Remedy against partial misrepresentation

Remedy against partial misrepresentation

John Bjarne Grover

The big problem of the world has for some time been Norway who should have to confess and apologize for the abuse of my life via the roles of Hitler, Himmler, Ribbentrop - not the least since such a postwar history cannot go into the book of oblivion but must come to the official surface.

In the mean time, while we are waiting for this apology, and the world is pressing on with 'everything else' and 'dont understand anything of it', Norway is enjoying an expansion of their power and influence and young people around the world are easy victims of hired propagandists who can inform them unter view augen that 'this Grover is the son of Adolf Hitler and the biggest nazi the world has ever seen' - and young intuition leaps to the quick conclusion that it probably is one of the greatest secrets of the world and nothing is more important than to get this up in daylight.

This problem of wringing an apology out of them without anybody noticing it - the apology must, by convention, coutume and ordinality - come as a complete surprise, otherwise the world would have had to tell it instead of them.

There exists a solution to this problem: While we are waiting for Godot, the world has indulged in abuse of my authorship (and rumours and myths and surveillance data from my life) without having to fear the need for crediting of the source, and this has come to grow into a problem of astronomic dimensions. The solution for rescueing and restoring moral integrity as the basis for the relation of subjective to collective consciousness - and this integrity of knowledge is completely essential for the new information technology to function by the new arbitrarity interface - is to establish a fund for payment of these authorship abuses - in such a way that each state who has suffered moral integrity losses by abuses in the media can pay a sum of money to the fund and then the works that have been published and which are relating to the form of a work of mine can be free of dangers of having to pay grandiose reparation sums and withdrawal from the market - but the fact of history will be told nevertheless. It means that Dan Brown will not have to face and all-or-nothing as far as ownership to his fortune is concerned, but he will have to agree to a systematic relation between his books and mine. It means that in new editions of his books there must be a mention of my book as a source of 'inspiration' or 'parallelism' - and in officially published literary analyses there must be mention of this relation.

In this way two main goals can be achieved: 1) The works that have been published can be rescued and the all-or-nothing principle will not be a source of dirty power, and 2) Norway will not harvest this power by postponing the confession for yet some years while the war in Ukraine continues.

There will also be a third goal achieved - telling that although it had been conventional to tell that my works were not abused because they had a literary value but on the contrary because they were authored by 'dritte Reich', this new annotation means that the work is credited afterwards instead of before the publication but the crediting should come to approximate the same - that it is not impossible that it is the literary value which is the real reason. Rather, if a work tries to assimilate another work it is normally because of this 'model work' has a literary value which the plagiarism tries to imitate - and that is the most natural explanation.

If the fund becomes big enough, I could have an income from the (compound?) interests. How much should a state pay to it? If Dan Brown has earned 1,5 billion dollars from his novels, or ABC many billions from their Dynasty, a national 100 million is not much for balancing up the abuses - that is not many missiles shot from Ukraine against Russia. It is very possible that USA pays 'truth and justice and human rights' money for supporting Ukraine untill Ukraine has to give in to a potential moral pressure that could be arising from inside by way of this international support untill the Hokusai wave forces them to come out with a truth which could have prompted the russian attack - e.g. that Ukraine had abused russian nationals in Ukraine to such an extent that it could not continue any longer and Ukraine now have to confess it for reasons of moral integrity when receiving the support - and that would mean that the money which USA pays for their support to Ukraine is factually the money they could have paid to a fund for me - while waiting for the confession and apology from Norway. This could of course have been the 'car belt' (see 29 march 2023 for 'selen') blue marks (Bellows' 'Bellarosa Connection' etc?) = 'selen-sky' of 1981 - by édesanya Eidsvig or Grøver or Himmler - or even an identity before Himmler (such as a freelancing 'William Croft'? - 'ein Zweig RØ:V-er-rim-lerker-oft' = a basis for international abuse of my authorship?) - the idea to spend those foundation money which could have drained Norway - or other morality-postponers - of the tempting power - by letting them be conducted into a(nother) war consuming them instead.

However, that does not preclude that such a fund be established - and the bigger it gets, the less can Norway harvest of power from its child and authorship abuse. This could also contribute to peace in Ukraine. Dark mythomania is not the right atmosphere for the new information technology.

It is seen how this principle of crediting the one who is suffering from 'monkey business' resembles the principle of my 'goodness-driven economy' - for an economy that does not support abuse or violence as a source of money and power.

Did the new 'Bobrowski edition' (2017) with a series of newly excavated poems (apparently collected from friends and relatives he had sent them to - while seemingly not being preserved among Bobrowski's own papers) contain plagiarisms of my DDS - at a time when 'The Dynasty' could have been into similar ideas? The question is then: Should the society - in order to be able to straighten up its moral spine and thereby avoid a new Hitler ridiculing them - have to decide by decision in court that "this book A is a plagiarism and must be withdrawn from the market and all income therefrom be given to Mr.Grover, while that book B is not and can continue to circulate and the author can keep his income from the sales", on basis of which a witchhunt can start for digging up all sorts of plagiarisms while hoping that it does not go the wrong way, or should they let the books remain in circulation and the income from the arguably cumbersome work it could have been to work them out remain as the published author's justified income? Clearly for the society to regain its moral integrity it is the truth which is the primary interest - and if the plagiarized author can receive the otherwise lost income and be credited for the origins of the suspected plagiarisms, clearly the most important moral goals are achieved. Also, Bobrowski could escape the schmutz on his record from such dubious findings.

The fund would contain an official record over the contibutors.

The problem and its solution outlined here are also very closely related to another enormous problem on the status of intellectual property: When an author dies, are there any inheritors to the copyrights to the authorship - who can take care of continued publication? It can be of large importance for the world to have access to these data. But even if such an inheritor should exist, that does not mean that this new owner of the copyright wants to have the work published. Of course it is fully possible that the new owner earns much more money from keeping the work off the market (say, some international intelligence services could offer money and services and advantages for keeping my 'The Endmorgan Quartet' off publication) and maximally unavailable than the money that can be made from its publication. But if the author wants to ensure continued publication after death and therefore places the work in 'public domain', how can one ensure that the integrity of the original version be preserved? Clearly the danger is overwhelming that some works in 'public domain' can come to be available in only corrupted versions.

The solution to this problem is likely to be the existence of two parallel databases distributed over the world's available electronic resources: 1) Copyright registers and 2) public domain registers. The copyright registers serve to preserve the original version and somebody pays them for that, while a 'public domain' register could be just the same. It must be the society who pays the same for both - and, it must be admitted, bytes and scanning are not so expensive these days so it should be possible.

Clearly these problems run together with the third gigantic problem of finding a new crediting system for use of intellectual property on the internet. I recently searched the web for a translation of the medieval 'Parzival' but found none - but William Mohr's translation on Reclam could be acquired in the bookshop against a small sum of money. Clearly this text should have been available on the web - but then how to credit the sources for all the work? Some new system must be found.

A fund of payment for copyright abuses (such as this 2017 'Bobrowski edition' could look like, not the least on background of the suspicions about 'The Dynasty II' of 2017 - not to speak of massive floodwaves of similar phenomena in TV, radio, film, advertisement, business etc) would have the extremely important function of preventing that power accumulates on basis of abuse while 'time goes' and we are waiting for the more and more illusory hopes of getting a confession and apology from Norway and similars. While 'time goes', it comes to look like the highway to riches and power - and this effect could be greatly magnified by a war provoked in Ukraine. A fund would also make plagiarisms less tempting and thereby prevent the rise of new wars and armed conflicts - such as, say, the Darfur crisis could have been about.

Why should it be of importance that Norway apologizes? If my theory is right, I could have been badly rejected on the precise critical points of development e.g. 8 times through the 18 first years of life: Normally a person survives these well and hence expands the 'personal territory' of mastering, but if rejected there will be a surrounding vacuum in the social space which the subject cannot fully control. This vacuum will leave other people confused with the feeling that if they do not hurry up and fill it in, somebody else will do it first and then things can go wrong way - therefore it 'must' be filled in by somebody's activities and in a competition-based economy it is 'impossible' to avoid that an 'application' from me is rejected and abused. A submission to 'peer review' is ridiculous under such circumstances. It is the state level accept and endorsement of such abuse which is the problem which creates the feeling that somebody must fill it in - if the state apologizes for these (and other) abuses the territory is re-relegated to my control and the international abuse goes down. If they do not, then somebody 'must' fill it in under a competition-based economy - the vacuum cannot just stand there vibrating.

Cp. Donbass, Darfur. It would hence identify me with Ukraine? If Darfur as the western Sudan relates to Donbass = Bånn-Dass (not 'Bond-ass[istent]') of eastern Ukraine, and if 'Darfur' is recognized as a characteristic aspect of 'dritte Reich' qua 'drizec landen', the illegitimate intrusions would have corresponded to the intrusions of (a theory only, this - the idea of transplanted penis) the transplanted puberty penis into the proper penis-owner's puberty bottom of 'dritte Reich' - hence a clear case of 'partial misrepresentation' in the intrusion. This makes sense when accusing Russia of this 'partial misrepresentation' if the intruding soldiers are identified as the (transplanted) puberty penis who thereby were involved in 'partial misrepresentation' when voting in the ukrainian election. 'Cill[-]i-am fr-hoft' - spooned from 'William Croft'? (see also this detail from this page 16). I notice also the rotor that fell down on a kindergarden in Brovary (see 20 january 2023) when the interior minister Denys Monastyrsky (cp. 'penis Donau/donor-styrski' - by the Bånn-Dass/Bond-ass factor) fell down in a helicopter there. In the worst case, the Ukraine war could perhaps even have been provoked for the purpose of a 'martial pis-representation' - echoing the 'famous last word' of the Vikebukt 'auto-fella-ti-o...' in the summer 1969.

The fund would be registered as being under my ownership and could be placed in a central bank which is not threatened by collapse and would guarantee a certain percentage annually.

See also my ideas about goodness-driven economy (also in 'The structure of divine revelation' - link opens file of 11,4 MB) - by the four parametres 1) goodness, 2) bit-reversal, 3) arbitrarity and 4) the opening of the informational subsets of humanity - a theory which otherwise could have come to go into a massive misunderstanding by a 2-4 swap of Hitler with me.

The internet is of course the best publication one can get - not the least since it also is free of any intrigues from 'peer reviews'. Emily Dickinson went not in the trap of 'peer review' - that is how she could count her poems to more than one mille, albeit not two. Nowadays traditional publication is often based on the best submissions being rejected for letting the second-best plagiarisms sell more - and then 'peer review' is the essential basis. But in addition to the internet the canonical original version must be established in some way or other - and international 'public domain' registers are probably the best - in addition to the service of having the works published on paper in books which can be bought. International 'public domain' registers must of course be accessible for everybody on the web.

Mikelis Ablikhos is a good poet whom I would have liked to find more easily - but he seems (perhaps precisely because it is a good poet) to have fallen victim of power abuse (is the american 'ABC' networks which published 'The Dynasty' simply an 'ABC-ikhos'? - a network of more or less 'cosy' plagiarisms of the good poet?) which still suppresses him to a degree which even excludes him from the list of 'notable names of Lixouri'. The normal procedure would have been that a 'peer review' declared him a good poet and then he was launched as such and received recognition thereby, but this procedure is not even a joke now at the end of the former information technology and the onset of the new. How could I have found his works? I am still not aware of any methods for finding such a poet. There are probably more of the same phenomenon. A 'public domain' register must make all entries available for everybody and not squeeze those out which international secret intelligences and similar interesters want to abuse for their own power-making. The goodness-driven economy with its four parametres could contribute to making that possible.

Added: 'Monkey business' by plagiarisms etc can probably be technically identified as 'partial misrepresentation'. Were the russian nationals living in eastern Ukraine involved in 'partial misrepresentation' in their democratic contributions for the election in 2019? Would that have been a cause of western indignation against this russian 'partial misrepresentation'?