Guest Post by: Duncan Smith

Doing research into a completely unrelated matter to address conflict resolution I stumbled across CHSAlliance, an organization whose mission is “To promote respect for the rights and dignity of people and communities vulnerable to risk and affected by disaster, conflict or poverty and enhance the effectiveness and impact of assistance by building a culture of quality and accountability”[emphasis mine].

CHS does support the Climate Change narrative in a news article where they go onto state:

“Against the background of climate change and rapid urbanisation, slow disasters – also frequently referred to as slow-onset crises – are expected to increase.”

This comes as no surprise especially coming from a Humanitarian organization, I could have left it at that.

Interestingly the article I concentrated on initially was “Ten psychological tactics for avoiding accountability and how to address them” by Kelly O’Donnell (PhyD). According to the article, here are the “tactical tricks”:

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. 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; rationalise and/or disguise any culpability. 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. Appeal to your integrity and to acting with the highest standards, without demonstrating either. Point out your past track record. Highlight anything positive that you are doing or contributing to now. 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. State that you are under attack or at least that you are not being treated fairly or that people just don’t understand. 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 whistleblowers. 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. 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.

Becoming side tracked from my original mission, I could relate each and every one of these attributes to the current state of Climate Science.

I wished to share it as nowhere have I seen a comprehensive list like this. Without being opinionated or giving examples, the article stands on its own merits. I would like to get readers thoughts where these tactical “tricks” have been used before.

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...