartial court? Why do you think Aftenposten have censored the information shared with Prime Minister Stoltenberg, 1676 Norwegian National, Regional and Local Politicians, 1,278 editors and journalists, 482 Law Professors and Lawyers, 1,230 Oslo University Professors and Lecturers, and 104 NGO Officials from the Norwegian people, that Breivik‟s Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection? Briefly: You have not been summonsed as a „witness‟ to the 22 July 2011 criminal act, anymore than a Nuclear Physicist expert witness to a Greenpeace Political Necessity defendant‟s trial would have witnessed the Greenpeace defendants „criminal act‟. You, like other expert witnesses in Political Necessity trials, are an expert witness on „political necessity‟ issues that motivated the defendant. Nuclear Physicists don‟t sanction the criminal trespass actions of Greenpeace protestors who parachute onto nuclear power stations, or sabotage nuclear power stations power lines or water pipes, but they do have the honour and integrity to testify in court as expert witnesses to the nuclear issues that concern Greenpeace protestors. Breivik Legal Defence: Necessity, Political Necessity, and Military Necessity: Thanks to media censorship of the details of political necessity defence, you can be forgiven for your ignorance of the fact that Breivik is pleading to Political Necessity. As stated by the Oslo Court on 17 April, Breivik‟s defence is http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecofeminist-to-hanne-nabintu-herland.html
Necessity (Nodret) not Self Defence: “Wrong translation in the 22-7 trial yesterday: Breivik said “nodrett”, Correct translation: “Principle of necessity”, not “self defence”. In Norwegian law, Section 47 of the Penal Code is the foundation for the principle of necessity: “No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone‟s person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act.” Generally, a common law necessity example would be: Man‟s wife is pregnant and ready to give birth, so he rushes her to the hospital and breaks the speedlimit. He pleads to necessity, agreeing that he did break the speed limit, but that he was obeying a „higher law‟, namely to save a life. A civil disobedience political necessity example could be: Anti-Apartheid Political protestors trespass onto an Apartheid Embassy‟s grounds and refuse to leave; or Environmentalist Greenpeace protestors trespass onto Sellafield or some nuclear power stations grounds and refuse to leave, claiming they are breaking „tresspassing‟ laws in favour of exposing the illegality of „apartheid‟ or „nuclear ecological threats‟. Necessity defence is very common amongst left wing protestors. A military necessity example could be: War is declared with Japan and military officials consider it a matter of necessity to detain all American-Japanese in concentration camps for the duration of the war; or a terrorist is arrested and it is believed he has intelligence about an impending terrorist attack; so it is considered a matter of necessity to torture him to obtain the information about the impending terrorist attack. In all instances the individual pleading to necessity is faced – objectively or subjectively, or combination thereof -with two laws, one of which he has to break; and is required to choose which law is the „supreme‟ or „higher‟ law according to his political, cultural or religious conscience. ABB Defence: Political & Military Necessity (Hum. Law of Armed Conflict) (02:22) A short youtube video which includes an overview of both the common law defence known as „Necessity‟, or if used in civil disobedience actions, it is referred to as „Political Necessity‟ and then there is also the International Law defence known as „Military Necessity‟. Pierce Law Review: Civil Disobedience and Necessity: The necessity defense asserts that breaking the law was justified in order to avert a greater harm that would occur as a result of the government policy the offender was protesting. Freedom of expression in a free society includes freewheeling public dissent on controversial political issues of the day. Civil disobedience is a form of protest that, while usually peaceful, involves violating the law -- usually by trespassing on government property, blocking access to buildings, or engaging in disorderly conduct. Civil disobedience has been called “the deliberate violation of law for a vital social purpose.” In their day in court, civil disobedients have at times sought to interpose the necessity defense to justify their conduct. The necessity defense asserts that breaking the law was justified in order to avert a greater harm that would occur as a result of the government policy the offender was protesting. Protestors will seek to invoke the necessity defense not so much to gain acquittal from the relatively minor charges, but to advance the more important objective of publicly airing the moral and political issues that inspired their act of civil disobedience. There is the hope of gaining notoriety for a cause by discussing it in court, and “educating” the jury about political grievances or other social harms. The strategy is meant to appeal to a higher principle than the law being violated the necessity of stopping objectionable government policies, and to let the jury have an opportunity to weigh their technically illegal actions on the scales of justice. Acquittal is of course hoped for in the end but may be quite low on the protestors' list of priorities. The necessity defense is attractive to reformers who practice civil disobedience because it allows them to deny guilt without renouncing their socially driven acts. It offers a means to discuss political issues in the courtroom, a forum in which reformers can demand equal time and, perhaps, respect. Moreover, its elements allow civil disobedients to describe their political motivations. In proving the imminence of the harm, they can demonstrate the urgency of the social problem. In showing the relative severity of the harms, they can show the seriousness of the social evil they seek to avert. In establishing the lack of reasonable alternatives, they can assault the unresponsiveness of those in power in dealing with the problem and prod them to action. And in presenting evidence of a causal relationship, they can argue the importance of individual action in reforming society. Thus, the elements of the necessity defense provide an excellent structure for publicizing and debating political issues in the judicial forum. The goal of describing their political motivations to the jury, and implicitly to the media, is subject to numerous hurdles inherent in the necessity defense. In most instances, as we will see, courts will rule as a matter of law that the actors have failed in the offer of proof regarding the elements of the necessity defense so that the jury rarely is given the chance to weigh in on the matter. On the other hand, if the defense is allowed, the jury is called upon to weigh controversial political issues and to function as the “conscience of the community.” “Reflected in the jury‟s decision is a judgment of whether, under all the circumstances of the event and in the light of all known about the defendant, the prohibited act, if committed, deserves condemnation by the law.”3 In cases where judges have been persuaded to allow the necessity defense, juries have, often enough, delivered not guilty verdicts. http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecofeminist-to-hanne-nabintu-herland.html
Background information to the Necessity Defense: From its very beginnings, Jewish law has been viewed as an expression of God's will. Biblically, the law is referred to as the "word of God," never of humankind. God is the sole authentic legislator, and righteousness lies in observance of His law. Moreover, the absence of righteousness places at risk the lives and well-being of both the individual and the entire community. For ancient Israel, law was always the revealed will of God. All transgressions of the law were consequently offenses against God. The idea that human legislators might make law independently of God's will would have been incomprehensible. Indeed, as God was the only legislator, the sole function of human authorities was to discover the law and to ensure its proper application. According to the Talmud: "Whatever a competent scholar will yet derive from the Law, that was already given to Moses on Mount Sinai." It follows from all this that, in the Jewish tradition, the principle of a Higher Law is not only well-established; it is the very foundation of all legal order. Where the law of the state stands in marked contrast to this principle, it is altogether null and void. In certain circumstances, as we shall now discover, such contrast positively mandates opposition to the law of the state. Here, what is generally known as "civil disobedience" is not only lawful, but genuinely law-enforcing. International law, which is based upon a variety of higher law foundations, including Jewish Law, forms part of the law of all nations. This is the case whether or not the incorporation of international law into national law is codified, explicitly, as it is in the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the United States Constitution. Jewish law rests always upon two principles: the overriding sovereignty of God and the derivative sacredness of the individual person. Both principles, intertwined and interdependent, underlie the reasoned argument for civil disobedience in Israel. From the sacredness of the person, which stems from each individual's resemblance to divinity, flows the freedom to choose. The failure to exercise this freedom, which is evident wherever a response to political authority is merely automatic, represents a betrayal of individual legal responsibility. (Necessity of Civil Disobedience) In the United States and elsewhere in the judeo-christian western world, a traditional common law defense known as "necessity" (which has also been incorporated into certain criminal codes) permits conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense if the accused believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct. In essence Breivik‟s political necessity act can be summarized as: 'Breivik brutally killed 77 to save 770 million from impending Islamic colonisation, massively censored from public discourse by media'. Lara Johnstone Background Information: Excerpt from my Affidavit filed to the Norway Supreme Court in the Breivik matter, which has been censored by all Norwegian Media:  I am the daughter of a former Kwa-Zulu Natal farmer (Farm: Gerizim near Utrecht). On 11 October 1997, I married African-American Demian Emile Johnson in Folsom Prison, California, where he has been serving a sentence of 15 to life since 1982 (separated, filed for amicable divorce). My original commitment to South Africa‟s Truth and Reconciliation process may be found in my Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 1999; which detailed my willingness to donate my entire Inheritance to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness.  I joined the Radical Honesty culture and religion in 1999, after reading Dr. Blanton‟s book Radical Honesty: How To Transform Your Life By Telling the Truth, going to one of his workshops; and learning how to be specific about my anger, and to share it honourably face-to-face to the individual I was angry with; with the commitment of remaining in the conversation until sincere sensate forgiveness had occurred.  Radical Honoursty is simply a more militant subculture of the Radical Honesty culture which incorporates additional Deep Green Ecology and Bushido Dischordian values to Radical Honesty values.  I am the only member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, in South Africa. The Radical Honesty culture and religion are founded upon the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness ; as excerpted from: Practicing Radical Honesty . Radical Honesty is a powerful process by which people can make corrections in the minds distorted and only partly conscious map of the world. Our maps of the world are distorted by our repressed anger and resentment; the greater the amount of repressed anger and resentment, the greater the distortion. The key to individuality, integrity, individual freedom, and free societies, lies in providing people with the skills and capabilities to get over their anger, and experience sincere forgiveness. It is the way the statistics from Stanley Milgram‟s experiments on blind obedience to authority get changed.  As a rule-of-law political activist, I endorse and have advocated for the rule-of-law for all, rich, poor, white, black, left and right, religious or atheist. I am separated (filed for divorce) from Demian Emile Johnson, who is, and has been, incarcerated in California Dept. of Corrections, for the entire duration of our marriage . In addition to Radical Honesty I have been involved in non-violent civil disobedience actions on behalf of my former husband , Greenpeace , Amnesty Int‟l, Pacific Inst. for Criminal Justice , Jericho 98 , Crack the CIA , The Disclosure Project , New Abolitionist , Justice for Timothy McVeigh , Alliance for Democracy , Boycott 2010 World Cup , Right of Return for African White Refugees , et al.
 I am 45 years old. With the help of an IUD, inserted at age 19, Common Sense and a love for children, I have never been pregnant, nor had an abortion; nor brought any unwanted children onto the planet; nor contributed to local, national or international overpopulation or resource wars; nor advocated on behalf of population or economic growth; or materialist consumerism.  I have political motivated criminal convictions for: 1. Terrorism: On 18 June 2002 (Phi Day and President Mbeki‟s 60th birthday) I made a bomb threat to the P.W. Botha International airport in George and then turned myself into the Police, based upon the political necessity of exposing SA‟s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud (particularly the relationship between overpopulation and terrorism and the media‟s coverup of overpopulation-environment-terrorism connections). I was sentenced to two years correctional supervision. 2. Malicious Damage to State Property: I broke about half a dozen windows in George Women‟s prison and set the prison on fire on 19 April 2003 (Anniversary: Protestant Reformation , OKC Bombing & Warsaw Ghetto Uprising ), when Prison authorities refused to recognize my hungerstrike for a single cell and denied me my right to practice my Radical Honesty culture. (Sentenced as above) 3. Contempt in Facie Curiae: I accused a white Afrikaner Magistrate & Black Xhosa Prosecutor of being „corrupt white and black kaffirs ‟ in court proceedings. When the Magistrate ordered me to apologize I said „Fuck You‟ to him very loudly a few times, including showing him my middle finger. I was convicted of 3 counts of contempt and sentenced to a year in George Women‟s Prison (2 x 3 m; 1 x 6 m).  My Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist culture of Radical Transparency Principles: (A) A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; similarly a psychological integrity environment of philosophical radical transparency courageous truth searching honesty and sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements.  My Problem Solving Leadership Principles: Enable a Radical Transparency environment to facilitate free thinking ideas for the problem to be clearly and succinctly defined ; suggestions accepted based upon merit of idea, not individuals social standing; fanclubs and followers are eschewed.  My Guerrilla Lawfare Worldview: The Paradox of the Masculine (Reason and Logic) Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Matrix Court: Radical Transparency Problem Solving is to the Masculine Insecurity Kaffir Matrix Court; what Martin Luther or Galileo Galilei were to the Catholic Church. The Kaffir Matrix Court system is founded on „Kaffir Legislation‟: Inalienable Right to Breed and Vote: Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable „Right to Breed‟ and „Right to Vote‟, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc.  Iron Mountain „War is a Racket‟ Q&A: Why does the Masculine Insecurity Human Farming Kaffir Legal Matrix avoid [requiring] voting or breeding licences???  Kaffir Legislation covers up that an „Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war .  Kaffir Legislation covers up that the Inalienable Right to Vote, or Universal Suffrage for the Ignorant is the road to centralisation of power and tyranny (“In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce [the right to vote] universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.” -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60) Sincerely, Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty Ecolaw Feminist Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
Teflon Jellyfish Patriarchal Conservatives Bruce Bawer and Peder Jensen (Fjordman) endorse White Supremacy StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trials for Political Dissidents? You could have demanded a Political Terrorism Treason Trial, like the Apartheid Government gave Terrorist Mandela: where you would defend all your anti-Islam arguments in accordance to the rules of evidence under cross examination! Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 18 June 2012 I agree with Lippestad when he said: “It‟s a bit funny that those witnesses who are most preoccupied with speaking out, and who possibly think they‟re not getting the opportunity to speak out, go into hiding when they get the opportunity to speak out and have the attention of the entire international media.” Your Endorsement for White Supremacy Psychiatry: “To admit the central role of value judgments & cultural norms [in the creation of the DSM] is to give the whole game away. The DSM has to be seen as reliable & valid, or whole enterprise of medical psychiatry collapses.” -Lucy Johnstone, The Users and Abusers of Psychiatry White Supremacy Psychiatry – happily endorsed by White Supremacy Crypto-Feminists – says that white men are not allowed to be Honour Jihadi Warrior Terrorists; only corporate terrorist rapists of the planet and other cultures. White Supremacy Psychiatry pretends to label certain individuals in society as „insane‟, allegedly founded on the science of „psychiatry‟. The only problem being that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IS TERMED „INSANITY‟. In Islam if individuals don‟t like your opinions or your behaviour, they don‟t call you „insane‟; they just legislate their morality based upon Allah‟s word and their fucked up interpretations of it. However, no matter how fucked up their interpretations of Allah‟s doctrine may be, or how fucked up their punishments may be: AT NO TIME DO THEY PRETEND THAT WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE DOING OR BELIEVING IS BASED UPON SCIENCE! White Supremacy Psychiatry is nowhere near as honest as Islam, when it comes to using „insanity‟ as a social control tool to silence dissenters. White Supremacy Psychiatry simply elects a bunch of psychiatrists to be their „Psychiatry Insanity Allahs‟ while pretending their pronouncements of „insanity‟ are based upon „science‟. What fucking horseshit! „There is no such thing as mental illness. Psychiatric diagnosis of „mental disorders‟ is just a way of stigmatising behaviour that society does not want to live with. Psychiatry thrives on coercion and is replacing religion as a form of social control.‟ - Dr. Thomas Szasz
From: Habeus Mentem Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:26 AM To: 'Bruce Bawer'; 'Gates of Vienna' Cc: NO: Lippestad: Tord; Legal Project: Dir: Sam Nunberg; Counsel: Adam Turner; FrontPage: David Horowitz Subject: Breivik Trial: Bruce Bawer & Peder Jensen Endorse Political Psychiatry Show Trials for Dissenters Mr. Bruce Bawer Mr. Peder Jensen, via Baron Bodissey CC: FrontPage, Gates of Vienna, Legal Project & Breivik/Lippestad Mr. Bawer & Jensen, Teflon Jellyfish Patriarchal Conservatives Bruce Bawer and Peder Jensen (Fjordman) endorse White Supremacy StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trials for Political Dissenters? I read your articles: Frontpage: Anti-Jihad Critics Spared a Show Trial in Norway and Gates of Vienna: Fjordman‟s Suggested Testimony for the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik. To say that I am disgusted at your lack of honour and integrity, never mind a patriarchal backbone would be putting it mildly. Firstly: I am not a member of your White Supremacy culture; I am a member of the Radical Honesty culture. I support all ethnicities and cultures rights to self-rule. My culture does not practice Bullshit-the-Public Relations; we practice the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 24/07. Unlike your culture, if I am disgusted with someone‟s behaviour, I don‟t gossip behind their backs or inform them in some Bullshit the Public Relations PR vague abstract language of plausible deniability. I express it as crystal clear as possible; so you are under no goddamn illusions about my opinions. Secondly: I am a Radical Honoursty Libertarian EcoFeminist; and one of the few publications who were willing to publish my writings was: Noel Ignatiev‟s Race Traitor: „Timothy McVeigh and Me‟ (#15, Fall 2001 ). I don‟t expect you to agree with me, appreciate my opinions or my language, but at the very least you can know this: Unlike your two faced hypocrit friends; on this issue: I am your honest enemy! What I have to say to you, I say to you to your face, and I don‟t dilute it with goddamn fucking Edward Bernaysian Bullshit-the-Public-Relations plausible deniable ambiguity. I shall now proceed: Both your articles imply you are FULLY COGNISANT that Norway is hosting a StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Show Trial on the world stage. Your response: YOU DON‟T GIVE A FUCK! YOU ARE JUMPING ON THE STALINORSK POLITICAL PSYCHIATRY BANDWAGON! Gee: is that what you mean when you say you support the „rule of law‟? Stalinist Rule of Law? White Supremacy Political Psychiatry Insanity fishing expeditions for all activists whose civil disobedience criminal acts you disapprove of? What a goddamn fucked up Stalinist Fascist legal precedent you are helping to set for the treatment of Political Dissenters! Stalin must be laughing his goddamn ass off! I agree with Lippestad when he said: “It‟s a bit funny that those witnesses who are most preoccupied with speaking out, and who possibly think they‟re not getting the opportunity to speak out, go into hiding when they get the opportunity to speak out and have the attention of the entire international media.” You were both invited to testify as expert witnesses in this trial, and both of you demonstrated that you have the backbone of goddamn fucking Teflon Jellyfish! You were given the opportunity to object to this StaliNorsk Political Psychiatry Circus and demand that Norway live upto the same Rule of Law Treatment for Terrorist Dissenters as the Apartheid Government demonstrated on the world stage, when they provided Terrorist Nelson Mandela with a Treason Trial, where he was given ample opportunity to inform the world of his political justifications for his terrorism. You Goddamn fucking Coward Hypocrits had the opportunity to demand that the Norwegian Government provide Breivik with a Political Terrorism Treason trial, to examine the evidence for his allegations. Was an act of political necessity terrorism murder of 77 justified to save 770 million from Islamic colonisation? This is clearly what Breivik believes to be the future reality, based upon his reading of your articles. A Political Necessity Terrorism Treason Trial allows for expert witnesses to be brought before the court to provide detailed evidence, to be examined under the principle of rules of evidence; to determine whether Breivik‟s allegations were true or not. An opportunity to discard the media propaganda bullshit, and in a court of law to examine the evidence, in accordance to the rules of evidence and under cross examination. You could have demanded a Political Terrorism Treason Trial, like the Apartheid Government gave Terrorist Mandela: where you would defend all your anti-Islam arguments in accordance to the rules of evidence under cross examination! What do you do? Embrace the opportunity to testify Live and inform the world of your support for the Rule of Law, by demanding Norway provide Brievik with a Political Terorrism Treason Trial; or do you endorse the StaliNorsk White Supremacy Political Psychiatry Show Trial Circus? What the fuck is it with you Goddamn fucking Coward Gutless Wonder „conservatives‟? You have goddamn fucking less honour and integrity than fucking liberals! At least they have the capacity for demanding the rule of law for their own? You goddamn fucking gutless conservative wonders spit on the rule of law for your own. You goddamn
cannibalize your own fucking followers! Why the fuck should anyone think of believing your sanctimonious horse shit about the „rule of law‟ when you can‟t even uphold it for those who support your ideology; let alone your enemies? What the fuck do you mean when you write about write “the preservation of individual liberty and human rights”? How the fuck is any impartial observer who does practice what we preach when it comes to endorsing the rule of law for everyone, including and especially for their enemies (unlike you Ms. Herland and Peder Jensen (Fjordland) who don‟t even have the backbone to practice what you preach); supposed to know whether your Anti-Islam criticism is just Patriarchal-White-Supremacy-Hate-Towelheads propaganda and how much is factual evidence, when you lack the goddamn honour to back up your Anti-Islam writings in a court of law under cross examination? Perhaps Mr. Bawer: If you had one honourable honest bone in your body Sir; you would have titled your new book: The New Quislings: How the International Left and Gutless Coward Anti-Jihad Right Used the Oslo Massacre to Silence Debate about Islam and endorse White Supremacy Political Psychiatry Show Trials for Terrorist Dissenters. Your Endorsement for White Supremacy Psychiatry: “To admit the central role of value judgments & cultural norms [in the creation of the DSM] is to give the whole game away. The DSM has to be seen as reliable & valid, or whole enterprise of medical psychiatry collapses.” -- Lucy Johnstone, The Users and Abusers of Psychiatry White Supremacy Psychiatry – happily endorsed by White Supremacy Crypto-Feminists – says that white men are not allowed to be Honour Jihadi Warrior Terrorists; only corporate terrorist rapists of the planet and other cultures . White Supremacy Psychiatry pretends to label certain individuals in society as „insane‟, allegedly founded on the science of „psychiatry‟. The only problem being that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IS TERMED „INSANITY‟. In Islam if individuals don‟t like your opinions or your behaviour, they don‟t call you „insane‟; they just legislate their morality based upon Allah‟s word and their fucked up interpretations of it. However, no matter how fucked up their interpretations of Allah‟s doctrine may be, or how fucked up their punishments may be: AT NO TIME DO THEY PRETEND THAT WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE DOING OR BELIEVING IS BASED UPON SCIENCE! White Supremacy Psychiatry is nowhere near as honest as Islam, when it comes to using „insanity‟ as a social control tool to silence dissenters. White Supremacy Psychiatry simply elects a bunch of psychiatrists to be their „Psychiatry Insanity Allahs‟ while pretending their pronouncements of „insanity‟ are based upon „science‟. What fucking horseshit! „There is no such thing as mental illness. Psychiatric diagnosis of „mental disorders‟ is just a way of stigmatising behaviour that society does not want to live with. Psychiatry thrives on coercion and is replacing religion as a form of social control.‟ - Dr. Thomas Szasz “Biological psychology/psychiatry is a total perversion of medicine and science, and a fraud.” - Neurologist Fred Baughman, The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children. “There is no such thing as a mental disorder. A mental disorder is whatever someone says it is, and if the person saying "This is a mental disorder", has enough power and influence, then people believe 'Oh, that is a mental disorder'.” - Dr. Paula Caplan, They Say You're Crazy: How the Worlds Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who's Normal “The entire enterprise of defining mental disorder is pointless, at least in so far as the goal is to allow us to recognize „genuine‟ or „true‟ disorders” - Dr. Mary Boyle, Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion? “DSM is a book of tentatively assembled agreements. Agreements don‟t always make sense, nor do they always reflect reality. You can have agreements among experts without validity. Even if you could find four people who agreed that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that smoking cigarettes poses no health risks, or that politicians are never corrupt, such agreements do not establish truth.” – Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk: Making us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders "They create this question of disease, and they get together and they vote. Is this a disease, all in favour say Aye." Julian Whitaker, M.D.; Director: Wellness Institute "The [DSM] is marketed as a scientifically based document. Now the American Psychiatric Association which publishes the DSM do allot of work to create an aura of scientific precision, around the DSM, but its not scientifically based." -Dr Margaret Hagen, Professor of Psychology, Boston University "From the first edition of the DSM, the number of mental disorders voted into Psychiatry's Diagnostic Manual has grown to 374, and with each new disorder, psychiatrists create yet another way to defraud the public." – Marketing of Madness Documentary "If you have twenty seven ways to bill in the DSM, that's 27 ways to bill. If you have 300, that's 300 ways to bill; so you can pretty much find anyone walking on the street, that could fit into a DSM somehow." - Neil Willner, President, Consolidated Insurance "For each [mental disorder] there is a five digit code with a decimal point. Now the implication of that is, if I have illness 403.16 that that is different in some important and scientifically proven way, from someone who has 403.17. And nothing could be further from the truth." -- Dr. Paula Caplan, Clinical Research Psychologist, Debois Institute, Harvard University http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/bruce-bawer-peder-jensen-fjordman.html
“To admit the central role of value judgments and cultural norms [in the creation of the DSM] is to give the whole game away. The DSM has to be seen as reliable and valid, or the whole enterprise of medical psychiatry collapses.” -Lucy Johnstone, The Users and Abusers of Psychiatry “[Alleged Mental Disorders] are based on a grab-bag of checklists for disorders that are published in a book called the DSM; which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. There are no statistics in this book, by the way. That just makes it sound more scientific.” -- Dr Margaret Hagen, Professor of Psychology, Boston University, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice. "I am the Director of Research at the American Psychiatric Association. We don't know the etiology of really any of the mental disorders at the present time." -- Dr. Darrell Regier, Director of Research, American Psychiatric Association, Chairman of the DSM-V Task Force 'Psychology's takeover of our legal system represents not an advance into new but clearly charted areas of science but a terrifying retreat into mysticism and romanticism, a massive suspension of disbelief propelled by powerful propaganda. Thanks to the willingness of judges and juries to believe psychobabble with scientific foundations equal to horoscope charts, babble puffed about by psychological professionals with impressive credentials, what we've got now are thousands of self-styled soul doctors run amok in our courts, drunk with power, bedazzled by spectacular fees for the no-heavy-lifting job of shooting off their mouths about any psychological topic that sneaks a toe into a courtroom. The demand is great, the supply is huge, and the science behind it all is nonexistant. But the reality does not matter." - Margaret Hagen, Ph.D; Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony Continued in PDF... [description of Necessity from Herland letter] Sincerely, Lara Johnstone Radical Honoursty Ecolaw Feminist Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
Response from Bruce Bawer: Get some help Response to Bawer: “Get some help with what Mr. Bawer? In my culture we value constructive criticism based upon evidence; if you provide some evidence for whatever you believe it is, I need help on; I shall be happy to make an impartial investigation into your suggestions. I look forward to hearing from you http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/2012/06/bruce-bawer-peder-jensen-fjordman.html