Potatoes, Cucumber, Milk and Banana

Potatoes (sort: Musica) which allegedly “taste like potatoes”, “are known in the whole Finland and even abroad for their quality” and “When you select Mäläskä’s potatoes you can be sure that at every stage of the production process we have thought about just you” bought from Prismas (sometimes Prisma Raksila, sometimes Prisma Limingantulli) in Oulu, Finland.

170522 001

170522 005

170522 007

170522 009

170522 012

170522 014

170522 016

At least one long-standing victim of mind control has indeed commended the alleged taste of these potatoes. If anyone with some basic understanding of the contemporary world as it actually is has ever wondered how anything from “food” to, say, “popular culture” can be allegedly popular, this may well be the normal or ordinary direction of causation: different factions of the Cabal might well be, for instance, competing in who can sell the most harmful “food”, lowest quality “durable” goods or most obvious travesties of music, movies, art or some other forms of popular culture as genuine popular culture and then use mind control to force the general population to actually or allegedly like something that might well in all likelihood be contrary to their tastes in a hypothetical world where one’s alleged tastes or worldviews do not affect one’s livelihood or likelihood of survival.

Cucumber bought from K-Citymarket Raksila in Oulu, Finland on April 4, 2017. In Finnish the word “kurkku” is used for both cucumber and throat.

170404 001

170404 002

170404 005

170404 007

170404 009

170404 010

170404 011

Milk from Lidl Hiironen in Oulu, Finland. The roundness of many milk cartons on several occasions before the expiry date does not appear to be easy to capture in a picture.

170322 001

Banana from Oulu, Finland (most food while in Oulu was bought from Lidl Hiironen, Prisma Raksila, Prisma Limingantulli, K-Citymarket Raksila or K-Supermarket Joutsensilta).

170609 001

170609 005

170609 006

170609 008

 

Advertisements

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.”

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.