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.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

PCC Complaint: The Guardian: Inaccuracy of Breivik conviction; Guardian's Liberal White Guilt Bigotry& Breiviks Possible Fraud



PCC Complaint: The Guardian: Inaccuracy of Breivik conviction; Guardian's Liberal White Guilt Bigotry& Breiviks Possible Fraud

Complaint issues: [A] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Conviction has been appealed by means of review; [B] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’ ; [C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminists vs. Breivik | 29 August 2012


Complaint submitted to Press Complaints Commission against The Guardian: Sindre Bangstad: Article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia (PDF).

This complaint refers to a violation of Editors Code. 1. Accuracy, and relates to the following statements made by Mr. Bangstad in his article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia[1]:

[1] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Conviction has been appealed by means of review.

On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction; to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.

[B] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’

[C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’.



Complaint against The Guardian: Sindre Bangstad: Article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia.

This complaint refers to a violation of Editors Code. 1. Accuracy, and relates to the following statements made by Mr. Bangstad in his article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia[1]:

After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia

The far right can no longer deny Brevik was inspired by their ideals. Negative attitudes towards Muslims must be challenged.

After a national trauma, the verdict presents us with the opportunity to finally face and confront the hatred in our midst with the honesty, seriousness and commitment it requires of us all.


[1] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Conviction has been appealed by means of review.

On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction; to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.

Specically the Application requests the following orders:

[A.1] Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’

[A.2] Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.

[A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to ‘guilty’; and/or ‘Non-Precedent’ Setting Declaratory Order

[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order

[B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges[2], as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom) principles


[B] Possible Inaccuracy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’

Mr. Breivik’s decision to refuse to appeal his conviction, particularly in light of the gross irregularities that occurred during his trial, by the Prosecution avoiding an enquiry of his evidence by means of the required objective and subjective test that is required in cases of an accused pleading to necessity; indicate a possibility that the obvious motivation may not be his true motivation.

Mr. Breivik appears to be the only political activist in the history of civil disobedience activism who has plead to necessity, who appears to have no interest in demanding that his evidence be examined in accordance to the required objective and subjective tests; and who refuses to appeal the denial of the prosecution to conduct these tests.

If Mr. Breivik sincerely believed that his 22 July terrorism actions were motivated by necessity, then such sincerity would wish to have his evidence examined in accordance to the rules of evidence, to determine the quality and quantity of its authenticity or lack thereof.

White Nationalism’s Pied Piper: He’s worse than Insane; he’s a fraud?

Excerpt from Radical Honoursty Letter to Mr. Breivik[3]:

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 [campaign]?


[C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’.

To challenge a ‘negative attitude’ that is sincerely believed, but founded on inaccurate information, and to enable the holder of the negative attitude to change their opinion, thanks to being converted by more accurate information is to be applauded, irrespective of whether the ‘negative information’ is about corrupt left or right wing politicians, left or right wing journalists, left or right wing muslims, conservatives, liberals, Africans, Europeans, feminists, etc.

To challenge a ‘negative attidude’ that is allegedly ‘negative’, but based upon accurate information, and to demand the holder of such ‘negative attitudes’ change their attitudes to your ‘positive attitude’ that is founded on inacurative information, is to endorse brainwashing and political conformity to propaganda political correct horseshit.

In the absence of a fully impartial investigation by conducting an objective and subjective test of Breivik’s evidence, it is not possible to determine whether his evidence is founded on inaccurate bullshit, or accurate experiences.

Nobody – least of all Muslims - benefit from being bullshitted that they do not need to improve some of their behaviours, if or when such anti-social behaviour is proven by accurate facts. Only white guilt liberals, who think that Muslims or Africans are some inferior retarded species, that need to be denied the opportunity to better themselves by means of constructive criticism feedback, so that they can forever remain retarded dependents of white guilt liberals, have such self righteous bigotry towards Africans and Muslims, while projecting that bigotry on individuals who do think that Muslims or Africans are quite capable of hearing honest criticism and share such criticism as a concerned individual, with the best of intentions for helping another person learn and grow.


A white guilt liberal chooses to suppress their own white supremacy beliefs, by projecting them onto those with sincere transparent white supremacy beliefs; not to encourage an honest transparent conversation about the issues. They verbally deny their covert white supremacy beliefs, yet in their verbalisation demands for political correct withholding of constructive criticism from blacks and Muslims, they in fact admit, their secret: they believe blacks and Muslims are intellectually inferior and so retarded that they are incapable of hearing constructive criticism and using it to grow and learn.

A copy of the application is attached.

Relief Requested:

I accordingly request the Guardian to be ordered to:

(A) Correct the error implying that Mr. Breivik’s conviction has not been contested.

(B) Clarify the Guardian, or Mr. Bangstad’s perspective as to whether he is stating Mr. Breivik’s ‘far right inspiration’ as a fact; or as an opinion.

(C) Clarify the Guardian, or Mr. Bangstad’s perspective as to whether he considers Muslims to be inferior and retarded and incapable of honest constructive criticism? Does Mr. Bangstand/The Guardian consider honest constructive criticism to enable another person to grow and learn to be ‘hate’? Or what exactly is their definition of ‘hate’ / ‘negative attitudes’?

» » » » [EcoFeminists Guardian Complaint (PDF)]

3 comments:

K Lubbers said...

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand. Breivik has said he does not recognize the court, and so no, he doesn't have any great respect for the rule of law. He has also said he views the trial as a propaganda outlet, in this regard he has succeeded, and now it is finished. I wonder if he even really understood what pleading necessity means or requires, his lawyers may have kept him in the dark.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

It appears very difficult for you to understand.

If an activist does not recognize the court, then they don't participate in court proceedings; they don't appeal issues (breivik has appealed various decisions to the supreme court -- thereby RECOGNIZING THE COURT).

If you are honourable, you cannot recognize the court when it suits you, and tell them to go fuck themselves when it does not.

You cannot say you are going to appeal if the court finds you insane.... (recognizing the court) and then when the court finds you sane.. you say you want to appeal, but you are not going to, cause you don't recognize the court.

That is either schizophrenic... or massively corrupt and lacking in any and all sense of honour and honesty and integrity!

If Breivik does not recognize the court, then he should not recognize it as a matter of principle, ON ALL ISSUES!

Breivik's lawyers have not kept Breivik in the dark at all. They have provided Mr. Breivik with all the documentation I have sent to Mr. Breivik on the issue of honourable pleading to necessity. Mr. Breivik himself has even acknowledged receiving the documentation and his lawyers have confirmed forwarding necessity documentation to Mr. Breivik. Mr. Breivik is fully informed about what pleading to necessity requires -- it seems he just lacks honour and integrity as an Anti-Islamicization / European Indigenous Rights activist....; or his whole trial had fuck all to do with Anti-Islamicisation and European Indigenous Rights... it was all just about making him famous as a bloodthirsty mass murderer psychopath.

Finally, Mr. Breivik stated in his Manifesto.. that he wanted to set an example and educate White Nationalists how to use the courts as political activists pleading to necessity.

If that is true and Mr. Breivik sincerely meant it.. then his example is very very fucked up. He is setting a legal precedent that in future will deny other Norwegian activists who commit any political civil disobedience act based upon necessity their right to an objective and subjective test of their evidence, by the courts.

And -- white nationalists -- are so fucking stupid, it appears, they are all clueless how Breivik is setting horrific legal precedent, by his actions.

Distortion said...

I follow your line of thought, even though it isn't intuitive for me...

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]