parallax background

Crocodile Tears

March 11, 2019
Some History From The Gay Community
January 11, 2018

Megalomaniac Liars

True delusions are symptomatic of mental illness


How to Pretend to Be in Love with Someone


My Very first thought was "Ask a Brazilian " They are the experts on this matter


Manipulating people isn't a good thing. If at all possible, just don't do it. But sometimes, and for whatever reason, you just might need to pretend to be in love with someone. It's callous to use people, but you might have a very good reason. Try to be wise and think carefully before you follow any of these instructions. You are playing with emotions, after all.

Pick someone to 'fall in love' with.Your person should be someone relatively good looking- you want to pick someone who other people will believe you'd fall in love with. Also, try to pick somebody that you won't have too much trouble pretending to love



Think only of the person's good attributes, and ignore the bad ones. Think of what good characteristics they have in them- are they funny? Smart? Caring? This is helped a lot by Step #1- you can 'choose your attributes'. But if you can't choose your person, and you dislike that person, try to be a little more accepting of his/her ways. It'll be a lot easier if you can start off with a relatively good relationship with your 'love'.

Act happier when that person is around. Whether you're trying to convince the subject of your affections or someone else, you'll be expected to seem in a better mood when he/she is around.

Draw more attention to yourself when that person is around. When people have crushes on other people, they tend to be louder to try to get the attention of their crush. You'll want to imitate this. Talk louder, laugh louder, smile more, move a bit more when you're talking to other people. Make this change obvious to any looker-on.

Act like you would if your relationship was real. Think about how you'd act with someone you loved. Go on dates, put time out for him/her, and enjoy yourself. Even if you aren't interested in the person romantically, you can still be friends. It'll make it seem much more realistic.

Let the relationship go on for as long as you absolutely need it to, then end it immediately. Do not go on pretending to be in love with someone- ever. If you need help with this, see wikiHow's "How to Break Up With Someone You Love".



Most people love you for who you pretend to be.


“That’s what real love amounts to – letting a person be what he really is. Most people love you for who you pretend to be. To keep their love, you keep pretending – performing. You get to love your pretence

.

It’s true, we’re locked in an image, an act – and the sad thing is, people get so used to their image, they grow attached to their masks. They love their chains. They forget all about who they really are.

And if you try to remind them, they hate you for it, they feel like you’re trying to steal their most precious possession.”


pretend to love you


What a week for science! For not only has the so-called God particle finally been discovered, but research from the University of Hertfordshire has proven the truth of a phenomenon that, much like Peter Higgs

many of us have long had a hunch about – albeit based on the time we fell wildly in love with the person who played the Romeo to our Juliet in the school play, rather than years of research in theoretical physics.



Put simply: a psychologist has found that if you pretend you love someone and go through the motions to demonstrate it that you would if you were really in love, you are more likely to find that – surprise! – indeed, you are. With the aid of a crack team of 100 speed daters,

Professor Richard Wiseman has demonstrated that people on speed dates who acted like they were already in love, through intense eye-gazing, touching, and the sharing of secrets, were more likely to indicate an interest in seeing each other again,

in contrast with those who adhered to standard speed dating conventions. (In my experience, these conventions meant maintaining a friendly smile while various men described to me things like what vegetables they'd be if they were vegetables,

only for them to abandon the conversation at the behest of a three-minute timer, in many cases before they'd really drilled down to what was at the crux of their affinity with beetroot. I really didn't want any of them to gaze intensely in to my eyes, much less touch me.)

While falling in love might ideally be an activity that occurs on a plane more elevated than that on which many of the rest of our usual activities happen, the fact is that its mechanics can be equally mundane.

And going through the motions to trick ourselves into thinking that we are happy with our lot is something that we do to cope with many other crucial challenges in our lives

.

We force grins until we find that we feel cheerful; we wear jumpers that our nans knitted us until we begin to feel that maybe they're not hideously ugly; we behave as if we like our colleagues because we have no choice but to see them daily

While pretending that we love someone until we really do love them may sound like it resembles the dreaded "settling" that believers in a certain kind of great romance are keen to avoid, Wiseman's experiment merely simulates something that happens in every loving relationship –



just usually not on the first date. For enduring love always involves a modicum of pretence: really loving someone requires that you must behave as though you love them, deep down, even when they appal you. And appal you they will: no matter how genuinely smitten you are, eventually everyone you ever fall in love with will do something that is a bit horrifying

.

The difference between relationships that last and those that end in battles over the correct way to do washing-up (or something equally doable in an appalling way) is the ability to pretend to love your partner in spite of it, rather than flouncing off to locate someone who hasn't yet been appalling.

In fact, I think that this kind of pretending is probably among the most loving things you can do in a committed relationship; nothing says "I really do care" quite like "I won't leave you even though sometimes I find you kind of disgusting."

And thus Wiseman's method of speed dating may simply be a way of moving a bit fast: manifesting a form of behaviour at the very beginning of a relationship that we usually reserve for employment once relationships are well-established.

Everyone hates the initial, awkward stages of dating anyway, so perhaps this could be a truly exciting new way of skipping to the good stuff: if you can pretend that you love someone when you've just met them,

just imagine the possibilities of pretending that might lie ahead as you build a life together. I don't blame you if you're feeling a bit swoony at the prospect. Or at least feigning it.



Pathological liar


Pathological liar refers to a liar that is compulsive or impulsive, lies on a regular basis and is unable to control their lying despite of foreseeing inevitable negative consequences or ultimate disclosure of the lie.

Pathological lying, also known as mythomania and pseudologia fantastica, is the chronic behavior of compulsive or habitual lying. Unlike telling the occasional white lie to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or getting in trouble, a pathological liar seems to lie for no apparent reason.

This can make it frustrating or hard to know what to do if you believe you’ve met one. Though pathological lying has been recognized for more than a century, there’s not yet a clear universal definition of the condition.

Some pathological lying may result from a mental condition, such as antisocial personality disorder (sometimes called sociopathy), while others appear to have no medical reason for the behavior.



Defining a pathological liar


A pathological liar is someone who lies compulsively. While there appears to be many possible causes for pathological lying, it’s not yet entirely understood why someone would lie this way.

Some lies seem to be told in order to make the pathological liar appear the hero, or to gain acceptance or sympathy, while there’s seemingly nothing to be gained from other lies.

Some evidence from 2007 suggests that issues affecting the central nervous system may predispose someone to pathological lying. Compulsive lying is also a known trait of some personality disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder.

Trauma or head injuries may also play a role in pathological lying, along with an abnormality in hormone-cortisol rati A 2016 study of what happens in the brain when you lie found that the more untruths a person tells, the easier and more frequent lying becomes.

The results also indicated that self-interest seems to fuel dishonesty. Though the study didn’t specifically look at pathological lying, it may give some insight into why pathological liars lie as much and as easily as they do.

The following are some of the scientifically recognized traits and characteristics of pathological liars.



Their lies seem to have no clear benefit


While a person might lie to avoid an uncomfortable situation, such as embarrassment or getting in trouble, a pathological liar tells lies or stories that don’t have an objective benefit. Friends and family can find this especially frustrating because the person lying doesn’t stand to gain anything from their lies.

The stories they tell are usually dramatic, complicated, and detailed Pathological liars are great storytellers. Their lies tend to be very detailed and colorful.Even though obviously over-the-top, the pathological liar may be very convincing

.

They usually portray themselves as the hero or victim Along with being made the hero or victim in their stories, pathological liars tend to tell lies that seem to be geared at gaining admiration, sympathy, or acceptance by others.

They sometimes seem to believe the lies they tell A pathological liar tells lies and stories that fall somewhere between conscious lying and delusion. They sometimes believe their own lies. It’s difficult to know how to deal with a pathological liar who may not always be conscious of their lying.

Some do it so often that experts believe they ay not know the difference between fact and fiction after some time. Pathological liars also tend to be natural performers. They’re eloquent and know how to engage with others when speaking.

They’re creative and original, and quick thinkers who don’t usually show common signs of lying, such as long pauses or avoidance of eye contact. When asked questions, they may speak a lot without ever being specific or answering the question.



Identifying a pathological liar in your life


Identifying a pathological liar isn’t always easy. While it may be human nature to be suspicious of anything that appears “too good to be true,” not all lies told by pathological liars are over-the-top.

They also tell “regular” lies that someone without a compulsion to lie might tell. The following are some signs that may help you identify a pathological liar:

they often talk about experiences and accomplishments in which they appear heroic

they’re also the victim in many of their stories, often looking for sympathy

their stories tend to be elaborate and very detailed

they respond elaborately and quickly to questions, but the responses are usually vague and don’t provide an answer to the question

they may have different versions of the same story, which stems from forgetting previous details



How to cope with a pathological liar


Knowing a pathological liar can be deeply frustrating because the lying appears to be pointless. It can test the trust in any relationship and make it hard to even have a simple conversation with the person.

Here are a few pointers to help you handle a conversation with a pathological liar: Don’t lose your temper As frustrating as it may be, it’s important not to let your anger get the better of you when confronting a pathological liar. Be supportive and kind, but firm.

Expect denial

Someone who pathologically lies may have the tendency to first respond with a lie. If you confront them about their lying, chances are that they’ll deny it. They may become enraged and express shock at the accusation

Remember that it’s not about you It’s hard not to take being lied to personally, but pathological lying isn’t about you. The person may be driven by an underlying personality disorder, anxiety, or low self-esteem.

Be supportive When talking to the person about their lies, remind them that they don’t need to try to impress you. Let them know that you value them for who they really are Don’t engage them When you notice the person lying, don’t engage them.

You can question what they’re saying, which may encourage them to stop the lie at that point. You can also let them know that you don’t want to continue the conversation when they’re being dishonest.



Why do pathological liars fascinate people? A pathological liar is an excellent storyteller and performer. They know how to captivate their audience by telling elaborate and fantastic stories while being very animated.

Along with knowing how to weave and express a detailed story, people are also fascinated by what drives a person to lie. It’s natural to want to know why they’re lying, especially when there doesn’t seem to be an apparent reason for their lies

Megalomaniac


Joseph Stalin, the undisputed, unchallenged ruler of the Soviet Union between 1924 to 1953, is one of those notorious figureheads of history that everyone assumes to be a megalomaniac, probably because he murdered millions of people and had millions of others shipped off to labor camps.


Donald Trump ? Megalomaniac with Narcissistic Personality Disorder


All of this bleeds out into the population. When a politician says dumb thing X, it normally takes ‘Murica about two days to start flirting publicly with X + way worse.An abnormal mental state characterized by delusions of grandeur in which one believes oneself to be a person of great importance, power, fame, or wealth. Also called grandiosity. See also mania.



Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition


A popular term for what the American Psychiatric Association terms ‘delusional disorder, grandiose subtype’ DSM-IV 297.1. Delusions of grandeur are characterized as ‘delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person’

Segen's Medical Dictionary

Idi Amin -- President of Uganda in the 1970's. Killed many of the people in his country, is alleged to have eaten some of his enemies, gave himself a Victoria Cross, the highest British award for bravery. Amin was a former Sargent in the British Army.

Stalin -- Premier of the Soviet Union and General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1922 to 1953. Many killed under his rule as there were purges of the communist party, the military and of several ethnic groups with the Soviet Union.

Adolf Hitler -- Chancellor of Germany 1933 - 1945 and one of the founders of the Nazi Party. Hatred of Jews, Author of book, "Mein Kamf", Concentration and extermination camps with over 6 million Jews executed along with millions of Gypsies, Communists, Mentally Retarded etc.

Zsar Nicolas -- Emporer of Russia prior to the Soviet Revolution of 1917. Many Jews and ethnic groups were killed during his rule.

Rasputin -- Eastern Orthodox Priest and confident of the wife of Zsar Nicolas.

The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men of history. ( Bertrand Russell )



What is Megalomania?


These power hungry men and women are simply calculating individuals who put their own advancement over everything else, including the needs of the company, organization, or even the country they have been selected to lead?

According to the clinical definition of the term, megalomania is defined by delusional fantasies that one is all powerful or even omnipotent. Being delusional does not mean merely believing a false idea because of incomplete or untrue information, but persisting in a belief in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. True delusions are symptomatic of mental illness.

They are especially relevant to discussions of schizophrenia, manic bipolar episodes, and psychotic depression. Those who boasted in such a cavalier fashion about being a megalomaniac should have been institutionalized immediately for his own safety,

or at least taken aside and politely urged to stop using megalomania as an excuse for his coldly rational bid to oppress others by flaunting his own authority. His behavior most certainly could be classified as uncouth and perhaps borderline neurotic.



Stalin vs. Hitler


If we accept that megalomania is a psychopathological condition characterized by a delusional obsession with power, then some of history's greatest megalomaniacs are going to have to be thrown out and reclassified as something else. Maybe "creeps" would be a better word.

Just saying. Joseph Stalin, the undisputed, unchallenged ruler of the Soviet Union between 1924 to 1953, is one of those notorious figureheads of history that everyone assumes to be a megalomaniac, probably because he murdered millions of people and had millions of others shipped off to labor camps.

But although the diminutive Stalin, whom American President Harry Truman referred to as a "little squirt," may have suffered from an inferiority complex resulting from "short-man's syndrome," and most certainly was a cruel, remorseless sociopath, is there any real evidence to indicate that he met the "delusional" criteria required for megalomania?

His rise to the top of the Soviet power structure was devious, underhanded, and unscrupulous, but it was also brilliantly calculated . Neither was his leadership of the victorious Soviet forces in World War II against the greatest war machine of its time the work of a delusional madman.

Just because someone is a very evil dude, as Stalin most certainly was, does not mean they meet the qualifications necessary to wear the word "megalomaniac" on their name tag at the International Brotherhood of Jerks convention.

In contrast, the equally notorious brute across the WWII front lines from Stalin may indeed have been a delusional megalomaniac. Whereas Stalin took pragmatism to the extreme, carrying out mass exterminations of people that opposed his objectives,

Adolf Hitler clung obsessively to fairy tales and myths that he attempted to carry into reality. They myth of the subhuman status of the Jewish people, for instance, resulted in the deportation and death of six million people, even though the Jewish people had never really opposed him anywhere except within the confines of his twisted imagination

.

Hitler also had a delusional, irrational belief in the invincibility of the German soldier, a false conviction that he embraced to the point that he destroyed his own forces by neglecting to supply them with proper winter clothing and other cold-weather provisions during the first year of the Russian invasion.

Hitler clung stubbornly to the fanciful pipe dream that the Russians would be defeated quickly, a delusion that ultimately cost him the war.



Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, etc.


Megalomania has not decreased in popularity as humanity has moved forward and made incredible advances in technology, medicine, and science. Megalomania is still alive and well in every corner of the globe and doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

People have desired to dominate other people since about the time we were still dragging our knuckles in the dirt, and while it might be true that gadgetry has made us more sophisticated brutes, we're still brutes.

Real world examples of megalomaniacs still living or recently deceased are legion. Kim Jong Il, the former dictator of North Korea, believed that his mood swings changed the weather.

He also claimed to have invented the hamburger, around the same time that Al Gore was inventing the Internet. Saddam Hussein, deposed as dictator of Iraq in 2003 and executed in 2006, believed that he was descended from the prophet Mohammed.

Strangely enough, in his own mind he was also the resurrection of the ancient Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. To glorify his association with the Babylonian ruler of antiquity, Saddam built a palace in the form of a Babylonia Ziggurat, a megalomania-related action that echos the bygone days of Caligula.



How to Identify the Symptoms of Megalomania


Megalomania is a psychopathological disorder where in the person experiences delusional fantasies of greatness, wealth, grandeur, omnipotence and superiority. The person with this type of mental illness will be obsessed with doing extravagant things, will think only about themselves, will not have any concern for others and will have lust for power and money.

A megalomaniac person will also exaggerate his/her talent in an unrealistic egoistic way, consider them as unique and will be self- centered. According to the experts, this mental disorder is related to Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) which means self-love.

How and why this type of illness develops may be because of different behavioral characteristics, childhood and nature of parenting during childhood days. One of the best examples of a megalomaniac in history was Adolf Hitler.

TIPS to identify the symptoms of megalomania: Delusion of being superior to others- Delusion of greatness- Delusion of having great social and political power - Lack of empathy for anything- Delusion of importance - Egoistic - Violent tendencies -Self- centered- Feeling of being a famous person -Symptoms of mania or paranoid disorder- Belief of being a god like figure- Bad temper- Frequent depressions- Mood swings

Though a megalomaniac possesses himself to have a high esteem and ego, he will have a very low self-esteem and fragile ego.


Megalomaniacs Who Destroyed The Roman Republic


Today, we think of Rome as an empire. But in reality, Rome came to dominate the ancient world as a republic then slowly went into decline after its transition to an imperial dictatorship. The Roman Republic was an extraordinary state: bustling, powerful, and seemingly capable of anything. Here are the men who killed it.



Pompey The Great


As insurance against Caesar, Marcellus had appointed Pompey commander of the legions in Italy. But Pompey realized that his green recruits were no match for Caesar’s veterans and decided to abandon Italy. This was a pragmatic move, but it handed the initiative to Caesar. In fact, Pompey’s whole campaign was dogged by a curious timidity. Pompey was still a great general, and he consistently outmaneuvered Caesar, but he also seemed intimidated by the younger man’s bold moves. First, he lured Caesar into modern Albania, but he failed to attack before Caesar’s reinforcements arrived. An attempt to starve the enemy into submission failed. Finally, he defeated Caesar at Dyrrhachium but failed to press the advantage.



Gaius Claudius Marcellus


In panic, the senate turned to Pompey, who put down the remains of Clodius’s gangs and restored order. Then, word arrived that Crassus had been killed fighting the Parthians. Things were looking up for Pompey, but there was a complication. Caesar had been unexpectedly successful in the north, conquering all of Gaul. Suddenly, Caesar was a real rival to Pompey, enormously wealthy from his conquests and commanding the loyalty of a battle-hardened army. As the senate became increasingly nervous of Caesar’s power, they turned to Pompey as the one man who could stop him.



Milo


Clodius was triumphant and ensured his popularity among the lower classes by securing free wheat for the poor (Rome’s version of welfare). Meanwhile, with Cato and Cicero gone, the Triumvirate began to splinter. Crassus’s old dislike of Pompey (pictured) emerged and he encouraged Clodius to turn on the general. To his horror, Pompey found himself jeered in the street. In the forum, one of Clodius’s gangsters pointedly dropped a dagger while walking toward the general. Pompey was forced to beat a hasty retreat, with Clodius’s laughter ringing in his ears. But Pompey the Great was no pushover. He had a supporter named Milo elected tribune and brought in gladiators and hired toughs to back him up. Milo’s professional fighters clashed with Clodius’s larger gangs and soon the whole city was a war zone.



Clodius


Although the Triumvirate dominated Rome, senators like Cato and the famed orator Cicero continued to resist. However, the Triumvirate soon got its way: Pompey’s veterans got land, Crassus took command of a glamorous war against the Parthians, and Caesar received his own war on Gaul. Meanwhile, a dangerous new force arrived on the political scene. Clodius, the officer who incited mutiny against Lucullus, had returned to Rome, where he continued his rabble-rousing antics. He sensationally gave up his aristocratic status and declared himself a plebeian. He began to whip up the Roman poor into armed mobs, who rampaged through the streets attacking his enemies.



Cato


By this time, Rome was a sea of corruption, with bribery and intimidation commonplace. But one man stood above it all. Marcus Porcius Cato was a man of iron integrity who openly held his fellow Romans in contempt. This won him the admiration of the Romans, who agreed that they were a pretty contemptible bunch. However, Cato’s refusal to compromise his beliefs would have disastrous consequences. It was Cato who prevented Pompey from giving his veterans land grants. Pompey then offered to marry Cato’s niece, but received a furious response: “Cato is not to be captured by way of the women’s apartments.” The arrogant general felt humiliated and couldn’t understand why the Romans supported Cato over him.



Julius Caesar


But everyone reckoned without a rising politician named Julius Caesar. Born to an ancient but impoverished noble family, Caesar had made a good name for himself and was elected to a string of offices. He was heavily in debt and had survived by becoming a close supporter of Crassus. But he was also on good terms with Pompey and remained popular with the people. Caesar realized that, while Crassus and Pompey hated each other, their goals weren’t actually mutually exclusive. Pompey wanted land for his veterans, while Crassus wanted a glamorous military command and legislation that would help his business interests. Arranging a meeting, Caesar pointed out that Crassus and Pompey risked destroying themselves in a clash. But by working together, Rome’s richest man and its greatest general would be unstoppable. The three men agreed to form an alliance, with Caesar as the political frontman in the senate. Together the three men would be known as the First Triumvirate.



Crassus


Pompey won great victories in the east, which were watched jealously by his rival Marcus Licinius Crassus. A key supporter of Sulla, Crassus helped execute the dictator’s enemies, then snapped up their property for a nominal fee. Some wealthy landowners were marked for death simply because Crassus wanted their land. With the profits, he got into moneylending and tax-farming. Before long, he was the richest man in Roman history. But Crassus still lacked military glory and respect. Although he had ensured Sulla’s victory outside Rome, Pompey had stolen his thunder. Then, Crassus defeated Spartacus’s slave uprising, only to discover that Pompey had arrived at the last minute, massacred some stragglers, and taken credit for putting down the whole revolt. Unsurprisingly, the two men became deadly enemies and conflict between them seemed inevitable. As Pompey prepared to return from the east, all Rome trembled.



Lucius Licinius Lucullus


In fact, while Sulla was still dictator, a threatening youth appeared at the gates of Rome. His name was Gnaeus Pompeius, but he was extraordinarily vain and relished the title of Pompey the Great. After inheriting an army from his father, he had defeated Marius’s loyalists in Sicily. Now, he demanded Rome celebrate him with a triumph.Sulla refused, but Pompey informed the aging dictator that “more people worship the rising than setting sun” and declined to disband his legions. Unnerved, Sulla gave in and allowed the triumph. Later, an aristocrat called Lucullus was chosen to lead a war against Mithridates. He was a good general, but too arrogant to recognize the new reality and bribe his troops with plunder.



Sulla


Marius may not have realized the implications of his reforms, but one of his subordinates did. Lucius Cornelius Sulla distinguished himself under Marius and then took overall command against an Italian revolt. In 88 BC, he was chosen to lead the war against Mithridates of Pontus. However, Marius jealously had the command transferred to himself. The war against Mithridates promised to be extremely lucrative, and Sulla’s legions weren’t willing to miss out. A civil war broke out, which ended when Sulla’s professional soldiers took Rome after bloody fighting. Sulla was declared dictator, and the River Tiber ran red with the blood of his enemies. In 79 BC, he announced he was satisfied with his reforms and retired, restoring democracy to Rome



Marius


Gaius Marius is almost forgotten today, but he arguably did more than anyone to ensure the overthrow of the Republic. He was one of ancient Rome’s greatest generals, famous for his victory over nomadic German tribes that threatened Italy. But to defeat the Germans, Marius had to change Roman society forever. Rome’s legionaries were traditionally small landowners, who served for a short term before returning to their farms. However, Rome’s overseas conquests required legionaries to be away from their farms for long periods, plunging many into poverty. Wealthy aristocrats bought up small estates and merged them into huge plantations.This meant that Rome struggled to find enough soldiers. Marius’s solution was to allow the urban unemployed to join up. This turned the legions into a full-time profession, with paid solders serving for up to 25 years. The manpower allowed Marius to defeat the Germans, but it also created a dangerous new political force.

Don't Let History Repeat Itself. Learn From the Mistakes


M I Ro


photos by pixabay.com


Britain was just given the world’s highest score for its efforts against corrupt money – but does it really deserve it?


Corruption


There is a real danger that if we give the government too much credit before the job of combating financial corruption is even nearly finished, it won’t get done at all Today is international anti-corruption day. At first glance, the UK could be credited with leading efforts to tackle a problem that destroys fledgling economies and breeds global insecurity. That’s certainly what the G7’s watchdog on money-laundering and terror finance seems to think. This week the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) gave the UK its highest ever ranking, in a move those of us working to highlight and stop the hundreds of billions of pounds in dirty cash flowing through this country every year watched through our fingers.

So which is it: beacon of financial integrity or city awash with the proceeds of crime?



The truth is that the UK could become that global leader, but it’s nowhere near it yet. It can legitimately point to groundbreaking initiatives it began, which will help tackle corruption at the source – if implemented effectively. It has created the first open data register of the real owners behind companies, brought in measures pushing for accountability for senior bankers, and passed ground-breaking laws which require high profile individuals to explain how they acquired suspect wealth. These are promising first steps, but no more. They will only be as good as their implementation, and that means putting money and resources behind them. So far the UK has failed to do that – so almost three years on from the Panama Papers scandal that forced the UK to change its approach, these paper policies haven’t worked to stem the tide of dirty cash washing through our banks and property market. This isn’t just a moral argument.



The National Crime Agency describes the scale of the problem as “a strategic threat to the UK’s economy and reputation”. By allowing the criminal and corrupt to launder their spoils through our financial system, we encourage and enable more organised crime and authoritarian regimes who threaten our national security. So fixing it will make us all safer. This was made brutally clear by the events that led to the UK’s historic move to open up its tax havens. When the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were found poisoned by a deadly nerve agent, attention quickly shifted to the suspected dirty money flowing from Russia into the UK. Witness analysis at the time revealed that £68bn from Russia has been invested in the UK’s overseas territories, with the British Virgin Isles the second most popular destination for money leaving Russia. Suddenly, the UK got tough on a problem it had known about for years. Parliament forced the government into requiring its overseas territories to bring in public registers of company owners by 2020 to stop the corrupt using them as a backdoor to the UK’s banking system. In a statement to Parliament, Theresa May said “all the capabilities of law enforcement” would be brought to bear on serious criminals and corrupt elites. Strong words, but it has not yet put money where its mouth is. And it has not made its crown dependencies like Jersey and the Isle of Man open up in the same way, despite them also being known hotspots for tax evasion and money laundering.



Big Bang's Seungri retires amid sex, drug and corruption scandal


SEOUL (The Korea Herald/Asia News Network): A series of allegations surrounding Seungri of Big Bang may have brought down his entire career, as the Korean pop star on Monday (March 11) announced his retirement. “I feel like it is best for me to retire from the entertainment business at this point,” Seungri said via his Instagram page, adding that the matter in which he was involved is so serious that he had decided to retire. “I will sincerely submit to the investigation on this matter, and reveal the truth to all the allegations.” Seungri, 29, is currently under investigation for brokering prostitution for investors, and has been booked without physical detention by police. The investigation took off after a media report showed a group chat via a mobile messenger between the K-pop star and people who appear to be his employees, who were taking his orders to procure sexual favours. Other allegations surrounding Seungri include suspicion of drug use at Burning Sun, the nightclub where the singer had been an executive director, and that club officials have bribed police. Seungri himself has been cleared of drug use via a recent drug test.



Western Europe and EU: stagnating anti-corruption efforts and weakening democratic institutions


Fourteen of the top 20 countries on this year's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) are from Western Europe and the European Union (EU). With 88 points, Denmark returns as a global leader on the CPI, though its score remains unchanged from last year. In the region, Denmark is closely followed by Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, which each score 85. At the bottom of the region, Bulgaria scores 42, dropping one point since last year. Bulgaria is followed by Greece (45), which dropped three points since 2017, and Hungary (46), which dropped eight points over the last five years. With an average regional score of 66 out of 100, Western Europe and the EU are doing far better than other parts of the globe. However, for a region that prides itself on some of the most robust integrity systems in the world, the patchwork of partially overlapping national and EU-level integrity systems presents its own problems and still has a long way to go to tackle corruption effectively. In the last few years, several countries have also seen a rise in power of political leaders with populist tendencies, working to raise citizens’ fear of targeted groups. In particular, several countries have harnessed anti-immigration sentiment to promote and justify undemocratic principles. These groups have often used digital platforms that lack transparency, and which are open to interference and abuse by foreign agents, to undermine democratic elections and processes. Across Europe, citizens’ trust in democracy has been harmed as a consequence.



Europe: Unregulated lobbying opens door to corruption


Transparency International said today that Europe urgently needs lobbying reform. A new report from the anti-corruption group found that of 19 European countries assessed, only 7 have some form of dedicated lobbying law or regulation, allowing for nearly unfettered influence of business interests on the daily lives of Europeans. The 19 countries together score just 31 per cent (out of 100 per cent) when measured against international lobbying standards and best practice in the report “Lobbying in Europe: Hidden Influence Privileged Access”. The new report, the first ever comprehensive assessment on lobbying in the region, studies how well political decision-making is protected from undue influence.“In the past five years, Europe’s leaders have made difficult economic decisions that have had big consequences for citizens. Those citizens need to know that decision-makers were acting in the public interest, not the interest of a few select players,” said Elena Panfilova, Vice-Chair of Transparency International. Despite the fact that lobbying is an integral part of a healthy democracy, multiple scandals throughout Europe demonstrate that without clear and enforceable rules and regulations, a select number of voices with more money and insider contacts can come to dominate political decision-making – usually for their own benefit.The report examines lobbying practices as well as whether safeguards are in place to ensure transparent and ethical lobbying in Europe and three core European Union institutions. It looks at whether there are sufficient mechanisms allowing fair and equal access to decision-makers.



Banking Corruption Facts and Information Summaries


For the best, most concise introduction to banking corruption information, explore the below financial and banking cover-up summaries. In the first summary you will learn that the U.S. Federal Reserve is neither truly federal nor a full reserve. You'll also be introduced to the "fractional reserve system," which allows bankers to create money out of thin air. The other two excellent summaries relate the history of banking and money, as excerpted from the landmark history text Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by esteemed professor Carroll Quigley. Dr. Quigley reveals the hidden agendas of powerful elite groups in the unfolding history of our world.

Monopoly Men: Is there a secret history of the world suppressed by those who control the major media? Are there secret societies of greedy bankers whose agenda has been to manipulate every major war and economic depression? Is there a shadowy elite surreptitiously pulling the strings to bring about their own self-serving political agenda? This highly educational documentary from "The Phenomenon Archives" explores these intriguing questions and more.

Money, Power & Wall Street - A penetrating 2012 PBS video documentary revealing severe manipulations of Wall Street and the big bankers in regards to the financial meltdown of 2008 and beyond. Incredible interviews of top players show they did little to nothing to stop the global financial crisis. Deep insiders who saw it coming also blow the whistle on their former employers.



Most Important Banking Corruption Information Document


How much do you know about the banking system and who issues the money you carry in your pocket? Considering the vital role money plays both in our individual lives and in the world, our educational system teaches us amazingly little about how money is created, how banks operate, and what causes the huge banking scandals and bankruptcies that have occurred. After reading the information below, you will understand why this critical information is kept quiet, and why we feel it is important to reveal what those in power don't seem to want us to know.

Money is a potent topic which offers incredible opportunities for change on both personal and global levels. Considering the huge role it plays in our lives, we are taught very little about money or the financial system in our many years of education. Very few schools, for instance, ever teach students the risk of going deep into credit card debt. Very few college graduates have been taught about the role of money and banking in the development of civilization or even in our current world. This online lesson teaches basic monetary history and inspires us to build a better world through transforming our relationship with money.



Politics and government


It’s natural to think of elections when we think of political corruption. People or organisations with their own agendas can skew voting. They may secretly give parties big donations. Or parties and candidates can buy votes instead of winning them. But political corruption isn’t just about election rigging. It can lead politicians in office to steer away from good government. Their decisions can benefit those who fund them. The public interest comes second. Political corruption can divert scarce resources from poor and disadvantaged people. This is especially common in countries where democratic institutions are weak or absent. Private rather than public interests dictate policy. This means an ethical line has been crossed. Governments can’t act freely and democracy can’t function. Our trust in politicians is damaged. We can turn away from involvement with how we’re governed. Then political corruption continues unchecked

Political corruption can feel daunting and remote. So can we really do anything about it? If we speak out about how we’re governed, we can. We need to call on our politicians and public officials to be accountable for their actions. How can we trust them if we don’t know what they’re doing? We must demand that they put in place regulations which will force them to act openly. Then corruption can’t hide. And our trust in the political process will improve. When leaders act transparently, showing us clearly what they do, we can make informed choices when we vote. And we can hold them to account once elected. From grassroots groups to big organisations, civil society has a crucial role to play. We can monitor electoral campaigns and parties’ activities. If state resources are abused, we must report it. And if regulations to prevent corruption aren’t in place, we must demand them. Rules about politicians’ conflicts of interest, for example. Or regulations to stop corporate lobbying and political funding from distorting the democratic process. If companies publish their donations, they can show their contributions aren’t intended to win favours.



Money, Politics, Power: Corruption Risks in Europe


This report brings together the findings of 25 National Integrity System assessments carried out across Europe in 2011, in Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. It is part of a pan-European anti-corruption initiative, supported by the Directorate-General Home Affairs of the European Commission.


How Corruption Causes Currency Crises


"An increase in corruption from the level of Singapore to that of Mexico would have the same negative effect on...foreign investment as raising the marginal corporate tax by 50 percentage points." Rampant public corruption in emerging market countries may contribute to the currency crises that have racked the developing world, because corruption acts to repel more stable forms of foreign investment and leaves countries dependent on volatile foreign loans to finance growth.



This is the conclusion of Shang-Jin Wei and Yi Wu, who make a compelling case for the link between corruption and currency crises in Negative Alchemy? Corruption, Composition of Capital Flows, and Currency Crises They point out that the most dependable kind of foreign investors--those disposed to long-term commitments to projects and businesses--often refuse to put their money in developing countries where, for example, local bureaucrats expect bribes and the national government has been known to arbitrarily prey on business enterprises. But those countries still need foreign capital to fuel their economies. And, as Wei and Wu note, while a corrupt country may be undesirable for foreign direct investment (FDI), it may not be at an equal disadvantage when it comes to "obtaining bank loans" from international creditors. Wei and Wu believe one reason loans are easy to procure even when corruption is widespread is that the International Monetary Fund and governments from developed nations offer considerably more insurance and protections to lenders than to direct investors. The end result, according to the authors, is an investment portfolio heavily skewed toward loans. And given how foreign lenders are known to flee at the first sign of trouble--while those directly invested in an enterprise tend to sit tight--such an imbalance leaves an economy much more vulnerable to a currency crisis. Wei and Wu argue that, by discouraging stable flows of investment capital, corruption--whose measure they derive from international surveys-- can be viewed as a sort of corporate tax on assets. "For example...an increase in corruption from the level of Singapore to that of Mexico would have the same negative effect on...foreign investment as raising the marginal corporate tax by 50 percentage points," they state.


Corruption in the European Union


Do free markets, privatization, and open competition help limit corruption, as their advocates often argue? Or do they actually create new opportunities for graft and abuse? The political scientist Warner deserves credit for tackling these issues, but her study begs more questions than it answers. Warner looks at economic liberalization in the European Union over the past 20 years and suggests that the process not only has failed to root out corruption but has actually generated it as well. The book is full of detailed evidence of how European business and political leaders have continued to line their pockets even as the EU single market has progressed. The question, however, is, compared with what? Are EU member states more or less corrupt than before they began to liberalize? How do their levels of corruption compare with those of other advanced industrial countries? How do they compare with those of less integrated or less economically liberal states? (Rather well, actually, according to Transparency International.) These issues are inherently difficult to research, but Warner's sweeping implication (that the EU integration process has made the member states more corrupt) is far stronger than her actual conclusion (that the free market "may not be sufficient to root out corruption").



Christianity, Islam, and Europe's Religious Crisis


Jenkins, a professor of history and religious studies at Penn State University, challenges the widespread notion that Christianity is dying out in Europe. Whereas most writers on the topic focus on declining Christian practices and relatively high birthrates among Muslims in Europe, Jenkins seeks to rebut the more extreme visions of a future Europe dominated by atheists or Islamists. He does not deny well-documented social and demographic trends but notes that Muslims still make up only around four percent of the populations in most western European countries ("hardly a human deluge"), that birthrates among Muslims within Europe and in a number of Muslim countries are now falling, and that a religion need not be dominant among a population in order to thrive indeed, challenges to a religion's dominance can lead it to adapt creatively. Nor is Jenkins persuaded by theories of secularization positing that economic development and scientific progress inevitably erode religious beliefs -- if true, why is religion so strong in the United States? It sometimes feels like the author, who clearly wants to see Christianity survive in Europe, is looking for solace in arguments that its future is brighter than it seems. God's Continent does not always succeed in making his case, but even skeptics -- or especially skeptics -- will need to take into account this engaging challenge to the conventional wisdom.



The Most Noble Adventure: The Marshall Plan and the Time When America Helped Save Europe


Since 9/11, politicians and analysts from across the political spectrum have called for a "new Marshall Plan" to help fight the extremism in the Middle East -- much in the way the original effort helped defeat communism in postwar Europe. Behrman's timely new history of the United States' unprecedented aid program helps elucidate where the analogy works and where it does not. As his title implies, Behrman shares Dean Acheson's view that the Marshall Plan was "one of the greatest and most honorable adventures in history." Whereas revisionist historians, such as Alan Milward, have argued that Europe in 1947 mainly had a balance-of-payments problem and would likely have recovered anyway, Behrman argues that generous U.S. support -- $13 billion over four years, or $100 billion in today's dollars -- was necessary to rebuild Europe's productive capacity, entice former adversaries to cooperate, and restore Europeans' confidence in capitalism. Behrman's florid narrative sometimes approaches hagiography, but the research is impressive, and it is hard to argue with his basic point: that the Marshall Plan was a model of enlightened self-interest.



These are the world's least – and most – corrupt countries


Denmark is the least corrupt nation in the world, according to an index which suggests corruption is contributing to a crisis in democracy around the world. The Nordic nation is followed closely by New Zealand, Finland, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland. But no country is completely free of corruption, according to the latest report by Transparency International. Even Denmark has experienced recent corruption cases, the report authors note, such as a money-laundering scandal surrounding Danske Bank, its biggest lender. Transparency International, an NGO founded in order to combat global corruption, said that countries with higher rates of corruption have weaker democratic institutions and political rights.


How corruption weakens democracy


Corruption chips away at democracy to produce a vicious cycle, where corruption undermines democratic institutions and, in turn, weak institutions are less able to control corruption The index, which ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and businesspeople, uses a scale of zero to 100, where zero is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean. While there are exceptions, the data shows that despite some progress, most countries are failing to make serious inroads against corruption. More than two-thirds of countries score below 50 on this year’s CPI, with an average score of just 43. The top countries are Denmark and New Zealand with scores of 88 and 87, respectively. The bottom countries are Somalia, Syria and South Sudan with scores of 10, 13 and 13, respectively. While no country earns a perfect score on the CPI, countries that tend to do best also protect democratic rights and values.



The shocking truth about police corruption in Britain


Imagine you lived in a country which last year had 3,000 allegations of police corruption. Worse, imagine that of these 3,000 allegations only half of them were properly investigated — because for police officers in this country, corruption was becoming routine. Imagine that the police increasingly used their powers to crack down not on criminals but on anyone who dared speak out against them. What sort of a country is this? Well, it’s Britain I’m afraid — where what was once the finest, most honest service in the world is in danger of becoming rotten. Some of this was revealed in a little-noticed report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, which went on to deliver some even more shocking news. Nearly half of 17,200 officers and staff surveyed said that if they discovered corruption among their colleagues and chose to report it, they didn’t believe their evidence would be treated in confidence and would fear ‘adverse consequences’. This appalling lack of protection for whistle-blowers — often amounting to persecution — has become commonplace throughout the public services and creates a climate in which dishonesty and malpractice flourish. The second report, compiled by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, bears this out. It says there has been a sharp increase over the past five years in the number of police officers dealing heroin, cocaine and amphetamines and an equally startling rise in the number of officers abusing their power ‘for sexual gratification’ — in other words bullying or cajoling suspects, witnesses and even victims into having sex with them. Just this week, in fact, it emerged that the Met suspended 73 coppers, community support officers and other staff on corruption charges in the past two years. They cited drug crimes, bribery, theft, fraud, sexual misconduct and — everybody’s favourite — un-authorised disclosure of information. Eleven were convicted in court, but what happened to the others? The Met spokesman said rather blandly that some were allowed to resign or retire (presumably with full pension rights) and some were dismissed. This rise in corruption and the apparent reluctance of police chiefs to fight it is a toxic combination. As ever, chief constables blame lack of resources for not being able to pursue inquiries into claims of malpractice.



But what could be a greater priority than ensuring that their own officers are not breaking the law? These same police chiefs seem to find endless funds to pursue ancient sex abuse allegations, chase people who say unpleasant things on Twitter and prosecute journalists. The vast majority of Britain’s police do a sometimes extremely arduous job with honesty, skill and good humour. But corruption left unchecked can infect entire forces. Anyone who doubts this need only study the lessons of the not-too-distant past. The story, backed by taped conversations, bluntly accused three Yard detectives of planting evidence and taking back-handers from criminals ‘in exchange for dropping charges, being lenient with evidence in court, and for allowing a criminal to work unhindered’. If it had been just those three rogue officers, the story might quickly have been forgotten. But the tapes hinted at a far more endemic culture of graft and criminality.of corruption that came as a profound shock to a nation accustomed to seeing its constabulary through the prism of Dixon of Dock Green and Z Cars. A leading criminal lawyer of the time remarked: ‘It was like catching the Archbishop of Canterbury in bed with a prostitute Over the next few years, the Obscene Publications Squad was exposed as a tawdry protection racket extracting regular tithes from pornographers and Soho club-owners; drugs squad officers were shown to be running illegal cannabis deals; and half the Flying Squad was in the pay of criminals. These were not the clandestine activities of a few low-ranking detectives on the take. Whole squads were involved and the seniority of some of those taken down at the Old Bailey was shocking. In the words of trial judge Mr Justice Mars-Jones, it was ‘corruption on a scale that beggars description’. The exposures of these corruption rackets had one thing in common — they were all revealed in the first place by the efforts of Britain’s free press. But these journalists could not have achieved all they did without the help of whistleblowers. Some of these were pornographers and criminals tired of being milked and intimidated, but others were rank and file police officers disgusted by the greed and criminality of so many of their peers.

The police appear to be retreating into a bunker of secrecy and paranoia where all news must be ‘managed’ and freedom of information is considered a threat. On its website — alongside some vacuous rubbish about ‘declaring total war on crime’ — the Met claims to be committed to carrying out its duties with ‘humility’ and ‘transparency’. Could anything be further from the truth? With its constant leak inquiries, harassment of whistleblowers and journalists, and scandalous misuse of terror legislation to tap the phone records and emails of ordinary citizens, the Met is probably more authoritarian and opaque than at any time in modern history. This culture comes directly from the top. Being Commissioner of the Met has long been the most difficult job in policing, but there have been some good ones. Robert Mark, the Normandy veteran who cleaned out the Yard’s Augean stables in the 1970s; Ken Newman, a steely, austere man who served in Palestine during the emergency and headed the Royal Ulster Constabulary before re-organising the Met into a modern force; and the thoughtful Paul Condon, whose tenure came to a turbulent end with the Stephen Lawrence inquiry but who was arguably the cleverest of the lot. Each had his strengths and weaknesses but they all knew that a free, well-informed press was a cornerstone of policing in a democracy. Informal contact was generally encouraged, and in more than ten years as a crime correspondent in the 1980s and 1990s, I don’t recall a single leak inquiry or junior officer being disciplined for passing information to newspapers in good faith. The present generation of police chiefs come from a very different breed. Fast-tracked and homogenised from an early stage, they can be difficult to tell apart. Often laden with degrees in law, business and ‘criminology’ accumulated during their police careers, they are more managers than police officers — managers of budgets, managers of public relations and, most importantly, managers of risk to their own careers. They speak in the obscure, vapid jargon of stakeholder engagement, paradigm shifts and proactivity. So much for transparency.

Naturally, the ‘total policeman’ also favours more armed officers on routine duties, more Tasers and the mainland deployment of water cannon to disperse rioters, despite the fact that its use in Northern Ireland tended to inflame tensions rather than cool them. He also favours police officers being taken off the electoral roll and not wearing their uniforms on the way to and from duty shifts. The rise in Islamist terrorism has increased the threat level for soldiers and the police and sensible measures must be taken to combat that. But just as great a threat was posed over 30 years by the Provisional IRA and its offshoots without panic reactions. Hogan-Howe appears to be taking the police away from being a service and back towards being a coercive force. This is starkly demonstrated by the pursuit of journalists in the wake of the baleful Leveson inquiry. It has been driven to the point of absurdity, with up to 200 officers involved at one time and dozens of hapless hacks put before the courts, some on the flimsiest of charges. Judging from the recent reports, this may already be happening to an alarming degree around the country. The lessons of history suggest that if police chiefs are serious about neutralising the threat of corruption, they will need the help and support of the press. They will only get it if they start talking to journalists — instead of looking for reasons to arrest them.


M I Ro & The Team


photos by pixabay.com

ilias
ilias
I am a Bird Who can fly high in the sky, Dark nights I don't see only blue skies and Angels whispering Love And beneath me Earth lay down there all beatiful and peaceful, Wait stop something is not right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *