Do Gates of Vienna, Brussels Journal, Fjordman, et al; who Accuse Breivik of Being Insane, deliberately oppose Breivik taking Personal Responsibility (a conservative value)? Why?
Andrea Muhrrteyn | 09 December 2011 | Norway v. Breivik
The following comment was posted to Gates of Vienna: People like Fjordman; and then later deleted by Gates of Vienna admin.
Why do so many 'conservatives' who allegedly value the principle of personal responsibility, support Breivik being denied the right to a free and fair trial, to take personal responsibility for his actions? Why are so many 'conservatives' supporting liberal and communist values of shutting anyone up who does not follow their particular method of protest or action, by implementing communist political psychiatry?
Are these outspoken conservatives who are screaming from rooftops about how Breivik is allegedly insane; 'uncommitted rightwing types'; who dilute the movement; as Theodore Kaczynski described 'uncommitted leftwing types' who dilute the movement?Kaczynski holds that the values of gender equality, pacifism, leisure time etc. while still admirable, are exactly the values of techno-industrial civilization and its promised techno-utopia. Second, he holds that having such an interpretation is counter-productive to the ultimate anti-civilization/anti-tech goal as it attracts "leftist types" who are by nature uncommitted and act to dilute the movement.
Two subsequent comments were posted to Gates of Vienna after this one. They have not yet been published.Perhaps Mr. Lippestad and Breivik are responding to the issues raised in the following application filed with the Oslo court; a copy of which was sent to over 2083 Norwegian Politicians and Media Officials; which deals with among others Breiviks Political Necessity defence (which allows for expert witnesses to be called to testify to the issues alleged by the accused to have been his grounds for political necessity):
In the matter between: KINGDOM OF NORWAY v. ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK
An Application has been filed in terms of Article’s 2, 4, 85, 100, 110a, 110b, of Norwegian Constitution; and Article’s 1, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
The application requests Judge Nina Opsahl to issue an order that (A) Anders Breivik be requested to provide his approval to the court to issue the following writs on his behalf:
[I] A writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011.
The writ of Habeus Mentem – the right of a wo/man to their own mind and culture – and writ of Review (of the Psychiatric Report) are invoked specifically against Anders Breivik’s attorney: Geir Lippestad, and Psychiatrists Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby; and indirectly against the Norwegian multi-culti liberal political, legal, academic and media establishment who appear to be deliberately and perhaps maliciously attempting to deny Anders Breivik a free and fair trial, by means of a fraudulent and politically motivated ‘political psychiatry’ ‘insanity’ report and public media statements, so as to deny Mr. Breivik his day in court.
A few days ago, I contacted Brussels Journal, regarding the Churchill Principle series by 'Peter Carl', which is an article by a highly placed Goverment Official pointing out the flaws in the 'right wing' movement, for failing to enter into discussion with the 'left wing' and 'centrists' and among others accuses Christians of being the source for political correctness and also accuses Breivik of being insane and another Hitler.From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:28 PM
To: Brussels Journal Editor
Subject: Churchills Principle Series by Peter Carl
Dear Editor,
CC: Peter Carl, via Brussels Journal
I have been reading the Churchill’s Principle Series by Peter Carl.
I am an activist on issues both left, right and center. I am also a member of a culture – Radical Honesty – where we practice 100% honesty and no political correctness whatsoever. Our ‘golden principle’ is founded on the old school golden principle of Christianity; that honourable people prefer brutal honesty, than being arsekissed and deceived. Hence the golden principle is: brutal honesty, provides for relationships based upon reality where everyone know where they stand in relation to each other, and problems can be honourably resolved quickly because nobody is bullshitting and pretending the problem does not exist.
My perspective towards non-violence and violence are that they are tools, in the same way that communism, capitalism, and any ism are tools. Communism is a fantastic tool to use for two people recently married starting a family to voluntarily pool their resources and labour and share the proceeds. It is a fucked up tool to force upon millions who have no commitment towards each other towards making a contribution towards the resource pool.
I am happy to use violence when the circumstance requires violence; in the same way that I am unable to use non-violence to insert a nail into a piece of wood. I require a hammer and violent strategic blows [by] the hammer to lodge the nail into the wood.
There are – from my aforementioned perspective – huge problems with some of the premises of Mr. Peter Carl. I’d like to know whether he and Brussels Journal would be interested in a article written response?
Lara Johnstone
Lara (Clann/Tribe Name: Johnstone)
I (Sovereign or alleged Corporate identity) do not endorse any contract which does not fulfill the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract, namely: (1) Full Disclosure; (2) Equal Consideration; (3) Lawful Clear and Concise Terms and Conditions simply explained; and (4) Signatures of both/all Parties (In accordance to Common Law, I also consider corporations to be without legal standing, as they have no mind, body, legs, eyes, emotions; and hence are legal fictions). As a member of Radical Honesty culture I always endorse the resolution of all disagreements and/or misunderstandings in accordance to Radical Honesty cultural practices (See: Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton), or via independent arbitration that does not involve bloodsucking parasite lawyers; and am willing to consider the practices of other cultures, who seriously and sincerely consider mine.
Neither the Brussels Journal editor, nor Peter Carl even had the honour of a 'No Thanks' response.
Laughable: They cannot even take public personal responsibility for posting a comment or responding honourably and professionally to an email, yet accuse Breivik -- who is willing to take personal responsibility for his actions of killing 77 people -- of being 'insane'! Everyone must take personal responsibility for themselves, except these gutless wonders, who canot even take personal responsibility for posting a comment on a blog, or responding to an email honestly and professionally? So, are they, or are they not, in support of people holding themselves responsibile for their actions? If so, why do they accuse Breivik of being insane, and refuse to support him to take personal responsibility?
Who are the gutless wonders who are incapable of taking personal responsibility for thier beliefs and actions? Is Breivik incapable of taking personal responsibility for his actions; or these uncommitted right wing types fake talkers?
More Conservatives / White Racialists whose incapacity to take personal responsibility on minor issues, indicate they are all talk, and no action: 'uncommitted right wing types' who dilute the movement?
Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal have been honourably notified of this posting, including that their response, shall be published in full.
» » » » [Gates of Vienna | Brussels Journal]
No comments:
Post a Comment