The Age of Hysteria

THE AGE OF HYSTERIA

One of the most unnerving and annoying features of the current decade is the state of quasi-permanent hysteria that significant segments of Western societies engage in.

Russia gets back Crimea and suddenly there is an army of worriers worrying that an army of warriors is about to wage war all over Eastern Europe. Three years have passed and there is not the slightest indication of war, yet. Notwithstanding, there is a flurry of hysterical articles about countering a Russian invasion of Estonia, or about defending Lithuania, or propping up Polish capabilities, all in the name of a non-invasion, of a war that will not be.

The Brexit referendum propelled another wave of hysteria. The British people actually voted to leave and all hell broke loose: the United Kingdom’s economy was about to collapse, the Scots would flee and so would other EU members; the UK would be confined to utter isolation and destitution. It has been almost a year, the UK is doing well, the EU is otherwise intact and non-performing as usual and there is no kingdom come.

The hysteria crowd would reach unparalleled heights with Donald Trump’s triumph in the United States’ presidential election. In the space of less than 6 months, the second impossibility actually happened. Like Brexit, this one has apocalyptic dimensions, the end of the world as we know it. Accordingly, the hysteria crowd reacted angrily and lived up to their reputation of not being tolerant, just self-tolerant, and tried to subvert the democratic election’s results. Like in Great Britain, they failed. It was almost 6 months ago and the world moves on and the civilisation did not crumble.

Next apocalypse-in-waiting was the Italian referendum in which a “NO” vote would put Italy on the euro exit path and would wreak havoc across the EU. The “NO” vote did win by a very wide margin. All the rest, predictably, did not happen.

Even the hapless Austrian election to an almost powerless presidency managed to sow despair in the hysteria-addicted crowd. The mainstream candidates were defeated, but the fact that the winner was green, gave the aforementioned crowd some relief.

Do not fear though: 2017 is a promising one for the hysteria crowd. The elections in The Netherlands provided hysteric fodder for the first quarter. Geert Wilders’ PVV victory prospects spread panic across Europe and to some in North America and Trump’s victory loomed as a nasty omen, as if the Dutch would think of and be conditioned by the US elections whilst they were at the voting booth. The PVV, which could never have formed a government, finished second and many sighed in relief, failing to see the bigger picture of the Dutch elections.

So, barely pausing to take a breath, the hysteria crowd went nuts with France’s presidential elections. Never mind that Marine Le Pen’s chances (like Wilders’) are very slim given the electoral system and the arbitrary and hypocritical opprobrium to which they are subjected. At least until the 7^th May the hysteria crowd will be kept high with the Le Pen threat. Assuming that the next Merkel minion wins, they will go into deprivation since the next bout of hysteria, save from some unexpected stressor, is only scheduled for September in Germany.

The hysteria crowd based in politics, the media and some liberal and/or left wing institutions, NGO’s, think tanks and assorted pressure groups is going to cry wolf every time an event skews away from their pre-determined line of so-called progress. And when that is not the case, they just make it up, exaggerate it, or distort it until they reach a new hysterical state which is both deranged and a tool to forward their goals.

I find the Age of Hysteria disgusting and obnoxious and their zealot practitioners obviously have serious problems, without which they do not seem to be able to survive. Even more problematic than going hysterical, is their zealotry and intolerance in promoting the agenda they portray as unique, without alternative. There are always alternatives.

Erdogaland

ERDOGALAND

 

This is a language Erdogan understands, as Russia demonstrated in the Syrian war.

in #Dutch#Turkish Conflict on Twitter

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan is consumed by an uncontrolled lust for power. The growing intolerance, the ruthless persecution of opponents, the massive purges conducted after the coup d’état of July 2016, the hunt for Kurds, the military incursions violating the territorial sovereignty of Iraq and Syria and the parliamentary approval of a constitutional revision tailored to Erdogan’s wishes and ambitions, are transforming Turkey beyond recognition.

The recent show of gross disrespect for the sovereignty of The Netherlands and Germany followed by the typical Erdogan slurring, threatening and chest-thumping, compounds the evolution of both Turkey and Erdogan: more aggressive, more uncompromising, more intolerant, more repressive, more totalitarian, more rude and more paranoid. Given the symbiosis of the evolution of man and country, which will be deeper if the constitutional revolution is approved in the referendum, one could easily devise man and country morphing into a single ugly creature named Erdogaland.

There is obviously very little outside countries can and should do to lead Turkey to change course. However, it is past the time to abandon the soft stance on Turkey. I understand that several European countries, especially Germany, feel beholden to Turkey, because of the agreement to staunch the immigrant/refugee flood.

One cannot forget, though, that the European countries have significant leverage over Turkey. Just imagine, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom, France, drastically reducing economic ties with Ankara. Just think that next time Erdogan threatens to unleash a refugee wave upon Europe, the European countries would respond by severing the customs union with Turkey. Trying to nurture close ties with Erdogaland is a bad idea. Cowing when confronted with is unravelling behaviour is even worse.

However, when the going gets tough, as Russia did when she literally froze Turkey out of the Syrian War, it took barely 6 months for Erdogan to rush to Moscow apologising and begging Vladimir Putin for mercy. That is the right route: be tough and uncompromising with Erdogan.

Germans Cheat, Too

GERMANS CHEAT, TOO

A clean Volkswagen.

in “THE ECONOMIST” at www.economist.com

The Greeks cheat on their public accounts. The Italians may cheat their tax service. The Portuguese government cheats compulsively. The Spanish cheat on terrorism. And the list goes on. The official bottom line is that Southern Europeans cheat

But, not the Germans. The Germans are austere, honest and hardworking. Cheating is beyond their ethics and their mental framework. They do not cheat.

No, wait! Rewind the tape please. Oh! It turns out the Germans cheat, too.

They do it in a sophisticated way, but they cheat.

They use fancy technology, but they cheat nonetheless.

Actually, the Germans cheat on a massive global scale!

Volkswagen alone (God knows what the other carmakers may have done) cheated on 11 million cars; more than the Greek population.

It is not the case of the local grocer not declaring a few kilos of potatoes, or the small coffee shop owner neglecting to register a few expressos and a couple of beers. No! It is one of Germany’s largest industrial companies. You have to give it to the Germans: when they engage in mischief, they do it on an epic scale.

They are also envious and greedy. The United States used to have the biggest auto company in the world: General Motors. Then, Japan’s Toyota reached the top spot. But mighty Germany coveted the position. Apparently the drive to be number 1 was one of the propellers for Volkswagen to turn to cheating.

And it goes on. Green, environment-obsessed, anti-nuclear energy Germany produces millions of heavy-polluting cars disguised as squeaky-clean eco-friendly machines. So, “Das Auto” turns out to be “Das Cheater”.

If you thought that buying “Made in Germany” was a guarantee of superior unpolluted quality, maybe you should review your assumptions. You may get the looks of a Volkswagen and the heart of a Trabant.

A memory from East Germany, or the soul of Germany’s auto industry?

The Refugees' Mess

THE REFUGEES’ MESS

In 2014 and 2015, most European countries have been struggling with the problems of refugees and immigration. The sheer dimension of the phenomenon (hundreds of thousands of persons, going on to the millions) and the short time-span over which it has developed, have caused huge humanitarian, economic, logistic, social, political and security problems.

The main routes to get from Africa and Asia into Europe.

in STRATFOR at www.stratfor.com

Let us try to approach this highly sensitive issue trying to avoid the emotion-laden, politically-correct speech.

THE ORIGINS: The refugee component of the problem derives from war and persecution and is, to a great extent, caused by the Syria Civil War. Four out of every five refugees nowadays are Syrian. Then, there are the wars in Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan and the conflicts and persecutions in countries like Libya, Somalia, Eritrea, or the Sudans.

The evolution, resilience and lack of optimistic prospects for any of these situations DOES NOT point to any short-term satisfactory resolution, which means that each of them is going to continue “to produce” refugees.

The refugee surge has raised issues and problems of different natures:

HUMANITARIAN: This is the most dramatic feature of the crisis. Over 4 years of relentless war in Syria, have resulted in millions of refugees spilling out of her borders, plus about 8 million internally displaced. Three of Syria’s neighbours have obviously received by far the largest share of these refugees: Turkey – 2.5 million; Lebanon – 1 million; Jordan – 600.000. For equally obvious reasons, the other two neighbours (Israel and Iraq) do not count. Then, there are over a million (and counting) refugees pouring into Europe. These refugees deserve care, attention and respect.

ECONOMIC: The economic issues are pretty straightforward. This mass dislocation places a heavy burden on the frontline states (Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon) and on the countries of refugee entrance in Europe, mostly Italy and Greece. And there is only so much that each can bear, especially in economically vulnerable ones like Lebanon, Jordan and Greece.

LOGISTICS: No country was prepared to handle this flood of refugees. The overwhelming numbers strain the states’ services, hurt the refugees and cause tension and stress which, in turn, tends to aggravate the situation.

SOCIAL & POLITICAL: Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a fit of emotion, announced an open-door policy towards Syrian refugees. This apparently thoughtless outburst led to a renewed wave of people trying to get to Germany and caused a domino effect that placed further stress on countries such as Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, Croatia and Austria, some of which chastised the Chancellor for enticing more people to come to Europe. The domino effect found its way back to Germany, where not too few considered Merkel’s move hasty, extemporaneous and even reckless. Among these, were officials of Merkel’s own party and in Bavaria’s CSU. Not surprisingly, soon after, Germany started to backpedal on the open-door proclamation.

Instead, Germany decided that her generosity had to be shared by her neighbours and, in typical last decade authoritarian fashion, threatened the Visegrad Group (Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia) and Romania with punitive measures if they did not take more refugees. This bullying culminated in a majority vote in the European Council to impose quotas on member states.

Besides the Diktat trend that is increasingly Berlin’s modus operandi, there are some questions that beg clear answers:

* Why should countries have to contribute to Germany’s largesse?

* How will refugees feel about having to settle in countries that are reluctant to receive them?

* How will countries that are reluctant to receive a bigger number of refugees, will actually receive them? And how will their populations react?

* How will the increasingly large number of “false” Syrians from the Middle east, South Asia and North Africa be spotted, handled and eventually deported?

* How will the “free-riders” from the Balkans be processed?

* How will the security issue be handled, given that there is the real possibility (it is already most likely a fact) of there being members of terrorists organisations embedded in the refugee flux?

* How will the feelings, sensitivities and opinions of local and national communities be taken into account without labelling everyone as racist, fascist, or xenophobic, because most actually are not.

Finally, there are questions that should be asked about the refugees themselves.

If you are a refugee from a war zone, running from the danger of you or your family being killed, you do not get to be too choosy about where you end up. If you escape Syria and settle in Turkey, in Lebanon, or in Jordan, you are safe from violence and the war.

Ok, the conditions are prickly. So you try to get to Europe. However, once in Europe, Greece is not good for you. Neither is Serbia. Nor Hungary. Not even Italy. No, you have to go to Germany or Sweden. The way I see it, this is not fleeing from war anymore. You are becoming less of a refugee and more of an immigrant. Nothing wrong with that. It’s just that changing condition and motivation, so changes your status quo, too.

It is time to stop having a one-dimensional view of the refugees (true or fake), of the Europeans who want more or less refugees and/or immigrants. It is also time to stop bullying and demonising states and people because they think differently.

It is also about time to look deeper to what people are saying and doing. For instance, the Swedish Justice Minister, Morgan Johansson attacked Prime Minister David Cameron on the immigration issue saying he was “playing politics” and that Sweden granted many more asylum applications that the United Kingdom. Unfortunately for Mr. Johansson, there are figures that show that non-European foreigners in Sweden do not dwell that well: whereas the unemployment rate for Swedes is at 7%, for non-Europeans is a staggering 28%! On the other hand, in the UK the unemployment rate for Brits is 6% and for non-Europeans is 8%. So much for the evil British and the pristine Swedish.

The “producers” of refugees (the likes of Syria, Iraq, Eritrea, etc) are “producing” masses of refugees. The “consumers”/recipients of refugees are being overwhelmed by more refugees than they can or are willing to take.

So, what is the way out?

Unfortunately, there really isn’t one.

THE REFUGEE “PRODUCERS”: the Middle East Wars raging on are complex, multifaceted, entrenched, that feed on ethnic and sectarian fear and hatred and which are compounded by the involvement of multiple foreign actors with their own agendas. This means that the best solution which would be to deal with the problem at the source is not an option in the foreseeable future.

THE NEIGHBOURS: The countries neighbouring the conflicts are split into two groups: the ones that have not taken a significant number of refugees (like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, or the Gulf States) do not give any sign of overture to change their stance. The ones that have borne the brunt of the effort have a limited economic, logistical and even political capability to keep on receiving refugees. So, with the will not on one hand and the cannot on the other, it is not realistic to expect that the Middle East can provide much more in terms of refugee relief.

THE EUROPEAN REFUGEE “CONSUMERS”:  This is where the attention is focused on. To be realistic, neither the take-every-refugee crowd, nor the no-entry sympathisers are tuned to reality.

It is neither feasible nor fair to just kick every would-be refugee out. It is neither feasible nor acceptable to many, to flood small communities with a wave of refugees. You cannot look the other way and pretend nothing is happening in Syria, but you cannot force refugees into places where they are clearly not welcome. You do not want people to linger indefinitely in refugee camps, but you do not want people to be attacked or rejected by locals who do not want to change their ancestral modus vivendi. You have a moral duty to help people in terrible distress and you have a moral and political duty to respect your fellow citizens and electors.

There needs to be good sense and balance approaching these issues. We do not live in an ideal world. Between receiving millions of people and kicking them all out, there are a million other alternatives. Each European country should find its point of equilibrium that mitigates the refugee problem and accommodates its population’s sensitivities. Diktats from Berlin or Brussels will only serve to increase feelings of revolt, resentment and rejection. That is to no one’s benefit.