Euroquacks: Confidential Genocides and Anonymous Abuses of Power?

The following email was sent on May 17, 2017 in response to European Research Council Starting Grant 2017 rejection letter received on the same day.

[start of the email]

Date: Wed, 17 May 2017
From: Tero Auvinen
To:  RTD-FOR-APPEALS-UNDER-ART-22-OF-REG-58-2003@ec.europa.eu
Subject: Request for a legal review under Article 22 of Council Regulation No 58/2003 – ERC Starting Grant 2017 Proposal No. 754737

The current procedures are clearly and deliberately inadequate or inappropriate to prevent a conflict of interest on the part of the reviewers through, for instance, non-transparent selective social or technological affinities or to guarantee each reviewer’s capacity and competence for making independent evaluations. In extremis, the current procedures may not prevent potential perpetrators of some of the most serious human rights violations or crimes against humanity in history from funding other perpetrators while denying funding from victims who might be able to bring the perpetrators to justice and information on the types of human rights violations or crimes against humanity committed into the purview of “science”.

I am requesting all proposals, evaluation results, the names of the reviewers and the reviewers’ full publication lists to be made public and all existing judicial, law enforcement and other potentially relevant authorities to disqualify themselves from any administration of justice which may ensue due to a potential conflict of interest.

Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen

[end of the email]

The proposal received “Final panel score” C (“Ranking range: 63%-100%”). The evaluation was made by “SH3 Environment, Space and Population” panel. According to the “Information for Applicants to the Starting and Consolidator Grant 2017 Calls” document that has been available to the applicant, no such panel exists. The applicant indicated “SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment and Space: Political science, law, sustainability science, geography, regional studies and planning” as the primary ERC Review Panel and “SH3 The Social World, Diversity, Population: Sociology, social psychology, demography, education, communication” as the secondary ERC Review Panel in the proposal. The applicant-selected ERC Keywords – in order of priority – in the proposal were all from panel SH2: (1) “SH2_1 Political systems, governance”, (2) “SH2_4 Legal studies, constitutions, human rights, comparative law”, (3) “SH2_2 Democratisation and social movements” and (4) “SH2_5 International relations, global and transnational governance”. The applicant-selected free keywords in the proposal were “singularity”, “transhumanism”, “posthumanism”, “social sciences” and “philosophy of science”. The evaluation report including a panel comment (229 words) and five anonymous reviews ranging from 39 to 444 words each – none of which demonstrate substantive competence or publication record in the field of the research proposal – is labeled “CONFIDENTIAL”.

Public – as opposed to confidential – access is not the same as some of the prevailing interpretations of “open” access. According to the proposal:

“The applicant is… requesting exemption from – or overall abolishment of – the requirement to provide ‘Open Access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications resulting from ERC projects’ by limiting the access right to natural persons only – explicitly prohibiting, for instance, access by self-learning artificial intelligence systems either directly or via natural persons – and prohibiting the creation of derivative works.”

Advertisements

Update on Manuscripts

On Legitimate Sovereignty and Beyond Legality appear to have been accepted for publication, had the author been willing to transfer or give away the copyright. Although it is still possible that the manuscripts will be published in academic journals or through academic publishers, substantively the manuscripts might thus already be regarded as having passed the evaluation process in order to be regarded as being “scientific” in nature according to some of the allegedly prevailing standards.

As long as academic journals and publishers are regarded as gatekeepers of “science”, one might expect each journal and publisher individually and all of them collectively to have a responsibility to publish anything and everything that fulfils some predetermined criteria for “science”. Mere policy choices regarding, for instance, topics of manuscripts or copyright terms might not be regarded as sufficient or acceptable reasons for not publishing manuscripts which fulfil some predetermined criteria for “science”. In other words, gatekeepers of “science” might not be expected to be able to exclude manuscripts which fulfil some predetermined criteria for “science” from the purview of “science” simply through policy decisions that are unrelated to the predetermined criteria for “science” which may have the intent or effect of, for instance, depriving excessively relevant or accurate manuscripts of suitable “scientific” publication outlets.

There may be perhaps two main approaches to define the appropriate criteria for “science”. On the one hand, originality, relevance, accuracy, comprehensiveness, absence of double or multiple meanings or willingly and knowingly accessed non-consensually extracted surveillance information of others or any other potentially relevant criteria for “science” may be strictly enforced. In such a case finding a significant number of publishable manuscripts – if any – in entire “scientific” disciplines or fields of study may not be simple or feasible for extended periods of time. On the other hand, the definition and implementation of the appropriate criteria for “science” may be regarded as perhaps at least equally fallible process as the examination of any potential “scientific” conclusions which might derive from or be reached through the application of those criteria at any given point in time. In such a case one might expect perhaps all manuscripts aspiring to be “scientific” in nature to be published or made available to their intended readership unless other, non-“science”-related considerations – such as the presence of willingly and knowingly accessed non-consensually extracted surveillance information of others – prevents publication.

In the former case, any specific author or editor might have significant difficulties in identifying publishable manuscripts in addition to his/her own work for extended periods of time. Although an editor who might not be willing to call “science” anything and everything that other sufficiently powerful individuals, institutions, groups or cults in respect of one’s own career development might call “science” at any given point in time while excluding everything else might receive potentially a relatively low number of submissions, this might not be the most significant problem. Even if all “scientific” output in any specific field was submitted to the specific editor in question, there might be few, if any, publishable manuscripts based on the selected criteria. Furthermore, the fact that any specific author – including the editor him-/herself – might well be violently attacked, at the latest, when any specific sufficiently original, relevant, accurate or comprehensive manuscript lacking criminal, occult or cultist spin is published might in any case render any journal or publisher conforming to some predetermined criteria for “science” short-lived or, at the minimum, its publishing operations relatively infrequent. In other words, a long publication list, permanent academic position or participation in international “scientific” conferences, for instance, might be regarded as potential or likely evidence that the work of the author in question may be unlikely to be sufficiently original, relevant, accurate, comprehensive or free from non-“scientific” content to merit publication, academic employment or conference participation in the first place. In the latter case there may be little substantive need for pre-publication “scientific” gatekeepers. The task of weeding out manuscripts containing, for instance, willingly and knowingly accessed non-consensually extracted surveillance information of others and penalizing or eliminating their authors might more appropriately be regarded as the task of, for instance, (“)law(”) enforcement officers or military personnel as a part of warfare conducted through all available means rather than civilian gatekeepers of “science”.

For the moment, I am thus not aiming to establish a “scientific” journal or publisher that might better conform to the appropriate criteria for “science”. Instead, I am making my own “scientific” work available to its intended audience on my own websites. The objective or intention may not be the redefinition of “scientific” publication practices per se. Independent journals or publishers which better conform to the appropriate criteria for “science” and which the present author might not in all cases be aware of might still exist or be created autonomously in response to such a potential need rather than, for instance, as a reaction of a co-opted or cultist “scientific” community to multiple inquiries directed at geographically, disciplinarily, thematically or linguistically different parts of the global “scientific” beast. It is also, however, quite possible that this is one of the potential directions where “scientific” publication practices might evolve in the future: each author publishing his/her work with a form and content determined by the author him-/herself in an outlet or platform of his/her choice – perhaps after seeking unofficial or non-binding feedback from individuals whom the author in question might regard as being sufficiently independent and competent in any specific field, discipline or topic.

Enabling Direct Democracy

This petition is a private, non-public document, which is available exclusively for the personal use of natural persons who have not had access to any part of its contents before it was first made available to its target audience at https://academism.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/enabling-direct-democracy

The aim of the petition is to enable direct democracy – with or without the establishment of a new political party – by guaranteeing personal privacy, autonomy, bodily integrity, the transformability and openness of the political system and other potential preconditions for autonomous individual democratic participation through the following policies or reforms:

-All technologies are (“)legally(“) required to be publicly and transparently designed, developed and – whenever (“)legally(“) permitted – utilized. Without this and potentially several other requirements the implementation of some of the principles which may sometimes be attributed to, for instance, ”the rule of law” may not be possible even in theory. Victims of criminal offenses cannot, for instance, be expected to be able to describe the operational principles of technologies, which have required significant amounts of time and resources from a significant number of actors – including state actors – to develop, deploy and conceal from public attention.

-All potential means are utilized to extract all available information from former and current members of parliament, civil servants, business executives, journalists, reporters, judges, attorneys, the leadership of the police, the army, universities and religious organizations on their knowledge of and own participation in criminal offenses involving technologies which at least to some extent have been developed in secrecy without public oversight. In case such technologies have had an impact on the actually or potentially relevant legislation, assessment of whether criminal offenses have occurred and their respective seriousness may be based on legislation that was in force before the development or deployment of such technologies or which could have been expected to come into force, had the ongoing development or deployment of such technologies been widely known among the public. If there is a conflict between the rights of the victims and the rights of the perpetrators, the rights of the victims shall be secured. Were, for instance, it to be discovered that every member of parliament, top civil servant, executive of a large corporation, reporter, journalist, judge, attorney, the leadership of the police, the army, universities and religious organizations and a significant proportion of power-wielders in all areas of the society had been aware of and/or willingly and knowingly participated in large-scale non-consensual mind reading, mind control and torture of dissidents for years or decades, all such individuals could, according to the aforementioned principles, be executed.

-”The logic of a nuclear power” shall be implemented cost-effectively and availability will be extended to marginalized groups or specific victims of criminal offenses. A nuclear power in practice reserves the right to destroy the entire humanity in response to an attack targeted against itself. Such an objective may be attainable through various means, some of which may well be easier to implement, more reliable and/or cheaper than destroying the entire humanity through nuclear weapons in response to an attack. A state, group or individual victims of the aforementioned types of mind reading or mind control, for instance, could destroy the entire humanity – or at least a significant proportion of it – in case the parties behind such an attack do not stop their ongoing assault, execute the perpetrators and destroy all material obtained through their assault of non-consensual mind reading or mind control.

-The economic system will be reformed to enable the pursuit of the highest possible living standards and the largest conceivable degree of division of labor without the need to engage in the buying or selling of anything or anyone.

In case the personal privacy, autonomy and bodily integrity of every human being and other potential preconditions for autonomous individual democratic participation can be achieved and proven without destroying the entire humanity in the process, direct democracy can be implemented, for instance, as follows:

-Candidates who support direct democracy make a binding commitment to follow the majority preference of their voters in each, for instance, parliamentary vote if elected to the parliament.

-Every voter who votes for a candidate who supports direct democracy and wishes to participate in decision-making during the candidate’s term in case the candidate is elected records the entire voting process on the election day.

-After being elected each representative who supports direct democracy sets up, for instance, a closed internet group for everyone who is willing and able to prove his/her vote for a specific candidate in the elections with a video recording of the voting process. The group’s – and thus also the representative’s –  position on every issue that the representative may vote on in, for instance, the parliament will be determined through a prior internal voting process among the members of the closed internet group. In principle the candidates supporting direct democracy in any given elections may also be legal rather than natural persons – for instance, voters’ co-operatives, which, if elected, would also determine who might be sent, for instance, to the parliament at any given point in time to vote according to the co-operative’s preferences or for other purposes through prior internal voting among the members of the voters’ co-operative. The names and voting decisions of individuals participating in the closed internet group’s or voters’ co-operative’s internal voting processes could be kept confidential, although disclosing such information to all members of such groups might improve the accuracy and reliability of the internal voting results.

-In case the representative or whoever the voters’ co-operative might send, for instance, to the parliament at any given point in time to physically press the correct button according to the co-operative’s prior internal voting results intentionally fails to follow the majority preference of the prior internal voting processes, such an individual could be fired immediately, prosecuted for, for instance, breach of contract and replaced with a person, whom the voters regard as being more likely to follow the majority preference of the prior internal voting process in the next available voting opportunity in, for instance, the parliament.

-Each voter would be free to select the most appropriate voting methods for him-/herself in the internal voting processes within the closed internet group or the voters’ co-operative. Some voters might, for instance, wish to always either cast their votes personally or abstain from voting altogether, while others might share or rotate the opportunities to exercise their voting rights on behalf of each other either permanently or in specific predefined issues or periods. Voters who do not have an opportunity or the will to exercise their voting rights personally in each and every issue might thus, for instance, form groups which rotate the opportunity to exercise their total number of voting rights among their members permanently or in specific predefined periods or issues or use intermediaries in internal voting processes with similar possibilities for immediate dismissal, prosecution etc. of the intermediaries for, for instance, any potential breaches of contract as in the case of external representatives of the voters’ closed internet group or co-operative. In principle it might also be possible for members of the closed internet group or the voters’ co-operative to trade voting opportunities with each other in their internal voting processes. A voter who might, for instance, be convinced of the importance of a specific policy issue might offer all of his/her voting rights in all other internal voting processes for the entire duration of the representative’s or voters’ co-operative’s term in exchange for being able to cast the maximum number of votes in the issue deemed to be the most important by the voter in question.

-In case the representative is a legal rather than a natural person – for instance, a voters’ co-operative – all salary payments, cost reimbursements, payments to the representative’s political group etc. could be made to the voters’ co-operative, which could use the funds, for instance, for designing and operating its internal voting or other operational processes or distribute the funds partly or entirely to its members.

-Once representatives who support direct democracy have achieved a sufficient majority in the parliament, the entire political system could be transformed into a direct democracy with no representatives, parties, voters’ co-operatives or other institutional intermediaries between the voters exercising their direct voting rights and technical platforms – for instance, the internet or national voting networks that are not connected to the internet – which transparently aggregate and display the results of each vote. Any potential implementation of institutions other than the appropriate type of voting network – and any potential reforms or transformations of such a network – could be determined by the voters.

The petition also asks as optional information whether the person signing the petition is registered to vote in Finland, either in the national or EU parliamentary or the municipal elections.

In case this petition is – during an unspecified time frame – signed by less than 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland or at least 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland but implementation of the aforementioned processes may not be feasible at the time of reaching 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland for, for instance, (“)legal(“) reasons, the drafter of this petition may not necessarily take any further action based on this petition.

In case this petition is – during an unspecified time frame – signed by at least 5000 people who are registered to vote in Finland and no other considerations prevent such an action, the drafter of this petition reserves the right to inquire whether signatories who are registered to vote in Finland would be  interested – at the time the limit of 5000 signatories who are registered to vote in Finland is reached or exceeded – in sending a signed document stating their support for the establishment of a new political party in Finland to a postal address which the drafter of this petition may, upon request, provide to them. Such signed statements might be enclosed to a potential application to register a new political party in Finland that might be submitted to the relevant (“)authorities(“) at that time. The drafter of this petition does not, however, make a personal commitment to establish a new political party, particularly in cases where such a process would require centralization of power to the drafter of this petition as an intermediate step on the road toward direct democracy, loss of privacy or the aforementioned objectives may be achieved more appropriately through other means than establishing a new political party. The drafter of this petition also does not recommend supporting anyone or anything that might claim centralization of power to him-/her-/itself to be necessary, desirable or appropriate to promote direct democracy.

Nor is it obvious that a predominantly political – or (“)legal(”), for that matter – solution to some of the aforementioned issues would necessarily be feasible or desirable. Some of the proposed solutions in this petition may well be preconditions for politics rather than outcomes that might be achieved through processes that might legitimately be regarded as predominantly political in nature. If, for instance, the voters do not have sufficient personal privacy, autonomy and bodily integrity for autonomous opinion formation and communication, democracy is not technically feasible irrespective of other characteristics of the (“)political(”) system. It is also not obvious that in the case of intensive and widespread attacks against one’s physical integrity and personhood (“)politics(”) would necessarily always be the primary means of potential self-defense. In such cases enabling direct democracy requires primarily guaranteeing the physical and informational integrity of the human body.

Sign this petition by posting your email address and, optionally, information on whether you are registered to vote in Finland as a comment or sending the information to tero.auvinen (at) yahoo.com, tero.auvinen (at) openmailbox.org and/or teauvi (at) gmail.com.