13 August 2012: Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Letter to Mr. Anders Breivik:

13 August 2012: Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Letter to Mr. Breivik:

Moral Support for Rule of Law Free and Fair Trial does NOT Equate to Ideological Support:

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 13 August 2012

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).

[..]

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: ...

13 August 2012: Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Letter to Mr. Breivik:

Moral Support for Rule of Law Free and Fair Trial does NOT Equate to Ideological Support:

Excerpts

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.


[..]

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.

» » » » [Excerpts: RH EcoFeminist v. KT Breivik]