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.

Trump Won. Get Over It!

TRUMP WON. GET OVER IT!

Donald Trump got a clear victory on the 6^th November Presidential Election. As expected and as it should be, he won the Electoral College vote yesterday. And, bar a major health problem or an assassination, Trump will take the oath of office on 20^th January 2017.

Excuses, scapegoats, deliriums….everything but critical self-analysis.

However, one had to put up with widespread hysteria from the so-called liberal but non-democratic fringes from academia, media, commentators, politics and some other citizens who would not care about the election outcome; not at all. For this intolerant group, what matters is that they hated the result, thus it cannot be acceptable and, consequently, it has to be overturned.

So, they engaged in all sorts of pathetic antics, ranging from hatred to pseudo-constitutional justifications. The funny thing is that if it were the other way around or if it had happened somewhere else, say in Russia, the protests, the outrage and the name-calling would have reached epic proportions.

By now, this crowd should be reflecting on what went REALLY wrong for Hillary Clinton and themselves. However, that is not going to happen. Most likely, they will spend the next four years sulking and whining, blaming the Russians, the alt-right, the blue-collar workers, the white males, or the Martians who did not turn out to vote. And portraying Trump as the devil on earth, of course.

Tough luck. It is a done deal. Grow up and get over it!

Hubris and Intolerance

HUBRIS AND INTOLERANCE

There is a significant segment of people (including groups, parties and media) in Europe and North America who seem to be convinced that they are the guardians of truth in political and social life. According to these people, Democracy is fine as long as their views, policies and candidates prevail. The rub is when they do not. When they do not, all hell breaks loose.

The recent referendum in the United Kingdom and the United States’ presidential election, as well as, EU-related referenda in the past quarter-century, are the starkest examples of these displays of anti-democratic hubris and intolerance.

The arguments presented are mostly stupid, or futile. Here are some examples.

1- The electoral system is a major culprit in the USA, because Hillary Clinton got more votes and yet she lost the election to Donald Trump. However, the American electoral system has been well established for 200 years and everyone knows (or at least they should) that what matters in these elections are the electoral votes garnered in each of the 50 states. You win when you reach the 270 vote threshold, regardless of your name or party. Obviously, anyone can dislike the system, but you cannot contest it after the deed is done.

2- In the UK, some people in Scotland and Northern Ireland claimed they were not bound by the referendum’s results because in those regions the majority voted “Remain”, whereas in the country as a whole the “Leave” vote prevailed. However, the referendum was a countrywide vote and so was the outcome, which is valid and binding to everyone, from the Shetlands to Dover. If things actually worked in this absurd way, countries would split their way out of existence after a few elections and referenda.

3- The winning candidate/party/policies/ideas are bad; we do not like them, so they cannot win. Well, tough. Welcome to Democracy.

The bottom line is that the people who are looking for tricks, schemes and pretexts, or are resorting to violence to subvert the electoral outcomes in the UK and in the US are, first and foremost, intolerant, arrogant, hypocritical and they just cannot stand the idea of losing an important election/referendum.

I have been through many elections, some of them as a candidate and I have been unhappy with the results many times, especially at the local level, but I have never questioned the legitimacy of the winners, much less have I tried to subvert the elections outcome. In Democracy there are no winners by design.

It is highly ironic that people who portray themselves as tolerant and enlightened are neither. They just act as if they were only to the extent that their views prevail. When they do not, the thin veneer cracks and their true selves emerge: arrogant, intolerant, sore losers, full of rage, in one word, non-democratic.

These self-entitled holders of the truth are the ones who, above anyone else, subvert Democracy with totalitarian thoughts and actions.

Sore Losers

SORE LOSERS

After a long, lively, disputed and sometimes acrimonious campaign, the people of the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union. Over seventeen million people (52% of voters) stated their will to leave the euro-mess and go it alone. Understandably, many of the 16 million who voted to remain in the EU are frustrated, sad, or even angry with the outcome of the vote. However, elections and referenda come and go, they are won and lost, and life goes on.

This time in the UK, things went a little differently: some of the losers do not seem to come to terms with the fact that they lost. Fair and square.

 

A Sore Loser, of sorts.

in “BBC NEWS” at http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36619203/vote-remain-this-is-how-not-to-be-a-sore-brexit-loser

There are three (3!!!) strains of sore losers:

SORE LOSERS, BAD PEOPLE: Comments criticising the supposedly short sighted and selfish vote of the elderly people, the majority of whom voted “Leave” is totally unacceptable.  To ask “how long they have to live with the decision, on average?”, written in a site that belongs to “The Independent” is despicable, shows a gross disrespect for the aged people and demonstrates a total absence of the basic democratic notions. Maybe the writers in 40 years-time will be ditched in the sewer by some 2050’s youngsters.

SORE LOSERS, INTOLERANT PEOPLE: The drive to repeat the referendum based on previously non-existing rules smacks of intolerance, not to speak of blatant unlawfulness. So, these people did not like the results, so let us repeat the exercise until they like the outcome. It shows intolerance for the others’ creeds, it shows arrogance and, again, it shows a strong anti-democratic streak. Never mind that they are trying to change the rules of the game after the fact. Sore losers, that’s what they are.

SORE LOSERS, OPPORTUNISTIC PEOPLE: The leader of Scotland and the leader of the second party in Northern Ireland are trying to use the referendum results as the foundation of claim to secession. The argument goes that the “Leave” prevailed in England and Wales, but not in Scotland and in Ulster. The problem with this line of argument is that the referendum was a national one, a United Kingdom referendum, with a single binding result: that of the entirety of the United Kingdom. Some people will do just about anything to twist the results, their meaning and their consequences.

Until people do not admit that other people have the right and legitimacy to think and vote differently, until these people do not realise that the rights of young and old, right, centre and left, urban and rural, more and less educated, are the same, they will continue to exhibit intolerance in the name of a self-proclaimed enlightenment and progress. And they will keep being sore losers.