The cat in the sack

The cat in the sack

John Bjarne Grover

My account of the story - the theory that has formed in my mind during the writing of my web page:

Henry VIII wanted to marry another woman - he wanted to divorce and marry somebody else - but the pope did not allow him to do this, for which reason he broke with the Vatican and established his own state church - the british anglican protestant church.

This was a very unfortunate basis for a church - the wish to marry somebody else - and therefore the britons probably came to feel so uncomfortable in their monarchy with such a state church that they had to dump the solution elsewhere - therefore, tells this theory, Norway was established in 1814 (at the end of the napoleonic era) for being the shape of a marital penis on the map - Henry VIII's marital organ, that could mean - and the fresh state of Norway went right into a union with Sweden which lasted untill 1905. The motto for the constitution-making in 1814 was 'united and loyal untill Dovre falls': Dovre is the mountainous region - snow-covered in the winter - on the border between Norway and Sweden - and hence the motto probably really told about 'the white cliffs of Dover' - that is, this particular relation to England and the historic origin in that state church. Then the role of the norwegians was to be that which England did not want to have - this 'sex' reason for their church - which means everything wrong way for a church.

The problem since then could have been that it is not so nice to be in such a role and the state of Norway can have had the problem that they had to make such mistakes in order to keep up their statehood. One theory tells that Lenin died from a bullet in 1924 and that this came from the norwegian Quisling (hence his name for 'traitor') - but on behalf of ultimately british interests. That mistake could have been for reinforcing their feeling of having the right to the statehood.

If Hitler were an agent for England, could be even a briton who spoke german, he came officially from Austria. After his 'erste Reich' 1933-45 Hitler could have gone to Norway 1945-1990 - see this discussion - for a 'zweite Reich' - and from there back to England again for a 'dritte Reich'. It was probably in the 1930's (after the refridgerator and freezer were invented) that they started re-building people to new bodily identities: I have guessed that it was after WWII that it came to be possible to change almost all organs (except for the brain with eyes and ears, the spinal cord and nerves) to create new bodily identities. I have also guessed that it is possible to rebuild an old person into a young for a second life and that the young body ages normally - hence it is probably possible to become several hundred years old. (Since it is now possible to grow separate organs from DNA, it will probably become normal to 'renew' the body with fresh organs). If Hitler survived the war and went to Norway 1945-1990, he would probably have been rebuilt to a refreshed version.

I have speculated if he were the identity behind the one who took the place of my official father in 1969.

Why should I be so interesting? My guess is that I was made for being a new dumpingplace for Norway - such that England dumped their metaphysical problems onto Norway and Norway try and dump them further onto me. That could be the simple explanation to my apparent role in international politics.

For reaching that result and be able to continue their statehood without collapsing under the burden of wrongdoing for keeping up their statehood, they try to make out of me a pitiful role which can carry their burdens.

Norwegian christian philosophy is also rather pitiful: It seems (from my experience with norwegian theology, in school etc) to conceive of Christ as a dumpingplace for the human existential problems - that he suffered for us so that we dont have to suffer ourselves. One person suffered for the comfort of the other persons, that means. Clearly this could create racist ideas and the state of Norway did also receive their statehood in 1814 possibly on the condition of being a racist (antisemitic) state: Jews should not have access to the kingdom. This lasted untill 1852 when the antisemitic paragraph was lifted - and then 'Ole Devold' started his knitting factory and the socalled 'Klipra connection' started. This would have been the background why Hitler could have been a part of this 'Klipra connection'. Hitler's 'zweite Reich' - if that is the story - would have been to lift this dumpingplace function onto me - for which reason he would have been welcome in Norway.

For example, on 16 september 2025 I reached an important point in my current ongoing research - and the norwegians may have surveyed my work and could have felt some panic that it could be 'too good' and therefore that it could lift me out of the shadows of the dumpingplace role - some hours after I had made these observations in my writing there came the news that Robert Redford had died. I guessed (but know nothing about it) that if he could have died from a laser beam sent from Norway for a 'rob-ert redd for' (det) = 'rob-tease, I'm afraid' - it could have meant that they intended to steal my idea and let some other scholar present it under his name in order to take the effect out of my work. (Charles Kirk was shot with a rifle and the death of his name - which even could have suggested 'the anglican church' - could have 'meant' me being stripped of my master degree - 'by 'skurk' = 'crook' - rather than getting the PhD which I should have had in 1998 - but they would perhaps say in Norway that 'the rejection was a matter of evaluation and different views on that' - an 'ed ford / it was ifling'). That would be an example of 'dumpingplace' function. They may perhaps have the national project that I shall end up in the ditch as a target of contempt and disrespect - hah, jewish genetics - and they would say that it was all his own fault and they had done what they could to help him etc - for the perfect dumpingplace function - the very Mr.Satan - and then they must prevent that I can present work which can be beyond that level. This sort of 'swindler role' to Norway would make for the double function of upholding their dumpingplace role relative to England (which perhaps they believe is necessary for keeping up the statehood) and to dump that further onto me.

This could be an example of what seems to be called 'the axis of evil'. George Bush used the term for the 'axis' of Iran, North Korea and Iraq - but it may be that this originally could have been about this historic function of England, Norway and Austria (as alleged origin of Hitler). The whole construction could have its ultimate origin in diverging interests of England and Austria in Europe.

A lot of nonsense could have been constructed around my person in order to make this dumping construction function. I have never been told a word about all this and I am totally uninvolved and do what I can for bringing the whole story up in daylight. I have nothing to do with this story or construction.

This account would make sense of the idea that the holocaust against the jews really was a british project. How can Israel relate to this? The official version tells that England was particularly important in the historic process for establishing Israel after the war - and it may be that Israel has to be thankful relative to England (and a possible 'dritte Reich' there?). The attack on Israel on 7 october 2023 came from Hamas - but who financed that organization? Who were they attacking on behalf of? Such an attack had to be a suicide mission - and why? It could not be on behalf of the palestinians in Gaza - as if they were boiling over with hatred against Israel there and needed to find an expression for it.

The official pretext in 1814 for Norway and its country shape was probably not that 'dumpingplace' role - but it could have been the idea of making a swastika on the european map: Norway in the north, Italy in the south, England in the west - and an eastern arm around the Black Sea down towards Turkey. (Hence the real reason why Hitler had the swastika as his logo could have been the socalled 'axis of evil'). If the war in Ukraine were provoked by agents from abroad, sending russian nationals in eastern Ukraine in the chemicals untill Russia had to stop it, it could have been for making war in this eastern arm - and the socalled 'colour revolitions' could have this function generally. (It seems that certain interests have been out for making a 'colour revolution' in Serbia recently). Norway and Italy are extreme opposites religiously - italian catholicism is so to speak the opposite of norwegian protestantism - and a war in the east of Europe could correspondingly make for a 'comfort' function in England. This makes sense also from the viewpoint of the ultimate origin in Henry VIII. England and Italy are traditionally not much aligned in religious matters.

Why are Europe so interested in continueing the war in Ukraine? I have not understood this fully - but I have guessed that there could be interests out for forcing England to confess publically this whole story - including e.g. the responsibility for the holocaust and all that. Strictly speaking it is possible that England should have paid war compensation to Germany and not the other way round. There was not much left of Germany after the war. All this background could also have been the reason for the 'brexit' - England's exodus from EU - which from a british viewpoint could look like a move for exiting from a new nazification of Europe but from a continental viewpoint could be that England could not make this new nazism on the continent - including the war in Ukraine - from inside the EU. In particular not without confessing the story with Hitler. Is England planning to run another Hitler?

Clearly the world is not served with all sorts of pretexts and confusions - people have not a chance to understand what is going on if they do not have this story (that is, if the story be as I have guessed here). The UN should have stopped the war in Gaza by sending in peacekeeping forces to uproot all Hamas there after the attack of 2023 - a government that takes hostages cannot be accepted under any circumstances. Hamas cannot have served the interests of the palestinians in Gaza - one guesses naturally that it could be 'Hitler' who finances their activities - the tunnel-digging and all that - for that suicide attack of 2023. Why doesnt UN send peacekeeping forces? Is it that England won the war and still has too much influence in UN?

The cat must out of the sack - that is what all this means.

What is the cat? Is it that all this 'axis of evil' comes from Henry VIII and his wish to marry somebody else?

My view on the current ongoing wars (Ukraine, Gaza) is that it is terror which could fill in the function of 'payment' for all the plagiarisms on my literary work. The giant mystery is this: Why arent these plagiarisms stopped by official authorities? If they had been stopped, it is probable that there would have been much less 'reason' for the wars. Plagiarisms destroy people's feeling that their work is anything worth and it is disrespect of the law of intellectual property and hence the economy goes down - USA has a debt of 37 trillion dollars which could come from such problems. Plagiarisms must be paid for - it is swindle which is not a basis for a future - such a basis must be destroyed before we can continue - and if they are not paid for with money and truth-telling then epidemics, terror, war follow naturally - in order to get it down again.

Why hasnt UN sent peacekeeping forces to Gaza? Is it for the philosophy that 'this is a local conflict between Gaza and Israel and they must tidy up in this themselves'? Then it is possible that they really say 'if Grover's literary works are plagiarized, then it is a problem between Grover and the plagiarists and he must tidy up in this himself'. Should I contact a lawyer or police for pulling such a plagiarist to court and wring the money out of him? That is of course what those who organize the plagiarisms hope for - and I have guessed (with little or no knowledge, though) that e.g. Norway could have been busy with organizing plagiarisms of my work not the least in order to prevent that I make any progress. What would happen if I succeeded in wringing the money out of one of them - what would the other thousands of them do? Sit there with trembling knees and hope that the police wont come and take them? Clearly this is a giant problem which must be solved internationally - not by me personally. The cat must out of the sack - it must be known that this-and-that author - however successful and popular he or she could be - is a plagiarist only, if that is the truth. The police computer can scan my work and the work to be tested and the computer outputs a percentage which decides whether it is a plagiarism or not. If Bertolucci, who had a high star in film - should be shown to be a plagiarist of my work (say, if his 2003 'The Dreamers' could have been based on my 1995 novel 'The Dreamer', self-published in 2008), his star could come to fall correspondingly. There could be many of those. Including scholars who get ideas sent to them from somebody who had tapped them from my workdesk.

The cat must out of the sack.

News telling that Norway is going to be a weapons testing ground for NATO. Hopefully this does not mean that Norway has planned a 'hands-up' ('rob-ert') on me - for forcing me into the dumpingplace function - could be even for forcing me to dump things further onto others, such as they may feel that they have to - and hence for facilitating a swap function on me. (I have also nourished ideas that Norway was behind the burglaries of my house in Szolnok, but have not received any information confirming such ideas).

I could need a political asylum. This has been a rather critical need for many decades.

As concerns the assassination of Kirk, I retell the story from Hammerfest in probably 1959 (around my age of 18 months): I nearly died from an allergic attack, as told the custody mother, but they claim that I had done it myself - that I had found a nut on the floor and put it in my mouth. (But could an 18 month old child have masticated a nut?) Clearly if the allergic attack was because of an injection of chemicals which the custody parents had done, the presence of the one who did it could lead to a feeling of a 'curse' which one could feel has to be dumped somewhere - and this dumping could be very unwelcome by those who are targeted by it. Then it is only one thing which helps and that is that the relevant person (in this case the custody mother) stays far away. (The story of the brief encounter with the official custody mother in a street told in my novel would be telling of this: I did not communicate with her but spoke to the roadside, which was the essential point). One reasons to the conclusion that the republican Kirk did not do it himself when he was shot (cp. his name). If he had done it himself, then people could have taken more confidence in the version that I had put the nut in the mouth myself - and then the idea of 'stripped of the master degree' would have received much reinforcement also for this function of a continued dumping onto me - which looks inconsistent with Kirk's republicanism. Would this also tell something about the relation between Hamas and Israel?

Did even Norway receive an 'injection' in the early days of the state? I have speculated if 'Heimskringla' could have been something like that.