Αγορά Πολιτών

Τρόπος Συμμετοχής

Χορηγίες

Πολίτες στην Αγορά

Έχουμε 264 επισκέπτες συνδεδεμένους

Επικοινωνία

Location: Northern Germany

+4917667046073

Citizen Band Radio:

- Channels: 11-19 AM (amplitude modulation)

- Callsign: EB-1142

Accountability-Free Genocides

 

Militarized "psychiatry"

 

The Absolute Evil

 

Gang-stalking Greeks

 

Byzantine Atrocities

 

European Dissidents ALARM

 

Human Rights' Court

 

The used up men

 

Dissidents - USG RICO crimes

 

Open Letter to Theresa May

 

Open Letter to António Guterres UN's SG

 

Triangulation - Zersetzen

 

Open Letter to Andrew Parker, MI5

  

Πράξεις ποταπές - Despicable choices

 

 

My father's death

 

Cavitation damage

 

Burglary and vandalism

 

Dry mini submarine

 

Message to Bundeswehr 2

 

Message to Bundeswehr 1

 

“Tough” guys and TOUGH guys

 

Μοναδική λύση, το Χόλιγουντ

 

Charlatans

 

Zeppelin: Beyond Gravity

 

Foreign intervention in Greece?

 

Η ανελεύθερη Ελλάδα

 

Η Ελλάδα καταγώγιο;

 

Αν.Επ. Π. Παυλόπουλο

  

Intangible prisons

 

Plausible deniability

 

Images of German w & s

 

Crimes against Humanity

 

"Chimera" - "Bellerophon"

 

pr. Donald Trump

 

  

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

Concubines – Christos Sartzetakis – Enigmas PDF Εκτύπωση E-mail
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
ΧείριστοΆριστο 
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Σάββατο, 03 Αύγουστος 2019 18:52
ΣΑΡΤΖΕΤΑΚΗΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hcaj-VrYWs
 
Zimbardo- Stanford Prison Experiment Documentary
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUZpB57PfHs
 
The Milgram Experiment 1962 Full Documentary
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0
 
Pont Saint Esprit: CIA LSD Experiment
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnBi7M4nOHQ
 
Concubines – Christos Sartzetakis – Enigmas
What might be more expected than my continues research and consequently, my being rather informed about the existing kinds of the European “targeted individuals’ ” suffering?
Recently I gained accessed to certain unverified information originated from reliable resources about another kind of European dissidents’ torturing.
According to this information, from all the existing European political dissidents, specifically these which have been involuntarily brain implanted with claustrum-manipulating electronic brain implants and while they are in public places like, restaurants, cafeterias, etc., their brains are temporarily switched-off; then, either, the state of objects which they keep in their pockets are changed, by the perpetrators, in an identifiable way, or, small coins are put within external foldings of their clothes; and finally, their brains are switched-on again.
It is needless, I believe, to describe to intensity of the terror which these “targeted individuals” experience as, they have previous knowledge of the contemporary settler-colonisers’ active ruthlessness thus, the fall in a state of deep uncertainty with regard to, whether they may have been poisoned; whether they may have been illegitimately incriminated; and whether, after, say, two hours, they are going to be, free; healthy; alive.
I find this kind of treatment against legitimate and innocent human beings as being unpolite; the least, and consequently, I decided to respond with this present article.
Enigma 1st
During the Concubines insident, Sun Tzu was obviously a “drugged and maddened with opiates beforehand” criminal which pretended that he was military general and the gathered crowd has, obviously, enough collective power to rescue the innocent concubines and, literary, grab the criminal and get him to a trial.
Why, this crowd, along with the King, let the innocent concubines become murdered for nothing?
Enigma 2nd
Christos Sartzetakis was one of the most honest and patriotic Presidents of the Helenic Republic who was able to, literary, transfuse his honesty and patriotism to the Greek Nation, and as such, he was “character assassinated” various, obedient to the contemporary settler-colonialism, organisational forms. During this slandering, the Greek Nation had adequate political power to defend Christos Sartzetakis against his slanderers.
Why, the members of the Greek Nation did not defended Christos Sartzetakis?
Enigma 3rd
The directors of the Stanford Prison Experiment were, obviously, criminals pretending to be so-called “psychology” professors which deliberately were slandering the human kind in order to pave the way for the globalisation of the settler-colonialism. The participants of this experiment where so many that, they, collectively, could arrange for getting these criminals to traial.
Why, the participants of the Stanford Prison Experiment did not protected the victims of this atrocious experiment?
Enigma 4th
The directors of the Milgram Experiment were, obviously, criminals pretending to be so-called “psychology” professors which deliberately were slandering the human kind in order to pave the way for the globalisation of the settler-colonialism. The participants of this experiment where so many that, they, collectively, could arrange for getting these criminals to traial.
Why, the participants of the Milgram Experiment did not protected the victims of this atrocious experiment?
Enigma 5th
The contemporary settler-colonialism’s non-uniform army’s members abuse the existing European, political dissidents and human rights activists in order to terrorise the European Continent’s population. Initially, by torturing them and by leaving them to publicize description of their sufferings, they let terror to propagate over the entire European Continent. And then they murder these, quasi, concubines (like they did to, archibishop Christodoulos, Socratis Giolias, Bernd Seiffert, Malvina Karali, Arleta, Rauni-Leena Luukaanen-Kilde, etc.). The rest of the enormously large population of the European Continent has enough collective political power to rescue the members of the European natural leadership.
Why, the population of the European Continent do not resque the members of the European Continent’s natural leadership?
Whoever is able and willing to solve the above enigmas, he or she may be able to discriminate the essence of piracy.
 
Christos Boumpoulis
economist
 
Appendix
 
Bhagawat Ghita
"whichever and however a great personality conducts himself, common men do also; whatever he accepts as authority that and that alone certainly all the world will follow" [ Bhagavad Gita, c. 3, p. 21].
 
The Story of Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu is a famous military strategist who wrote a book titled THE ART OF WAR, which over the centuries has become a highly regarded treatise on military theory.
Ssu-ma Ch`ien gives the following biography of Sun Tzu:
Sun Tzu Wu (Sun Tzu) was a native of the Ch`i State. His ART OF WAR brought him to the notice of Ho Lu, King of Wu. Ho Lu said to him: "I have carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I submit your theory of managing soldiers to a slight test?" Sun Tzu replied: "You may." Ho Lu asked: "May the test be applied to women?" The answer was again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made to bring 180 ladies out of the Palace.
Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, and placed one of the King's favorite concubines at the head of each. He then bade them all take spears in their hands, and addressed them thus: "I presume you know the difference between front and back, right and and left hand?" The girls replied: Yes.
Sun Tzu went on: "When I say "Eyes front," you must look straight ahead. When I say "Left turn," you must face towards your left hand. When I say "Right turn," you must face towards your right hand. When I say "About turn," you must face right round towards your back." Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order "Right turn." But the girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame."
So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order "Left turn," whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun Tzu: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."
So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the king of Wu was watching the scene from the top of a raised pavilion; and when he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he was greatly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the following message: "We are now quite satisfied as to our general's ability to handle troops. If we are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded."
Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept." Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more; and the girls went through all the evolution, turning to the right or to the left, marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or standing, with perfect accuracy and precision, not venturing to utter a sound.
Then Sun Tzu sent a messenger to the King saying: "Your soldiers, Sire, are now properly drilled and disciplined, and ready for your majesty's inspection. They can be put to any use that their sovereign may desire; bid them go through fire and water, and they will not disobey."
 
Christos Sartzetakis
hristos Sartzetakis (Greek: Χρήστος Σαρτζετάκης; born 6 April 1929)[1] is a Greek jurist and former supreme justice of the Court of Cassation, who served as the President of Greece from 1985 to 1990.
Biography
He was born in Neapoli, Thessaloniki in 1929. His father, who was serving as a Gendarmerie officer in Thessaloniki - where he met his mother - was a Cretan, having been born in Kandanos, Chania, while his mother who was born in Sklithro, Florina, was a Greek Macedonian. At age 90, Sartzetakis is currently the oldest living former Greek President.
He entered the Law Faculty of the University of Thessaloniki in 1946, and received his degree in 1950, after which he practised law in Thessaloniki. In 1954 he received his license to practice law after successfully completing the bar examination. In November 1955, he was named Justice of the Peace. A year later, he became a magistrate of the Court of First Instance.
He was the unyielding prosecutor in the sensational case of the assassination of the left-wing member of Parliament (and ‘doctor of the poor’) Grigoris Lambrakis, committed on 22 May 1963 in Thessaloniki by right-wing extremists. Lambrakis had called for Greece to disarm and withdraw from NATO. Over half a million people attended his funeral. Despite obstruction of justice by his superiors, Sartzetakis doggedly pursued his investigation to the end. He succeeded in convicting the police officers involved in the murder; they were later rehabilitated by the Greek military junta of 1967-1974.
The circumstances of the Lambrakis investigation was the theme of the well-known 1966 novel Z by Vassilis Vassilikos, and Sartzetakis was portrayed by Jean-Louis Trintignant in the novel's 1969 film adaptation by Costas Gavras.
After the Lambrakis prosecution, Sartzetakis left for Paris on a state-sponsored educational leave to study comparative law at the Faculté de Droit et des Sciences Économiques de Paris and the Centre Universitaire des Études des Communautés Européennes. Immediately following the coup d'état of 21 April 1967 by George Papadopoulos, he was called back to Athens by the military junta. Along with 29 other magistrates, he was discharged by a "Constitutional Act" from all his legal functions on 29 May 1968. He was twice arrested, and imprisoned for almost a year until he was released on 19 November 1971 under mounting international pressure. During his captivity, he was tortured by the Greek Military Police.
In September 1974, after the toppling of the dictatorship and the restoration of the democracy in Greece, Sartzetakis was completely rehabilitated. In the following years he became chairman of the Court of Appeal and finally, in October 1982, a member of the Court of Cassation. Sartzetakis became a fellow of several international legal societies. He also wrote several legal and political studies.
In March 1985, the government headed by Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou announced plans to reduce the powers of the presidency, and the governing party PASOK refused to renew the term of Konstantinos Karamanlis. Karamanlis resigned, and Sartzetakis was elected by the parliament to a 5-year term as the fourth President of the Hellenic Republic (or fifth, including President pro tempore Alevras). Holding no official political affiliation, Sartzetakis was President from 30 March 1985 to 4 May 1990.
Sartzetakis is widely viewed as a hero of democracy. Although he is thought of highly by the Greek Left, he was always an anti-communist Greek nationalist in his personal political views. His zeal to uncover the facts behind the Lambrakis assassination was not based on his political views, but on his professionalism and sense of duty. He still attends many ceremonial events in Greece, including patriotic celebrations. Sartzetakis has been honored several times as doctor honoris causa and been given the highest decorations of many states. He is still widely known and respected for his integrity as a judge, and as a fighter for democracy.
 
Ο ψευδολόγος και ο πολυπράγμων
Πράγματι δε, το κείμενον Γιαννοπούλου αναφέρεται εις όσους κατά καιρούς επεχείρησαν «λασπολογία και συκοφαντία… λοιδορίες και χλεύη» εναντίον του, διά να καταλήξη εις το αμίμητον: «Δεκάδες και τότε οι υβριστές και οι συκοφάντες, μεταξύ των οποίων και οι επ’ ευκαιρία, σήμερα ακόμη, επιτιθέμενοι για κάθε ζήτημα σε βάρος του Γιαννόπουλου, ζήτημα που δημιουργείται από φασίστες του είδους, ψευδοδημοκράτες της πλάκας, υποκουλτουριάζοντες των τεμπελχανοκαφενέδων του Κολωνακίου και από άλλες «υπολελειμμένες» προσωπικότητες» («Το Βήμα» τής 16.8.1998, σελίς 15, στήλη 3η). Ημπορεί βεβαίως να γελάη ο καθένας με την περικοπή αυτή και πολλά άλλα σημεία (προηγούμενα και επόμενα) του όλου κειμένου, ο συντάκτης του απλώς αυτογελοιοποιείται, όμως και από τα ετοιμόρροπα ελληνικά του δεν προκύπτει, ούτε εμμέσως, ότι οι ανωτέρω χαρακτηρισμοί αναφέρονται (και) εις εμέ.
Και βεβαίως, δεν πρόκειται να επανέλθω εις τας τόσας επί της υποθέσεως Λαμπράκη ανακριβείας του, εις τας οποίας, παρά την καταλυτικήν ανασκευήν των ήδη διά της πρώτης μου επιστολής και τας αποστομωτικάς επεξηγήσεις διά της δευτέρας, εξακολουθεί ο σημερινός Υπουργός Δικαιοσύνης να εμμένη. Απλούστατα ενόμισε, διά λόγους ταπεινωτάτους, περί των οποίων δεν επιθυμώ να ομιλήσω, ότι ημπορούσε με αυτές κατά κάποιον τρόπον να «μειώση» την εις την κοινήν συνείδησιν του συνόλου του Ελληνικού λαού ακτινοβολίαν της δικαστικής μου ενεργητικότητος ως Ανακριτού εις την υπόθεσιν Λαμπράκη, διά της εμφανίσεως αυτής ως, δήθεν, κατ’ επιρροήν άλλων αναπτυχθείσης! Και επεχείρησε τούτο με κατάδηλη αδεξιότητα: με την απίστευτη προπέτεια να εμφανίζη εαυτόν, καίτοι τελείως ξένον προς την ανάκρισιν, απόντα και εκατοντάδες χιλιόμετρα μακράν του τόπου διεξαγωγής της, ως δήθεν γνώστην αυτής καλλίτερον και αυτού του διεξαγαγόντος την ανάκρισιν! Και να επιχειρή με αφάνταστη θρασύτητα να διαψεύδη τον Ανακριτήν διά συμβάντα, όπως η σύσκεψις εις το γραφείον του Εισαγγελέως Εφετών Θεσσαλονίκης, τα οποία όχι ο ίδιος, αλλά ο Ανακριτής έζησε και διά το περιεχόμενον πιέσεων, τις οποίες όχι ο ίδιος, αλλά ο Ανακριτής υπέστη! Και με τέτοια απύθμενη αυθάδεια ωπλισμένος εχάλκευσε σωρείαν ψευδών. Κατ’ αρχάς, κυρίως, ότι δήθεν είχα συμφωνήσει με τον Εισαγγελέα του Αρείου Πάγου εις κατακερματισμόν της δικογραφίας και ήλλαξα δήθεν γνώμην (χωρίς όμως να λέγη και το «γιατί» της αλλαγής) με υπόδειξι του Εισαγγελέως Πλημμελειοδικών Παπαντωνίου, χωρίς ο ταύτα διατεινόμενος να αντιλαμβάνεται, ότι, εάν επρόκειτο να ακολουθήσω γνώμην άλλου, ασφαλώς θα προέκρινα, εκ των δύο, εκείνην του Εισαγγελέως του Αρείου Πάγου! Και τώρα προσθέτει, ότι δήθεν είχα συναινέσει και εις την μη προφυλάκισιν των Αξιωματικών Χωροφυλακής, χωρίς όμως να αναφέρη και πώς τότε συνέβη και τους προεφυλάκισα! Αλλά, χωρίς να το αντιληφθή, αυτοδιαψεύδεται με τα όσα ο ίδιος εις την νέαν του αυτήν επιστολήν αναφέρει, συγκεκριμένως ότι είχε θέσει ως τίτλον εις φύλλον της εφημερίδος του «Δικηγορική Γνώμη» της εποχής, διά τον Εισαγγελέα του Αρείου Πάγου Κόλλιαν, ότι, κατά λέξιν, «βαπτίζει τας απαραδέκτους συστάσεις ως δήθεν «συμφωνίαν»» («Το Βήμα» τής 16.8.1998, σελίς 15, στήλη 1η). Η αυτοδιάψευσις είναι έτσι αυτόφωρος. Δεν σώζεται ούτε με την απατηλήν επίκλησιν, ότι αι, δήθεν, «συμφωνίαι» και «συναινέσεις» μου προκύπτουν, δήθεν, και από την έκθεσιν του επιθεωρητού Αρεοπαγίτου Φλώρου και από απόφασιν του Συμβουλίου Επικρατείας, αφού εις τα υπό του ιδίου παρατιθέμενα αποσπάσματα αμφοτέρων ουδέ λέξις περί «συμφωνίας» ή «συναινέσεώς» μου υπάρχει! Και, εάν όντως είχα συμφωνήσει με τον Εισαγγελέα του Αρείου Πάγου εις προφυλάκισιν αξιωματικών της Χωροφυλακής, μόνον εάν θα ήτο βεβαία η καταδίκη των, τότε, κατά ποίαν λογικήν θα του απαντούσα, κατά το τηλεφώνημά του τής 31.7.1963, ότι «διά την προφυλάκισιν αρκούν, κατά νόμον, σοβαραί υπόνοιαι ενοχής και ότι η καταδίκη ουδέποτε είναι δυνατόν να προεξοφληθή» (κατά τα εις την επικαλουμένην έκθεσιν Φλώρου αναφερόμενα);
Με εμπάθειες, ανακρίβειες και αυτόφωρες ψευδολογίες Ιστορία δεν γράφεται.
Πράγματι δε, το κείμενον Γιαννοπούλου αναφέρεται εις όσους κατά καιρούς επεχείρησαν «λασπολογία και συκοφαντία… λοιδορίες και χλεύη» εναντίον του, διά να καταλήξη εις το αμίμητον: «Δεκάδες και τότε οι υβριστές και οι συκοφάντες, μεταξύ των οποίων και οι επ’ ευκαιρία, σήμερα ακόμη, επιτιθέμενοι για κάθε ζήτημα σε βάρος του Γιαννόπουλου, ζήτημα που δημιουργείται από φασίστες του είδους, ψευδοδημοκράτες της πλάκας, υποκουλτουριάζοντες των τεμπελχανοκαφενέδων του Κολωνακίου και από άλλες «υπολελειμμένες» προσωπικότητες» («Το Βήμα» τής 16.8.1998, σελίς 15, στήλη 3η). Ημπορεί βεβαίως να γελάη ο καθένας με την περικοπή αυτή και πολλά άλλα σημεία (προηγούμενα και επόμενα) του όλου κειμένου, ο συντάκτης του απλώς αυτογελοιοποιείται, όμως και από τα ετοιμόρροπα ελληνικά του δεν προκύπτει, ούτε εμμέσως, ότι οι ανωτέρω χαρακτηρισμοί αναφέρονται (και) εις εμέ.
Και βεβαίως, δεν πρόκειται να επανέλθω εις τας τόσας επί της υποθέσεως Λαμπράκη ανακριβείας του, εις τας οποίας, παρά την καταλυτικήν ανασκευήν των ήδη διά της πρώτης μου επιστολής και τας αποστομωτικάς επεξηγήσεις διά της δευτέρας, εξακολουθεί ο σημερινός Υπουργός Δικαιοσύνης να εμμένη. Απλούστατα ενόμισε, διά λόγους ταπεινωτάτους, περί των οποίων δεν επιθυμώ να ομιλήσω, ότι ημπορούσε με αυτές κατά κάποιον τρόπον να «μειώση» την εις την κοινήν συνείδησιν του συνόλου του Ελληνικού λαού ακτινοβολίαν της δικαστικής μου ενεργητικότητος ως Ανακριτού εις την υπόθεσιν Λαμπράκη, διά της εμφανίσεως αυτής ως, δήθεν, κατ’ επιρροήν άλλων αναπτυχθείσης! Και επεχείρησε τούτο με κατάδηλη αδεξιότητα: με την απίστευτη προπέτεια να εμφανίζη εαυτόν, καίτοι τελείως ξένον προς την ανάκρισιν, απόντα και εκατοντάδες χιλιόμετρα μακράν του τόπου διεξαγωγής της, ως δήθεν γνώστην αυτής καλλίτερον και αυτού του διεξαγαγόντος την ανάκρισιν! Και να επιχειρή με αφάνταστη θρασύτητα να διαψεύδη τον Ανακριτήν διά συμβάντα, όπως η σύσκεψις εις το γραφείον του Εισαγγελέως Εφετών Θεσσαλονίκης, τα οποία όχι ο ίδιος, αλλά ο Ανακριτής έζησε και διά το περιεχόμενον πιέσεων, τις οποίες όχι ο ίδιος, αλλά ο Ανακριτής υπέστη! Και με τέτοια απύθμενη αυθάδεια ωπλισμένος εχάλκευσε σωρείαν ψευδών. Κατ’ αρχάς, κυρίως, ότι δήθεν είχα συμφωνήσει με τον Εισαγγελέα του Αρείου Πάγου εις κατακερματισμόν της δικογραφίας και ήλλαξα δήθεν γνώμην (χωρίς όμως να λέγη και το «γιατί» της αλλαγής) με υπόδειξι του Εισαγγελέως Πλημμελειοδικών Παπαντωνίου, χωρίς ο ταύτα διατεινόμενος να αντιλαμβάνεται, ότι, εάν επρόκειτο να ακολουθήσω γνώμην άλλου, ασφαλώς θα προέκρινα, εκ των δύο, εκείνην του Εισαγγελέως του Αρείου Πάγου! Και τώρα προσθέτει, ότι δήθεν είχα συναινέσει και εις την μη προφυλάκισιν των Αξιωματικών Χωροφυλακής, χωρίς όμως να αναφέρη και πώς τότε συνέβη και τους προεφυλάκισα! Αλλά, χωρίς να το αντιληφθή, αυτοδιαψεύδεται με τα όσα ο ίδιος εις την νέαν του αυτήν επιστολήν αναφέρει, συγκεκριμένως ότι είχε θέσει ως τίτλον εις φύλλον της εφημερίδος του «Δικηγορική Γνώμη» της εποχής, διά τον Εισαγγελέα του Αρείου Πάγου Κόλλιαν, ότι, κατά λέξιν, «βαπτίζει τας απαραδέκτους συστάσεις ως δήθεν «συμφωνίαν»» («Το Βήμα» τής 16.8.1998, σελίς 15, στήλη 1η). Η αυτοδιάψευσις είναι έτσι αυτόφωρος. Δεν σώζεται ούτε με την απατηλήν επίκλησιν, ότι αι, δήθεν, «συμφωνίαι» και «συναινέσεις» μου προκύπτουν, δήθεν, και από την έκθεσιν του επιθεωρητού Αρεοπαγίτου Φλώρου και από απόφασιν του Συμβουλίου Επικρατείας, αφού εις τα υπό του ιδίου παρατιθέμενα αποσπάσματα αμφοτέρων ουδέ λέξις περί «συμφωνίας» ή «συναινέσεώς» μου υπάρχει! Και, εάν όντως είχα συμφωνήσει με τον Εισαγγελέα του Αρείου Πάγου εις προφυλάκισιν αξιωματικών της Χωροφυλακής, μόνον εάν θα ήτο βεβαία η καταδίκη των, τότε, κατά ποίαν λογικήν θα του απαντούσα, κατά το τηλεφώνημά του τής 31.7.1963, ότι «διά την προφυλάκισιν αρκούν, κατά νόμον, σοβαραί υπόνοιαι ενοχής και ότι η καταδίκη ουδέποτε είναι δυνατόν να προεξοφληθή» (κατά τα εις την επικαλουμένην έκθεσιν Φλώρου αναφερόμενα);
Με εμπάθειες, ανακρίβειες και αυτόφωρες ψευδολογίες Ιστορία δεν γράφεται.
 
Stanford prison experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) was a social psychology experiment that attempted to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power, focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers. It was conducted at Stanford University on the days of August 14–20, 1971, by a research group led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo using college students.[1] In the study, volunteers were randomly assigned to be either "guards" or "prisoners" in a mock prison, with Zimbardo himself serving as the superintendent. Several "prisoners" left mid-experiment, and the whole experiment was abandoned after six days. Early reports on experimental results claimed that students quickly embraced their assigned roles, with some guards enforcing authoritarian measures and ultimately subjecting some prisoners to psychological torture, while many prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, by the officers' request, actively harassed other prisoners who tried to stop it. The experiment has been described in many introductory social psychology textbooks,[2] although some have chosen to exclude it because its methodology is sometimes questioned.[3]
The U.S. Office of Naval Research[4] funded the experiment as an investigation into the causes of difficulties between guards and prisoners in the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. Certain portions of it were filmed, and excerpts of footage are publicly available.
Some of the experiment's findings have been called into question, and the experiment has been criticized for unscientific methodology and possible fraud.[5] Critics have noted that Zimbardo instructed the "guards" to exert psychological control over the "prisoners". Critics also noted that some of the participants behaved in a way that would help the study, so that, as one "guard" later put it, "the researchers would have something to work with," which is known as demand characteristics. Variants of the experiment have been performed by other researchers, but none of these attempts have replicated the results of the SPE.
 
Milgram experiment
The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants, men from a diverse range of occupations with varying levels of education, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience. Participants were led to believe that they were assisting an unrelated experiment, in which they had to administer electric shocks to a "learner." These fake electric shocks gradually increased to levels that would have been fatal had they been real.[2]
The experiment found, unexpectedly, that a very high proportion of subjects would fully obey the instructions, albeit reluctantly. Milgram first described his research in a 1963 article in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[3]
The experiments began in July 1961, in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall at Yale University,[4] three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular contemporary question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"[5] The experiment was repeated many times around the globe, with fairly consistent results.[6]
 
1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning
The 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning, also known as French: L'affaire du pain maudit, occurred 15 August 1951, in the small town of Pont-Saint-Esprit in southern France. More than 250 people were involved, including 5 deaths. A foodborne illness was suspected, and among these it was originally believed to be a case of "cursed bread" (pain maudit).
Most academic sources accept ergot poisoning as the cause of the epidemic,[1][2][3][4][5] while a few theorize other causes such as poisoning by mercury, mycotoxins, LSD or nitrogen trichloride.