My Timeless Norwegian Dictionary. Dancing with Technocrats from the Bible-belt of the World.

The session at the General Assembly of the Norwegian Peace Association March 18. on my exclusion in this way in my view, but surely not in the eyes of the technocrats, became an extremely positive event, in this time of so much negative events taking place. For half an hour we created an unique forum for discussing the true state of affairs, where I could hold to the technocrats in controle of the peace-NGO that I`m opposed to the technocrat understanding of the word ” peace”, defining it negatively as ”absence of violence”. Look up for this widespread, and highly problematic definition, folks, heavily influenced by the Austrian technocratic philosopher, a contradiction in terms, Karl R. Popper, and his ”falsification-principle” for separating science from ”metaphysics, prejudices and totalitarianism”. Conceiving the meaning of the term ”peace” as ”absence of violence”, the technocrats scan the world to falsify everyone who in some way or another make use of violence, and to exclude them as true defenders of peace, leaving the peacemovement ”non-existent”. This is the recipe behind the technocratic exclusion of me from the Norwegian Peace Association, merely by enlarging the meaning of the word ”violence” to also embrace certain forms of communication, ”violent communication”. Then it is up to the centralistic administrative defining power to decide what communication is violent and what is not, and exclude people as ”terrorists” on this arbitrary ground. No, no, no, there is a high, high and imminent need today to exchange this dangerous technocratic and arbitrarily definition of the central word ”peace” with the democratic and true mening of the word, which is not defined negatively, but postively, as ”love and care”, I held to the audience. Defining peace as love, there is nothing strange about the fact that the relationship of me with my former fiancè in such a degree has influenced on the state of affairs in the Norwegian peace-movement with far reaching implications, but quite normal, and shows that we are all IN FACT moving in the right direction, that we all are developing and learning from the process, gradually being turned into more independent, rational and caring human beings, democrats instead of centralistically governed technocrats of yesterday.

Dictionaries of foreign words are revealing. Check out the word ”Methodology” in the old Soviet encyclopedias for instance, and you will find several pages describing a development in modern philosophy of science which the Soviets found and still finds crucial, and themselves in the lead of. Check out the same word in western encyclopedias, and you`ll find a mere description of what methodology is, namely the ”study of scientific methods”, as if we were in need of an encyclopedia to understand that, as if we were idiots. Check then out the word ”idiot” in the Norwegian dictionary of foreign words from the publishers house Gyldendal, which I have stolen from my parents library. The dictionary probably stems from the early seventies, when my father was a student of psychology at the University of Bergen in the western Norway, and met with my mother, a student of cheramics at the College of crafts in the same city, to create me and my two younger sisters. I can only guess, because the introductionary pages of the old dictionary with the technical information of printing and year of publishing have vanished, and only the dictionary itself remains, as a timeless publication, with final definitions of all abstract terms, for all the ages that have passed and for all that are to come. According to this timeless Norwegian dictionary of mine the meaning of the word idiot is ”a human born with a weak mind”.

Words are in short crucial means to grasp the word we are living in, and carry with them a tremendous power. Words decide whether to arrest or not arrest, convict or not to convict, whether to kill or not kill, attack or not attack, occupy or not occupy, go to war or go for dialogue and peace. First when the words have had their say, the power of the warmachine, police-authority and bureaucracy may take action, and put the discussion to an end, by arresting, killing or merely excluding and censoring the other. In my view the role of the contradictory phenomenon in western societies called the ”peace-movement” should to be to defend dialogue and peaceful solutions against the solution implying war and administrative efforts to put the discussion to an end and suppress the other. This seems selfevident, and no rational person will challenge this idea of the peacemovement in open. However, the western peacemovement has an extremely hard time in their wish to stop the war in the Middle East, and may easily be waved away by the war-mongers as ”microscopic”, if not ”non-existent”. I think that much of the reason for this situation is displayed in the definition of the term ”technocracy” in my timeless Norwegian dictionary. It goes: ”The rule of technicians; social-economic system presented in the USA after the first world war, based on the idea that the organisation of society and the distribution of the means of production must be done by plans and carried out by the technical leaders, to make the enormous results of the technical development benefit all people by a remarkable increase of the life-standard and a serious shortening of the time necessary for labour.”

Remarkable increase of the life-standard, exactly what we in todays Norway are told to have achieved, enjoying ”the best life-standard of the world”, according to our medias, retelling the conclusions of international surveys, giving us the impression that ”there is no alternative”, and that the shortcomings we encounter in our own society has to do with the fact that ”the world is not perfect”, but that in comparison with the shortcomings elsewhere, our shortcomings is nothing but the cosmetical failures of the best society possible, the very peak of human civilisation, probably. The 51. American state of Norway, due to its history and geography enjoying a larger degree of authonomy than Texas or Arkansas only, is not first and foremost to be described as ”capitalistic” in opposition to ”socialist or communist”, neither ”democratic” in opposition to ”totalitarian”. These labels stem from another time, from quite another historical situation, and cover the true essence of Norwegian-American society, make it hard to transcend what we are, and see ourselves from a position outside, see ourselves as the others see us, the others constituting the majority on this planet, those who we simply do not understand and therefore give us the creeps, filling us with desire to bring them under our controle, by the overwhelming military and administrational means we have available, thank God. No, no, no. The truth is hidden in my timeless Norwegian dictionary, telling the story of the Norwegian technocracy, promising wealth and eternal joy for the American-Norwegian people by leaving it all in the hands of the technicians, let them make the decisions, to provide ”a remarkable increase in life-standard and a serious shortening of the time necessary for labour”. Good, good, but then there unfortunately is a problem, as there often is in the complex world we are living in, of more than six billion persons, subdivided in countries, nations and families, and that is the bloody problem of democracy. What if there happens to be persons, families and nations who are not willing to leave the controle of their lifes to the hands of the western technicians, but ”mafia-style” find themselves to be the superiour experts of themselves and their activity, and want their voice to be heard, not only by their closest ones, but also by their nation, and by the world, to reach and engage in discussion with others equally democratically, not technocratically minded. Unfortunately for the well-meaning western technocrats, promising wealth and eternal happiness given total controle, the history and todays situation of the world shows that an overwhelming majority of the population of this planet tend to be democratically, not technocratically minded, that they want to be in controle of their own lifes, and are not interested at all in leaving it over to the western technocrats, and worse, do not believe them when they promise eternal wealth and happiness, as the white middle-class population of the western people have, having been trained into technocrats and doing their best to train their kids likewise, under technocracy.

The western technocracy we are living under therefore is in a rapidly growing state of crisis, the result of which is seen in the riots in the hotbed of western societal revolutions France, and not least in the chaos we have created in the Middle East, where we are engaged in a desperate effort to force western Christian technocracy upon the muslims, in continuation with the crusades of the Roman empire in the Middle Ages, with Washington as the new Rome, constituting the true ”axis of evil” of the current seat of imperialism Washington, with the former London, and the original seat Rome in the heart of Europe, with the fascists Bush, Blair and Berlusconi holding hands, as leading technocrats, ”expert politicians”. The crisis, however, is only felt, but not fully understood to seek sound solutions of it, by the western people in the midst of it, because ot the confusion created by the very western sweet technocratic dream, of revealing ordinary people from all political responsibilities as ”idiots”, and leave all the power in the hands of a chosen minority, the technichians who have proved their mental qualities by achieving convincing remarks at our technocratic higher learning institutions. What happens in todays Western societies is that the very opposition to war and administrative power-abuses, the peace-movement, fails to analyse and comprehend the essence of the problem they want to combat, and therefore are themselves ”technocraticized”, turned into an integrated part of the very western technocratic establishement responsible for the crisis, and mass-abuse of the democratic and human rights of people worldwide.

That`s why the general assembly of the Norwegian Peace Association taking place last saturday March 18. in the Norwegian capital Oslo was a much more important and crucial event than to be grasped by merely counting the about twenty persons present, or registering the fact that no medias were present, and that very few people besides those present knew what was going on. By telling about what happened in this way afterwords like I do here, however, that fact is subject to change, revealing the tremendous transformating power of the word. One person who knew what was going on was my friend Ivan Johnsen, who unfortunately got just a bit delayed for my speech at 10.00 pm. Entering the seminar-room at the premises of the Norwegian peace counsil where the assembly took place, I called him to learn that he was just outside the building. The assembly of the Norwegian Peace Association, however, refused to let him in, because he could not produce evidence that he had paid the modest fee to be a member of the organization, because he hadn`t. Therefore Ivan missed my defence against the charges of ”over time been acting in contrary with the aim of the peace-association and been harming the organization” and the exclusion from the ranks of true Norwegian peace-activists standing as members of the first peace association of the country, established with the introduction of parliamentarism and the modern Norwegian democracy in 1884. In my defence I explained to the mighty audience how this exclusion in fact is an _expression of the will of one Norwegian woman, who got offended by my betrayal, and since then, by the little help of friends, has managed to enlist not only the ”womens group” of the Norwegian Peace Association in her private ”crusade on terror”, but subsequently the Norwegian Peace Association as such, followed by my former employer the Norwegian Non-Fiction Writers and Translators Association (NFF) to have me sacked, and thereafter the Oslo-police to persecute me for ”peacedisturbances” by SMS and e-mail while I was busy helping forth the orange democratic and anti-technocratic revolution in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine, thereby the Oslo city court, which in March last year convicted me for the ”crime” with a fee of NOK 8000 (approx 1000 US dollars), expences of NOK 1000, and conditionally two weeks in prison in a two year ”testing period” of not making any contact with her or the technocrat in the lead of the Norwegian Peace Association, appointing himself to the role of defending the woman against me the ”terrorist”, thereby also enlisting the largest Norwegian daily VG which made the story of the former peace-leader convicted for threats by SMS cover a whole page, illustrated with a photo of the back of my head, with the Kill Bill-quote ”I`m a murderous bastard” beside, in smart contrast with the front-page of the womens-magazine Cosmopolite advertised on the same page, with a beautyful woman approaching the readers, while I`m turning my back on them, on the request of the female journalist, enlisted in the crusade of my former offended fiancè and her feminist friends against me symbolizing the violent, terrorist sex, at last to be finally crushed by the liberated women of socalled western liberal democracies, the nice words camouphlaging a warmongering and life-hostile technocratic monster-society.

While the crusade on terror in the Middle East has met certain difficulties, the local Norwegian crusade on me as the local, blond, Christian, but of an all too Soviet-communist brand, terrorist, has in this way seemingly made great progress. In autumn 2003 I was first toppled as the elected leader of the Norwegian peace-NGO which I was introduced for originally by the woman, then in spring 2004 I was pressed out as the editor of the peace-journal and a member of the board of the peace-NGO. Then the crusade was enlargened to have me removed also from my work as an information-clerk at the Norwegian Non-fiction Writers and Translators Association (NFF), giving me a new status as unemployed. With the police-persecution of me for ”peacedisturbing activity” I was not only an unemployed, but a possible criminal such, which made the technocratic Oslo-police loose confidence in me as one of their Russian-interpreters, on the technocratic principle from the marvellous film Syriana with George Clooney and Matt Damon, ”in this town you are unguilty until you are put under investigation”. With the conviction in the Oslo city court I became a convicted unemployed, a new status consolidated and made known to the public by the leading daily VG. What a marvellous success to my technocratic enemies in controle of the Norwegian Peace Association, providing my former fiancè with a much deserved revenge for the betrayal and offense. Something to tell the Bush-administration about, to show that the war on terror may lead to positive result, seemingly, as the ”Norwegian experience”. Hopefully Bush already has been informed on the brave successes on the ”Norwegian front” of the ”war on terror”.

My duty as a member of Christian technocratic American-Norwegian society at this stage was to finally give after for the pressure, admit my sins related to my allegiance to the heritage of the Soviet Union as it was expressed in my support for the Ukrainian orange revolution, to be re-accepted as a Christian technocrat, and given a full time technocratic job to handle my loans. But I didn`t act this wisely, contrary to the storm of ”good advice” from family and friends everywhere, to let it all behind, forget about it, and start a new and better life. No, I found the persecution, conviction and the media- presentation absurd, as an _expression of grave misunderstandings in Norwegian society. I wrote instead a projectdescription on the progress being done to help forth a structure to ensure the econonomic rights of Ukrainian writers, and proposed an international conference for writers at Jalta in the Crimea to make use of the 60th anniversary of the crucial Jalta-conference of Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt to explore the new, democratic possibilities related to the end of the Cold war, and the integration of the former Soviet Union with the western world. I didn`t at this stage as clearly as today understand what this project-description in fact implied, my declaration of war, or dialogue, which is the same, on the warmongering western technocratic establishement, my unheard statement that I conceive myself equal in all respect to the representatives of western technocracies, that in my opinion democracy is a legitimate claim also to western societies, and that I do not find western technocracies as democratic as they prefer to be conceived. That`s why I in the spring 2005 was called by the young investgator at the Oslo-police a second time, now on the complaints from the director John-Willy Rudolph of Kopinor, the technocratic agency collecting about 30 million US dollars a year for the photocopying of democratic literature in Norwegian society, distributing it to the technocratic administrations of the authors organizations, of which my former employer receive a substantial part. When I asked the investigator whether it was illegal for me to send SMSes for the director to have his say on the proposal, he explained that they was obliged to contact me, because I ”was continuing the activity I was convicted for”. Showing up at the police-station as requested I made a serious effort to explain the officer the political content of the case, with my former fiancè on safe distance not to confuse the picture as the technocratic leader of the peace-NGO managed. – The Putin-regime in Cremlin is opposed to this project, I told him, and the Norwegian establishement to which Kopinor and also your snobbish colleaguas in the Norwegian security police belong are allied with the Russians in ”the war on terror”, hunting down ”fundamentalists”, while the influential Russians may operate freely in our country, as our friends, answering to a regime in the Cremlin much less democratic, and much more authoritarian and brutal than the Soviet regime under Gorbachev. The officer appreciated my way of talking on equal terms with him, got interested and asked the obvious question ”What actually is Kopinor?”, giving me the opportunity to continue my work as an informationclerk of the main receiver of money collected by Kopinor, and was curious to know what political party I prefered, to reveal his own preferences. We then agreed that it was preferable to have the complaints of Kopinors director on me for my ”peacedisturbances” discussed peacefully at the Counsil of reconciliation, the alternative structure of handling criminal cases, introduced by progressive Norwegian criminologists in the late seventies, inspired by democratic, non-technocratic ideas, but today having been put, of course, under the technocratic controle of the Norwegian ministry of lawenforcement.

At the same time my project-proposal was handled by my former employer NFF, the board of which May 10. made a statement that no cooperation with Ukrainian writers was at stake, and that if such a cooperation should be carried out, they regarded me ”unsuitable” for the task. They therefore demanded me to stop contacting the elected members of the association by e-mail, and threatened to contact the police if not. That`s why I met with both NFF and Kopinor for talks in the Counsil of reconciliation, to undersign agreements of non-contact, likewise the one imposed on me by the Oslo city court in relation to my former fiancè and the new elected leader of the Norwegian Peace Association. The agreement demanded by director John-Willy Rudolph was the harshest one, making my publication of this text on your site an act of civic disobedience against the terms, a three-year period of non-contact by e-mail, SMS or telephone to anyone elected or working in the administrations of the Kopinor and its memberorganisations, besides not to mention any of these organizations at open internet-sites like these. The terms of this agreement, in my view, reveals fully the in fact hostile attitude of western technocracy against all basic human rights and principles of democracy, that democracy for the technocrats is only a word necessary to provide an western undemocratic and truly evil enterprise a democratic camouflage. Having learned the moral standard of the technocratic Oslo-police and city-court, I saw no alternative but to agree to the terms, as my tribute for my former partner the director of Kopinor in supporting democracy in Ukraine, for running the risk under the current hostile circumstances of meeting me in the Counsil of reconciliation instead of having me persecuted and convicted a second time, which would have been the safest option.
These sessions in the Counsil of reconciliation obviously made the technocratic mediators spot another opportunity to help me admit my sins, to be accepted again as a full member of Norwegian technocratic society, with which I obviously had lost the grip. Yes, in my view Western technocracy is in fact nothing but a fundamentalistic religious sect, the technologized prolongation of the Middle Ages, of forcing a few hundred millions out of six billion human beings to live their lifes in accordance with arbitrary abstract principles set not by themselves, but by the imperialist central power established with the Roman empire going Christian in third century, and throughout the Middle Ages elaborating a feudal way of turning people into blind servants of the power. The main technology of this mass submission is of course ”thought-controle”, to make people believe that the only thoughts worth mentioning and pay attention are the thoughts of the central power, speaking on behalf of the supreme being, God, as the true successor of Jesus the Christ. That`s why it was highly necessary for the father of the Russian revolution Vladimir Lenin in his book ”Materialism and empiriocriticism” of 1909 to direct an attack on the influential idealistic philosophy of the irish bishop and sceptical empricist George Berkeley (1685-1753), revealing it as a political tool of the enemies of the experience and ideas of ordinary people, the feudal centralistic technocrats opposing the will of the people and democracy. When the mediators of the Norwegian counsil of reconciliation suggested to help me reestablish my relationship with the Norwegian Peace Association and the rest of Norwegian society, it was NOT to help me in my effort to promote democracy as an updated replacement for this outdated, warmongering and life-dangerous technocracy, but to help me find my way back to the sect of western Christian technocratism. My journey to my new crimean-tatarian muslim fiancè Zeynep in Turkey, and our travel back to her family at the Crimea by ship from Istanbul to Sevastopol, to our wedding November 26. in the town of Nizhnegorsk close to her village Sadove, where the party took in the field of Zeyneps family, with only fifty friends and relatives present, not four hundred as usual, and as there would have been if the wedding had taken place in the summer as planned, if not the Norwegian technocrats had made use of their resources to stop my activities, all of this of course was a failure in the eyes of the Norwegian technocrats eager to ”win me back”. I held a short speech that wonderful night in Sadove, Crimea of love and mutual understanding, asked humbly for their forgiveness for me making Zeynep wait for me in eight months, explained it by pointing to the circumstances in my homecountry, and assured to them that my intention was not to take Zeynep away from them, but to become one of them, and build a bridge between the Crimean-tatars, being deported from Crimea in 1945 to Siberia, only to return from Usbekistan and elsewhere in the late eithties, thanks to the Soviet democratication-process, and carrying out a peaceful and successfull struggle with the Russian occupants of Crimea, to be studied carefully by the Palestinians and other militant muslims in fact eager to promote peace, democracy and Human rights, as all rational persons, and who are not in fact rational, the idiots?, and the Norwegians.
Showing up at the Norwegian embassy in Kiev in early December we made it clear that I was to reach a decisive meeting in the Counsil of reconciliation December 15, and therefore asked them to make Zeynep a visa as fast as possible. The newly liberated democratic-patriotic Ukrainians working at the embassy obviously saw the whole picture, and provided us with the visa in express-speed, so that we could return home in good time for the meeting with the technocrats in the Norwegian Peace Association responsible for the police-persecution, conviction of me in Norwegian court and public denounciation of me as a ”fallen angel”.

This meeting was the first chance for me to meet the elected leader of the Norwegian Peace Association since the summer of 2004, an ambitious technocrat recruited by me for service for the peace-NGO in spring 2003 as the new leader, and elected the second in command at the General assembly of the first and most open Norwegian peace-NGO shortly after we first met. At the General assembly of the peace-NGO in May 2004 he had successfully, thanks to his influential feminist allies in the circle of my former fiancè, navigated me out both as an editor, and as a member of the board, and was elected the new leader of the NGO, leaving me as an ordinary member, with three monthly wages at my disposal from my former job, (from which the tecnocrat also had made a certain contribution to have me removed, talking the same technocrat-language as my technocrat-colleaguas in the administration of the authors union), AND with an invitation from the largest Ukrainian-language newspaper Silski visti, to stay for a period at their editorial office in Kiev, and thereby support them in their continuous struggle with the Kuchma-regime, eager to close the newspaper down, officially for alleged charges of anti-semitism, but no doubt first and foremost because of its critical standing towards the regime, and its outspoken support of the oppositional candidate for presidency, the leader of the Socialist party Oleksandr Moroz, who became a key-support for the main oppositional candidate Viktor Juschenko in the coming Orange revolution, helping correcting the image of the leader of the opposition as a mere American marionette, which the regime was eager to impose. The technocrat in lead of ”my” peace-NGO did not of course comprehend any of these nuances, blinded by ”the war on terror”, with me as the most immedient threat. For the General Assembly of the Norwegian Peace Associtation in May 2004 he had invited a young female technocratic researcher from the Institute of Defence Studies to open the show with a lecture on how to ”combat terrorism” (read: to force democratically minded people under western technocratic rule) heavily influenced by American technocratic authorities in the field, and ending her pedacogical power-point presentation with the two alternatives left, either ”search and destroy”, illustrated with a childish drawing of a tank, or ”winning heart and brains”, illustrated with a drawing in the same style of a little fat idiot jumping on a sack of coins. I revealed my ”terrorist” (read: democratic) attitude when I asked the incredibly naive question, whether not she had forgot about the third, and preferable alternative, the alternative to be enforced by the peace-movement we represent, namely dialogue, the attempt to understand why people make the desperate act of blowing themselves up, listen to their message, to preovide them another, and less dramatic way to express themselves. This question made the peace-technocrats laugh, and even more convinced of the necessity to remove me from all influential positions of their technocratically moderniced peace-NGO, with a high time change of the objects clause, from enforcing outdated ”social security” with its socialist tendency, to the much more updated and serious ”personal responsibility” of a western liberal ”capitalist” democratic (read: technocratic) brand.

A General assembly, however, IS a democratic institution, where the informed argument has a bad tendency to prevail and get support and therefore my resolution on our obligation to contribute to a democratic development in Ukraine in front of the coming elections was voted for by the majority, giving me the basis I needed to make my coming stay in Ukraine a part of the realizing of the will of my peace-NGO. This was, however, a situation not approved by the technocrats having obtained controle, who signalled openly on my request that he could not promise that I would be invited to the board to discuss the fulfillment of the resolution. Badly trained in true democracy, however, the delegates of the General assembly poorly understood what such a rejection meant, and already started, in a technocratic manner, to subject themselves to the new authority, the new ”peaceleader” formally replacing me, in the worldview of the technocratic Oslo police, Oslo city court, the leading daily VG and the remaining Norwegian crise-struck cold-war establishment, with quite another will than me to fill the role of a technocratic, and not democratic leader, and relieve all the others, including my former fiancè, of the heavy and scaring obligation to think and help them forget about their social responsibility. That`s why nobody reacted when the technocrat in lead excluded me from the first meeting of the board shortly after the General assembly, but comforted me that there was only one month to wait for the next one in late June, before my departure to Kiev in early July. I complained that this meant one month of delay in the important work closing up towards the first round of the presidential election Octobre 31. With the next meeting approaching and no invitation appeared , I called the technocrat to have his say on the matter. By phone he held to me that the board had decided that they regarded the humanitarian project of the ”womens group” of my former fiancè concentrating on support of orphanages in East-Ukraine sufficient, and was not interested in, ”didn`t have the resources” as he put it to follow up more activities towards Ukraine. This is the language of technocrats, incapable of trusting other persons than themselves, and those clearly subordinated one owns will, making it impossible to grant me the responsibility to carry out a pathbreaking activity directed on development of Ukrainian-Norwegian contacts, culturally, politically and economically profitable as a part of the general activity of the Norwegian Peace Association, in accordance with the original democratic aim of the organisation. I got rather desperate, and saw no alternative but to break the selfimposed prohibition not to bother my former fiancè, to discuss with her the situation, appeal for her to contribute to sorten out the mess. The poor woman, however, blinded by her lack of confidence in me, and eagerly supported by her girlfriends, was incapable of listening to what I had to say, and just demanded me to stop calling her. The situation got totally unbearable, and my brain scanned desperately possible exits of the mess, meeting the demands of everybody, and not provoking my former fiancè into contacting the police as she threatened me, obviously influenced by her dubious feminist consultants.

Then the Counsil of reconciliation struck me as an opportunity, displaying the paradoxical situation of the lack of dialogue in the newly technocratically governed proud Norwegian Peace Association. I wrote an e-mail describing the situation and send for their e-mail adress which I found, and was shortly after invited for a meeting with a nice female grown up mediator who showed great symphaty with me and sound understanding of the problem, expressing her will to be of support and help, as a promising spark of true democracy, despite the subordintation to the technocratic ministry of lawenforcement. Not bad. The counter-attack from the technocrats, however, came at the next meeting of the board, where the technocrat in lead made the proposal that the board as such should report my communication-activity to the police, as ”harassings, defamations and threats”. The board-members found the suggestion of police a bit extreme, but compromised on a denounciation of me as an ”untrustworthy person, with no right to represent the Norwegian Peace Association before the board reaches another conclusion” with the necessary change in style and behaviour to grant full acceptance equal to others. A few days afterwords, right before my departure for Kiev, I was called by a young male investigator at the Oslo-police on the complaints of the technocrat leader and my former fiancè, and was suddently not only unemployed, but put under investigation as well, as an enemy of Norwegian technocratic society. The former Soviet republic of Ukraine under the authoriatarian rule of the Kuchma-regime as a branch of the central Putin-power in Moscow seemed to me as liberated land when I landed and was met at the international airport Borispol outside Kiev by my friend and political ally the Ukrainian writer Oleksandr Mikhajljuta a few days after, a sort of large-scale political and cultural sanatorium, where to breath freely. Even the food tasted much more democratically, and I got convinced when the Ukrainians boasted of the ecological quality of their agrocultural products, forgetting totally about the Chernobyl-disaster. The extremely unpleasant fresh experience with American-Norwegian technocraticism made me even more committed to the goals of the Ukrainian patriotic-democratic opposition of Viktor Juschenko, confronting the elements of technocratic rule of the Kuchma-regime, in my view not as much a trace from their Soviet past, but a result of the pressure imposed on post-Soviet societies by western technocracies, training the former Soviet rulers in our socalled ”democratic” methods of ruling, by provocations and systematic lies imposed by the technocratically controled medias. Under Kuchma the presidential administration therefore rose to formerly unknown proportions, having about 1200 on payroll, in comparison with the former Soviet central committee, which counted about 400, carrying out the centralistic, technocratic controle of society which we are so familiar with in the west, that we perceive it as the only way of governing, and laugh away as jokes, or persecute as communists or terrorists, all suggestions that true democracy is possible. In this perspective the post-Soviet technocratic practice of distributing socalled ”temniks”, secretive instructions for the editors offices on what and how events should be covered to please the central power and escape unpleasanties, may be seen as an _expression of the challenge of imposing technocratic rule in a society accustomed to democracy, where the editors have the ”totalitarian” tendency of thinking independently, and therefore are ”in danger” of putting on print statements that contradict the will of the central power, merely because they seem well-informed and interesting. Under western well-established technocratic rule such secretive instructions for the editors merely aren`t necessary, thanks to the technocratical training in school and higher learning, which make us all directly submitted to the central power, the ”lord”, and perfectly aware what is expected from us, and what is not. Then the censorship goes automatically and imperceptibly, camouphlaged as mere ”rational reasoning”, that this and that get ”too complicated for our readers”, that the ”quality” of the challenging text is not good enough, or that it is of presumable less interest to the readers. Arguments hard to out as political censorship, presented as the supreme subjective judgement of the editors, who have obtained their positions as editors obviously because of their superiour qualities to others, since we think that we live under The democracy, where truth and quality prevails, and where the shortcomings only are expressions of the fact that even the best societies have their problems, because ”the world is not perfect, you know”. Some smart asses obviously have seen through it all, and decided that the socalled western democracy is only a bluff, but a bluff which makes it possible to have great fun by exploiting others, and therefore are happy to conceive themselves as capitalists, which is one type of technocrats enjoying a larger degree of independence from the central power, constituting their own central power in understanding and harmony with the bigger one, as a sort of feudal vasalls. This western technocratic structure has been imposed on Soviet society since the dissolution in 1991, with the promising difference from our western well-established technocratic societies, that the post-Soviet oligarchs, like their respective editors, tend to be even more independently minded, and constituing a serious counterpressure on a less integrated central-power, like the financial organizations of Julia Timoshenko in Ukraine, which contributed seriously to the democratic-patriotic Orange revolution, or the independent Yukos-organization of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which has been crushed, brought under controle and sold out by the Putin-regime, the stronghold of the attempted technocratic transformation of former Soviet Union, which, however, continues to represent a growing democratic threat to our western technocracies, as it was meant to from the very beginning, the Russian marxist-leninists revolution in november 1917. The rumours of the death of history in connection with the dissolution of Soviet central power is wildly exaggerated, you see.

That`s the reason why the technocrats in controle of the administrative apparate of the Norwegian peace-movement and others are so afraid of sitting down with me face to face just to talk and get to know each-other better. They clearly prefer police-prosecution and probably were overwhelmed by joy when the technocratically minded Oslo city court imposed on me a prohibition against making any contact with my former fiancè and the technocrat leader for a two years period, with the threat of a two weeks term in prison, laughing and celebrating it with champagne, possibly. The battle was finally won, they thought, just as the Bush-administration thought when the Iraqi president was captured, the terrorists Saddam and Lydersen were finally brought under controle and was to be held accountable for their independent terrorist activities, challenging the holy western technocracy. With the conviction in the Oslo city court in March 9. last year being a parallell to the capture of the enemy Saddam in Iraq, the meeting in the Counsil of reconciliation December 15. became the local Norwegian version of the court set against Saddam in Baghdad, to have him finally punished for his crimes, as the sole responsible for everything which have gone wrong in Iraqi society under his rule, and bluntly forgetting the fact that he despite the boycott and constant and humiliating bombing by our planes througout the nineties managed to keep the country integrated and secular, and securing it from the chaos of civil war we, the technocrats, have spent thousands of billions to create in his country since the invasion, to provide our oil companies direct access to the wealth of the Iraqi people. Saddam is to be punished for our crimes, which has been the habit of us ”the Christans”, since we sacrificed the lecturer Jesus for our sins two thousand years ago. Why is the cross so dear to us, why are we led by it in our crusades? Because we are seeking for someone to crusify, of course, no matter what the person actually is guilty or not gulity of. The truth is not out there, but to be decided by the central technocratic power, in continuation of Roman imperialism.
In the Counsil of reconciliation December 15. 2005 we took place in a circle with the technocratic mediator in the middle, with the technocratic ”peace-leader” and the representatives of his new board from the left, and my friends and ”supporters” from the right. After talking for a couple of hours of the value of a polite form in the communication between people, I found it timely to cautiously approach the strange fact to me that the technocratic peace-leader obviously prefered to have me persecuted and convicted, and asked him directly why he did not go for the more peaceful option of dialogue through the Counsil of reconciliation straight away as I invited for, sparing both of us for the strain of meeting in the court, in harmony with the aim of the Norwegian Peace Association. The technocrat obviously had prepared for this inquisitive question, and calmy held that he actually was in good faith when he in the Oslo city court claimed that he was not familiar that the Counsil of reconciliation represented a real option, that he had not received any phonecalls neither from the Oslo-police, nor the Counsil since he filed the complaint on my behaviour late June 2004. I on the other hand was told by the young police-investigator at our second talk that he actually contacted both the technocrat and my former fiancè regarding possible mediation, and that they both declined the offer. I was also told by the first representative of the Counsil, the nice female mediator listening to me and offering her support, that she had tried to call him several times, but that he did not answer. Now the guy was sitting in front of me, and innocently holding that he actually did not know about mediation in the Counsil as an alternative, and that he for sure would have accepted IF he had been contacted, thereby holdning the Oslo-police and the Counsil of reconciliation responsible for the mess. This kind of escape from personal responsibility is central to the technocratic mentality, relying not on reason and facts as it tries to make the impression of, but merely on the caprices of the central power, conceived as the will of a superhuman power. It is rather fascinating to observe how the western technocratic mind put under this kind of pressure reveals its religious and arbitrary nature, where there is no limit for what incredible lies it is capable of producing and immediately believing, since they are conceived not as thoughts of the personal mind, but by what is conceived as a supreme being, God, which in fact is the intersubjective internet the technocratic mind is connected to, but incapable of discovering, relate to independently. Confronted with this open absurdity of the claim of the peace-technocrat of not having been aware of the Counsil of reconciliation as an alternative to police-persecution and conviction and the lie that he would have met me in the Counsil at an earlier stage if he knew, there was nothing more to discuss in the Counsil. My technocratic opponents, and supporters, at the meeting, however, simply did not grasp what the absurd claim really meant, and appealed for me to stay to continue the mediation, to reach an agreement on a plan on how I could be reaccepted as a full member of the Norwegian Peace Association, to finally pay allegiance to the American-Norwegian technocracy for eternity. I did my best to explain my well-meaning fellow Norwegians the problem of the whole effort, and how shocked I was to learn that the whole persecution and conviction-farse due to the testimony of the technocrat could have been avoided, only to learn that they were stuck in their technocratic reality, leaving no option for me but to leave the meeting and them alone. End of discussion.

I was wondering afterwords how to make use of this new information, the fact that somebody obviously was lying to have me ”caught”, either the young investigator of the Oslo-police holding that he contacted the peace-technocrat, or the female mediator in the Counsil, and held the technocrat as the most probable lier, since he at least received my first letter for the Counsil in the summer of 2004 mailed for him and my former fiancè as copy. I could, however, stick to the version of my opponent and hold the Oslo-police and the Counsil responsible, and thereby have a reason to make a complaint to the Norwegian commissioner of Human rights, the Sivilombudsmannen directly under the Norwegian parliament, receiving complaints from citizens on power-abuse from the Norwegian public bureaucracy. I came to, however, that such a complaint probably would appear just as abstract and hard to grasp for the technocrats in the service of the Sivilombudsmannen, as to the technocrat mediator in the Counsil, and found it therefore not worth the effort.

The next inititative of this dance of mine with the technocrats in controle of the essentially democratic Norwegian Peace Association therefore showed up to come from my opponent, obviously put under pressure by the meeting in the Counsil, and therefore feeling obliged to do something to secure his position, and prevent further counter attacks. He therefore finally made use of the exit-possibility introduced in the form of a brand new paragraph for exclusions of members introduced and accepted at the annual assembly in June 2005, where I did not show up, because I was busy supporting the Chechens at a seminar in the Norwegian city of Trondheim. Had I showed up, the technocrats had prepared to exclude me from taking part in the assembly with a two-third vote, based on the terms in the conviction from the Oslo city court, which the attorney of the police had explained to me did not concern my engagement as a member of the volunatry peace organisation. Given such a vote in my disfavour, the technocrats would have had the majority to have me excluded right away, and it therefore was a pity for the technocrats that the Chechens held me away at this crossroad, to have it postponed. With the new annual General conference approaching the peace-technocrat initiated the process of exclusion of me, first by a decision by the board January 9, in according with the new paragraph of exclusion proposing for the Counsil of the peace-NGO to have me suspended. February 16. I was, according to the paragraph, invited by the Counsil to ”defend my self” against the accusation that I ”over time had been carrying out an activity contrary to the aim of the peace association and been harming the organization”, an accusation based merely on the same material on which I was convicted for in the Oslo city court, not for defamations or threats, but first and foremost for the quantity, which the Oslo-police and the city court found suspicious, and in lack of balance with the quantity of replies from the offended ones. I was, in other words, convicted, for making use of my language by modern means of communication, and here the technocrats in controle of the Norwegian Peace Association were excluding me as a member on the same basis. I on my hand was happy for this exclusive opportunity to meet with the responsible ones face to face, to recollect and present my understanding of what has been going on. The technocrats in controle, on the other hand, were concerned to hold how offended they had got, especially by me labelling them ”fascists” for their passivity from my intense days in the Ukrainian capital in front of the Orange revolution, an act which to them surely overshadowed all the evildoing by the Kuchma-regime in Ukraine, including the dioxin-poisoning of Juschenko, a regime the technocrats back home by their technocratical attitude and ignorance and hostility towards me in practice showed supportive of, and therefore deserved the label of ”fascists” in my opinion. The use of provocative and bad words has a particular meaning, to force the other to some kind of reaction, to move the communication further on, when the other tend to prefer an end to the communication. What the technocrats in controle of the Norwegian peace-movement therefore actually was accusing me for, was not defamations or harrasings, but my attempt to move the communication on, to move the world on, my very will to communication and dialogue they found intolerable, as very strange representatives of the socalled peace-movement, in my view.

Two days after the meeting in the Counsil of the Norwegian Peace Association I got the letter, obviously written in advance, informing that the Counsil had not been convinced by my defense, but rather more convinced about the necessity of having me excluded, because ”mediation had been tried, but failed”, the fact that I opposed to discuss a plan for ”reacceptance” on the terms of a false politiziced conviction that never should have taken place. When the new goodhearted female leader from the northern Norway of the Norwegian Peace Association called me the day after the mediation in the Counsil of reconciliation December 15. and held that the board was interested in continuing the talks on reacceptance, I explained to her rather stricht that such negotiations was out of the question, and what I expected from them was that they withdrew their decision of distrust in me from the summer of 2004, a demand I have been raised since then. This process of exclusion therefore was a clear answer from the new technocrat-regime that no such trust was in reach, and an attempt to institutionalize the distrust in me instead, by having me excluded.

This central discussion of confidence or not confidence in me, in the prolongation of the relationship of me and my former fiancè, and her sense of betrayal, through our common engagement in the Norwegian Peace Association, founded by democratic-patriotic parliamentarians and lawyers in the year of introduction of parliamentarism in Norway in 1884, making the elected representative parliament the supreme power-organ appointing the Government, and thereby putting an end to the ageold feudal practice of blind reliance on the king as a messenger from above, in this way get far reaching political implications, making visible the holistic charachter of the global society we all are members of, with no possibility for escape or exclusion. Not given the military aggression of the Bush-administration, their suspicion of Saddam hiding weapons of mass destruction, not only the international politics, but probably also my private life, would have taken quite another course. The invasion of Iraq three years ago in fact was a most powerful demonstration of the deepfelt distrust of the western technocracies in everybody, including themselves. The western Christian technocracy is in fact based on the philosophy of systematic sceptical distrust, the uneasiness felt by the French philosopher Renè Descartes (1596-1650), in my Danish dictionary of philosophy regarded as the ”founder of modern philosophy”, under the renessance in the first half of the 17th century caused by growing doubt in the official Christian totalitarian ideology, while being scared off by the process against his contemporary Galileo Galilei for openly challenging the naive worldview of the powerful church. Galilei escaped the faith of Socrat 2000 years earlier, to be killed for his challenging opinions, by giving after for the pressure, denounce his findings, and pay allegiance to the Church, to be redeemed and reaccepted. The answer of Descartes to this conflict of scientific inquiry and the world view of the power, so evident still in western societies, was to develop a radical scepticism, allowing no doubt as the manifestation of evil, but striving for the unquestionable facts, like the famous slogan of his ”Cogito ergo sum”, ”I think, therefore I am”. The texan Christian technocrat George Bush in the White House appears as a true student of Descartes when he claims, as he loves to, the phrase ”let there be no doubt”. My former fiancè, you see, the femme fatale, has her roots in the socalled ”Bible-belt” in Norway, stretching over the southern part over to the villages and towns along the famous fiords of the west-coast. This belt is charachterized by a stricht pietist protestant Christianity, with fear of God and Authority, obedience and hard work as the leading principles. Since the European colonialisation of America this belt has been stretched over the Atlantic, and formed modern American society, build by protestant Europeans on escape from the Catholic church like Rene Descartes in search of the holy land, filled by uneasiness about the true nature of things, but convinced of their own righteousness, and the primitivity of others, the Indians for instance, or the Iraqis, not to talk about the Communists.Visiting the family of my former fiancè in the Bible-belt a coupe of hours south of Oslo therefore was a quite unique experience for me, taking in regard my background as a student of Soviet philosophy, meeting with and making interviews with for instance the influential Soviet female rational philosopher Jelena Mamchur, an expert in the methodological principle of ”simplicity” in Moscow in the autumns of 1998 and 1999. Here I was sitting in the kitchen of house of the parents of my fiancè a few years later, talking with my fiancès mother, a lady of the same age as Mamchur, but of an incredibly different world-perception. Both ladies, however, conceived me as ”their guy”, since I strove to display the same philosophical openess towards the pietist religion of my coming mother in law, as I met Jelena Mamchur in Moscow with, and was able to make unique and information-packed comparisons. I understood, however, that while Mamchur was capable and surely will appreciate my account of the world view of the Norwegian religious lady, the advanced marxist-leninist worldview of Mamchur is rather impenetrable for my fiancès mother. When I touched upon Communism with her, she showed heavily manipulated, as all Norwegians, by the provocative maoist movement in the seventies, declaring ”armed revolution” their goal, and thereby scaring off people from the contemporary philosophical development and strive for peaceful coexistence by the real communists in the Soviet Union, preparing the democratic transition and opening of Soviet society in the eighties. The result of this manipulation is especially strong in the Bible-belt, with its deep felt sense of insecurity and doubt about reality, in controle of the White House, the new, and rapidly fading of late Roman imperialism, banging its head towards a new post-Soviet reality of the global society. What the Bush-administration is in need of, is someone able to have the same calm talk with them as I had with the mother of my fiancè from the Norwegian Bible-belt. Then the world will leap ahead, and millions of life be saved.

The evening before the General assembly March 18 my former fiancè showed up at the faboulous seminar organized by the peace-technocrats, on the Israel-Palestine-conflict, with very interesting introductions by representatives from both sides. Especially the Palestine Human rights defender Dr. Eyad El Sarraj made a deep impression, talking on the basis of a hard-to-grasp Palestine experience of constant persecution and humiliation by the overwhelming military and political force Israel. He made a very interesting point of criticizing not only the Europeans for the lack of independency in relation to the former US master and no true commitment to peace and reconciliation in the Middle East, but also the former Arafat-government of his own nation, for being manipulated into the wanted role of the imperialist counterpart, a terrorist to be oppressed by all means. – Leaders shall lead, not be led, Sarraj held as a golden principle, challenging the technocratic idea of democracy, by first manipulating people through the mass medias, and then hold their manipulated opinion as ”democratic”. The ideal-leader for the palestine Sarraj is the democratic leader who seek truth and peace, not to manipulate the people or be subject to manipulation. My former fiancè was amongst the numerous attending the meeting, and gave me the first chance to see her again since she testified against me in the city court of Oslo March 9. one year before, convinced the judges about how frightened she became in Ukraine when she at the Celebration-day of the Norwegian constitution May 17. by SMS received my Kill Bill-quote that ”I`m a murderous bastard, and when you break the heart of a murderous bastard, it has serious consequenses.” Now she was living with her family in the southern town in the Bible-belt, she told in court, because she did not trust me, found me ”cracy”, did not understand me, got uneasy, and was anxious of what I could possible do to her. At the same time she held in court that she still had feelings for me, and appealed for the judges not to give me a too long jail-sentence, to have me punished too hard. This remark iritated the judge, who explained to her sharply that it was not up to her to decide the size of punishment. The claim that she had been so scared off that she moved home to her parents, obviously influenced on the judges decision, as a prove that my behaviour had been ”cruel and scaring”, and therefore in violation with the § 390 a) of the Norwegian criminal codex. The same information was crucial to the presentation of me as the ”peace-leder gone terrrorist” in the leading daily VG. Imagine the Soviet philosopher Jelena Mamchur as the mother of the girl there would not have been any case at all, since my crime was cautiously challenging the virginal and insecure American-Norwegian Bible-belt, giving it merely an vaccinational injection against the epidemy of ”war on terrorism”. The daughter of the Bible-belt declined the offer to meet me in the Counsil of reconciliation December 15, holding to the mediator who contacted her that she prefered the terms of the conviction to remain. But here she was, at the Israel-Palestine seminar the day before the day, where the palestinians described a situation of striking similarity with my own, of double standards, where the overwhelming imperialist western technocratic power make use of every trace of aggression by the other, weaker part to charge it of terrorism and exclude, to legitimize the use of far harsher means in their oppression.

And here I was, with my sweet crimean-tatarian wife Zeynep at my side following the discussion with great interest from my fragmented interpretation, making far-reaching similarities with the situation of her own people back home in Crimea, which are lucky to have escaped the situation of open war of muslims with western technocrats like in Palestine or Chechnja, while the same flames are burning as racist hatred amongst the Russian majority at the Crimea having occupied their during the forty years of forced exile thougout the postwar Soviet period. Dr. Eyad El Sarraj just don`t know what he missed when he did not pay my wife the attention she hoped for when we approached him after the meeting. She was fascinated by his speech, and wanted to inform him as a Palestinian leader on the situation of Crimean tatars. The persecuted Palestinian Sarraj did not grasp that the sweet girl in front of him was a talking as representant of a small people which more than anyone else has contributed positively to the course of events in international politics the last decades, going ahead in the Soviet Union by claiming and struggling for their rights as a people, and thereby making a crucial contribution to the demise of Soviet central power, opening up the world for a growing global democracy, the perspectives beyond the misunderstandings and anxiousness of western Christian technocracies, the Bible-belt of the world. Zeynep rightly got a bit offended by his disinterest, and held me accountable, for making a little show to the audience on the coming exclusion of me at the General assemply the coming day, provoking the leader of the discussion, the famous international correspondent of the Norwegian National Broadcaster NRK Haakon Børde to confiscate my microphone, which just perfectly illustrated my point of the limitations of the socalled western democracies, in my view. When we walked from the meeting in the streets of late Oslo Zeynep was ashamed of me, and said she wanted to get drunk to ease her thoughts, the well-behaved muslim girl. We went to a bar where I drunk a beer, and she an alcoholic limonade, but when she asked for one more, I made it clear that the low unemployment budget of ours did not allow it, so we went home.

So, friends, the international demonstration day March 18 against the war in the Middle East at in fact got far more successfull and influential than the mass-demonstrations of February 15. 2003, where millions world-wide took to the street, only to show incapable of stopping the western technocratic war-machine. Yes, while 60 000 demonstrators overflood the streets of Oslo three years ago, only a 1000 gathered outside the Norwegian parliament this day to mark their protest, as in other western capitals, making western technocratic political analysts rejecting the demonstrations not only as ”focus-groups”, but as ”microscopic”, and draw the conclusion that the opposition against war amongst ordinary people has withered, and that there is little political risk connected to the planning of a large-scale escalation of the war with an attack on Iraq. What in fact happened at this day was that the western technocracy was finally buried at the General assembly of the Norwegian Peace Association 2006, where I at 10 pm took my seat side by side of the goodhearted female leader of the peace-NGO to ”defend my self” against the ”accusations” for which the board and the counsil of the organization wanted the General assembly to vote for an exclusion of me. About 20 technocrats were sitting around me to listen to my defense, and give me the opportunity by half an hour to reestablish their ”lost confidence” in me.

So there she was, my former fiancè, the femme fatale, looking triumphally down at me, as saying: ”This is the consequense for defying me, my friend.” Had I been an idiot I would have attacked them all, defied them bluntly as idiots and left the meeting, as the terrorist they need me to be. The fact that I showed up, however, was a demonstration of my will to dialogue, my will to understand them, even though I find their acts rather absurd and limited, and my hope that they are able to understand me, given direct dialogue, not only me sending loads of SMSes, e-mails and long-dwindling texts like this one to be ignored and deleted right away. I therefore made use of this unique opportunity once more to hold to my former fiancè how much I respect her and, yes, love her, and made a sincere apology on what an idiotic thing it was to postpone our wedding which was to be held July 5. 2003. The wedding-dress was clear, sewn in East-Ukraine on the basis of a traditional Ukrainian flax-dress, silver-rings were bought, and family and friends invited, when she found out about my betrayal, and was strucked by doubt. We went to the priest of her Church on the west-side of Oslo for consulting, and he adviced us to postpone it. The prime responsibility for the postponing, however, was mine, and the truth is that I was not ready for the commitment, that I was happy for this opportunity to give it all a second thought. The whole idea of marriage was in fact false, because my relationship with the lady of the Norwegian Bible-belt was false, with me playing double, as in the relationship with the ladys mother, thinking one thing and saying something else, fooling around. The lady is no fool, she has herself had a hard time liberating herself from the worst grip of the Bible-belt, while remaining loyal to her parents, so she surely understood that there was something going on behind her back, that I was not fully honest neither to her as to her mother. More honest to her of course, but no way fully honest. The marriage in this regard is the ulitmate test of loyalty and confidence, and when I proposed to her, it was to escape the moment of truth, to institutionalize the lie, instead of revealing it with the danger and pain of our relationship as we knew it going apart. Then the very marriage-plans became the engine of the moment of truth, which came a couple of months before the planned wedding, shortly after our arrival from our trip in Ukraine, where I picked her up in East-Ukraine after having been introduced for the struggle of the democratic patriots in controle of the Ukrainian National Union of Writers in Kiev on my way to her, and thereby enrolled in the great effort of the coming Orange revolution by my new Ukrainian friend, the journalist, writer and publisher Oleksandr Mikhajljuta. This common experience of post/prerevolutionary Ukraine of me and the lady I was to be married with obviously made us more prepared for the truth of our relationship, which finally sunk the marriage-plan, the postponing of which instead institutionalized the distrust, and became the seed of this local Norwegian terrorist-hunt for me by the various influential representatives of the American-Norwegian Bible belt, and thereby gave me this unique opportunity to study in detail the technocratic, and in fact deeply anti-democratic nature of the socalled western civilisation. The session at the General Assembly of the Norwegian Peace Association March 18. on my exclusion in this way in my view, but surely not in the eyes of the technocrats, became an extremely positive event, in this time of so much negative events taking place. For half an hour we created an unique forum for discussing the true state of affairs, where I could hold to the technocrats in controle of the peace-NGO that I`m opposed to the technocrat understanding of the word ” peace”, defining it negatively as ”absence of violence”. Look up for this widespread, and highly problematic definition, folks, heavily influenced by the Austrian technocratic philosopher, a contradiction in terms, Karl R. Popper, and his ”falsification-principle” for separating science from ”metaphysics, prejudices and totalitarianism”. Conceiving the meaning of the term ”peace” as ”absence of violence”, the technocrats scan the world to falsify everyone who in some way or another make use of violence, and to exclude them as true defenders of peace, leaving the peacemovement ”non-existent”. This is the recipe behind the technocratic exclusion of me from the Norwegian Peace Association, merely by enlarging the meaning of the word ”violence” to also embrace certain forms of communication, ”violent communication”. Then it is up to the centralistic administrative defining power to decide what communication is violent and what is not, and exclude people as ”terrorists” on this arbitrary ground. No, no, no, there is a high, high and imminent need today to exchange this dangerous technocratic and arbitrarily definition of the central word ”peace” with the democratic and true mening of the word, which is not defined negatively, but postively, as ”love and care”, I held to the audience. Defining peace as love, there is nothing strange about the fact that the relationship of me with my former fiancè in such a degree has influenced on the state of affairs in the Norwegian peace-movement with far reaching implications, but quite normal, and shows that we are all IN FACT moving in the right direction, that we all are developing and learning from the process, gradually being turned into more independent, rational and caring human beings, democrats instead of centralistically governed technocrats of yesterday.

The technocrats present at the General assembly made their best effort to critizice me, and hold that they have no confidence in me, while I did my best to explain to them that the main task of the peace-movement must be to strive for confidence in others, to create and enlarge a space of social security, rationality, care and communcation in the society, the very space being opened at this session of me defending myself against their technocratic accusations. I made it clear to them that it was impossible for me to leave the assembly after the session, as they had demanded of me by a letter, not to give after for their technocratic pressure paralyzing the peace-movement. I made them aware of this refusal of mine to leave the meeting by another letter, which they obviously had read and understood and therefore prepared for a retreat from the impossible situation of my presence, with no possibility to have me removed by violent means, not to reveal themselves as the real violators. – And now I must ask you to leave, the goodhearted female-leader held to me when the limited time of half an hour for this minor case on an overloaded programme of all the administrative, serious challenges to be dealt with at the technocratic General assembly of the Norwegian Peace Association was over, – but I know that I can`t persuade you, she added, while I rose to find myself a seat amongst the others, as the full member of the voluntary Norwegian Peace Association I continue to be, whatever twenty technocratic usurpators raise their hand for, just as much as Saddam Hussein continues to be the Iraqi president, not regarding what grave and large scale power-abuses western blindfolded technocrats allow themselves on other mans soil, in other mans houses. My house remain my house, even when those stronger than me make use of their strength to force me out, with no higher democratic authority to appeal for.

Just ask the Crimean tatars.

Sigurd