Note to Readers:

Summary of Ecology of Peace Problem Solving: The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Friday, February 10, 2012

[Pt I] DE-NO-SE-FI-IT-SR-UA Defense Leagues Demand NO v. Breivik Remove 'Like' to their Pages!





German, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, Finnish, Italian, Serbian & Ukrainian Defense Leagues Demand NO v. Breivik Remove 'Like' to their Pages

Andrea Muhrrteyn | NO v. Breivik | 09 February 2011



The Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, Finnish, Italian, Greek, Serbian and Ukrainian Defense Leagues don't approve of Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored even 'liking' their pages. They demanded that the 'likes' be removed.

The 'likes' were removed; even though the request was beyond absurd. That was however not enough. Then Ronny Alte, the leader of the Norwegian Defense League proceeded to demand that all the pictures containing the picture of Breivik with an NDL badge in the background, also be removed.

This photo was originally published on Channel Four news site, in an article titled: EDL influence over Breivik-linked group revealed.

Asked why the photo should be removed, that was publicly available on a major news website; he only stated that if it was not removed, he would get the -- Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored -- page shut down.

Why do these people complain about censorship and political correctness; when these Defense Leagues practice as much censorship as those they complain about wanting to silence them? Do they only support freedom of speech for those they agree with? That's not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is to support the freedom of speech for those you vehemently disagree with.

Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored have not deleted any comments or status postings from other groups. If or where a post is deleted, it was deleted by the individual who originally posted the comment or status.































































» » » » [Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored :: Pt. II]
» » » » [Environmental Graffiti: Simo Hayha] [Daily Mail: Chris Kyle]


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Remove the goddamn picture with DL logoes on! The DL's does NOT support Anders!

JooPe said...

Funny, I remember making two posts some time ago, which have not appeared, and the ONLY posts on this blog support it's position(s). At any rate this site is just right-wing extremist drivel anyways. The notion of 'demographic jihad' is severely over-hyped and fueled by misinformation, and as if race relations are a major concern/threat anyways when the fucking ecosphere is on the verge of collapse. Just one more pisshead looking to blame their problems on others. The declining population of the 'white race' is due to more people becoming aware of how shit humanity has made the world, and possibly natures way of reducing the most environmentally destructive subset of humanity.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

The only posts on this blog that are blocked, are very very clear spam, which have totally no relevance to the post whatsoever. All other comments have been posted. Perhaps you are checking back for your comment on the wrong post.

the ONLY posts on this blog support it's position(s)

How fascinating. What do you consider this blogs positions to be? Which posts do you think should also be posted as relevant?

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

At any rate this site is just right-wing extremist drivel anyways.

How charming. Is that how you win hearts and minds?

I don't subscribe to 'right wing'; to the contrary. I don't know what your definition is of 'extremist', so depending on your definition its possible, I may, or may not be one. I dont know what your definition is of 'drivel'.. same as above.

The notion of 'demographic jihad' is severely over-hyped and fueled by misinformation, and as if race relations are a major concern/threat anyways when the fucking ecosphere is on the verge of collapse.

The ecosphere is indeed on the verge of collapse. What do you do about it, and what do you suggest should be done about it? Do you think there would be an ecosphere collapse if there were only 2 million people in total on the planet? I don't think so, but yet you think demographic jihad is irrelevant? How do you think the world became 7 billion people? They all just got dropped by the stork? Or might demographic jihad have something to do with it?

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Just one more pisshead looking to blame their problems on others. The declining population of the 'white race' is due to more people becoming aware of how shit humanity has made the world, and possibly natures way of reducing the most environmentally destructive subset of humanity.

I don't have any children; so not sure how you can blame me for being part of any demographic jihad. I have spent my entire life living a very very small ecological footprint. I ain't got no problems, so whom am I blaming for problems I don't have?

The declining population of the 'white race' is due to more people becoming aware of how shit humanity has made the world, and possibly natures way of reducing the most environmentally destructive subset of humanity.

Its possible.. but I don't make conclusions about stuff that I am not confirmed as beyond reasonably doubt true. I don't know of many of the murderers of whites, or the rapists of whites being ecologically concerned, or having said anything in mitigation for their motive as being that the whites are ecologically destructive. If so, they may be correct; but surely they would be better focussed by joining Deep Green Resistance and targetting the real ecological destroyer Fortune 500 Corporations?

JooPe said...

Well this is embarassing, it seems my browser has been playing tricks on me. At any rate, I wasn't accusing you of demographic jihad, just stating that it is an urban myth largely propagated by deliberate misinformation which doesn't correlate to government demographics such as the 'muslim demographics' video.

"What do you consider this blogs positions to be?"

Considering the quote in it's header-graphic, the templar knight background and the copypasta of various right-wing articles/blogs without any commentary/critique, I would say this site is a right-wing echo-chamber expounding the demographic jihad myth. The simple reality is, you are utterly delusional if you believe governments which have proven their sociopathic willingness to employ mass-violence, deception and other forms of manipulation on domestic and foreign populations to secure their own dominance/power and economic interests, regardless of which party is elected, would actually allow their power to be undermined by immigration/'demographic jihad'. You think they are willing to bomb the shit out of these people in their own countries, but also somehow too afraid to deal with them at home the minute they become a threat to their interests/power base? If not, then I apologise for my misassumption, if so, then DERP!

"The ecosphere is indeed on the verge of collapse. What do you do about it..."
Likewise, I try to have as little negative impact as possible, so I guess my efforts are mostly tantamount to minimalism. I also try to channel my living expenses towards companies which try to be easier on the environment, this is not easy however since many 'green' companies are actually configured in a way which expediates the ecosphere collapse (such as 'renewable' forests for paper, which are often planted in areas where endangered species live thus making their limited environment unlivable for them).

"I don't think so, but yet you think demographic jihad is irrelevant?"

No I think it is largely a myth, conducted only by the evangelical/fundamentalist Muslims just as evangelical/fundamentalist christian sects encourage 6-8+ children per family. DERP.

"How do you think the world became 7 billion people? They all just got dropped by the stork? Or might demographic jihad have something to do with it?"

Explained above. Too many mouth breathers having too many mouth-breather babies, this happens across all races/religions/regions. In older times they were largely mitigated by war, disease and lower life expectancy, the advancement of medicine and removal of natural selection from most if not all of the Earth has changed that. To claim 'demographic jihad' by muslims, or even by all religions/races is the sole source of the population boom is obviously retarded.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

What is your definition of 'demographic jihad'?

What is your definition of an 'urban myth'?

Do you recognize that other cultures exist, and have different perspectives; or do you think your culture is the only culture worthy of consideration and all other cultures should be ignored?

Which 'muslim demographics' video?

Which quotes do you consider in the header-graphic; and what is your interepretation of those quotes?

Do you think your interpretation of the quotes intentions are accurate, as to the primary message of the blog author?

Please define what you mean by 'right wing'.

Please define what you mean by 'critique'.

How many articles on the blog have you read?

Where on this blog does it state that I believe anything whatsoever, that you imply I believe?

What is my opinion about any individuals 'beliefs'?

How do you define 'belief'?

Where did I ever state that I "believe governments which have proven their sociopathic willingness to employ mass-violence, deception and other forms of manipulation on domestic and foreign populations to secure their own dominance/power and economic interests, regardless of which party is elected, would actually allow their power to be undermined by immigration/'demographic jihad'"?


You think they are willing to bomb the shit out of these people in their own countries, but also somehow too afraid to deal with them at home the minute they become a threat to their interests/power base? If not, then I apologise for my misassumption, if so, then DERP!

Besides your minimalist life; what more have you done to practice what you preach about the ecosphere's destruction?

What is your definition of retarded'?

Do you judge every individual you meet, book you read, or blog you go to, by its outer appearance; or by getting to find out what its deep inner values are?

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

What do you mean by DERP?

The above quote was included in above comment by accident: "You think they are willing to bomb the shit out of these people in their own countries, but also somehow too afraid to deal with them at home the minute they become a threat to their interests/power base? If not, then I apologise for my misassumption, if so, then DERP!"

JooPe said...

"How many articles on the blog have you read? "
I forget how many, but over a dozen.

"What is my opinion about any individuals 'beliefs'?"
I'm not sure how I am meant to answer this, since I don't recall claiming to know your 'opinion' on others 'beliefs'. Unless by 'beliefs' you mean the articles you have reposted, in which case it is clearly your opinion that they are fit to be reposted without comment/criticism, which is at the very least passive endorsement. Actually it is active endorsement/promotion of what was said.

"How do you define 'belief'? "
That which a person considers true in the absence of confirming knowledge/evidence.

"Where on this blog does it state that I believe anything whatsoever, that you imply I believe? "
Mostly you don't, it is just implied by reposting right-wing articles without criticism/critique, provocative symbolism such as the knight's templar logo etc. Here is one example you recently provided though:
"yet you think demographic jihad is irrelevant? How do you think the world became 7 billion people? They all just got dropped by the stork? Or might demographic jihad have something to do with it?"
This clearly indicates a belief in 'demographic jihad', unless you now claim you were talking in a purely hypothetical context. Given your 'ideology/culture' of 'radical honesty', I will simply ask for clarification: do you or don't you?

"Besides your minimalist life; what more have you done to practice what you preach about the ecosphere's destruction?"
Define 'practice what you preach about the ecosphere's destruction', do you mean what steps I take individually to help prevent/impede environmental collapse? I have already answered that:
"I try to have as little negative impact as possible, so I guess my efforts are mostly tantamount to minimalism. I also try to channel my living expenses towards companies which try to be easier on the environment, this is not easy however since many 'green' companies are actually configured in a way which expediates the ecosphere collapse...", along with other lifestyle choices such as not littering non-biodegradable materials, what little political power I have and generally staying conscious and attempting to promote it.

"What is your definition of retarded'?"
Stupid.

"Do you judge every individual you meet, book you read, or blog you go to, by its outer appearance; or by getting to find out what its deep inner values are?"
If an individual/book/etc. deliberately uses provocative symbolism to imply a far-right perspective and reposts far-right articles without criticism/critique, it is inevitable that it will be interpreted as such regardless of it's 'actual' message/values.

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - 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.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]

:: Fair Use Notice ::

FAIR USE NOTICE: The Norway v. Breivik blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the EcoFeminist vs. Breivik: Beyond Left and Right Wing: From an ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant’ Argument. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to Norway v. Breivik Blog at: [EcoFeminist]