Αγορά Πολιτών

Τρόπος Συμμετοχής

Χορηγίες

Πολίτες στην Αγορά

Έχουμε 343 επισκέπτες συνδεδεμένους

Επικοινωνία

Γερμανία 004917667046073 (SMS)

7/3/2017, 20:00

Images of German w & s

 

Crimes against Humanity

 

"Chimera" - "Bellerophon"

 

Legal Notice 87

 

Βδέλλες, αποικιοκρατικές

 

Being a German

 

Legal Notice 84

 

Dirty colonial methods

 

Georgi Markov, BG - KGB

 

Samples of Barbarity

 

Ελλάδα - αποκόλληση

 

Έλληνες, στο έλεος...

 

Harvester's log 16/3/17

 

 

Legal Notice 66

 

Execrable

 

Legal Notice 62

 

  

My story

 

  

Aggression?

 

  

Η Εστία μου

 

  

Why so untidy?

 

  

Αποικιοκρατία

 

  

Εξόντωση Ελλήνων αντιφρονούντων;

 

  

Ζήτημα εμπιστοσύνης

 

  

Μεθοδικότητα

 

  

Ανοικτή Επιστολή πρέσβη ΗΠΑ

Αφορμή, U2RIT vs Ελλάδα;

Βιοηθική

A request to U2RIT

Colonial aggression - 2

Open Letter to UN S.G.

Open Letter to p.C. & p. O.

Δήλωση πρόθεσης επαναπατρισμού

 

Ο "εφιάλτης" της Νυρεμβέργης

Συλλογή Φωτογραφιών

Αίτημα προστασίας, προς Ιταλία

Chroma key, background removal

Science and Ethics

Να συμβάλει και η U2RIT

Θα ξαναφτιάξουν πολλές φορές Άουσβιτς και Zyclon B

 

Split-Screen effect

Η Ζωή είναι Ωραία.

Βόρεια Κορέα

Λευτεριά στους Έλληνες, εξανα- γκαστικά "Εξαφανισμένους"

 

Μυστικές δίκες;

Trustworthiness

Πολιτισμό, ή, απληστία;

Ακραία Στυγνότητα

Η Τέχνη της Επιβίωσης

Political Asylum 3

Επιστροφή στις ρίζες

The Human Cost of Torture

An urgent appeal for solidarity

More obvious than the Sun

Western "culture"

Political Asylum

Έννομη Προστασία

Μια μήνυση που εγείρει ερωτηματικά

 

 

 

Honor your father...

Noise

Creative Greeks

A pair of Dictatorships

Colonialism, mass media and accountability PDF Εκτύπωση E-mail
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
ΧείριστοΆριστο 
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Τετάρτη, 21 Ιούνιος 2017 22:16

GULAG BARASHEVO - OCT. 18 TRAILER - TANYA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MqgTLK6ie4

 

Colonialism, mass media and accountability

 

Ten psychological tactics for avoiding accountability and how to address them

This blog explores psychological perspectives on what helps and hinders good practice for accountability. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most relevant concepts from social psychology that can help us “do accountability well” and hopefully minimise our propensity to prevarication when it comes to accountability. It refers to the disturbing, internal incongruence that we feel as we try to harmonise discrepant thoughts about ourselves.

In their book, Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me (2007), Tavris and Aronson describe cognitive dissonance as follows: “When we make mistakes, we must calm the cognitive dissonance [inner disharmony between our ideal self and actual self] that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right—a belief that is dumb, immoral, and wrong.”

Cognitive dissonance provides a useful conceptual grid to understand what we are up against when we try to bring ourselves and our organizations to account, for example, when assessing how we are putting into practice the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS). Greater self-awareness is no guarantee of better practice, but it certainly can help! The quote below from Tavris and Aronson sheds more light for us and our sector.

"Most people, when directly confronted by evidence that they are wrong, do not change their point of view or course of action but justify it even more tenaciously. Yet mindless self-justification, like quicksand, can draw us deeper into disaster. It blocks our ability to even see our errors, let alone correct them. It keeps many professionals from changing outdated attitudes and procedures that can be harmful to the public." (pp. 4-10)

Here are ten tactics used to avoid accountability for mistakes, poor practice, dysfunction, and outright deviance that I have seen firsthand over the past eight years as part of a network confronting a major international fraud (see PETRA People, Tricks for Feigning Good Practice, February-March 2016). These tactics illustrate what not to do when we and our organizations are asked to give an account of our work - be it via routine self-assessments or requests to explain our actions. They can serve to minimize cognitive dissonance, to protect ourselves, or to intentionally misrepresent the facts. Understanding how we can get it wrong can be a helpful way to avoid some of these proven “tactical tricks” for avoiding accountability.

1. Delegate the matter to someone else internally - diffuse it, distance yourself from it - and do everything to avoid an internal and especially an independent review.

2. Avoid, reword, or repackage, the issues - obfuscate the facts, or at least talk tentatively or vaguely about some mistakes in the past and that you or someone could probably have done a better job on … but go no further; rationalize and/or disguise any culpability.

3. Focus on minor or “other” things so as to look like you are focusing on the central things, punctuating it all with the language of transparency and accountability.

4. Appeal to your integrity and to acting with the highest standards, without demonstrating either.

5. Point out your past track record. Highlight anything positive that you are doing or contributing to now.

6. Ask and assume that people should trust you without verification. Offer some general assurances that you have or will be looking into the matter and all is okay.

7. State that you are under attack or at least that you are not being treated fairly or that people just don’t understand.

8. Mention other peoples’ (alleged) problems, question their motives and credibility; dress someone else in your own dirty clothes, especially if they are noisome question-askers or whistle-blowers.

9. Prop up the old boys’ leadership club, reshuffle the leadership deck if necessary yet without changing leaders or their power or how they can cover for each other in the name of “loyalty” and on behalf of the “greater good”. Try to hold out until the dust settles and the “uncomfortable” stuff hopefully goes away.

10. So in short, don’t really do anything with real transparency and accountability; rather, maintain your self-interests, lifestyle, affiliations, and allusions of moral congruity, even if it means recalibrating your conscience - essentially, acting corruptly via complicity, cover-ups, and cowardice.

Addressing Tactical Tricks: Integrity

Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization, recently reminded us that: “This is a world that is not seeing the best of human nature.” So how can we bring out the best of who we are, in particular as it concerns our accountability practices? Here are five suggestions for developing the main tool that we have in our good practice arsenal: integrity. We use Global Integrity's definintion of integrity which defines it as the core quality and commitment that helps us align our stated values with our actual behaviours as we pursue consistent moral wholeness.

1. Yourself. Examine your accountability practices by reviewing this web-log entry. What are you aware of regarding your strengths and weaknesses? Can you give some specific examples?

2. Colleagues. Discuss this topic with colleagues. To what extent are and can colleagues be accountable with one another? Identify some personal, group, organisational and sectoral vulnerabilities for prevarication as well as safeguards for ethical action. For example, as a group watch social psychologist Phil Zimbardo’s TedTalk (2008) on what makes nice people go bad and the need for ordinary heroes.

3. Managers. Encourage management to consider how they express moral values in the workplace, especially reflecting on how one’s private morality can differ from one’s workplace morality. Crisis times can be especially risky for compromising ones core values. See the short introduction about this common and serious discrepancy in Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers, (2010) by Robert Jackal.

4. Leaders. Model and mentor transparency and accountability as leaders. Admit mistakes. Welcome feedback from others. Encourage colleagues to share “uncomfortable” information with you. Know, review, and refer to relevant good practice codes. As necessary, support the development of clear policies on whistle-blower protection and non-retaliation. Chapter one in Bennis et al’s book is very helpful for leadership integrity: Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor (2008). Much of this chapter is available for preview online here.

5. Ethos. Cultivate an organizational “culture of integrity” as encouraged for example by the UN Global Compact. Intentionally weave transparency and accountability into “how we do things:” our organizational thinking, strategies, polices, and procedures. Normalize it. Reward it. Organizational integrity is fundamentally a collective mentality that shapes our work for better or worse. It is inculcated throughout the life cycle of staff (from recruitment to end of service) and not just mentioned for example as part of an orientation packet or during a crisis time.

 

[http://www.chsalliance.org/news/blog/10-psychological-tactics-for-avoiding-accountability]

 

Accountability

In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.[1] As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in the public sector,nonprofit and private (corporate) and individual contexts. In leadership roles,[2] accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences.

In governance, accountability has expanded beyond the basic definition of "being called to account for one's actions".[3][4]It is frequently described as an account-giving relationship between individuals, e.g. "A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A's (past or future) actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct".[5] Accountability cannot exist without proper accounting practices; in other words, an absence of accounting means an absence of accountability.

Accountability is an element of a RACI to indicate who (or group) is ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one who delegates the work to those responsible.

There are various reasons (legitimate or excuses) why accountability fails.[6]

History and etymology

"Accountability" stems from late Latin accomptare (to account), a prefixed form of computare (to calculate), which in turn derived from putare (to reckon).[7] While the word itself does not appear in English until its use in 13th century Norman England,[8][9] the concept of account-giving has ancient roots in record keeping activities related to governance and money-lending systems that first developed in Ancient Egypt,[10] Israel,[11] Babylon,[12] Greece,[13] and later, Rome.[14]

Types

Bruce Stone, O.P. Dwivedi, and Joseph G. Jabbra list 8 types of accountability, namely: moral, administrative, political, managerial, market, legal/judicial, constituency relation, and professional.[15] Leadership accountability cross cuts many of these distinctions.

Political

Political accountability is the accountability of the government, civil servants and politicians to the public and to legislative bodies such as a congress or a parliament.

Hirschman makes substantial contributions to accountability theory, positing exit or voice as pivotal accountability mechanisms.[16] The relationship between the governor and governed (i.e., [autonomous (auto) - dependent (dep)], [auto-auto], [dep-dep], [dep-auto] ) functiolns such that the prospect of citizen exit can, not only disciplines ex ante, but also ex post if the state is dependent on the citizens. The literature connects this disposition of autonomy or dependence to its fiscal capacity. States that are most responsive adjust to exit or voice. Clark & Golder model the dynamics of Hirschman's theory and elaborate important aspects like those that operationalize loyalty as an active choice. [17] Exit, voice, and loyalty will be expressed in different ways under differing regimes and given the relevant assumptions. All three of these sufficiently broad categories present ways and means of holding the state accountable.

Recall elections can be used to revoke the office of an elected official. Generally, however, voters do not have any direct way of holding elected representatives to account during the term for which they have been elected. Additionally, some officials and legislators may be appointed rather than elected. Constitution, or statute, can empower a legislative body to hold their own members, the government, and government bodies to account. This can be through holding an internal or independent inquiry. Inquiries are usually held in response to an allegation of misconduct or corruption. The powers, procedures and sanctions vary from country to country. The legislature may have the power to impeach the individual, remove them, or suspend them from office for a period of time. The accused person might also decide to resign before trial. Impeachment in the United States has been used both for elected representatives and other civil offices, such asdistrict court judges.

In parliamentary systems, the government relies on the support or parliament, which gives parliament power to hold the government to account. For example, some parliaments can pass a vote of no confidence in the government.

Belsky et. al point out, whereas, under more democratic governance accountability is built into the institution of the state by a habit of regular elections, accountability in autocratic regimes [18] relies on a selectorate; a group that legitimizes or delegitimizes the autocrats powers according to selectorate theory. The primary mechanism at a selectorate's disposal is deposition, which is a form of exit. Beyond that institutions can act as credible restraints on autocracy as well.

Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute found that empowering citizens in developing countries to be able to hold their domestic governments to account was incredibly complex in practice. However, by developing explicit processes that generate change from individuals, groups or communities (Theories of Change), and by fusing political economy analysis and outcome mapping tools, the complex state-citizen dynamics can be better understood. As such, more effective ways to achieve outcomes can hence be generated.[19]

Researchers at the International Budget Partnership (IBP) found that civil society organizations play an important role in achieving accountability outcomes. The IBP case studies showed that CSOs can have an impact in a broad array of political and economic contexts. The researchers concluded that CSOs are most effective when they draw in a broad web of actors from across the accountability system, including the media, auditors, donors, the legislature, executive insiders, and political parties.[20]

Ethical

Within an organization, the principles and practices of ethical accountability aim to improve both the internal standard of individual and group conduct as well as external factors, such as sustainable economic and ecologic strategies. Also, ethical accountability plays a progressively important role in academic fields, such as laboratory experiments and field research. Debates around the practice of ethical accountability on the part of researchers in the social field – whether professional or others – have been thoroughly explored by Norma R.A. Romm in her work on Accountability in Social Research,[21] including her book on New Racism: Revisiting Researcher Accountabilities, reviewed by Carole Truman in the journal Sociological Research Online.[22] Here it is suggested that researcher accountability implies that researchers are cognizant of, and take some responsibility for, the potential impact of their ways of doing research – and of writing it up – on the social fields of which the research is part. That is, accountability is linked to considering carefully, and being open to challenge in relation to, one's choices concerning how research agendas are framed and the styles in which write-ups of research "results" are created.

Administrative

Internal rules and norms as well as some independent commission are mechanisms to hold civil servants within the administration of government accountable. Within department or ministry, firstly, behavior is bound by rules and regulations; secondly, civil servants are subordinates in a hierarchy and accountable to superiors. Nonetheless, there are independent "watchdog" units to scrutinize and hold departments accountable; legitimacy of these commissions is built upon their independence, as it avoids any conflicts of interests. The accountability is defined as "an element which is part of a unique responsibility and which represents an obligation of an actor to achieve the goal, or to perform the procedure of a task, and the justification that it is done to someone else, under threat of sanction".[23]

Individuals within organizations

Because many different individuals in large organizations contribute in many ways to the decisions and policies, it is difficult even in principle to identify who should be accountable for the results. This is what is known, following Thompson, as the problem of many hands.[24] It creates a dilemma for accountability. If individuals are held accountable or responsible, individuals who could not have prevented the results are either unfairly punished, or they "take responsibility" in a symbolic ritual without suffering any consequences. If only organizations are held accountable, then all individuals in the organization are equally blameworthy or all are excused. Various solutions have been proposed. One is to broaden the criteria for individual responsibility so that individuals are held accountable for not anticipating failures in the organization. Another solution, recently proposed by Thompson, is to hold individuals accountable for the design of the organization, both retrospectively and prospectively.[25]

Constituency relations

Within this perspective, a particular agency of the government is accountable if voices are heard from agencies, groups or institutions outside the public sector representing citizens' interests from a particular constituency or field. Moreover, the government is obliged to empower members of agencies with political rights to run for elections and be elected; or, appoint them into the public sector as a way to make the government representative and to ensure that voices from all constituencies are included in policy-making.

Public/private overlap

With the increase over the last several decades in public service provided by private entities, especially in Britain and the United States, some have called for increased political accountability mechanisms for otherwise non-political entities. Legal scholar Anne Davies, for instance, argues that the line between public institutions and private entities like corporations is becoming blurred in certain areas of public service in the United Kingdom, and that this can compromise political accountability in those areas. She and others argue that some administrative law reform is necessary to address this accountability gap.[26]

With respect to the public/private overlap in the United States, public concern over the contracting of government services (including military) and the resulting accountability gap has been highlighted recently following the shooting incident involving the Blackwater security firm in Iraq.[27]

Contemporary studies

Accountability involves either the expectation or assumption of account-giving behavior. The study of account giving as a sociological act was articulated in a 1968 article on "Accounts" by Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman,[28] although it can be traced as well to J. L. Austin's 1956 essay "A Plea for Excuses",[29] in which he used excuse-making as an example ofspeech acts.

Communications scholars have extended this work through the examination of strategic uses of excuses, justifications, rationalizations, apologies and other forms of account giving behavior by individuals and corporations, and Philip Tetlockand his colleagues have applied experimental design techniques to explore how individuals behave under various scenarios and situations that demand accountability.

Recently, accountability has become an important topic in the discussion about the legitimacy of international institutions.[30] Because there is no global democratically elected body to which organizations must account, global organizations from all sectors bodies are often criticized as having large accountability gaps. The Charter 99 for Global Democracy,[31] spearheaded by the One World Trust, first proposed that cross-sector principles of accountability be researched and observed by institutions that affect people, independent of their legal status. One paradigmatic problem arising in the global context is that of institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund who are founded and supported by wealthy nations or individuals and provide grants and loans, to developing nations. Should those institutions be accountable to their founders and investors or to the persons and nations they lend money to? In the debate over global justice and its distributional consequences, Cosmopolitans tend to advocate greater accountability to the disregarded interests of traditionally marginalized populations and developing nations. On the other hand, those in the Nationalism and Society of States traditions deny the tenets of moral universalism and argue that beneficiaries of global development initiatives have no substantive entitlement to call international institutions to account. The One World Trust Global Accountability Report, published in a first full cycle 2006 to 2008,[32] is one attempt to measure the capability of global organizations to be accountable to their stakeholders.

Accountability in education

Student accountability is traditionally based on having school and classroom rules, combined with sanctions for infringement. As defined by National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), accountability is "A program, often legislated, that attributes the responsibility for student learning to teachers, school administrators, and/or students. Test results typically are used to judge accountability, and often consequences are imposed for shortcomings."[33]

In contrast, some educational establishments such as Sudbury schools believe that students are personally responsible for their acts, and that traditional schools do not permit students to choose their course of action fully; they do not permit students to embark on the course, once chosen; and they do not permit students to suffer the consequences of the course, once taken. Freedom of choice, freedom of action, freedom to bear the results of action are considered the three great freedoms that constitute personal responsibility. Sudbury schools claim that "'Ethics' is a course taught by life experience". They adduce that the essential ingredient for acquiring values—and for moral action is personal responsibility, that schools will become involved in the teaching of morals when they become communities of people who fully respect each other's right to make choices, and that the only way the schools can become meaningful purveyors of ethical values is if they provide students and adults with real-life experiences that are bearers of moral import. Students are given complete responsibility for their own education and the school is run by a direct democracy in which students and staff are equals.[34][35][36][37][38][39]

Media and accountability

Econometric research has found that countries with greater press freedom tend to have less corruption.[40] Greater political accountability and lower corruption were more likely where newspaper consumption was higher in data from roughly 100 countries and from different states in the US.[41] A "poor fit between newspaper markets and political districts reduces press coverage of politics. ... Congressmen who are less covered by the local press work less for their constituencies: they are less likely to stand witness before congressional hearings ... . Federal spending is lower in areas where there is less press coverage of the local members of congress."[42] This was supported by an analysis of the consequences of the closure of the Cincinnati Post in 2007. The following year, "fewer candidates ran for municipal office in the Kentucky suburbs most reliant on the Post, incumbents became more likely to win reelection, and voter turnout and campaign spending fell."[43]

An analysis of the evolution of mass media in the US and Europe since World War II noted mixed results from the growth of the Internet: "The digital revolution has been good for freedom of expression [and] information [but] has had mixed effects on freedom of the press": It has disrupted traditional sources of funding, and new forms of Internet journalism have replaced only a tiny fraction of what's been lost.[44] Various systems have been proposed for increasing the funds available for investigative journalism that allow individual citizens to direct small amounts of government funds to news outlets or investigative journalism projects of their choice.

To train people to conduct these kinds of investigations, Charles Lewis has proposed "the creation of a new multidisciplinary academic field called Accountability Studies. ... [S]tudents from widely different academic backgrounds are excited about the prospect of learning exactly how to investigate those in power and hold them accountable."[45]

Standards

Accountability standards have been set up, and organizations can voluntarily commit to them. Standards apply in particular to the non-profit world and to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Accountability standards include:

  • INGO Accountability Charter, signed by a large number of NGOs to "demonstrate their commitment to accountability and transparency"[46]
  • AccountAbility's AA1000 series. "principles-based standards to help organisations become more accountable, responsible and sustainable. They address issues affecting governance, business models and organizational strategy, as well as providing operational guidance on sustainability assurance and stakeholder engagement"[47]

  • Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) 2010 standards. A standard for humanitarian organizations to help them "design, implement, assess, improve and recognize accountable programmes"[48]

  • In addition, some non-profit organizations set up their own commitments to accountability:

  • Accountability, Learning and Planning System (ALPS) by ActionAid, a framework that sets out the key accountability requirements,guidelines, and processes.[49]

Proposed symbolism

Viktor Frankl, neurologist, psychiatrist, author, and founder of logotherapy and one of the key figures in existential therapy, in his book Man's Search for Meaning recommended "that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast (that has become a symbol of Liberty and Freedom) should be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast."Frankl stated: "Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness."[50][51]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountability]

 

Obviously, illegitimate actions may not overlap with accountability.

It is irrational, holding someone accountable for something which, he, keeps doing it at the present tense. For example, in order to hold accountable, the modern colonialism, he should, first, refrain from all kinds of colonial violence; and then, he may become accountable, or, not.

If and when, an illegitimate action becomes crystallized within the past, then, it is time for accountability to manifest.

Empathy constitutes an absolute prerequisite of accountability.

In the core of the accountability, according to my opinion, it is the universal need for bonding with the other human beings; and this need is emotional.

In times of peace, for a community to survive, hers gatekeepers' roles should be played by people which have access to the feeling of empathy, in order for them to be able to become held accountable for the quality of service they offer to the community. Therefore, people which do not have access to feelings, specifically, in times of peace, they should be kept away from gatekeepers' roles.

During our days, it is well known that, many people's indifference about the condition of the lives of the others has fallen to the extreme. For example, it is unproductive, during peace time, to empower, by assigning them to administrative roles, people which, more, or, less, may envision, that they are surgically operating, with pliers, innocent others, exclusively, because those others, legitimately, disagree with them.

Accountability exist, also, at the collective level; there are accountable Nations (which, actually, obey the rules of the Civilization) and there others, are non accountable Nations, because, there are Nations that embed empathy within their collective civilization and also, there are others Nations which remain indifferent as to the hardships of the rest of the Nations.

The mass media, as a communities' major gatekeeper, strongly influences, positively, or, negatively, the manifestation of accountability both, within the communities themselves, as well as, within the bilateral relationships, of those communities.

Within our days, as a rule, we may, systematically find within the flow of information, that, the mass media produce, a lot of false rationalizations which strongly promote the avoidance of accountability; both, at the discrete level, as well as, at the collective level. And this, certainly, is nothing but catastrophic for the quality of those communities members' lives.

Each time I notice incidents of, mass media, extremely imprudently and indirectly promoting the illicit violence, by contributing, willingly, or, due to negligence, to the corresponding perpetrators accountability’s avoidance, it makes me wander whether, a great leader, many years ago, had been right, or, not, about how, a free and secured Nation, should arrange for its own mass media:

 

23 We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that:

a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race;
b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language;
c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

 

As far as I am concerned, the present circumstances, with regard to the mass media, in Greece, indicates, in general, after having been “followed the language”, an enormous disgrace, on behalf of the colonialists.

And as soon as possible, new arrangements should become materialized so that, there will not be, neither, any supposed “privately” owned, nor, any supposed “public”, mass media. The function of collective information should be performed by non-profit small communities, with temporary, cyclically interchanged members. Those members are ordinary citizens, with adequate skills, which, obligatorily, shall offer such social service to the Greek Nation and they will be compensated by an equivalent tax reduction.

Colonialism, gradually, destroys, the Greek Nation and Greece, as a whole. Will, the mass media's luring, continue to keep the Greek Nation, destructively, idling?

 

 

Christos Boumpoulis

economist

 

P.S.:

1. “Psychology” and “psychiatry”, according to my opinion, they are, both, pseudo-sciences.

2. With a lot of work and some luck, people, may regain their natural feelings, including, empathy.

3. Innumerable innocent human beings have already lost their lives, or, their lives are bring threatened, or, they are being, unjustly, tortured, due to the modern colonialism. Remaining empathic towards those which are being tortured and, accountable towards the unjust lost of the lives of the others, may be one way to honor the sacred core of our human existence.

 

 

Appendix

 

CIA's “torture documents”.

 

Another key to the successful interrogation of the resisting source is the provision of an acceptable rationalization for yielding. As regression proceeds, almost all resisters feel the growing internal stress that results from wanting simultaneously to conceal and to divulge. To escape the mounting tension, the source may grasp at any face-saving reason for compliance – any explanation which will placate both his own conscience and the possible wrath of former superiors and associates if he is returned to Communist control. It is the business of the interrogator to provide the right rationalization at the right time. Here too the importance of understanding the interrogatee is evident; the right rationalization must be an excuse or reason that is tailored to the source's personality.

DOCUMENT: KUBARK COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION July 1963

PAGE 41

 

IDEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

THE “QUESTIONER” SHOULD BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE PRINCIPLES OF AND OFFER VALID ALTERNATIVES TO THE IDEOLOGY THAT MOTIVATED THE SUBJECT TO SELECT HIS PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT TO PROVE THE SUBJECT WRONG BUT TO PROVIDE HIM WITH REASONS WHICH HE CAN USE TO JUSTIFY TO HIMSELF FOR CHANGING SIDES.

 

K0 NON-COERCIVE TECHNIQUES

I. GENERAL

A. SUBJECTS MAKE ADMISSIONS OR CONFESSONS BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A STATE OF MIND WHICH LEADS THEM TO BELIEVE THAT COOPERATION IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION FOR THEM TO FOLLOW. THE EFFECTIVE US OF THE PROPPER “QUESTIONING” TECHNIQUE WILL AID IN DEVELOPING THIS STATE OF MIND.

K-1. B. ALL NON-COERCIVE “QUESTIONING” TECHNIQUE ARE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF GENERATING PRESSURE INSIDE THE SUBJECT WITHOUT THE APPLICATION OF OUTSIDE FORCE. THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED BY MANIPULATING HIM PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNTIL HIS RESISTANCE IS SAPPED AND HIS URGE TO YIELD IS FORTIFIED.

C. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MOST “QUESTIONING” TECHNIQUES DEPEND UPON THEIR UNSETTLING EFFECT. THE “QUESTIONING” PROCESS ITSELF IS UNSETTLING TO MOST PEOPLE ENCOUNTERING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE “QUESTIONER” TRIES TO ENCHANCE THIS EFFECT, TO DISRUPT RADICALLY THE FAMILIAR EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONS OF THE SUBJECT.

D. ONCE THIS DISRUPTION IS ACHIEVED THE SUBJECT'S RESISTANCE IS SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED. HE EXPERIENCES A KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SHOCK, WHICH MAY ONLY LAST BRIEFLY, BUT DURING WHICH HE IS FAR MORE OPEN TO SUGGESTION AND FAR LIKELIER TO COMPLY, THAN HE WAS BEFORE HE EXPERIENCED THE SHOCK.

E. FREQUENTLY THE SUBJECT WILL EXPERIENCE A FEELING OF GUIT. IF THE “QUESTIONER” CAN INTENSIFY THESE GUILT FEELINGS, IT WILL INCREASE THE SUBJECT'S ANXIETY AND HIS URGE TO COOPERATE AS A MEANS OF ESCAPE.

F. THE INITIAL ADVANTAGE ALWAYS LIES WITH THE “QUESTIONER”. FROM THE OUTSET, HE KNOWS A GREAT DEAL MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT THAN THE SUBJECT KNOWS ABOUT HIM. HE IS ABLE TO MANIPULATE THE SUBJECT'S ENVIRONMENT, TO CREATE UNPLEASANT OR INTOLERABLE SITUATIONS. TO DISRUPT PATTERS OF TIME, SPACE AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. THE SUBJECT IS VERY MUCH AWARE THAT THE “QUESTIONER” CONTROLS HIS ULTIMATE DISPOSITION.

CIA Human Resources Exploitation I20

 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_and_CIA_interrogation_manuals]

 

 

Τελευταία Ενημέρωση στις Τετάρτη, 21 Ιούνιος 2017 22:46