Κυριακή, 18 Αυγούστου 2019

Pregnants and breast-feeding, are they gender stereotypes?

In the UK, two advertisements were banned, because the one shows a female beside a pram and the other two careless dads.
Well incompetent dads isn't too patriarchical, because in more patriarchical societies dads can do everything better, even looking after the children, they just are too strict, women have to be kept busy and men have better things to do.
One doesn't know if all these super sensitive people are actually racists, misogynists, homophobic, bigots and they try to humiliate every idea about human rights; that the plan is to make people sick if they hear about human rights.
How about stopping breastfeeding? That gives extra hours to females to hold babies, so they become more competent on the field.
Then because the genders are 64, there should be a 64-day cycle of people of every gender feeding the babies. Some genders shouldn't have advantages over others.
And because some of the 64 genders are not represented as often as others and so they will have have less time for work and leisure, one should give new born babies to Raising Centers until they are old enough to feed themselves. Then they can go to nurseries and schools, live and sleep there.
Robots might be another solution. Forbid human beings feeding babies, so babies won't become mommy-centered.
That happens when people learn to think monotheistically. They will always act and talk stupidly.
Humanity has to go back to the old Ethnic ways.




Zuckerberg's ideal seems to be a World Protestant Caliphate!

Zuckerberg and many like him in America, they may call themselves Democrats, Leftists, Libertarians, however their ideal system is a World which looks like the caliphates of the Middle Ages.
There will be different people of a book, along as one can be classified. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Stalinists, Fascists, Anarchists, Nationalsocialists etc. However no one will be allowed to exist outside a group. One must have a holy book, have an ideal Jerusalem, an ideal Kingdom to come and submit to inspired authorities. One must live by the rules of his community and submit fully to them.
As leading group, the Protestants will provide the general framework.
There will be tensions between the groups, so that the leading group may use it as a pretext to interfere and people will have enemies to fear, so they will be loyal to their leaders and fellows.
No freedom of choise, as everything will be "alternativeless".
No freedom of speech, as every word will hurt somebody's feelings.
There will be freedom of thought, only as long as they won't be expressed in any form.
Zuckerberg's algorithms seem to protect the claims of the groups over the opinion of individuals. If a group-of-a-book is complaining, then the individuals are wrong and must be punished, even if the members of the group swear and the individuals reply with facts and logic.

Δευτέρα, 5 Αυγούστου 2019

If a pregnant uses aubergines the child will be an imam

(Imam bayildi or the imam has fainted is a dish with aubergines)

Another joke about that cypriot bishop. However he is preaching things which are at least as bad as his thoughts about sexuality.
In another video he says that cypriots are not virgins anymore when they marry and he doesn't mean gay sex.
Everything was okay when the island was under ottoman rule presumably, as he begins accussing the British for the loss of the strict morals. And then he accuses the greek refugees from the north of the island. So the problem is that priests cannot control the lifes of their fold, if the latter have contacts with other people. Each person should stay to his local fold.
During the middle ages there were always stories about the devil disguising as hansome young man or a beautiful young woman, so that the people would be afraid to communicate and rather run away.
The same problem is with children, when they visit grandparents or other relatives. If in the neighbourhood everybody is secular, it is okay as long as they know to whom the child belongs. However religious parents, if in minority, oblige their children to do dirty tricks to cause fights between the children. If in the neighbourhood there is a priest living, then xenophobia is at its best.
One thinks that they preach love and peace, but what they preach is the love and peace of God Yahweh and not of our world and those two have nothing to do with one another as the religion is monotheistic, "mono" meaning alone and not one directly.
The problem for them is that they preach different things, as they do not know much about christianity. Only what the bishop tells them and every know and then there is a new bishop. If people from different neighbourhoods come together and discuss religious things as well, people might notice the differences and inaccuracies.

Κυριακή, 4 Αυγούστου 2019

If the pregnant "comes" after her parnter, the kid will be a Liverpool fan!

The title is one of the jokes they were made when a cypriot orthodox bishop, talking on behalf of his God Yahweh, explained the existence of homosexuality.
This bishop however is preaching many other things, like everything pleasurable and satisfying is of Satan. In his example it was about yoga as body exercise and he told a story, which I find very hard to believe, about a handsome young man whom women wouldn't leave alone and the protestant married female trainer of yoga!
However the bishop kept saying that real happiness can be achieved only by praying day and night, fasting and confession under tears and lamentantions. Everything else is of Satan.
Greek philosophy is of Satan, enjoying reading literature is of Satan, chess, crosswords, movies, music, a glass of wine, a good meal, driving, riding a bike, dancing, discussions, hobbies and of course even sex between husband and wife, all of these are of Satan.
Many ignorant people say that one doesn't need to the Church anymore, so there is no problem. They are right that one should avoid the Church anyway one can and never support her for any reason.
The bad news are that the Church has a lot of money. Russia, EU, Greek State give a lot of money for philanthropy, although she doesn't pay for anything. The church people say who is going to have a job, who is going to be voted, who is going to be promoted.
All these people use their position to spread pseudoscience, which is the secularised form of christian teachings. So reading makes people crazy, movies makes people mix reality and fantasy, sport destroys bones and spine, makes fatter, one glass of wine leads to alcoholism, toys with dice or cards lead to gambling, pleasure of sex to pervecities of all kind.
Until 40 years ago, pupils would be punished from the headmaster, if they have been seen watching a movie on saturday afternoon.
These pseudoscientific stuff is now spread as well where pseudo-nonconformists pass their time. Cafeterias, betting shops, bars, stadions and halls. They are also spread as secular wisdom by fashion and lifestyle magazines.
It is obvious that as the majority of professors, judges, politicians and doctors depend on the Church, their knowledge comes always second when they disagree with their confessors and his celestial truth and they always have to succumb.
Doctors recommend midday sleeping, which suits only priests not working people and never sport, just strolling and fasting!

Σάββατο, 27 Ιουλίου 2019

WALKING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION DAYS OF «TERROR» IN THE SHOES OF THE «ROBESPIERRISTES»

WALKING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION DAYS OF «TERROR»
IN THE SHOES OF THE «ROBESPIERRISTES»


Maximilien Francois Marie Isidore de
                    Robespierre


by Vlassis G. Rassias


There are three different ways to study History. The first involves a cold study of facts without any in-depth analysis, the second way includes some attempts to analyze causes and evaluate results and the third way, which is undoubtedly the hardest one, attempts a very deep understanding of the historical figures. The difficulties that arise in the third way of studying History -opposite to the other two which are limited to a “from above” consideration and, of course, from a safe distance observance of the “dramas of life” of some people who lived in the far past and do not directly affect the reader- is that this particular way requires the reader to take the place of the historical personalities he is reading about. Furthermore, the reader is required to cross-examine himself while wearing the shoes of the historical figures and agree or disagree with the actions taken by them, or with the actions that the pen of the various historians has chosen to depict. 

The preciousness of the third way of studying History lies in the fact that each time it leads both the simple reader and the historian to a serious expansion of their perception of the diachronic human nature, eventually leading them as well to some kind of self-knowledge, mainly when the personality that needs to be deeply understood is negatively portrayed by the modern moral dualism.

Having chosen in my latest book 1 to use the third way of studying History so as to deeply analyze the personalities of the hardest and most serious phase of the French Revolution, in other words, the era of “Terror” (October 1793-July 1794), I  was soon faced with the same dilemmas that Maximilien Francois Marie Isidore de Robespierre, Louis Antoine Leon de Saint Just and Georges Auguste Couthon were confronted with, and felt that the rudimental integrity was leading me to defend the indispensability of the much discussed era of “Terror” («La Τerreur»), which, surely very far from the modern sense of the term, Robespierre himself, also known as «The Incorruptible», had defined: «Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue» 2.

The reason I’m using the verb “defend” is that because up to this day those specific personalities have been continuously subjected to slanderous remarks by many “from above” and “from a safe distance” historians, although there is no doubt that the French Revolution was led to its peak by those very men and then came to its end when they were overthrown and beheaded in the 9th and the 10th of month Thermidor. This continuous and dense slandering constitutes a phenomenon of pure absurdity and a flagrant attempt to “moralize” History itself by condemning the tragic creators of the so called “Western” democratic world, surprisingly by the very same people who would never think of giving up the benefits and especially the foundational values of this world, like the political liberties, the equality against the law and the institutionalized humanitarianism. The whole thing seems as absurd as if someone would demand to have bloodless births, or as if someone else believed that the houses have always had electricity and running water.

The truth is that those personalities and especially Robespierre, despite the countless verbal abuses they have also received some supportive remarks from a handful of daring historians such as Ernest Hamel, Claude Mazauric, Albert Mathiez, and others. For the most of these historians, the common point of their admiration is the persistence of the «robespierristes» to materialize the notion of Virtue. In the first paragraph of an older article in the «ΤO ΒΗΜΑ» newspaper, Mr. Gerasimos Vokos, professor of Philosophy at the Department of Political Sciences of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, justifies straight from the shoulder, the Hegelian ascertainment that “we could say” that Robespierre “took Virtue (Arete) seriously” 3. However, this ascertainment brings about the crucial question whether we can take Virtue on any other way than seriously.

Virtue and especially its public dimension, which in the process of time was defined as “Political Virtue” (so as to describe the triptych Justice-Decency-Responsibility that the ancient Greeks considered as a gift of God Zeus to mankind), is something extremely serious, something that cannot be discounted. In his treatise “De Republica”, Cicero, using Scipio as an example, introduces the idea of the existence of a very special place in the heavens where the dead politically virtuous men reside 4.

Undoubtedly, Virtue should be considered as a non-negotiable entity for every society that is interested in maintaining some basic but supreme in nature, values. Nevertheless, most of us live in societies that solely focus on evaluating everything according to its economic value, so some self-evident notions, especially moral ones, are unfortunately considered as being “utopic” or “extreme”.  Either defined by its ancient meaning and content or solely by its political content that the «robespierristes» gave to it, Virtue normally demands from men a gentle “inflexibility”: “Virtue as ethos, bravery and stable behavior serving freedom, is the antidote against deceit. Defined as such, Virtue does not bear any personal, moralistic or psychological characteristic. In the eyes of Robespierre, Virtue has a deep political and democratic character.” 5

Surely inflexibility can be viewed today by many “westerners” as a foretaste of fanaticism and one could also argue that certain liegeman forming-circles certainly prefer it to be viewed as such. However, in other levels of culture and human behavior that simply have been defeated by their modern and predominant equivalents, the inflexibility of virtue is not only right but also necessary. Unfortunately, these superior cultural levels have been defeated by their modern and predominant equivalents.  The element of inflexibility was an indispensable ingredient of Virtue for everyone who was obliged to materialize in his daily life the “Arete” (“Virtue”) or “Virtus” of the pre-Christian Hellenic and Roman world or other serious codes of ethics like the “Bushido” of the Japanese Samurais. This specific truth had not escaped from the minds of the revolutionaries we mention in this article, especially Saint Just, as we see them quite often making continuous and almost fetishistic references to the institutions and the value system of the Lycurgian Sparta as well as of Rome of the republican era 6.

The admirable inflexibility of the “robespierristes” which has made them and continues to make them so mush hated by their enemies, works in reverse and brings out their wonderful, pure and exemplary traits of their personalities in the eyes of people capable of studying History without the imposed specifications of today that more or less demand flexibility and relativism. Upon reviewing the book of the historian Ruth Scurr “Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution”, Hilary Mantel asked and simultaneously answered in the “London Review of Books” concerning the Incorruptible (Robespierre): “Why was his purity fatal? Because it seemed to be absolute. You couldn’t buy him. You couldn’t impress him. You couldn’t frighten him. You couldn’t lay claim to him” 7.  

There have been quite a few other personalities who were hated by their enemies because they also viewed inflexibility as an indispensable component of virtue. The republican stoic – in - arms of the 1st century BCE Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis or Cato Minor (94 – 46) who ended up opening his abdomen with his sword so as to avoid being arrested by the Caesar 8, is one example. Another great example is the contemporary of Nero and noted Stoic philosopher Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus who in the years 66 CE spilled the blood of his veins as a libation to “Iuppiter Liberator”. It is not accidental that in the Jacobin Calendar of Revolution which was adopted by the Convention, “Stoicism” 9 stood among the values celebrated in the “tenth days” (décadis), according to the article VII of the decree that established “the worship of the Supreme Being”; a “Stoicism” surely seen not as a school of Philosophy of the Antiquity but as a strong orientation towards virtue in all the continuous dilemmas of daily life. 

Opposite to this specific strong orientation, there stood numerous examples of the two kinds of men that provoked the disgust of the “robespierristes” who characterized them as “the enemies of Virtue”: the opportunist traitor and the adroit crook. 

The first kind of these “enemies of Virtue”, well incarnated by the shrewd Joseph Fouché and  Jean Lambert Tallien, initially a Jacobin extremist who was later on transformed into a warm supporter of the monarchic street gang «Jeunesse Dorée» 10, has been described by the author in his book when he refers to the “Diachronic Blackguard of History”, in other words “the miserable kind of man who knows well how to quickly strike his flag and replace it with another one, the flag of the eternal political party of the each time majority, following not the stability of an idea or a vision but the proven fluidity of times which the faster they change , the more often cause the striking and the hoisting of the flags of the depraved, the cowards, the arrivistes, the opportunists and the traitors” 11.

The second kind of “the enemies of Virtue”, perfectly incarnated by Philippe François Nazaire Fabre d' Églantine, Marie – Jean Hérault de Séchelles and some others, was defined and described by Robespierre himself who had adopted from Voltaire the term “fripon”, which applies to all of those who steal and cheat artfully, dexterously and above all unscrupulously. For Robespierre, the “fripon” constitutes “the absolute anti-political, apolitical or anti-political creature” 12, a rodent that unstoppably eats as much as its belly can endure. 

The only thing that Robespierre, whom rightly E. Hamel called “ one of the greatest men that struggled for the common good upon the Earth” 13,  can be accused of , was the double “naivety” of himself and all of his close collaborators that misled them to consider the moralization of the whole people feasible by just replacing the countless personality weaknesses with a few political and social virtues and to accept a role - trap that an irresponsible and unprepared for the real Democracy public had imposed on them, the role of the ones that were called to incarnate the Revolution itself so as to die with it.  They continuously forced themselves to experience the cold pain of validating necessary executions, hoping that the long term bloodshed would soon end. Nevertheless, they only things they received from the people they struggled for, were defamation, conspiracy, treachery and death. It is extraordinarily tragic the fact that Robespierre himself dreamed of establishing public benefit institutions and abolishing the death penalty as he had confessed to the neoclassical “painter of the Revolution” Jacques – Louis David, a few days before the 9th of Thermidor 14.

I ought to admit that from of all of Robespierre’s collaborators, I was mostly impressed and puzzled by the personality of Philippe Francois Joseph Lebas (1765 – 1794). In the 9th of Thermidor he volunteered to be arrested with his other comrades, setting as the only precondition to say goodbye to his newly born son and his wife (who, until the time of her death, refused to condemn the “robespierristes” whose portraits decorated the walls of her home) and he finally shot himself just before he was re-arrested in the Town Hall of Paris.  

Regarding the “era of Terror”, my own conclusion is that it constituted one of the very rare periods of  History where the ancient Greek cosmic notion of Anagke (Necessity) appears to haunt  the human world and, in that specific case, to demand full inflexibility when it comes to the practice of moral duties. An approach of such a period of History can be proven legitimate only if it does take into account this very notion of Anagke, and of course it is rather unfair, if not indecorous, to “wash our hands” by solely observing the facts “from above” and from a safe distance as if we were some kind of deity that resides out of the dimensions where the mortals live and act.

Within the framework of the above stated conclusion, everyone who insists on using the third way of studying the History of the “Terror Era” and additionally has the common dosage of sincerity, is led via a narrow one-way path to admit to himself that if he had been born in the 6th of May 1758 in Arras or in the 25th of August 1767 in Decize of Nivernais 15 and had truly  “taken virtue seriously”, he would have ended up in the scaffold of Place de la Révolution and from there to the huge lime pit in the Errancis graveyard. A huge lime pit that simply amplified the illusion of the traitors and the “fripons” that the bodily demise of their victims would let absolutely nothing stir up the deep darkness of their guilty conscience. 



NOTES

1. Rassias G. Vlassis, «Laimetomos Arete. Robespierre – Saint Just – Couthon», Αthens, 2007

2. «La Τerreur n' est autre chose que la justice prompte, severe, inflexible; elle est donc une emanation de la vertu », in the speech of the 5th of February  of  1794 in the National Convention, titled «Sur les principes de morale politique» (Robespierre Maximilien F. M. I., «Oeuvres complètes», Volume 10, Paris, 1967, σελ. 357).

3. Vokos Gerasimos, «O Robespierros kai e Politike Arete», newspaper «ΤO ΒΗΜΑ», 12th of November 2000, p. Β18

4. Clarke M. L., «To Romaiko Pneuma» («The Roman Mind»), Athens, 2004, p. 101

5. Vokos Gerasimos, «O Robespierros kai e Politike Arete», newspaper «ΤO ΒΗΜΑ»,  12th of November 2000, p. Β18

6. An interesting sample of the “Institutions” drawn by Saint Just that concerned the structure of society after the Revolution, with a lot of emphasis placed on the civics and the proper upbringing of the youth, using ancient Sparta as a prototype, is presented by J. H. Robinson in «Readings in European History» volume 2, p. 451 – 454, Boston, 1906.

7. Mantel Hilary, «If you’d seen his green eyes», in the «London Review of Books», volume 28, no 8, 20th of April 2006.

8. Plutarch, «Cato», 68 – 71

9. Scurr Ruth, «Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution», London, 2006, p. 292

10. Andress David, «The Terror. Civil War in the French Revolution», London, 2006, p. 353

11. Rassias G. Vlassis, «Laimetomos Arete. Robespierre – Saint Just – Couthon», Αthens, 2007, p. 362

12. Vokos Gerasimos, «O Robespierros kai e Politike Arete», newspaper «ΤO ΒΗΜΑ», 12th of November 2000, p. Β18

13. Hamel Ernest, «Histoire de Robespierre», volume 3, p. 807, Paris, 1867

14. Mignet F.A., «Historia tes Gallikes Epanastases», volume 2, Αthens, 1955, p. 341

15. Dates and places of birth for Robespierre and Saint Just respectively.


Παρασκευή, 19 Ιουλίου 2019

Typical for Greece: A rector's coup to announce a bishop a PhD


Patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and the clergy act as spoiled children, because they believe they were appointed by God Yahweh, who has full power over his 'creation'.
Greek 'elites' have the same manners.
YSEE (Supreme Court of Ethnic Hellenes) says that by non-theocratic societies people are honoured with doctorates, when they have contributed to society and humanity. The ceremony is public and the decision is unanimous.
The rector had tried to nominate the bishop of Thessaloniki in 2017, but the deans of the university and greek society opposed that nomination, so he retreated. However now that he is term is drawing to an end, he -the man at the right of the bishop- decided to nominate the bishop, no matter what everybody else thought about it.
YSEE doesn't care about the bishop's antihellenic, bigoted, racist and unscientific theories. One of them is that there are no other planets, than the earth.
The problem is the rector, who did this apparently because he wanted to please God Yahweh.
Personally I would like to know who his confessor is. What happens during the confession stays in the confession, however there always cases where the priests take advantage of the situation.
YSEE says that the nomination degrades education to something lesser than the teaching of the christian church.
YSEE asks that a university called 'Aristotelian' has to have Aristotle in its logotype and not a saint 'Demetrius'.




YSEE Press Release concerning the nomination of Bishop Anthimos to a honorary doctor.
ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΓΟΡΕΥΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΙΤΗ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ ΑΝΘΙΜΟΥ ΣΕ ΕΠΙΤΙΜΟ ΔΙΔΑΚΤΟΡΑ ΑΠΘ
Ανακοίνωση 372 / 18-7-"2019"
Είθισται, στις μη θεοκρατικές χώρες του πολιτισμένου κόσμου, η αναγόρευση κάποιου σε επίτιμο διδάκτορα ενός πανεπιστημίου, να γίνεται για να τιμηθεί το επιστημονικό, ερευνητικό, εκπαιδευτικό, ανθρωπιστικό ή ειρηνευτικό έργο του τιμωμένου. Μάλιστα δε η τελετή της αναγόρευσης λαμβάνει χώρα δημόσια και πραγματοποιείται ύστερα από ομόφωνη απόφαση των αρμοδίων οργάνων του πανεπιστημίου.
Ούτε δημοκρατική ούτε μη θεοκρατική λειτουργία καταδεικνύει η απόφαση του απερχόμενου πρυτάνεως του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης κ. Μήτκα, να προχωρήσει στην «εν κρυπτώ» αναγόρευση του μητροπολίτη Άνθιμου, σε επίτιμο διδάκτορα ΑΠΘ. Και αυτό διότι η «αναγόρευση» πραγματοποιήθηκε, χωρίς προηγουμένως ο πρύτανις να ενημερώσει ως όφειλε την πανεπιστημιακή κοινότητα. Η αυθαίρετη απόφαση του πρυτάνεως, προκάλεσε πλήθος αντιδράσεων, όπως ακριβώς έγινε και τον Νοέμβριο του 2017, όταν είχε επιχειρηθεί και πάλι η αναγόρευση, αλλά τελικά ματαιώθηκε λόγω των αντιδράσεων που πυροδότησε στην πανεπιστημιακή κοινότητα, αλλά και στην ευρύτερη κοινωνία.
Το Ύπατο Συμβούλιο των Ελλήνων Εθνικών (ΥΣΕΕ), ο φορέας της Ελληνικής Εθνικής Θρησκείας, αποδοκιμάζει έντονα την προκλητική απόφαση του πρυτάνεως του ΑΠΘ. Η αποδοκιμασία έχει ως αποκλειστικό αποδέκτη, τον πρύτανι του μεγαλυτέρου πανεπιστημίου της χώρας, ο οποίος φαίνεται ότι χρησιμοποιεί την θέση του, όχι προς όφελος της κοινωνίας και της πανεπιστημιακής κοινότητας, αλλά προσδοκώντας καλή μεταχείριση στο επέκεινα. Ωστόσο μία εξομολόγηση στον πνευματικό του θα αρκούσε όπως δογματίζει η θρησκεία του, αυτός όμως επέλεξε να γελοιοποιήσει το ίδρυμα στο οποίο πρυτανεύει.
Μας αφήνει παντελώς αδιάφορους το γεγονός ότι ο ευρισκόμενος σε προκεχωρημένη κρίση μεγαλείου μητροπολίτης, είναι γνωστός για τις ρατσιστικές, ανθελληνικές, μισαλλόδοξες και αντιεπιστημονικές θέσεις του και άρα όχι απλώς ακατάλληλος για την τιμητική αυτή διάκριση, αλλά και επικίνδυνος, καθώς εκπροσωπεί αυτός και η θρησκεία του τον υποβιβασμό της Παιδείας σε τάχα προπαρασκευή της βασιλείας του γιαχωβά. Μάλιστα δε, σχετικά πρόσφατα, ο «επίτιμος διδάκτωρ» γνωστοποίησε στο ποίμνιό του, ότι «δεν υπάρχουν πλανήτες» στο ηλιακό σύστημα. Τον μητροπολίτη τον αφήνουμε στην κρίση κάθε σκεπτόμενου πολίτη. Όχι όμως τον κ. πρύτανι.
Ο κ. πρύτανις καμώνεται πως δήθεν δεν γνωρίζει ότι με την επαίσχυντη αυτή πράξη του εξισώνει και δίνει συγχωροχάρτι στους θύτες και διώκτες της ελληνικής Παιδείας με τα αμέτρητα θύματα που μαρτύρησαν στο όνομα της έρευνας καταδιωκόμενα από τους πνευματικούς προγόνους του Άνθιμου.
Ο κ. πρύτανις σφυρίζει αδιάφορα και δήθεν δεν γνωρίζει ότι με την επαίσχυντη αυτή πράξη του, υποβιβάζει την πανεπιστημιακή γνώση σε κατώτερο επίπεδο ακόμα και από την ορθόδοξη ακαταληψία του Άνθιμου.
Για μια ακόμα φορά επαναφέρουμε το αίτημα για αποκατάσταση της μορφής του μεγάλου φιλοσόφου Αριστοτέλη στο λογότυπο του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης, αντί της υπάρχουσας μορφής του «Αγίου Δημητρίου». Εκτός αν ο κ. πρύτανις, επιδεικνύοντας υπερβάλλοντα ζήλο, το μετονομάσει σε «Αγιοδημήτρειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης».
Τιμή και μνήμη σε Θεούς και Προγόνους
ΥΠΑΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΤΩΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΕΘΝΙΚΩΝ

Πέμπτη, 11 Ιουλίου 2019

The total failure of the Greek Left!

The Greek Left has been proven even worse than conservatives, liberals, social-liberals and socialdemocrats. More incompetence, more arrogance, more greed, more lust for power, more lies, than everybody before them.
After WWII it was safer to recruit journalists and intellectual from the communist party, as the two other options were either religious imperialists or liberals. However there cannot be liberalism without an economy that hasn't changed since the Middle Ages. So people of the left spectrum were recruited and they had to follow the guidance of the conservative elite. Even today, journalists with most neoliberal or reactionary worldview, were as students members of communist groups.
One had the impression that they were well educated, but were a bit too idealistic for the current problems. Especially a party call Communist Party of Greece Interior. However because they didn't become money from the USSR, they had to appeal to idealists, as they couldn't offer jobs in the public sector or in the party so they were always a marginal party.
After the bankruptcy of 2010, the center-left party lost many votes to the parties of the left. The old communist party of the interior had split to two parties the eurocommunists and the revisionaries sometimes in the eighties and they kept uniting and separating with other parties of the left. Especially when the new party was called Coalition of the Left. At first a more moderate left party was voted, but as it took part at a government coalition together with the conservatives and the social democrats of PASOK, it lost it's supporters. The old centre-left party PASOK was shrinking, loosing votes to the new centrum parties and the Coalition of the Left.
Many thought one should give the Coalition of the Left a chance as people naively thought the left theorists are educated, cultivated, motivated, honest and hard-working idealists.
The prime minister was proved to be an illiterate. As a young pupil he and his girlfriend chose to follow the profession of a communist. He was a member of the youth of the Communist Party (of abroad), but he didn't follow its retreat from the Left coalition sometimes in the nighties. No USSR, too rigid way of forming speeches, so he remained in Coalition of the Left. Later the leader of the Left, who was without any charisma wanted to use this young lad as the frontman and his childish manners could bring in votes and due to his incompetence, he would have to have him as his mentor. However as it always happens the puppet rebelled against his mentor and the mentor left the party. The puppet could have as many mentors as he wished. He wasn't doing anything valuable anyway.
This person was elected prime minister. Α bunch of illiterate people who never did anything but picking up expressions of the marxist left, who actually believed in the world revolution of the proletariate became ministers.
So they did what they have been taught. They favoured people who  live a nomadic or ghetto life and they did what they could to harm the honest, hard working people, either blue-collar or white-collar workers. As real marxists they had no problem with rich people as long as these rich people traded with the state, as long as they acted as presidents of state enterprises.
Of course marxist call everybody with an opinion a fascist, but in order to become a government, they didn't have a problem to form a coalition with a party of the extreme right. The steak was called a fish and the party was placed in the centre.
The tried to control or found newspapers, radio stations and tv channels to serve their propaganda. That the state channel was used as such wasn't enough. Being useless, lazy, stupid and incompetent they failed, so they had to do many favours for the greek parasitic plutocrats.
One successful shipowner, although working abroad, has family ties with the conservative party and owns the fooball club of Olympiacos Peiraieus. This was enough for the party to take sides against Olympiacos as a whole, although the basketball club is owned by other people and the other sports aren't permitted to have owners. They try to accuse him of everything possible, drug dealing or setting up criminal structures. However when real problems arouse at basketball, the government didn't do anything, because they didn't understand the problem. Well that might be true, because they cannot understand anything, but it seems as if they had asked if the problems were for or against Olympiacos and decided accordingly.
Many times they were saying that they had the government, but they didn't have the power, a thing a democratical party would never say.
They use a countless number of trolls, still know, who comment everywhere, social media, sites and blogs. They phone every radio or tv show to promote their propaganda. Not only for politics, but also for sports and culture. It seems that the majority of the voters, do not really work, although they may appear to be civil servants, journalists, party employees etc. And for their propaganda they should be ashamed. Either they are retarded and their arguments are accordingly, or they think the other people are retarded, then they should be ashamed to try to fool such people.
All in all they proved to be a circus, and every clown either conservative, or centre, or social democrat, is less ridiculous than them. Even if they believe in state economy, they didn't even try to found some state enterprises.