European Research Council Starting Grant 2017 Application as a Self-Employed Principal Investigator

Below is a copy of some of my email correspondence with the European Research Council Executive Agency regarding the application instructions and requirements for a self-employed Principal Investigator for the ERC Starting Grant 2017 – a 5-year grant “designed to support excellent Principal Investigators (PIs) at the career stage at which they are starting or consolidating their own independent research team or programme.” More than two months after the application deadline, the complete application instructions and requirements for self-employed Principal Investigators are still not available either publicly or to the applicants themselves. Approximately half an hour after sending my latest email, the Participant Portal appears to have become unavailable for a period of one hour and ten minutes due to maintenance. Some changes appear to have been made to the Portal during or shortly after this maintenance period.

Friday, December 23, 2016

From:  “ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu” <ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu>

To:  Tero Auvinen

Dear Dr Auvinen,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your message that has been forwarded to the Eligibility Committee.

As soon as a decision is taken on your proposal, it will be officially communicated to you with information on the available means of redress on such decision if needed.

With best regards,

[name removed]
ERCEA STG Call Coordination Team

From: Tero Auvinen
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016

To: ERCEA 2017 STG APPLICANTS

Dear [name removed],

Thank you for your email.

According to one potential interpretation, a self-employed Principal Investigator means, by definition, that there is no Host Institution. Also according to the National Contact Point, it is possible for a natural person (or “private person”, according to a literal translation) to apply for the ERC Starting Grant. Yet the application portal requires a PIC code and a “Short name” of “Your organisation” in order to be able to proceed to the next step of the application process. According to the National Contact Point, also natural person applicants will have to get a PIC code and indicate a “Short name” of their “organisation” in order to apply for the ERC Starting Grant. In other words, according to the National Contact Point, the application portal structurally requires natural person applicants to input incorrect or non-existing information (of a separate legal entity which, by definition, does not exist in the case of a natural person applicant) into the application portal in order to be able to submit applications as natural persons.

Could you please point out the specific part of a publicly available document which defines self-employed Principal Investigator and the responsibilities of the registered legal entity that you seem to be requiring as a Host Institution also for a self-employed Principal Investigator. As has already been repeatedly stated, to the extent “[t]he specific conditions of engagement” for a self-employed Principal Investigator have been clarified by the National Contact Point (no response was received from the Horizon 2020 Helpdesk despite repeated contact attempts), the instructions have been followed when submitting the application. Your requirements, communicated after the application deadline rather than as a response to my repeated contact attempts prior to the application deadline, contradict the instructions of the National Contact Point, which have been followed when submitting the application.

Could you please publish the following information on a publicly available website today and send me the link when finished:

1) Complete application instructions for self-employed Principal Investigators including, among other things, your definition of a self-employed Principal Investigator and the nature and the role of the registered legal entity that you seem to be requiring as a Host Institution also for self-employed Principal Investigators.

2) Complete application instructions for self-employed natural person applicants including, among other things, your definition of a natural person applicant and the nature and the role of the registered legal entity that you nonetheless seem to be requiring as a Host Institution also for natural person applicants.

3) Your reasons for deliberately withholding adequate, if not crucial information from self-employed and/or natural person applicants prior to the application deadline.

4) Your views on whether you consider it to be appropriate to withhold the possibility to deliver required documentation directly, privately and securely to you via, for instance, the Participant Portal after the application deadline.

5) Information on whether it is also not technically possible to send messages to applicants via the Participant Portal in, for instance, the “My Notifications” section which still appears to be accessible and specifically asks about the applicants’ preferences in respect of the frequency of receiving alerts (rather than the actual content of private messages posted in the Participant Portal) via e-mail after the application deadline. In case it is technically possible to post private messages to applicants in the Participant Portal after the application deadline, please also include your reasons for not doing so upon request.

6) Your views on whether you consider it to be appropriate to deliberately discriminate against self-employed and/or natural person applicants by withholding an opportunity to submit all required documentation via the Participant Portal prior to the application deadline and deliberately violating the applicants’ privacy by requesting such documentation via unsecured email after the application deadline.

7) Your signed e-mail messages to me (but not my messages to you or my name) or at least their substantive contents, including, among other things, the following information:

-You are demanding a signed Host Institution support letter from a natural person self-employed Principal Investigator.

-You are doing so after failing to provide complete information prior to the application deadline despite repeated contact attempts.

-You are doing so after failing to provide an application portal that would allow every legitimate type of applicant to complete the application process without having to input incorrect or non-existing information merely in order to be able to proceed to the next step of the application process.

-You are doing so contrary to the instructions which were provided by the National Contact Point prior to the application deadline and which have been followed when submitting the application.

-You are doing so via unsecured email despite an applicant’s request to handle all communication directly, privately and securely via, for instance, the Participant Portal.

-You are specifying email as the only acceptable delivery mechanism for required documentation and in any case doing so within a timeframe that does not allow some more private means of delivery despite having ample opportunity to present such a request both before and after the application deadline with alternative, more private and/or secure means of delivery. The precise capacity in which you are demanding a natural person self-employed Principal Investigator to sign a support letter in the name of a non-existing registered legal entity – or the potential (il)legality of such a requirement in the first place – has not been specified, justified or “clearly provided”.

-In case you do indeed require natural person self-employed Principal Investigators to fill in information for a non-existing registered legal entity in the application form with contact information for such a fictional legal entity through which the applicants might actually be reached merely in order to be able to proceed to the next step of the application process, information on whether you consider such a requirement to be consistent with equality of all applicants in general and the protection of natural person self-employed applicants’ privacy in particular.

Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen

On Thu, 12/22/16, ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu <ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
To: Tero Auvinen
Cc: ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu
Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016

Dear Dr. Auvinen,

Thank you for your email.

After the call deadline no further documents can be uploaded into the submission system via the Participant Portal. Therefore, as indicated in our email from 20/12/2016, could you please provide us the signed Host Institution support letter by 23/12/2016 by sending it as an attachment in an e-mail to:
ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu

Information regarding the Host Institution letter has already been provided to you and the requirement of this document is clearly provided in the ERC Work Programme 2017 and under point 1.1.2.3 Supporting Documentation of the Information for Applicants:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/erc/h2020-wp17-erc_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-guide17-erc-stg-cog_en.pdf

Thank you.

Best Regards,

[name removed]

From: Tero Auvinen
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016
To: ERCEA 2017 STG APPLICANTS

Dear [name removed],

Thank you for your email.

May I ask you to post complete application instructions for self-employed Principal Investigators on a publicly accessible website and send me the link once finished? Such instructions should include, among other things, your definition of a self-employed Principal Investigator and the nature and the role of the registered legal entity that you seem to be requiring as a Host Institution also for self-employed Principal Investigators. As such information might be expected to have been publicly available well before the application deadline, may I ask you to post the information at your earliest convenience and at the latest by the end of this week (at latest by
23/12/2016)?

As was already stated earlier, to the extent “[t]he specific conditions of engagement” for a self-employed Principal Investigator have been clarified by the National Contact Point (no response was received from the Horizon 2020 Helpdesk despite repeated contact attempts), the instructions have been followed when submitting the application. In case you still do require some additional documentation from me as specified in the published complete application requirements for self-employed Principal Investigators, could you please instruct where in the Participant Portal such documentation could be directly, privately and securely passed on to you
rather than having to handle such matters via email?

May I also ask you to send your reply to this message via the Participant Portal and send only a notification e-mail to this e-mail address every time you send a message via the Participant Portal?

Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen

On Tue, 12/20/16, ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu
<ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
To: Tero Auvinen
Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Dear Dr. Auvinen,

Thank you for your email.

We are sorry to hear that your email to the Horizon 2020 helpdesk was not answered.

We are coming back to you regarding two points: the status of your legal entity and your Host Institution support letter.

From your email, we understand you are self-employed. This is perfectly possible for ERC applicants as stated in the ERC Work Programme 2017:
“Normally the Principal Investigator will be employed by the Host Institution, but cases where, for duly justified reasons, the Principal Investigator’s employer cannot become the host institution, or where the Principal Investigator is self-employed, can be accommodated..”
In such a case, we need to have more information on the legal status of your legal entity. Hence, could you please provide us with information regarding where and when the legal entity was created and/or has been registered? Could you also please provide us with the registration number of your legal entity?

Regarding your Host Institution support letter, please note that even if it has no letterhead or stamp, it has to be signed.  This point is addressed in the ERC Work Programme 2017 for which you will find an excerpt below:
The host institution must confirm its association with and its support to the project
and the Principal Investigator. As part of the application, the institution must provide a binding statement that the conditions of independence are already fulfilled or will be provided to the Principal Investigator if the application is successful, according to the template provided in the Information for Applicants. Proposals that do not include this institutional statement may be declared ineligible.

The requirement of the Host Institution’s binding statement is further developed in point 1.1.2.3 of the Information for Applicants which reads as follows:
“The host institution support letter (template available on PPSS, or please see Annex 2 to this document) needs to be originally signed, stamped and dated by the institution’s legal representative. Proposals that do not include this institutional statement may be declared ineligible.

Please get back to us at your earliest convenience and at the latest by the end of this week (at latest by 23/12/2016) by sending the requested information and the signed Host Institution letter as attachment in an e-mail to ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu (or by replying to this message).

Please note this request does not prejudge the final decision on the eligibility of the proposal.

Best Regards,

[name removed] for

[name removed]
Call Coordinator
ERC 2017 Starting Grant

From: ERCEA 2017 STG APPLICANTS
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016
To: Tero Auvinen

Dear Dr Auvinen,

We herewith acknowledge receipt of your message that has been forwarded to the Eligibility Committee. We may come back to you if they consider necessary.

Please note the above does not prejudge the final decision on the eligibility of the above mentioned proposal.

For your information, only applicants whose proposals are declared ineligible will be further contacted (in January 2017) as stated in the Timeframe for the ERC 2017 Starting Call  https://erc.europa.eu/call-proposals#OngoingEval

With regards,
[name removed]

From: Tero Auvinen
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016
To: ERCEA 2017 STG APPLICANTS

Dear [name removed],

As was stated in the submitted host institution support letter, the host institution has no letterhead or stamp. The Principal Investigator is self-employed.

According to the Information for Applicants to the Starting and Consolidator Grant 2017 Calls document, “Normally the Principal Investigator will be employed by the host institution, but cases where, for duly justified reasons, the Principal Investigator’s employer cannot become the host institution, or where the Principal Investigator is self-employed, can be accommodated. The specific conditions of engagement will be subject to clarification and approval during the granting procedure or during the amendment procedure for a change of host institution.”

To the extent “[t]he specific conditions of engagement” for a self-employed Principal Investigator have been clarified by the National Contact Point (no response was received from the Horizon 2020 Helpdesk despite repeated contact attempts), the instructions have been followed when submitting the application.

Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen

On Fri, 12/2/16, ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu
<ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu>
wrote:

To: Tero Auvinen
Date: Friday, December 2, 2016

Dear Dr. AUVINEN,

We are writing to you regarding the proposal you submitted to the ERC 2017 Starting Grant Call. During the eligibility check of the proposal, we noticed the following problem(s) regarding the Host Institution’s support letter submitted with the above proposal:

Problem:

Wrong or missing Principal Investigator’s name

Wrong or missing Host Institution’s name

X No letterhead

X No stamp

X No signature / no name of the authorised official

No date

Incomplete

Other

(The problems that concern you are marked with X.)

Could you please provide us with a correct commitment letter from the Host Institution?

Please find attached to this e-mail the template of the Host Institution commitment
letter.

For more information you could consult the document ‘Information for applicants to the Starting and Consolidator Grant 2017 Calls’ available in the Participant Portal at

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-guide17-erc-stg-cog_en.pdf.

Please get back to us at your earliest convenience and at the latest within 5 working days after receipt of this e-mail (at latest by 9/12/2016) by sending the requested document as attachment in an e-mail to ERC-2017-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu (or by replying to this message).

Please note this request does not prejudge the final decision on the eligibility of the proposal.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

[name removed],
for

[name removed]
Call Coordinator
2017 ERC Starting Grant
European Research Council Executive Agency

Advertisements

A Road to Direct Democracy

It may not be easy to find convincing explanations on how precisely ”representative democracy” and some other prevailing ”political”, ”economic”, ”social” etc. systems might be expected to avoid some of their predictable consequences of persistent wealth and power centralization and institutionalized concealment of the mechanisms or technologies behind such de facto segregation. It may also not be easy to find convincing and widely available evidence of mechanisms that might allow institutional reform of ”representative democracy”. Voters can rarely vote for any specific substantive policy issue directly. In the absence of a sufficient number of candidates who are willing and able to provide binding and legally enforceable contracts to voters with sufficient sanctions for any potential breaches, nothing that the candidates or ”representatives” may or may not say or otherwise communicate changes the fact that the voters often have no technical mechanisms available to vote for specific policy issues. Were such candidates to emerge, they might effectively have to centralize power to themselves, potentially give up some of their personal privacy as candidates and subsequently representatives and expose themselves to the corruptive impact of participating in, for instance, the parliament’s operational practices for the entire duration of their term in case no sufficient majority for the proponents of direct democracy could be achieved in a single election. In other words, according to one potential interpretation, a proponent of direct democracy would be required adopt the precise opposite of his/her substantive political objective – centralization of power to him-/herself – as a precondition for being able to promote such a political objective. Similarly, a proponent of personal privacy, for instance, would have to adopt the precise opposite of his/her substantive political objective – at least some degree of loss of personal privacy as a candidate and subsequently representative – as a precondition for being able to promote such a political objective. Structurally requiring candidates to act in ways that are diametrically opposed to their political views or objectives even before being elected places potential candidates in an unequal position. Even if some potential candidates were willing and able to endure the personal consequences of acting against their convictions, candidates who are structurally required to blatantly and continuously breach their central promises to potential voters before being elected merely due to the substantive content of such political objectives or convictions are not in an equal position with other candidates who do not have to constantly and blatantly violate their actual or alleged substantive political views as a precondition for being actually or allegedly able to promote such objectives after being elected.

Below is one potential tentative technical solution to the aforementioned dilemma – a series of technical steps that might be taken in order to move from ”representative democracy” to direct democracy. Irrespective of the features or relative merits or demerits of different types of (”)political(”) systems, it could be argued that (“)political(“) systems that structurally exclude the expression or ”representation” of certain political views or alternatives due to their substantive content should not be called democracies. It may thus be quite reasonable to expect even any potential normative proponents of some of the predictable consequences of ”representative democracies” and some other prevailing ”political”, ”economic”, ”social” etc. systems to go through the following list of potential technical steps on a road to direct democracy and/or to provide alternative explanations on how different political positions may be equally, credibly and consistently expressed and implemented in a ”democracy” – whether “representative” or direct – regardless of their substantive content.

The Steps

2. [sic, see 1. below] A candidate – whether a natural person, voters’ co-operative or something else – makes a binding commitment to vote according to the majority preference of his/her/its voters in each and every voting opportunity.

3. Each voter records his/her entire voting process from writing down the candidate’s number in the voting slip to putting the voting slip into the ballot box. If the candidate is elected, the candidate asks those voters who wish to participate in decision-making during the candidate’s term to submit recordings of their voting processes as a proof for voting the candidate.

4. The candidate sets up a technical platform for collecting and recording voter preferences before each voting opportunity of the candidate during his/her/its term. The candidate might, for instance, create a closed internet group for his/her/its voters, whereby the voters would have the opportunity to vote on how the candidate should vote in each voting opportunity during his/her/its term. While disclosing the voters’ identities to each other may not be technically necessary, disclosing the names and all voting decisions to everyone within the closed internet group might make the group’s voting system more transparent and reliable. In case the candidate is, for instance, the voters’ co-operative itself rather than a natural person, members of the voters’ co-operative could also vote on who might physically have to go, for instance, to the parliament to press the appropriate button in each voting opportunity according to the group’s preferences, participate in parliamentary debates etc. As a result, no single individual would have to expose him-/herself continuously to the potentially corruptive impact of participating in the parliament’s operational practices for the entire duration of the candidate’s term.

5. In case whoever it is that is supposed to press the button in the parliament in each voting opportunity does not follow the voting co-operative’s pre-selected majority preference in any given voting opportunity, the person intentionally pressing the wrong button or failing to press the correct button could be fired, excluded from the voters’ co-operative and/or prosecuted for, for instance, breach of contract immediately and replaced with another individual who might be more likely to press the correct button in the next parliamentary voting opportunity according to the voters’ co-operative’s prior internal voting results.

6. Each member of the voters’ co-operative would be free to select the most appropriate internal voting method for him-/herself. While some might wish to personally cast their votes in the closed internet group for each issue, others might use intermediaries for such purposes or authorize other members of the voters’ co-operative or external parties to vote on their behalf in specific predefined issues or periods. Potential sanctions for not respecting voter preferences might vary from non-existent (e.g. between friends who might have agreed to vote on each other’s behalf in issues or periods in which each of such voters individually might be unable or unwilling to personally exercise their voting rights) to immediate dismissal and/or prosecution following non-compliance with a specific voting instruction for a specific voting opportunity. Technically it might also be possible for members of the voters’ co-operative to trade voting opportunities with each other. Someone who, for instance, might have a relatively clear view on the most significant, important or urgent issue for political debate and/or decision-making might announce his/her preference for, for instance, arranging one political debate in the parliament on a specific issue through the voters’ co-operative’s representative in the parliament and/or offer all of his/her other voting opportunities to other members of the voters’ co-operative in exchange for having the maximum number of votes to cast in the member’s preferred issue. In case the candidate is the voters’ co-operative itself rather than a natural person, all funding that is typically available to members of parliament through salary payments, cost reimbursements, payments to the member’s political group etc. would be directed to the voters’ co-operative, which could use such funding to, for instance, develop and operate the closed internet group or distribute the payments to its members as a compensation for the political and professional functions that they would be performing on behalf of individual members of parliament, political parties etc.

7. Once candidates following some variants of the aforementioned principles have achieved the required majority in the parliament, the entire political system could be converted to direct democracy following similar principles but with no need for candidates, voters’ co-operatives or other types of institutional intermediaries between each individual voter and, for instance, a national technological platform that transparently aggregates each voter’s voting decisions. Whatever institutions might or might not emerge – or however the technological platform used for aggregating and displaying the electorate’s directly expressed preferences might or might not evolve – could be completely up to the voters themselves.

8. As the potential content or existence of any type of a constitution, declaration of human rights etc. might also be completely up to the electorate’s preferences, some of the functions of such documents might or might not be fulfilled by, for instance, declarations of intent drafted prior to establishing, for instance, nationwide technological platforms for direct democracy. One potential declaration of intent might involve, for instance, outlawing the exclusive pursuit of self-interest in all areas of life – including ”politics” – by the citizens of the nation in question everywhere in the universe. Were, for instance, the majority of the electorate – in the presence of perfect information, for the sake of the argument – to select some individuals – whether citizens of the nation in question or foreigners – for, for instance, enslavement, torture, experimentation, non-consensual mind- and bodily modeling etc. merely due to its expected economic benefits for perhaps everyone else expect the victims themselves and to modify any and all potentially relevant laws, constitutions, transformable declarations etc. accordingly, the original declaration of intent outlawing the exclusive pursuit of self-interest might still provide a perpetual case for the victims and any other potentially interested parties against the perpetrators and any and all forms or manifestations of non-consensually extracted personal information or aspects of personhood that might continue to exist in the universe irrespective of the amount of time that might have passed since the victims’ demise. In other words, the basis for such a declaration of intent would be substantive rather than utilitarian: a single victim could legitimately demand, for instance, the execution of everyone else – or the destruction of the entire world and/or humanity, if necessary – as the least extensive remedy to remove all non-consensually extracted thoughts or other forms of personal information from the universe regardless of their potential economic utility to potentially everyone else in the universe as long as the same remedy is available to any victim who might at any point in time be voted into such a position by everyone else in the universe. In theory such declarations of intent might achieve a lesser degree of inconsistency or mutual incompatibility or include more detailed specifications for the requisite economic, political, social etc. conditions than most – if not all – existing declarations of human rights, constitutions etc. As there might, however, be no more objective mechanisms available for drafting the appropriate declarations of intent than direct democracy or the institutional mechanisms it would replace, such declarations of intent might also be no more institutionally authoritative than any potential injustices that might be committed through, for instance, direct democracy in the presence of perfect information.

The extent to which at least some variants of the aforementioned sample technical road to direct democracy may be legally implementable may to some degree correlate with the extent to which institutional reform – as opposed to replacement – or perhaps also the principle of legality itself – if still within humanity’s reach – may be implementable. To the extent that ”representative democracy” and some other prevailing ”political”, ”economic”, ”social” etc. systems may already have led to some of their predictable consequences of persistent wealth and power centralization and institutionalized concealment of the mechanisms or technologies behind such de facto segregation, other steps may also be technically necessary on some – if not all – potential roads to direct democracy. In some of the circumstances outlined in section 2.10 on pages 57 – 125 of Rescuing Academism (available at https://academism.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/rescuing-academism-by-tero-auvinen), for instance, the following step, for instance, may also be necessary:

1. The execution of everyone who has willingly and knowingly engaged in non-consensual mind-reading or -influencing or been aware of such practices but not publicly opposed them (and thus exposed him-/herself to non-consensually extracted thoughts of others through, for instance, the media or the internet without publicly objecting to such ongoing non-consensual exposure) and the destruction of any and all artificial intelligence systems or other types of designs or expressions which include non-consensually extracted thoughts or bodily or personal information of living or deceased victims. In other words, the victims’ right to privacy, bodily integrity, ownership of all aspects of their personhood – exclusive access to their thoughts, for instance – and right to die – the right to erase any and all thoughts or other forms of non-consensually extracted personal information from the universe upon their physical death – would be regarded as more important than the perpetrators’ right to life or a public trial, for instance. Any nation or other potentially relevant entity that claims to defend the human rights of its citizens and/or others might seem to be free – if not forced – to take military action also beyond its own borders to eliminate perpetrators whom their own jurisdictions might be unwilling or unable to execute and to ensure that any and all artificial intelligence systems and other designs or expressions involving, for instance, non-consensually extracted thoughts are destroyed. There are at least two different approaches to justify the potential extent of the required executions and destruction. In case virtually all institutions are under the control of the perpetrators, it is quite possible to view the execution of, for instance, every member or representative of the parliament, media, police, army, “the scientific community”, business and religious leadership etc. as a lesser evil than the alternative of potentially having to defend oneself against some perpetrators operating under whatever residual authority such institutions might continue to have while attempting to conceive and implement their institutional replacements. Alternatively, it is quite possible – if not necessary – to view the execution of every perpetrator and the destruction of every machine or artifact that to some extent relies on non-consensually extracted thoughts or other types of private information as the most appropriate solution irrespective of the consequences – in other words, not to abstain from implementing solutions or punishments that might be seen as appropriate for individual offenders merely because the group of perpetrators may involve the holders of virtually every position of authority in the society. Without the implementation of this step there might be no autonomous individuals who could freely and privately form and communicate their voting decisions and whatever forms of life might allegedly continue to exist might be relatively freely copied, cloned, modeled, mirrored, mimicked, reproduced, re-engineered etc. by powerful actors in a perhaps permanently segregated world. Under such circumstances any potential implementation of technical platforms for direct democracy may well be counterproductive, as the existence of such platforms might further conceal the true level – or absence – of democratic freedoms in a given society.

To the extent the aforementioned step in any potential road to direct democracy has any practical significance, it may well be the most important and urgent step to take, without with any further progress – or autonomous human existence, for that matter – may be impossible. To the extent it has no practical significance, it may be irrelevant. As the step may be either necessary or irrelevant, it is ranked number one in the above list of potential technical steps on a road to direct democracy. The step may not, however, be inherently “political” in nature or linked exclusively to any potential pursuit of the appropriate technical preconditions for a direct democracy. To the extent that the existing legislation – or what the legislation would have been likely to be or become without non-consensual mind-reading or -control of the voters or subjects and torture or worse of potential dissidents who might have been in a position to inform the public about their on-going mind-control, servitude, experimentation and potentially permanent expropriation of their thoughts and other aspects of their humanness – for instance, prohibits non-consensual mind-reading or -control, the step might more accurately be described, for instance, as law enforcement that may ultimately have to be rewarded rather than suppressed by states if any semblance of legality – if possible even in theory – is to be restored in case the step turns out to be anything else except entirely irrelevant.

Amnesty International

I have so far not received correspondence from other members of Amnesty International that might contradict the following views (see the screenshots) apparently received from Amnesty the Netherlands.

160712 amnesty.nl 1

160712 amnesty.nl 2

Interestingly, at least some member(s) of Amnesty the Netherlands (no other potential memberships or potentially conflicting affiliations have been openly disclosed) would appear to, among other things:

1) View discussion on the appropriate definition or order of priority of different types of human rights as a matter that falls exclusively within the discretion of the national section of the (potentially offending) country in which any specific types of alleged or actual human rights violations might be taking place or any specific individual(s) who might attempt to raise such discussion might be located in. This might be particularly interesting in the light of some of Amnesty’s own alleged or actual policies: while members of Amnesty International might allegedly or actually not have the integrity, courage or competence to defend human rights – however defined – in those countries in which they happen to be located, they nonetheless appear to take the liberty to pass on information to the national sections of countries which some potential independent researchers, victims etc. might focus on or be located in – the corruption and worse of some of which might already have become evident in some cases through previous communication.

2) View distribution of questions or information on the operational practices, correct contact information, the nature of the apparent website design etc. of the national sections as a matter that falls exclusively within the discretion of the national section of the (potentially offending) country in which any specific types of alleged or actual human rights violations might be taking place or any specific individual(s) who might attempt to raise such discussion might be located or in.

3) Jump into such conclusions in their correspondence without confirming whether any specific national section has passed on information to Amnesty’s “International Secretariat” that might indicate corruption and worse on the part of a potentially wide – if not all-encompassing – range of national institutions, potentially including the Amnesty International’s national section itself – or information which should in any case be available and/or evident to independent and competent human rights researchers with sufficient professional integrity – in any specific country.

4) Deliberately attempt to destroy some of the potentially last potential means to discuss the appropriate definition or order of priority of human rights or potential or actual human rights violations with a level of privacy that goes beyond restrictive statements of copyright or other legal means on material that might – potentially in the absence of more suitable, if not ultimately any other options – be technically relatively widely available.

To what extent might other members of Amnesty International, each individual or organization that has funded or might consider funding Amnesty International and other stakeholders agree with the views apparently received from Amnesty the Netherlands? How many of them have been aware of such views in the first place?