2014-04-18
Moving off Blogger
I will be moving Radio Free Gardistan off Blogger. Please move along to my new website, http://gartuu.me/
2014-03-30
2013-12-11
Jaan Kross not sighted in Bermuda
December 31st 2007, I published the following prediction on Gardistan in Vision:
When I first started to read Keiserns Galning
, I thought it might be an autobiography. Not that it fits with Jaan's actual timeline, but either way it felt as if the author wrote it a very long time ago, and naturally had to be dead now.
Then I learned that he was very much alive. I decided that Jaan Kross therefore is immortal. Kind of like a vampire, except he writes to stay alive instead of sucking blood.
When I received the news that he had just passed away, I was proven wrong. He is not immortal. But I expect that also this assumption is wrong, and that we will receive new reports of Jaan Kross sightings in Bermuda on January 31st 2012.
We are now almost a year behind the predicted date of Jaan Kross sightings in Bermuda. As far as I'm able to pull out of the Internet, however, I can find no reports of Jaan Kross sightings in Bermuda on January 31st 2012. So I have either been wrong, or I might have been kidding.
You should still pick up the book, though.
When I first started to read Keiserns Galning
, I thought it might be an autobiography. Not that it fits with Jaan's actual timeline, but either way it felt as if the author wrote it a very long time ago, and naturally had to be dead now.Then I learned that he was very much alive. I decided that Jaan Kross therefore is immortal. Kind of like a vampire, except he writes to stay alive instead of sucking blood.
When I received the news that he had just passed away, I was proven wrong. He is not immortal. But I expect that also this assumption is wrong, and that we will receive new reports of Jaan Kross sightings in Bermuda on January 31st 2012.
We are now almost a year behind the predicted date of Jaan Kross sightings in Bermuda. As far as I'm able to pull out of the Internet, however, I can find no reports of Jaan Kross sightings in Bermuda on January 31st 2012. So I have either been wrong, or I might have been kidding.
You should still pick up the book, though.
2013-12-04
Defence definitions
When I grew up, I learned that the Norwegian military was a defence organization, whose purpose was to defend Norway from enemies invading the country. Defending Norwegian citizens in Norway. Turns out that I was taught a fairytale that has become the common idea among citizens.
The typical examples was Germany under WWII and the possibility of an attack from the Sovjet Union during the cold war, not to mention the centuries of surveilling "the Finnish Danger" i.e. Sámis who migh side with Finland in a Norwegain-Finnish war. And Sweden? We have been fighting against Sweden before. And Denmark. That's what the military was about. Keep Norway Norway.
So while I was checking the Mistry of Defence's web page in search for more information about current missions in Afghanistan and, consequently, how that could possibly be part of defending Norway, I accidentally found that their official policy statement (which is roughly a mission statement) was last updated in 2011.
Translated, the statement now reads:
The give-away is already in the first sentence: The Defence is not to be developed into something that keeps Norway safe - it is an instrument. It is a very peculiar choice of words.
One would think that the mission was narrowed down by going to the Ministry of Defence, the people in charge of this "instrument". But no. The MoD clearly defines themselves as "An office of government responsible for defining and executing security- and defence policies" which basically leaves them open to define defence any way they like.
I wonder if I could persuade them to fund my "soft power" project. That is, conquer evil with good. There just is no better defence than promoting good.
The typical examples was Germany under WWII and the possibility of an attack from the Sovjet Union during the cold war, not to mention the centuries of surveilling "the Finnish Danger" i.e. Sámis who migh side with Finland in a Norwegain-Finnish war. And Sweden? We have been fighting against Sweden before. And Denmark. That's what the military was about. Keep Norway Norway.
So while I was checking the Mistry of Defence's web page in search for more information about current missions in Afghanistan and, consequently, how that could possibly be part of defending Norway, I accidentally found that their official policy statement (which is roughly a mission statement) was last updated in 2011.
Translated, the statement now reads:
- The Defence shall be developed into a modern, flexible, alliance adapted instrument, where is seeks a balance between the Defence's tasks, structure and access to resources. The organization shall be based on a close cooperation with relevant civil authorities and compulsary drafts practices in line with the Defence's needs. Focus shall be to secure and promote/develop Norwegian interests through the handling of a wide spectrum of challenges nationally and internationally.
The give-away is already in the first sentence: The Defence is not to be developed into something that keeps Norway safe - it is an instrument. It is a very peculiar choice of words.
One would think that the mission was narrowed down by going to the Ministry of Defence, the people in charge of this "instrument". But no. The MoD clearly defines themselves as "An office of government responsible for defining and executing security- and defence policies" which basically leaves them open to define defence any way they like.
I wonder if I could persuade them to fund my "soft power" project. That is, conquer evil with good. There just is no better defence than promoting good.
2013-11-27
Book: La scoperta di Milano / The discovery of Milan
For my 40th birthday, my wife gave me a book by Giovannino Guareschi, translated to Norwegian under the name "Min egen lille verden" (My own little world), which turns out to be Nino's first book ever published.
It gives a tongue-in-cheek description of Nino's life in rural Italy, the transition to big city life in Milano, and eventually, life-after-death experience. It is easy to identify with Nino's story, which goes to show that the world has not changed much over the 72 years that have passed since the book was published. Even the daily problems with modern technology are present.
It was a book that was hard to put down as the clock ticked past midnight. Yet I am painfully aware that all I have is the Norwegian translation from 1954. I can only imagine how much better the Italian original would be to read. Perhaps this could be my first book to learn Italian?
Either way, I highly recommend La scoperta di Milano (The discovery of Milan) as a good bed time read. And it leaves you with the question: What is it about authors and their Margheritas?
2013-11-19
Truth
Everything that I write is the truth
Unless I write it in a piece of fiction
In which case I can still call it truth
Because it is truth within my fiction
Unless I write it in a piece of fiction
In which case I can still call it truth
Because it is truth within my fiction
2013-11-08
Anti-authoritarian
"In our last meeting, you used a specific term, and I would be interested in a deeper explanation of what you meant. You said you were anti-authoritarian."
The question took me off guard. How do I explain my anti-authoritarian mindset to someone who is not inside my head? And why was this at all important? Either way, a good staring point for an article, isn't it?
It all dates back to a revelation I had when I was much shorter than I am today. And when I speak of revelation, I'm talking visions in a meditative state, close to or in dreams. I have a very visual mind, and although I do not relate a dream to truth, it can often be the beginning of a deeper reflection that eventually produces some kind of truth.
In this specific case, I started out with a large crowd representing all humans within a society. Some of these humans were placed physically higher than others, and they were preaching and dictating, and I saw these as authorities. And as everyone else, I thought it as desirable to climb the ladder and become one of these elevated people. But how? What made these people so special? What made them more valuable than others?
Almost as an immediate reply to my question, the elevation disappeared, and everyone were now on the same level. There was nothing that made these people more valuable than others. And with this, I also lost the feeling of authority coming from them. Authority as a concept became something as alien to me as racism. Your elevated position in society, your position of power, your authoritarian rule, it is all a psychological illusion for the ruler and the ruled.
"So if your boss tells you to do something, and you don't agree with how he wants you to do it, you just go and do your own thing anyway?"
At this point, I'm wondering where we're going with this conversation. But this is not the point at all. If the boss has a good reason, let him explain this reason. I protest when I see that the proposed solution doesn't make sense from my point of view and, I'm sorry, but I think I have a better overview of my specific field than my boss does. That's why I have my job and he has his job. They are different jobs covering different fields. I respect you for your skill in your field, you respect me for my skill in my field, and we're ok.
And this is how I lead my department as well. As a leader, my job is not to boss around, but to shed light on the path forward. I expect my employees to bring out their own torches and shed more light on a subject if there was something I missed. I am willing to take new information, admit that I had missed something, and together we move forward on the right path.
Authoritarian rule, however, does not listen. Does not take new information in. Does not notice when it steps on people. Authoritarian rule is based on the idea that position of power is all, and reason is not necessary.
To me, authority in people does not exist. Authority lies only in facts. Facts just can't be beaten, facts always end up winning. Facts like gravity, and "if we push this box, then that other one is going to fall down."
That said, my job is also to do what my boss tells me to do. And when he will not listen to reason, I will obey. That is the contract of employment, and I signed that contract. However, the very same contract also specifies that I should lead the company when it comes to my specific field. Every time my boss overturns any decisions I make - which are usually the result of a team effort, so he's actually wielding authority over the entire department - he is, as such, breaking the contract.
And for every breach of contract, I will reevaluate it.
"Is this how you would put it? Would you be comfortable with such an explanation?" he asked, looking at the third party participant, as if I was a terrorist.
Those who get worried about anti-authoritarians are usually the authoritarians.
The question took me off guard. How do I explain my anti-authoritarian mindset to someone who is not inside my head? And why was this at all important? Either way, a good staring point for an article, isn't it?
It all dates back to a revelation I had when I was much shorter than I am today. And when I speak of revelation, I'm talking visions in a meditative state, close to or in dreams. I have a very visual mind, and although I do not relate a dream to truth, it can often be the beginning of a deeper reflection that eventually produces some kind of truth.
In this specific case, I started out with a large crowd representing all humans within a society. Some of these humans were placed physically higher than others, and they were preaching and dictating, and I saw these as authorities. And as everyone else, I thought it as desirable to climb the ladder and become one of these elevated people. But how? What made these people so special? What made them more valuable than others?
Almost as an immediate reply to my question, the elevation disappeared, and everyone were now on the same level. There was nothing that made these people more valuable than others. And with this, I also lost the feeling of authority coming from them. Authority as a concept became something as alien to me as racism. Your elevated position in society, your position of power, your authoritarian rule, it is all a psychological illusion for the ruler and the ruled.
"So if your boss tells you to do something, and you don't agree with how he wants you to do it, you just go and do your own thing anyway?"
At this point, I'm wondering where we're going with this conversation. But this is not the point at all. If the boss has a good reason, let him explain this reason. I protest when I see that the proposed solution doesn't make sense from my point of view and, I'm sorry, but I think I have a better overview of my specific field than my boss does. That's why I have my job and he has his job. They are different jobs covering different fields. I respect you for your skill in your field, you respect me for my skill in my field, and we're ok.
And this is how I lead my department as well. As a leader, my job is not to boss around, but to shed light on the path forward. I expect my employees to bring out their own torches and shed more light on a subject if there was something I missed. I am willing to take new information, admit that I had missed something, and together we move forward on the right path.
Authoritarian rule, however, does not listen. Does not take new information in. Does not notice when it steps on people. Authoritarian rule is based on the idea that position of power is all, and reason is not necessary.
To me, authority in people does not exist. Authority lies only in facts. Facts just can't be beaten, facts always end up winning. Facts like gravity, and "if we push this box, then that other one is going to fall down."
That said, my job is also to do what my boss tells me to do. And when he will not listen to reason, I will obey. That is the contract of employment, and I signed that contract. However, the very same contract also specifies that I should lead the company when it comes to my specific field. Every time my boss overturns any decisions I make - which are usually the result of a team effort, so he's actually wielding authority over the entire department - he is, as such, breaking the contract.
And for every breach of contract, I will reevaluate it.
"Is this how you would put it? Would you be comfortable with such an explanation?" he asked, looking at the third party participant, as if I was a terrorist.
Those who get worried about anti-authoritarians are usually the authoritarians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)