Censorship or Worse?

If non-consensual mind-reading, -modeling, -influencing or -control had been rampant or ubiquitous for decades, “politicians” were externally controlled puppets whose every word and movement might be determined by an artificial intelligence system and/or its human overseer(s), whistleblowers or dissidents were regularly marginalized and/or murdered through “natural causes”, two young children and their parents were currently long-standing targets of such a marginalization and/or extermination campaign and every significant power-wielder in the world during, at the minimum, the past several decades had been complicit in the aforementioned types of crimes or human rights violations, might any potential attempt to hinder or prevent dissemination of information on such ongoing crimes or human rights violations to its target audience constitute mere censorship or something worse? If dissemination of information in its intended form to its intended audience is hindered or prevented while the “media” faction of the Cabal or the perpetrators – potentially fully aware of the fact that the death penalty or remedy may well be the closest feasible approximation to a “legal” solution to their acts of commission and omission (see Beyond Legality) – might be plagiarizing or mimicking the private lives of targeted individuals in meticulous detail, might the phenomenon in question be accurately and exhaustively described by the concept of censorship or might some alternative terminology be more appropriate?

I am not able to access my ResearchGate profile at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tero_Auvinen. After being notified about alleged “unusual traffic coming from your network”, “check[ing] the box below”, correctly clicking on, among other things, traffic signs, roads, cars, buses and store fronts several times in several different pictures while attempting to ignore any other unnecessary and potentially harassing material in the pictures and finally being shown the checked box which might usually indicate that the page you are trying to access will be displayed shortly, the same process of having to click on pictures in order to access the website starts again. Whatever the cause of not being able to access the website might have been in this case, the potential or effective censorship or worse is hardly an unintended or unforeseeable coincidence, as the potential for the deliberate use of “technical” access requirements or some other mechanisms which might provide some degree of (im)plausible deniability for censorship or worse must surely be evident.

170903 researchgate.net 1

170903 researchgate.net 2

170903 researchgate.net 3

170903 researchgate.net 4

170903 researchgate.net 5

170903 researchgate.net 6

170903 researchgate.net 7

170903 researchgate.net 8

170903 researchgate.net 9

170903 researchgate.net 10

Startpage (https://www.startpage.com) appears to have dropped this blog (https://academism.wordpress.com) entirely from search results in which it has been previously included. Neither a search for “Tero Auvinen” (total of 16 pages of search results) nor for “Tero Auvinen Rescuing Academism” (1 page of results) shows this blog in the search results. The former search nonetheless appears to show a relatively large number of results which do not appear to include the words “Tero Auvinen” consecutively and in that order – if at all – while the latter search includes some potentially obviously incorrect, inappropriate, harassing or customized results even in the only page that https://www.startpage.com is actually or allegedly able to produce based on a search for “Tero Auvinen Rescuing Academism”. (Shortly after relocating a targeted individual might encounter commercials including, for instance, a landing bird or swan [Cabalese for the targeted individual landing in the new location], a roaring bear [Cabalese for the Cabal going after the targeted individual] and a leaking roof [Cabalese for remote violence “through the roof” or any other direction from which such effects might be produced]. Potentially inappropriately customized search results including “rooftop rescue” might follow a particularly electrifying night of remote torture. “Floods” might refer to any large-scale marginalization and/or extermination campaigns. The existence or accurate observation of potential cabalisms by any specific targeted individual may not, however, be a necessary precondition for actual physical torture, marginalization or extermination. It is quite possible for a specific individual to be remotely tortured, marginalized or exterminated without any Cabalese expressions indicating such a possibility being available or, at the minimum, understandable to the targeted individual in question. Recognition of the existence of remote torture may well be a matter of factual competence. It may be worth pointing out that, in the case of Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde [see http://www.whitetv.se/mind-control-mk-ultra/1149-dr-rauni-leena-luukanen-kilde-dead-probably-murdered.html], for instance, her doctor’s reply to injuries attributed by the patient to “beaming” was reportedly “noone will believe you” rather than denial of the alleged phenomenon of “beaming”. Competent individuals may well be likely to know what might be meant by remote torture or “beaming”. Individuals who might have some integrity as well may well be likely to have firsthand experience of such torture or “beaming”.)

170903 startpage.com Tero Auvinen Rescuing Academism 1

170903 startpage.com Tero Auvinen Rescuing Academism 2

170903 startpage.com Tero Auvinen Rescuing Academism 3

170903 startpage.com Tero Auvinen Rescuing Academism 4

When the relevant matter is not the specific ranking of any specific website among a large number of search results, but the mere ongoing inclusion of a specific website which exactly matches the search terms in a relatively small amount of search results, might a deliberate failure to include a specific website in the search results constitute something more than mere censorship? Is the user not deliberately deceived by the implicitly claimed unavailability or unsearchability of a specific website which exactly matches the search terms and has previously been and should continue to be both available and searchable? Would mere censorship without intent to deceive not involve, for instance, informing the user that the website in question continues to be available and searchable but for reasons that the company in question might indicate in connection with the search results it chooses to no longer display the actual address of the website?

Google did not include this blog in the first 21 pages of search results for “Tero Auvinen” – the maximum number of pages I was able to access before being notified about “unusual traffic from your computer”. When searching for “Tero Auvinen Rescuing Academism” this blog was shown in the first page of Google search results. Typically the “Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network”-message was displayed when trying to access the Google search engine, but in some cases, interestingly, only after searching for “Tero Auvinen Rescuing Academism” or “Tero Auvinen”. In other words, in some cases accessing the Google search engine was not deemed to constitute “unusual traffic”, while attempting to search for “Tero Auvinen Rescuing Academism” or “Tero Auvinen” allegedly was “unusual traffic”. The rest of the address that is automatically added to the end when accessing https://www.google.com has been omitted in the first screenshot.

170903 google.com 2

170903 google.com 3

The statistics for this blog do not appear to show my own visits from different IP addresses when not being logged in. This may not always have been the case with wordpress blogs.

170903 academism.wordpress.com 1

170903 academism.wordpress.com 2

170903 academism.wordpress.com 3

So far no non-spam comments, feedback or emails may have been received through or based on this blog or https://akateemisuus.wordpress.com, https://christianinenglish.wordpress.com/ or https://kristillinenblogi.wordpress.com/ that would not have originated from myself for testing purposes.