Manning court wants Evidence of Amnesty Int-HRW-Nobel Comm's Ecology-of-Peace credibility

Manning Judge: Nobel Comm / Human Rights Watch / Amnesty Int'l have no Ecology of Peace Credibility?

Individuals associated with the (i) International Peace Bureau; (ii) Norwegian Nobel Committee; (iii) Amnesty International; (iv) Human Rights Watch have made public alleged ‘Peace’ declarations regarding US v Manning court proceedings. They are hereby invited to provide the convening authority, court, prosecution and defence whether their ‘Peace’ declarations were credible MILINT Ecology of Peace declarations. If so, to provide the court with a detailed MILINT Ecology of Peace Analysis of their Members Myfootprint.org Consumption footprint and Procreation footprints, by 17:00 HRS (PST) on 23 July 2013.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 20 July 2013

Submission to International Peace Bureau Co-Presidents and Board; Amnesty International: Executive Committee, Secretary General and International Secretariat; Human Rights Watch: Senior Management and Board of Directors; Major General Jeffery S. Buchanan, Convening Authority Commander, US Army Ft. George Mead Garrison, Maryland; Plaintiff: United States Government: Captain Chad M. Fisher; Defendant: Pfc Bradley Manning, c/o: David Coombs Esq; US Army First Judicial Court Military Judge: Judge Denise Lind.

Individuals associated with the (i) International Peace Bureau; (ii) Norwegian Nobel Committee; (iii) Amnesty International; (iv) Human Rights Watch have made public alleged ‘Peace’ declarations regarding US v Manning court proceedings. They are hereby invited to provide the convening authority, court, prosecution and defence whether their ‘Peace’ declarations were credible MILINT Ecology of Peace declarations. If so, to provide the court with a detailed MILINT Ecology of Peace Analysis of their Members Myfootprint.org Consumption footprint and Procreation footprints, by 17:00 HRS (PST) on 23 July 2013.

In the absence of such credible MILINT Ecology of Peace Walk Your Footprint Talk to the Support the Troops evidence, the court, prosecution and defence, may honourably conclude that their ‘Peace’ declarations in this matter were War is Peace Whore Verbal Diarrhoea Parasitism; and that their organisations are secret members of the Ecologically Illiterate Scarcity Combatant Taker Flat Earth society.

Gender Comm. Complaint: Patriarchal Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling

Gender Commission Complaint: Patriarchal Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling

Gender and Gender Ideology Discrimination by ICASA who refuse to consider/hear the submission from the Radical Honoursty culture, a gender balanced AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture, as part of its hearings on Top TV’s application to publicize three Pornography channels.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 24 April 2013

Complaint to Gender Commission: Subject: CGE Complaint: Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling (PDF):

Please find attached PDF Complaint: (A) CGE Complaint Form, (B) Complaint: Gender and Gender Ideology Discrimination by ICASA who refuse to consider/hear the submission from the Radical Honoursty culture, a gender balanced AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture, as part of its hearings on Top TV’s application to publicize three Pornography channels.

ICASA’s Ruling is Patriarchal Discrimination: The ruling is patriarchal discrimination, in terms of:

A. The Committee’s decision to rule exclusively in favour of TopTV, On Digital Media, Kopano Ke Matla Investment Company and Cosatu, who are all (a) unsustainable corporations, run by persons who are members of (a) Patriarchal Anthropocentric cultures. The ruling was consequently exclusively in favour of benefiting (a) violent (b) Anthropocentric men and (c) unsustainable corporations.

B. The Committee’s decision to refuse to consider the submission from a non-Anthropocentric, non-Patriarchal sustainable culture: Radical Honesty culture.

C. The Committee’s Patriarchal secretive decision-making process: failing to provide clear transparent closing date for public comment, and then deciding to refuse a non-patriarchal culture’s submission for failing to know when the alleged secret closing date was.

Patriarchy Definition:

[1] A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations.

[2] Consequently a legal, political or social system is Patriarchal to the extent of its (a) failure to provide automatic equal legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology; and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature; when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric – breeding and consumption war – objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.

[3] A society has violent Patriarchal breeding and consumption war objectives, to the extent that its socio-political status symbols involve breeding war, consumption war and violent warrior mythology: (a) breeding war procreation above carrying capacity: i.e. cultures that reward their male members with concepts of manhood virility status, which are based on the man breeding a family above carrying capacity levels; (b) consumption war consuming above carrying capacity; i.e. cultures that reward their male members with concepts of manhood intelligence/virility status, which are based upon the man consuming above carrying capacity levels, to demonstrate his ‘large consumption penis’; (c) warrior mythology, where violent men are rewarded with ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘soldier’ socio-political status symbol medals and awards; particularly if the warrior mythology censors and ignores information to educate the culture’s members, that scarcity induced resource war violence can be avoided by the culture’s members choosing to breed and consume below carrying capacity levels. A culture which teaches a purely defensive warrior mythology; i.e. based purely on defense of its landbase and resources, i.e. which educate the members of the culture to avoid overpopulation and overconsumption scarcity inducing lifestyle’s within its culture, would not be considered a patriarchal culture.

AUM Prof Steven Gish: Request withdrawal of Tutu nomination for Templeton Prize

AUM Prof Steven Gish: Request withdrawal of Tutu nomination for Templeton Prize

Radical Honoursty Culture and TYGAE Request for Withdrawal of your Nomination of Desmond Tutu as Recipient of Templeton Prize, due to your (a) biographer conflict of interest, and (b) failure to provide the evidence of Archbishop Tutu’s involvement in the cover-up and censorship of South Africa’s TRC Fraud.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | SQSwans | 11 April 2013

[1.20] Colonialism is a product and symptom of Patriarchy’s addiction to breeding and consumption wars. Colonialism, whether it is the colonialism of Europeans conquering African tribes, or the colonialism of African tribes who conquered other African tribes, or the colonialism of both Europeans and Africans who conquered the gender balanced Bushmen tribes.

[1.21] All Colonialism, whether it resulted from the conquering wars of Columbus, or Shaka Zulu, or Mohammed, were a product and symptom of Patriarchy.

[1.22] A patriarchal society, or a society which does not address the causes of masculine insecurity, cannot and will not ever be sustainable. Any ideology, whether political or religious, founded upon masculine insecurity (patriarchy) will result in (a) breeding and consumption war concepts of power and domination (to provide insecure males with social/psychological penis extension status symbols, their fragile ego's lack).

[1.23] Consumption wars require exponential expropriation of land, natural resources and knowledge. Breeding wars require a war against sustainable consciousness (ecological and political balance) and a human factory farming war economy racket culling. Colonialism is a symptom of Patriarch’s addiction to breeding and consumption wars; i.e. consuming above carrying capacity, and then using the surplus population as cannon fodder to conquer another culture’s resources.

[1.24] The argument that Apartheid and European colonialism was morally reprehensible, and had massive destructive psychological and physical consequences for the Bushmen and African tribes conquered; is a very valid argument; if those making such an argument, hold all other African, Chinese, etc cultures to the same standard, by condemning those culture’s patriarchal conquering and colonization of other tribes resources.

[1.25] An honourable impartial argument against European Colonialism, including apartheid, must also admit that all Patriarchal colonialism is morally reprehensible, irrespective of who the patriarchal colonialists were who were doing the breeding war, consumption war conquering!

[1.26] When an individual argues that only European and Boer colonialism is morally reprehensible, while ignoring the patriarchal reprehensible colonialism of African Tribes conquering and colonizing other tribes, including African tribes, then the implication of that argument is that African Patriarchy and Colonialism and African Patriarch’s are morally inferior and incapable of criticism of their Patriarchal Colonizing behaviour.

[1.27] Put differently, when European or Africans argue that only European and Boer Colonialists should be considered morally reprehensible, they effectively agree with European and Boer Colonialists that Europeans/Boers are superior to Africans, and that Africans are inferior and incapable of being held to the same Patriarchal colonialists standards as white men.

[1.28] If you object to Colonialism and Apartheid (the symptom of Patriarchal culture’s) and want a world where one group of people are not constantly being colonized by another group of people, anywhere and everywhere on the planet; then you must be consistent and object to all patriarchy (the root cause of colonialism).

YCLSA complaint to SAHRC: One Racial Patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ calling another racial patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ ‘racist’!

Letter to YCLSA & SAHRC: YCLSA complaint to SAHRC: One Racial Patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ calling another racial patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ ‘racist’!

To test whether a man or woman support violence as superiority; or rule of law/reason and logic, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they support rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreation above carrying capacity, they support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy’s definition of superiority: violence!

Andrea Muhrrteyn | 06 April 2013 | SQSwans

Sustainable Problem Solving vs Unsustainable Violent Colonialism: Patriarchal Capitalism and Communism

There are some who view a superior civilization as one in which the men do not suffer from fragile ego addictions, and can discuss a matter honourably and based upon reason and logic, if or where they find their reasoning to be in error, to admit such, and amend their working hypothesis conclusion.... such a society is capable of problem solving most problems... such as for example the Mosuo culture in SW China who have no murder, no rape, no suicide, no homelessness, no unemployment, who live in harmony with nature.

A gender balanced culture based on logic and reason concludes that we live on a finite resource earth, and hence if we wish to avoid conflict from resource scarcity, then we must consume and reproduce at a level below carrying capacity. Put differently we do not have the right to ‘fuck’ and ‘consume’ to our hearts content. No patriarchal culture on planet earth has ever been based on logic and reason and required their tribe to breed and consume below carrying capacity.

Then you have patriarchal societies/cultures where men suffer from fragile ego's and are incapable of resolving issues by means of logic and reason. Put differently, they do not want to take control of their penis, either physically, by breeding below carrying capacity, or psychologically, by consume below carrying capacity (social status symbols which psychologically are equivalent to their belief in an extension of their penis/virility). They consider superiority, not superiority of logic and reason and honour and intellect and integrity, but superiority of violence and force. However they do not have the honour or integrity to admit their addiction to violence as a symptom of their masculine insecurity to evaluate their ‘status’ in terms of honesty or honour. Violence is simply another patriarchal status symbol. It is one of the masculine insecurity social status symbols by which they measure any other patriarchal male’s worth, or another tribe’s superiority/inferiority.

I have large respect for a man who is honest about his view of violence being the pinnacle of any civilization, even though I disagree with them... but at least he is honest, and his enemies know.. that is the measure of his values. He has no regard for ‘rule of law’ or ‘logic and reason’. He settles every dispute with his fists. And when he is beaten by a stronger opponent, he does not turn into a victim and starts whining about how he is now oppressed, since he takes responsibility for his choices; that he lost the game of violence is superiority.

I have no respect, and a huge amount of disgust for men who do not have the honour and integrity to admit that they measure a culture's superiority by the level of its inflicted violence, happy to be earning the fruit of the culture’s colonialist violence, while their violence is winning the raping, pillaging wars, breeding and consuming wars... but all of a sudden turning into whining victims when they lose the game of violence and are now oppressed.

To test whether a man or woman support violence as superiority; or rule of law/reason and logic, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they support rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreation above carrying capacity, they support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy’s definition of superiority: violence!

Either you support the rule of law, i.e. logic and reason, which means you must confront that we live on a finite resource planet, and all tribes must breed and consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity and internal or inter-tribal conflict.

Or you support the patriarchal breeding and consuming game of violent superiority. If so, then at least be honest and admit it, and if you lose, don’t whine.

RH submission to ICASA: Re: Top TV/Cosatu Porn Channels Application

RH submission to ICASA: Re: Top TV/Cosatu Porn Channels Application



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty | 18 March 2013

TO: The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa | Owners of Top TV: On Digital Media: B Jonker / Peter Meintjies. | Owners of On Digital Media: Kopano Ke Matla Invest. Co. (Pty) Ltd. | Owners of Kopano Ke Matla: COSATU: Congress of SA Trade Unions. | CC: Pastor Errol Naidoo: Family Policy Institute. | Dr. Albu van Eeden: Doctors for Life International. | Dr. Robert Jensen & Dr Gail Dines | CEO: Ms Keketso Maema: Commission for Gender Equality: Subject: RH submission to ICASA: Re: TopTV/COSATU Porn TV Channels Application (PDF)

RE: Radical Honoursty Culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party Submission: Re: TopTV’s (owned by COSATU) application to broadcast three new porn channels.

The Radical Honoursty culture is a gender balanced culture which practices Æquilibriæx jurisprudence and authentic Multiculturalism; as opposed to all of South Africa’s other cultures, which are patriarchal, and practice AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence and fake Multiculturalism : the Egotist Consumptionism Ideology of Multinational Capitalism. The Yshmael Guerrylla law Party is an unregistered Æx party, currently drawing up its Constitution and related documents for registration.

The Radical Honoursty Culture submission covers the following issues/arguments:

• Radical Honoursty Culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party values.

• Request TopTV/Cosatu to fund an investigation by the Gender Commission, to interview all South African individuals found guilty of rape and particularly gang-rape to determine whether they were exposed to pornography and whether their exposure to pornography had any psychological effect – change of personal, cultural or gender identity, or change of perception as to their entitlement to sex from women, or change to their perception of women’s sexuality – in motivating their criminal acts.

• Request that the Commission Officially request Pornography experts Dr. Robert Jensen and Dr. Gail Dines, to make submissions to ICASA, to provide the Commission with detailed research about the consequences and effects of pornography on gender and race relations in cultures based upon AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence .

• Argument Examples detailing AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s total failure of credibility, as a system of Jurisprudence, in terms of its (a) failure to provide legal personhood to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific truth of the laws of nature/ecology, and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature, when it contradicts the objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.

• How and Why according to Æquilibriæx jurisprudence, ICASA not only has the legal constitutional right, but also the Æquilibriæx duty to refuse Top TV, permission to broadcast three subscription porn channels.

Complaint to Int Bar Assoc to Confirm SA Courts & lawyers Discriminate Against – Tourette Syndrome like -- Radical Honesty Culture

Complaint to Int Bar Assoc to Confirm SA Courts & lawyers Discriminate Against – Tourette Syndrome like -- Radical Honesty Culture

Request IBA provide Independent Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -- or provide written reasons for their refusal -- a Pro Se application, from a member of the Radical Honesty culture, (II) who is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (III) South African media believe it is ‘not news’ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa; for Radical Honesty Pro Se communication to UNHRC: Human Rights Committee, ITO violations of International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR).

Andrea Muhrrteyn | SQSwans | 12 December 2012

On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application for Review of the Supreme Court of Appeal ‘Kill Boere Hate Speech’ Mediation Agreement entered into by and between: ANC, Mr. Malema, Afriforum and TAU-SA. The Respondents are: Afriforum, Transvaal Agricultural Union, Julius Malema, African National Congress, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Former Presidents Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk, CRL Rights Commission, Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chair, Central Intelligence Agency: Director, and David Petraeus.

1: Agreement is Unconstitutional due to being culturally vague: My Review argument was that the Agreement is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, in that South Africa has many different cultures, with many perspectives on the ‘Kill Boere’ issue, and the Mediation Agreement pretends South Africa is one happy monoculture family. The Mediation Agreement does not specify which cultures it is referring to.

2: Agreement ignores SA’s TRC Fraud Failure to Clearly Define ‘Reconciliation’ and address Ecocentric Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict Issues: Additionally, the Mediation Agreement had totally censored and ignored the evidence submitted to the Equality Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, exposing South Africa’s fraudulent Truth and Reconciliation Commission process and a country’s legal establishment who refuse to clarify what their legal definition is for ‘Reconciliation’ , and the TRC’s “failure to investigate demographic youth bulge and ‘population production’ breeding war acts of war as contributory factors to Apartheid violence, to be a failure of the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995.”

3. Any ‘Peace’ Agreement that Ignores Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict is not a Credible Peace Agreement: Declaring that in our Post Peak NNR world, Sustainable Security requires seriously confronting Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict, and to recommend that if the South African Government and its ‘Peace Leaders’ are sincerely committed to implementing peaceful coexistent relations between races, cultures and religions; the SAG should include consideration of the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war.

Do White Guilt Liberals condone African & Muslim Patriarchy's War Against Women?

Why Do They Hate Us? The real war on women is in the Middle East.



Mona Eltahawy | Foreign Policy Magazine | May/June 2012

SO WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

First we stop pretending. Call out the hate for what it is. Resist cultural relativism and know that even in countries undergoing revolutions and uprisings, women will remain the cheapest bargaining chips. You -- the outside world -- will be told that it's our "culture" and "religion" to do X, Y, or Z to women. Understand that whoever deemed it as such was never a woman. The Arab uprisings may have been sparked by an Arab man -- Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire in desperation -- but they will be finished by Arab women.

Amina Filali -- the 16-year-old Moroccan girl who drank poison after she was forced to marry, and beaten by, her rapist -- is our Bouazizi. Salwa el-Husseini, the first Egyptian woman to speak out against the "virginity tests"; Samira Ibrahim, the first one to sue; and Rasha Abdel Rahman, who testified alongside her -- they are our Bouazizis. We must not wait for them to die to become so. Manal al-Sharif, who spent nine days in jail for breaking her country's ban on women driving, is Saudi Arabia's Bouazizi. She is a one-woman revolutionary force who pushes against an ocean of misogyny.

5 French Femen Feminists Arrested for Topless Tower Bridge Protest Against Olympics ‘support for bloody Islamist regimes’

Ukrainian feminists stage topless protest near Tower Bridge over Olympic body’s ‘support for bloody Islamist regimes’

Our God is woman, our mission is protest, our weapons are bare breasts! | Demonstration outside City Hall by feminist protest group Femen | Police break up protest against International Olympic Committee | Protesters had the slogan 'No Sharia' scrawled on their chests | Scotland Yard: Four women arrested on suspicion of disorderly behaviour'

By ROB PREECE | DailyMail.UK | 2 August 2012

Five French activists of Femen movement were arrested in London during the femen topless protest near the London Bridge. London police followed femen activists from the hotel where they all spent a night. The idea of the protest was to organize next to the London bridge "Islamic marathon" where runners are beating by their owners who are Muslims.

Once activists met journalists london police caught femen activists who were dressed up as muslim men and in rude way arrested them. But 3 other sextremists take off their t-shirts and started to scream the slogan "killing generation" but in the same time police tied hands of activists and arrested them. Femen demands the International Olympic Committee to condemn violence towards women from Islamist states.

Femen requires the states that apply the laws of sharia be shut out of the Olympic games, because of the inhumanity of these laws, which are in total contradiction with olympic principles that are peace and philanthropy. Femen accuses these states of simulating democratic changes regarding the position of women. With the support of the I.O.C, these Islamist governments use the participation of women in the Olympic games to hide thousands of victims and dead.

If the I.O.C keeps flirting with radical Islam, new olympic disciplines, such as stoning or speed raping will be added to the competition.

Supreme Court of Appeal Values: EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking, or Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Parasite Leeching Tyranny?

Supreme Court of Appeal Values: EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking, or Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Parasite Leeching Tyranny?

Primary Parties are all Patriarchal: Patriarchal cultures suffer from different degrees of Masculine Insecurity, which is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of the worlds problems, due to (A) obstructing Radical Transparency communication problem solving, (B) is the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Parasite Leeching Leadership (sic) Paradigm; (C) hence propagandizes an exponential growth of Parasite Leeching -- ‘walking penis procreation’ overpopulation and ‘consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis’ overconsumption -- worldview.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty | 18 July 2012

On 22 May 2012, the Supreme Court of Appeal responded to my Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae in the Afriforum v. Malema: Kill Boer matter. The SCA President refused my application to proceed as Amicus Curiae on the grounds that “it does not appear… that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to the court.”

Today I filed an application for Permission to Appeal his decision to the Constitutional Court. Here follows excerpts of the application.

Radical Honesty culture herewith applies to the above Honourable Court, for the following orders:

[1] Permission to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which the Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 ; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.

[2] Permission to file an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appeal’s 22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

Conclusion:

IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae

IF: Supreme Court of Appeal Values Endorse Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving; Applicant Should be Refused to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

CNN delete IReport: "Masculine Insecurity LibCon Elite Obstruct Ecofemists PP Racism Challenge Re: Taki-Trayvon-Talk"

CNN delete IReport: "Masculine Insecurity LibCon Elite Obstruct Ecofemists PP Racism Challenge Re: Taki-Trayvon-Talk"

Habeus 4 Mentem | CNN IReport | 08 April 2012

CNN has deleted another IReport: Masculine Insecurity LibCon Elite Obstruct Ecofemists PP Racism Challenge Re: Taki-Trayvon-Talk.

A previous IReport which was deleted was Trayvon Martin Case has White Guilt Foxy Liberal America by the short and curlies.

The article included three uploaded images: Front Image and two screenshots of Twitter Tweets to the National Review and Other Liberal and Conservative (LibCon) Elite informing them of the ""Challenge NR & Critics: Practical Philosophy Conditions for Firing John Derbyshire"" Letter to the National Review: [01][02][03].