Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Applic to Norway Supreme Court: Review Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling & Conviction

Pentti Linkolian Wild Law Applic to Norway Supreme Court: Review Breivik Judgement Necessity Ruling & Conviction

Three aspects that are Wild Law or Ecologically Focussed: [1] Courts Breivik Judgement is a Left vs. Right Wing Blame Game Judgement, not an Ecological Root Cause Problem Solving Judgement; [2] Denying Breivik his ‘Necessity’ Defence Right to an Objective and Subjective Test of his Evidence sets horrific Precedent for Denying other Activists, including EcoWarrior Necessity Activists their Necessity Test Rights; [3] Judgement’s Transparency Failure violates Aarhus Environment Transparency Convention principles and public accountability impartiality principles.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | EcoFeminists vs. Breivik | 29 August 2012

The Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist Wild Law essence of my argument is based upon the work of Chris Clugston (Scarcity), that the Judgement - like most Patriarchal Anthropocentric legalism - is about polarisation and parasitisim, not about problem solving, which requires confronting the ecological and psychological integrity root causes of the dispute.

Secondly, the 'necessity defence' argument is also indirectly related to my environmental activism focus. If the court denies Breivik the required objective and subjective test, that is required for any defendant who pleads to necessity... then some day when some Pentti Linkolian eco-warrior goes out and commits some eco-necessity criminal act... then the Breivik precedent can be used to deny that eco-warrior a fair trial, by denying them their right that their eco-warrior evidence be impartially examined by the court, both objectively and subjectively.

My application for review requests the court to set aside the 'necessity judgement' and consequently the 'guilt finding' and to remit the case back to the Oslo Court for the hearing of further evidence in accordance with the requirements of the necessity defence, to examine Breivik's evidence both objectively and subjectively.

Finlands' Iltalehti.fi & Ylilauta: Linkola Ecology / Green Feminist Backs Templar Breivik

Finlands' Iltalehti.fi & Ylilauta: Linkola Ecology / Green Feminist Backs Templar Breivik

Breivik is supported by the Green movement in the scope of a Green feminist who has backed Templar Anders Behring Breivik, who supports principal Green ideology (deep ecology) of Finnish Ecologist Pentti Linkola.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 18 August 2012

Identical postings in Finnish have appeared on the Finnish News forum website: Iltalehti.fi and on what appears to be a Finnish Men's Rights forum: Ylilauta, made by an Anonymous contributor stating:

Breivik saa tukea vihreän liikkeen piiristä

Vihreä feministi on asettunut tukemaan temppeliritari Anders Behring Breivikiä.

Keskeiset vihreää aatetta (syväekologia) edustavan Linkolan tavoitteet, jotka myös Breivik jakaa:
1) Ei maahanmuuttoa
2) Väestöä vähennettävä
3) Epäkelvot yksilöt tapettava
4) Liiallisen teknologian hävittäminen

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/rh-13-aug-2012.html

Breivik is supported by the green movement in the scope of

Green feminist has backed Templar Anders Behring Breivik. Principal Green ideology (deep ecology) representing Linkola goals that Breivik also be divided into:
1) No immigration
2) reduce the population
3) Invalid individuals killed
4) Over-tech disposal

http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/rh-13-aug-2012.html

Pentti Linkola: Can Life Prevail?: A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis

Pentti Linkola: Can Life Prevail?: A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis

Diord Fionn | Ireland First

“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."