EUROPEAN RACISM AND GYPSIES: the new "Distant Mirror"

There is a new "Distant Mirror" that Europeans need to look into and see what is staring back at them. Is what they see in this societal mirror freedom and democracy, pluralism and social justice, an open society for all people with the promise for progress based on merit criteria? Or is the societal mirror darkened by the suffering of non-white immigrants, non-Christian communities, roaming gypsies trying to survive another day begging in the streets?  

The recent revelation of a four-year old blonde child (Maria) apparently of Bulgarian origin found to be living with Greek gypsies has attracted a great deal of attention throughout the European mainstream media and government. This international news headline almost coincided with that of a gypsy teenager arrested and deported from France. In the case of Maria the blonde child, presumably sold, traded, abducted or given to gypsies, the media and politicians have been using it to invoke fear and dread of child trafficking that involves gypsies. INTERPOL has informed the Greek government that the little blonde child is not on the list of missing persons internationally, nor is she on any national register. The issue of child trafficking is global and in Europe it has been centered in the Balkans, involving money making operations and everyone from lawyers to corrupt public officials. However, this is an issue in which white Christian Europeans are at the center, and Roma elements used as a pretext to cover the illegal operations.

In the case of  Leonarda Dibrani that the French deported with her family to Kosovo in early October 2013 the media has been trying to present as an isolated incident of a bureaucratic problem for which the Socialist government in Paris is responsible. Both cases are a manifestation of the racism that runs very deep across Europe, the scapegoating that people seek in difficult economic periods, the common street prejudice that becomes part of folklore and a segment of the population accepts as real as the sun as the earth's source of light.

This article is not intended to comment on the legal aspects of these cases, nor on their legal merits and of those involved in them. Instead, this is an attempt to place the issue of gypsies in European society in some historical context and to explain why such cases attract so much international media, political and public attention, considering that these are mostly "human interest" stories with political subplots, at a time that there are so many serious societal problems.

In neither the French case of the deported teenager nor of the Greek case of the Bulgarian girl living with gypsy parents is there much emphasis on the deep historical roots of anti-gypsy mindset and practice that dates as far back as the 13th century, and it remains as the longest and most vibrant racist mode of though in Europe. The unfortunate reality is that the media and politicians simply take for granted the assumptions of the majority of the population about gypsies, always remembering to place the issue in "politically correct" terminology.

From the time of the Ottoman Empire's expansion into the heart of Europe in the 16th century until the Nazi holocaust that included gypsies as targets for extermination, Europeans have entertained anti-gypsy (antiziganism) tendencies that remain deeply imbedded in white Christian culture. That gypsies took white children is an old tale, but in reality gypsy children with one non-gypsy parent were taken from their parents at the age of five to be raised by a Christian family in 18th century Austria, while in 18th and 19th century Romania gypsies were used as slaves by rich landowners, monasteries and princes. In today's Europe, a few gypsies do not collect or steal children, but they do work with unscrupulous lawyers and corrupt public officials to sell children mostly from Eastern Europe to childless parents. This too is a reflection of the European institutional mainstream, and not necessarily of gypsies who sell everything from scrap metal to fruits and vegetables.

In folklore, the Europeans invariably associated with Satan worship, witchcraft, non-conformity to indigenous culture, thus anti-social and anti-establishment "untouchables" of Europe with origin in India, moving into Europe around the same time as the Seljuk Turk attacks on the Byzantium in the 13th century. By the 15th century when the Black Death was in full swing, gypsies lived throughout Europe. Many Christian Europeans assumed that gypsies were carriers of the Black Death, largely because they were roaming from one place to another, thus carrying the disease.

The Roma (gypsies) were the target of every European society from Tsarist Russia to the Iberian peninsula. Besides expulsions from local areas, gypsies were also subjected to torture, such as flogging, cutting off their ears, branded with irons, etc. Society needed a scapegoat for calamities that befall upon it and it was convenient to have the gypsies that were the ultimate outcasts and underclass of society. Representing the lowest social ladder of European society, and having no permanent affiliation with any societal institution, gypsies were believed to be potential enemies of the institutional mainstream against whom one must always be on guard. Free from institutional constraints, they have always been free to make a living in any manner, especially illegal activities that include trafficking, prostitution, narcotics, and especially theft.

But why do we have the persistence in the public mind about tales of gypsies stealing children. Actually, in Romania there was a tradition of a Christian family offering to a gypsy woman a sickly child, partly because it was assumed that gypsies were healers. Without any institutional legitimacy, or social respect, the gypsies because easy targets for Nazis who executed between 500,000 and 1,5 million in the 'other' holocaust. Unlike the holocaust suffered by the Jews in the hands of Nazis, the gypsy holocaust is mentioned, but very few people and no institution or government would bother treating the gypsy holocaust like the Jewish one, because white Europeans simply do not feel guilty about Germany eliminating hundreds of thousands of gypsies, mostly non-white, non-Christian, non-conformist.

In today's Europe, there are those who want gypsies out of their country, or at best concentrated in ghettos, which is essentially what exists, although they are very dispersed. In many former Communist countries of Eastern and East-Central Europe, the segregation is legalized, and it includes separate schools for gypsy children. Nevertheless,  the Christian majority often complains that gypsies are a drain on the precious resources of the state, everything from health care and education to other welfare benefits, including those of child rearing. Given that the "gypsy" issue is one that conservative political parties across Europe see as a problem for society, France above all during the Sarkozy presidency, neo-Nazis and neo-Fascists have also used the issue as part of the anti-immigration trend targeting Muslims and Africans.

According to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights the incidents of racist violence has been rising in the last decade or so.  All across Europe the victims are gypsies, Muslims and African immigrants. 
Given that the political climate is against them as parasites and outcasts, gypsies have been subject to violence by hate groups. Because the police and courts are a reflection of society, they turn a blind eye to violence against gypsies and to violence within gypsy communities. Although the Council of Europe and human rights organizations have put together reports of anti-gypsy crimes, hardly anything is done because there is a presumption of guilt for the gypsy that mainstream institutions and society at large regard as parasites and a social stigma.

Hitler struck a sensitive cord in his propaganda when he argued that people do not want to bother with the structural political, social and economic causes of why things are not going well in society; people want, in fact they need, according to Hitler, someone specifically to blame for their problems and to hate. Society needs someone to blame and hate for its problems, so why not the roaming gypsies that are not part of mainstream society, they are not of the same God and country.

The gypsy girl that France under a Socialist president deported, as though it needed more evidence that even middle class French Socialists can be just as racists as their conservative counterparts under Sarkozy illustrates that white Europeans feel no guilt for their racism; just as post-WWII Europe simply brushed over the gypsy holocaust victims, focusing primarily on the Jews. The case of the four-year old blonde Bulgarian girl living with Greek gypsies is another case illustrating that society is ready to use such incidents to cry out against gypsies "milking the welfare system" by claiming as many children as possible; of gypsies posing a threat to the otherwise outstanding social fabric; of gypsies representing a stigma on a society that would be better off if they were either in concentration camps with the illegal refugees or out of the country or back behind the old "Iron Curtain". The ultimate irony and a reflection of the hypocrisy of racist society is that the ethnic prejudice toward the Bulgarian child is overlooked because an even larger "social enemy", namely the gypsy, is the target. Let's face it, there is hierarchy in prejudice and racism, and some ethnic, racial and religious groups rank lower than others!

These two cases illustrate nothing about the gypsies, but speak volumes of white Christians, of European "open society under democratic regimes", of a white European value system that has more in common with the mindset that prevailed during the Black Death and the age of witchcraft in the Elizabethan era. The Distant Mirror, as Barbara Tuchman entitled her book about societal prejudices, and religiously-sanctioned and government-supported acts of injustice in the age of the Black Death, remains very much a part of the 21st century. I have no doubt that it makes many Europeans feel better about themselves that are are gypsies around because a good scapegoat, especially one that does not induce guilt feelings, is always good to have around. Is there a better distraction that politicians and the media can use than gypsies to redirect the attention of people from structural problems ranging from unemployment and lower living standards for the middle class and workers to crony capitalism that has been institutionalized as corporate welfare. None of these are "real problems", as long as we have the gypsies around, along with the Muslim and African immigrants invading white Christian Europe.

Postscript: reply to comment from Linkedin member:
 "Social exclusion" vs. societal integration was an issue with the Jews under the Czars in the Russian Empire. The question is why was there social exclusion of the Russian Jews, who lived in a semi-marginalized existence, vs. the gypsies, most of whom are in the periphery of the economy, both legal and underground, while a small percentage across Europe are part of the social mainstream. Since I wrote the article on the gypsies, the second one I have written in the last three years, first entitled "Europe's Werewolves" in connection with French racism, there has been a deluge of commentary by the media, politicians and commentators against gypsies from Ireland to Bulgaria. I maintain that Europeans feel no guilt immersing themselves in racism known as anti-tsiganist.  Despite numerous warnings issued by the European Commission, the European Parliament, the United Nations, Vatican and all the international human rights associations, a number of governments, most notably the French where the neo-Fascist party of Marine Le Pen is gaining in popularity, have continued blatant discrimination and persecution of the Roma. Europeans are even more anti-tsiganist now than they were five-ten years ago, Racism is on the rise and in the mind of the prejudiced Christians gypsies are right there along the Muslims who make every effort to integrate in mainstream society. Pure and simple, it makes white Christians feel good to have a scapegoat for their problems, instead of looking at themselves in the mirror.

Neoliberalism and the rise of Neo-Nazism-Neo-Fascism

In the wake of the Greek government’s crackdown of neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn in late September 2013, other European far right-wing parties, including the French headed by Marine Le Pen, denounced their Greek counterparts. True that the Greek neo-Nazis are probably the most violent, linked to assassinations, most corrupt involving illegal activities ranging from money laundering to gun and prostitution rings. However, this is the same Golden Dawn that other European far right parties had associations and contacts in previous years. Why are the European far right wing parties as anxious to distance their groups from Golden Dawn as the mainstream conservative parties? 

Part of the answer is that the neo-Nazism in Greece was blatantly anti-Semitic, openly defiant of the EU, and it was a symbol of a criminal organization using the cover of parliamentary immunity to commit a number of crimes that began to impact the mainstream of society.Why is this particular party so anti-Semitic when other neo-Nazi and neo-Fascist parties are mostly anti-Islam? Golden Dawn is anti-Islam, but reflecting the reality of anti-Semitism among a segment of the Greek people, it remains anti-Semitic more so than any other European far right party. After all, conspiracy theories involving Jews and the banks, Jews and the US government, Jews and the mass media remain popular, at least among a segment of the population that is looking for specific people to blame, instead of looking to institutional structures, for the problems in the world economy.

While there is no threat of neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist parties forming governments anywhere in the Wetsern World, there is a disturbing rise in extreme right wing parties like Golden Dawn in the last two decades. One of the reasons that far right wing parties have thrived in the last two decades is because they have dropped the emphasis on anti-Semitism and taken on the issue of Islam as the new enemy. Given that the state has legitimized Islamophobia through the war on terror targeting Muslims, the neo-Nazi and neo-Fascist groups simply go one step farther by adopting an even more extreme position on the issue of xenophobia, thus remaining acceptable in the mainstream of society and institutions from police and military to media and government. As long as these neo-Nazi and neo-Fascist groups are focused on Muslims and people of color, they become acceptable to pro-Israel entities that are on the same side in wishing to weaken the ‘Muslim enemy’.  

The strange alliance between ultra-right wing groups and pro-Israel and pro-Jewish groups is most evident in the US where Christian fundamentalists, Tea Party fanatics and varieties of other extreme right wing groups have often enjoyed the backing of pro-Jewish elements. Only where the neo-Nazis are openly anti-Semitic, as is the case of the Greek Golden Dawn party that is the most pro-Hitler in the Western World, have pro-Israel and Jewish organizations objected vehemently and used their lobbying influence through government, businesses and non-government organizations to have the state crush neo-Nazism. Therefore, while the Islamophobia neo-Nazi and neo-Fascist groups have enjoyed at the very least the silence of Jewish lobbying organizations, crossing the line and adopting an anti-Semitic position has meant that the state will try to crush the extreme right wing.  

As long as racist bigotry and police violence has as its target the leftists and Muslims, then the extreme right wing is able to operate within that framework and actually claim that it is even more representative of what society wants or secretly craves than the mainstream political parties. Moreover, the extreme right wing can claim that it offers a sense of national identity without any shame or apologies to those favoring internationalism and multiculturalism. In fact conservative judges have shown extraordinary leniency toward xenophobic groups, including neo-Nazi and neo-Fascists in a number of European countries, including Germany and Greece, in the last two decades. This level of tolerance has taken place despite the anti-neo-Nazi, anti-xenophobic rhetoric by the EU and its member states.

There is indeed a gap between the rhetoric of "political correctness" that politicians and media employ, on the one hand, and the reality of discrimination, on the other. In fact, even the neo-Nazi and neo-Fascist organizations are often careful what rhetoric to employ in public and what they use within their ranks. For example, xenophobic and racist rhetoric is always used in the context of what is popular among a segment of the population that sees a threat to its way of life from foreigners, especially non-whites. Given that the "war on terror" is institutionalized, it provides the ideal cover for far right groups to be claiming that they are simply on the side of those fighting Islamist terrorism when in fact they are pursuing a racist neo-Nazi/neo-Fascist agenda. Therefore, populist rhetoric becomes a way of articulating a message of bigotry that tends to find an audience with those seeking to scapegoat a specific group of people of the institutional ills of society. 

The parliamentary system actually has helped to promote neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism in several respects. First, governments pass laws under the general category of “terrorism”, mainly with Islam as the main target, but also focused on leftist organizations, including activist organizations protecting the rights of labor and minorities. Second, given the goal of legislation dealing with extremist groups identified as leftist and Muslim, the police and courts are also focused on the same as ‘enemies of the state’. Third, the media and mainstream society identify the same groups as enemies, while giving a pass to neo-Nazi and neo-Fascist groups that are just as opposed to leftists and Muslims. Given that the neo-Nazi and neo-Fascist is in line with the goals of the mainstream, there is no reason not to be a part of the societal core and operate within the parliamentary system under the label of “patriotism”.  

Against the background of economic contraction that results in lower living standards for workers and the middle class, the mainstream political parties – everything from Conservative and Liberal to “Socialist” in name but neo-liberal in practice – are in essence much worse than the seemingly patriotic extreme right wing that flirts with Fascism and Nazism. What more can the neo-Nazis and neo-Fascists do that the mainstream political parties have not done in the name of democracy? Endemic political corruption, business-corporate fraud protected by the state, high-handed police state methods against those challenging the system within constitutional means like protests and strikes, weakening the social safety net while strengthening the corporate welfare system, promising social justice and delivering injustice.

Given that the conservative and centrist political parties that switch in governing Western countries, and given the few policy differences between them, policies that make a difference in the lives of the majority, people have become disillusioned with mainstream politics. Expressing their disillusionment through far right parties is more acceptable in society because the media and mainstream political parties have made it so. Going to the far right, one immediately identifies with the patriotic movement, interested in nostalgically taking the country back to a better time when things were ‘normal’, uncomplicated by influx of foreigners, Islamic terrorism, leftist intellectuals and politicians seeking egalitarianism, feminists and gay marriage advocates, ‘cultural bastards’ trying to pollute the minds of the youth through modern anti-establishment music, art and books.  

Governments trying to impose policies that create greater inequality and injustice feel comfortable having a segment of society drift to the far right that is there to counterbalance the left protesting mainstream policies and institutions. Moreover, government uses the far right as an example of why voters must support the policies of the mainstream political parties. To make sure that people remain loyal to the centrist and conservative parties that alternate in government, the mainstream parties invariably identify the far right and the left as comparable threats that society must reject. In short, the neo-Nazi/neo-Fascist presence in essence serves the neo-liberal agenda move forward because the majority of the people invariably become subservient to a system that they see as the only realistic possibility, even though it may not be the best system possible for society.

Loss of confidence in the parliamentary system itself, not just in the mainstream political parties is at the root of disillusioned voters that seek out salvation in neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism. In short, the decadent parliamentary system, and grossly unequal economic system combined with social injustice that gave rise to Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany also accounts for the rise of neo-Nazism and neo-Fascism in the early 21^st century. Of course, there are those who argue that the “problem” of Asian and African influx of legal and illegal aliens in the Western World poses a threat to the social fabric, way of life, economy and the ideal of a homogeneous society as extreme right wingers see it. The perceived threat that the white race is diminishing in numbers, that the non-white Muslims and others from Africa and Asia will soon be a part of the societal mainstream frightens the Western Caucasians who maintain dreams of ethnic and/or racial purity.  

The question of why people become neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist is not just for psychologists, but all social scientists. It is true that the profile of a far-right wing follower is one of a disgruntled, desperate individual, in many cases expressing deviant behavior or suffering from psychological problems. While this may be true, it does not go far enough, given that millions of people voted for Hitler and they were not all psychotic, and millions are extreme right-wingers today. At the core of the issue is the political economy rooted in inequality and absence of social justice. Fear that society is slowly eroding, the social fabric falling apart, combined with myths of demonizing and scapegoating minorities that preclude achieving the dream of a superior society is another dimension in the rise of far right parties in the Western World. In each society, the nuance of the right wing movement assumes unique features. For example, in the US, blacks and other minorities historically have been a target of far right wingers. In each country there is a history, traditions, and unique culture on which the far right builds its myths and cultivates fears to attract followers.

Disdain for freedom, democracy, multiculturalism and a belief in authoritarian government that would return society far back in time is the link of the far right, regardless of where they are. However, these organizations need funds to operate and the sources of funding are another intriguing dimension of their emergence. In many cases, wealthy individuals provide funding for far right parties and organizations, partly because they believe in their eclectic ideology, but also because the far right keeps the left and labor organizations in check. Just as Hitler received funding from wealthy individuals to secure his vast operations before coming to power, so do modern far right organizations. Given the modern spying methods via telephones and internet, governments are well aware of who is financing extreme right wing groups. In the absence of complicity by government, and the support of wealthy individuals, it would have been impossible for the Greek neo-Nazi Golden Dawn to operate on the massive scale that it has. The same holds true for other far right wing parties in the West. Therefore, at the core of the rise of neo-Nazism/neo-Fascism is the manner in which democracy operates to ensure the preservation of the neoliberal status quo.

Are asylum seekers from  Africa and Asia the cause of neo-Nazism?
  
Italy and Greece have repeatedly complained to the EU that more needs to be done about the massive influx of asylum seekers. After the recent tragedy of the ship that sunk and took the lives of several hundred Africans, the Italian government once again appealed to the EU for help and asked that Greece and Italy were entry points for Africans and Asians headed for the West. The EU does provide some funding, but when we have war-torn and civil-war torn countries in a number of African and Middle Eastern areas, there are limits to what the EU can do because people will find ways illegally to enter European soil. Greece has set up what amount to concentration camps for illegals that are captured, while Germany as the richest EU country does provide preferential treatment for white immigrants vs. those of color. The same is the case throughout Europe. France targets non-whites and gypsies that many see as sources of crime. Finally, Norway, a country with the highest living standard, or at least in the top five in the world, has active neo-Nazis targeting Muslims. Unlike Greece and Italy, Norway is not under austerity, but a segment of its citizens wants socio-cultural catharsis. Here is where scholarship needs to take into account not a single cause for the rise of neo-Nazism in the West, but everything from historical, ideological, and cultural to economic and political.

POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS: The RISE OF NEO-NAZISM UNDER AUSTERITY and NEOLIBERALISM

Political assassinations have been around from Julius Caesar in ancient Rome to John F. Kennedy in contemporary America. Motives as well as goals of assassination are important to consider in the definition. The motive can be ideological, religious, political, military, something that is associated with society at large but never personal like two lover trying to resolve a dispute through violence. The act itself could involve financial gain, fame/notoriety, or a deluded sense of purpose of grandeur on the part of the assassin, a combination of all or it could simply be ideological and/or political without any of the rest. As to the broader goal of political assassination, it is important to note that once again it is never personal, but it is inevitably associated with society in a real sense or symbolically. For example, Gandhi and Kennedy were symbols for their countries and people around the world, and the goal in eliminating them included everything from eliminating those symbols for their mass following to removing them as obstacles to policies that certain groups of powerful people wanted carried out.  

Governments carry out political assassinations invariably for reasons they justify as “national security”, linking those reasons to ‘war conditions”, therefore it somehow appears legitimate that the CIA, or the secret services of Israel, China, or Russia killed certain people. At the same time, guerrilla-style groups carry out assassinations of political officials or rich and famous private citizens to send a political message. The question is what happens when a paramilitary organization operating under the umbrella of an elected political party enjoying constitutional protection carries out political assassinations? How can citizens possibly cast a vote and elect in parliament neo-Nazi politicians with well-known criminal records that include running prostitution rings and money laundering, "selling protection" to night clubs and other stores, extorting money from illegal immigrant street sellers and beating those that refused to pay, destroying property, and other similar crimes. Just as significant, how could the police, government, and the media help such Neo-Nazi operatives to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the voters?

We saw such events unfold in Fascist Italy in the 1920s and in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and in 2013 in Greece. This is not to equate Greece, a semi-developed country, with the industrialized nations of interwar Europe that came out of WWI at the losing end and a segment of their voters chose ultra-nationalist racist political parties to represent them. However,  the economy of Greece has been so devastated by the IMF-EU imposed austerity measures that its social structure has collapsed just as those of Fascist Italy in the 1920s and Nazi Germany in the 1930s amid the Great Depression.  

On 18 September 2013, a member of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn assassinated a rap singer whose songs were well-known for their anti-fascist messages. Immediately, there was an outcry by the EU, especially by Germany, that the right-wing-led Greek government must do something about the neo-Nazi movement whose popularity has risen from under one percent before the IMF-EU austerity to double-digit in 2013. In January 2013, Golden Dawn members had assassinated a Pakistani, but not one word by the authorities, from police and courts to the ruling coalition that has been in many respects fueling the neo-Nazi movement with its policy of tolerance and equating any legitimate labor strike and mass demonstration by leftists with the acts of violence by Golden Dawn.  

The activities of the paramilitary wing of Golden Dawn include blackmail and racketeering, using their charity organization to embezzle money from donations, shakedowns of small businesses in return for "protection", and illegal movement and possession of weapons. All of these activities were well known to the government, as was the fact that the neo-Nazis were engaged in hundreds of acts of violence. However, the government not only refused to act, but members of the ruling conservative party had gone as far as suggesting collaborating with the neo-Nazis.

It was not until several EU elected officials, mostly Germans who feel that their push of IMF-EU austerity has driven Greece into socioeconomic catastrophe and political polarization, have called for wiping out neo-Nazism otherwise Greece will not be able to assume the rotating presidency of the EU in January 2014. Immediately, the Greek minister of Justice announced that legal measures will be adopted to bring harsh penalties for any neo-Nazi activities, whether against foreigners, gypsies, leftists, trade unionists, or entertainers like the recently-assassinated young man.


Both the Greek right-wing government that cultivated the climate giving rise to neo-Nazism and the IMF-EU supporters in Europe and the US are scrambling to distance themselves from the political conditions for neo-Nazism. However, there is a direct correlation between the pluralism that prevailed before austerity and the polarizing political climate that exists today where a substantial segment of the voters sympathizes with the neo-Nazis. That the Minister of Defense has ordered an investigation into allegations that segments from within the armed forces were training neo-Nazi storm troopers has alarme many ordinary people as well as EU officials. Equally alarming is the fact that there has been widespread cooperation between the police force throughout the country and the neo-Nazi party and storm troopers who have been involved in hundreds of documented violent acts, mostly against immigrants.

In an article entitled NEO-NAZISM IN GREECE, (19 September 2012), I argued that Golden Dawn was a full-fledged political movement gaining strength from the weakening of democracy that neo-liberal policies and austerity had created. I also argued that the political organization had deep roots in the country's authoritarian past (1930s under pro-Nazi regime of John Metaxas as well as the more recent military Junta of 1967-1974). Golden Dawn is committed to ridding Greece of foreigners, by violence if necessary, and it is just as committed to ridding Greece of leftists, also by violence. This brings up the question of the nature of the recent political assassination as well as the one in January 2013.  

There is a sense of fear prevailing among all European leaders, as well as intellectuals, journalists and business people that neoliberalism in the name of austerity are not only weakening the middle class that is the social base of democracy, but creating sociopolitical polarization with neo-Nazi elements gaining strength not just in Greece, but throughout Europe. Banning the neo-Nazi party, even if that were possible in a constitutional democracy, as many EU and Greek mainstream leaders suggest is indicative of the bankruptcy of the mainstream political parties operating under the neoliberal mindset.  

To sustain itself in power, the coalition government made up of conservatives and PASOK (Socialists in name but neoliberal in practice), has tried to argue that the enemy of the nation is the center-left SYRIZA party that has been the arch enemy of the neo-Nazis. Prime Minister Samaras and his circle of defenders in government and the press has intentionally tried to portray the left with the neo-Nazis, arguing that there is no difference between anti-austerity popular demonstrations and neo-Nazi violence. This line has given legitimacy and strength to the neo-Nazis who see themselves as patriots, defenders the “pure Hellenism” against the decadence of non-white immigrants and their leftist defenders.  

Moreover, the police force has a long history of sympathizing with neo-Nazis. In clashes between neo-Nazis and other groups, immigrants or leftists, the police simply turn the other way. Preliminary reports based on several eyewitness accounts indicate that four police officers simply stood by and watched the altercation between neo-Nazis and the rapper who was killed. Even worse, the government had information in its possession that the neo-Nazis train and pay certain members for combat conditions. That they have available at their disposal enormous amounts of money ought to be disturbing, but even more so that the source of the money comes from wealthy individual, including shipping tycoons. That government has in its possession all such information, but it has allowed neo-Nazism to thrive is a matter for future historians to investigate. For now, the question is whether the government will try to contain the neo-Nazi party’s activities, while all along pursue austerity and neoliberal policies that accounts for the expansion of the neo-Nazi popular base.

Unless the root causes of the problem are addressed, namely double-digit (currently 28% and expected to rise above 30% in 2014) unemployment, youth unemployment that is above 60%, rapidly falling wages and skyrocketing indirect (consumption) taxes, accompanied by stripping all labor laws intended to provide workers with some job security, neo-Nazism will continue to rise and pluralism will continue to erode. In the absence of providing some sense of hope for the youth and some sense of a social safety net (medical care and social security) for the elderly, as well as some sense to the middle class that they can hope for upward social mobility for their children, neo-Nazism will be on the rise. This is not necessarily because workers gravitate to neo-Nazism, but because those who in their own mind believe they belong or ought to belong to the middle class but are forced to live working class lives blame the mainstream “democratic” (in essence neoliberal) regime for the calamities that befall society.

We return to the question of motives and goals for political violence. Who exactly benefits from neo-Nazi activities in Greece? One answer is that the wealthy who use them to bring divisions among the masses suffering under austerity. Beneficiaries are also the neoliberal and austerity supporters inside and ouside of government. As long as the neo-Nazis are a convenient distraction that the mass media and pro-austerity politicians can use, then they have served their purpose for capitalism and its political apologists. Another purpose that neo-Nazis serve is to act as the ultimate movement of sociopolitical repression of the left that tends to rise amid hard economic times. Mainstream neoliberal and pro-austerity political parties can argue as they have that the extreme right is no different than the anti-austerity center-left and leftist movement.

Therefore, people really have to support the status quo as the only alternative to the neoliberal and austerity policies that account for chronic high unemployment and chronic drop in living standards. Just as Fascism and Nazism in the interwar era served capitalism, which supported Mussolini and Hitler, similarly the neoliberal supporters of today are using neo-Nazism to make sure that their policies of greater capital concentration remains a way of life, no matter the social and political consequences for the larger society, for the weakened middle class and even weaker working class.

THE FUTILITY OF US POLICY TOWARD SYRIA

The futility of US foreign policy in Syria is that there is no winning strategy other than simply working with Russia, China and the UN, without excluding Iran, toward a political solution.  That the US wants to pursue a military solution in Syria is actually the norm of US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era when there is no Russian Communism as the arch enemy to antagonize.  In other words, the surprise is not that the US is anxiously pursuing all kinds of excuses for military intervention, but that it would actually seek a political solution on the basis of a multilateral foreign policy approach intended to stabilize instead of destabilizing the Middle East.  Anything short of a political solution along these lines with these powers having a role would result in a resounding failure, just as the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in similar failures and the beneficiaries would not be the US and its NATO allies, but China economically and Iran geopolitically.

Although Syria has agreed to UN inspectors for the sights near the capital where chemical weapons were used, the White House has been projecting the military option as a first resort, instead of a last one; this before a UN investigation has even concluded its work, before any proof presented by the accusers. This is amazingly similar to what Bush did in Iraq, where the evidence for weapons of mass destruction had to be invented so the US could justify its military solution. Another similarity between Bush and Obama policy is that both want UN Security Council, NATO, and Arab League backing. What if they do not receive such support? Then there are the "peddlers of military solutions", everyone from "guns-for-hire" consultants to journalists arguing for a precision strike against Syria, so as to minimize the deaths and injuries of innocent people. These are of course the worst elements that prepare public opinion for military solution as the only option, even if it has to be precision strike - a sort of "kinder, gentler warfare". If Assad is guilty of such crimes against humanity, why resort to surgical strikes, why not an all-out war intended to bring him down?

Assumptions on the purpose for the US-led military strike against Syria:
US official goal is to deter future use of chemical weapons.
Critics charge that the US wants a military conflict because:
1. war distracts from the controversial debt ceiling issue and allows for congress to approve it;
2. war allows the US to keep the Russians and especially Chinese away from the energy-rich Middle East;
3. war means that Syria's gas reserves eventually fall under pro-West elements;
4. war keeps the Arabs divided and Israel strong;
5. war sends a strong message to Iran to be careful about expanding its influence;
6. war against Syria weakens Hezbollah, encourages Kurdish separatists to rebel against Iran;
7. war helps defense and energy companies make greater profits;
8. war keeps US allies in line;
9. war further unifies the American public against external enemies and keeps them docile;
10. war validates US military superpower status used as leverage to exert influence globally.

It is difficult to predict how the hawkish elements in Washington, Tel Aviv and Paris would react to global pressure to resist a military solution and opt for a political one. However, the military solution is an absolute predictable failure, while the political one can be adjusted along the way if it is not to the liking of the parties in question. Militarism has its own dynamic and besides defense contractors and consultants making money from military adventures, often there is just the raw irrational tendency to just act and think about the multiple consequences of military action later. This is exactly what the Bush administration did in the first decade of 2000 and the results were hardly surprising to those who warned about reckless policy.

After reports of alleged use of chemical agents (neuro-toxins) by Syria's Assad regime, the US along with its NATO partners immediately announced that a military solution was an option. This is even before UN and other inspectors had the opportunity to verify what chemical agents were used, how they were used and above all who actually used them. That Israel was the main source of the accusations on the issue is unsettling, given that Israel has a history of constantly proposing US and NATO military action again Muslim countries, especially against its neighbors with whom it does not have cordial relations.

That Russia and China vetoed UN resolutions for further sanctions on Syria on 19 July 2013, and that they called for a political instead of a US-led military solution on 24 August 2013 has forced the pro-war French-Israeli-US position to be temporarily reconsidered, at least until some concrete evidence emerges about whether the Assad government, the pro-West Islamist rebels or both parties used chemical weapons. Given that the US has presented zero evidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, and given that it lacks the UN Security Council legal cover to strike Syria, the unilateral strike will be seen as part of another jingoistic racist measure by the White Christian West against the non-white Muslim Middle East. Even worse, it is entirely possible that the chemical weapons used in the attack against civilians could have come from the West and used by the rebels, as the Assad government claims.

The issue of chemical weapons in Syria is not new. That the rebels have committed numerous war crimes, including using chemical weapons and executing prisoners in front of video cameras has gone unnoticed by the Western media. That the rebels include al-Qaeda elements and others that are interested in establishing a medieval institutional structure that the US and its NATO partners would probably have to overthrow if these rebels come to power has also gone unnoticed. That the US and its NATO partners have resounding failures with military solutions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has gone unnoticed, as the fact that the US-backed Arab Spring rebel movements of two years ago became a nightmare for the US because some of the Islamist regimes (Egypt most famously) that emerged turned out to be anti-Western and anti-Israel. That on 26 August 2013 snipers fired at UN inspectors ought to concern those proposing military solutions, because more than likely the snipers were rebels.

If the UN inspectors find that indeed the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, and assuming this is an honest and clean inspection, then people would understand some sort of US-led military hit on Syria. But let us assume that the UN inspectors find the Syrian government did not use chemical weapons. What would the US be prepared to do at that point? Would it propose going to war against the rebels that it has armed and financed? And what of the fact that the anti-Assad elements include Islamists from at least two dozen countries, including al-Qaeda that are presumably the arch-enemy of the West and the core of Islamic terrorism? More alarming, would not the majority of the Syrians arrive at the conclusion that the rebels are furthering a Western agenda, and many rally around the regime because the West will bomb Syria? Would not the bombing actually strengthen Assad, at least politically at home and make Muslim world over more resentful of the "Crusading West"? Playing the world's policeman only works if the office of the sheriff's office has credibility and the power for follow through that would accomplish the mission.

In the last analysis, if we examine the timeline of US policy toward Syria, the evidence indicates that Washington has been long planning an attack. The day that the US announced considering air strikes against Syria, the Greek premier revealed that on 8 August 2013 Obama asked for US rights to air landing and naval operations in Crete and the mainland from which to carry out the strikes. The Russian intelligence services insist that the US has drawn plans for military strikes over a year, but waited for the opportune moment to determine use. Not that the US should be concerned, but Vladimir Putin has decided to send  rocket cruiser Moskva and an anti-submarine vessel to join Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean. I am convinced that Russia is simply staking out its sphere of influence in no uncertain terms, but under no circumstances will it use any fire power.

The US went to war in Iraq on the basis of lies regarding weapons of mass destruction, and it is unlikely that it learned anything from that experience, given that it wants to repeat that mistake with Syria, if it finds the opportunity of least possible consequences at the regional and global levels. The US continued making the mistake of "Vietnamizing" Afghanistan on the basis of fighting a "war on terror in their soil", not ours, as though "terrorism", use of unconventional warfare has borders and cannot be conducted everywhere. These assumptions are deeply imbedded in the psyche of the American culture with a segment of the elites and media that now is immersed in the "war on terror" mindset as the foundation of keeping society living in fear and docile to military solutions for crises that cry out for political solutions.

Not that the US will relax having interfered throughout the Middle East and North Africa that are weaker and more divided than ever. Iran remains on the US imperial radar screen s the next and the ultimate target. Those familiar with the capabilities of Iran may be scratching their heads about a possible US or Israeli git on Iran, but I would not rule it out. So far, we have had a policy of US encirclement and containment of Iran with the ultimate goal of hitting it at some point. There are congressional voices, both from isolationists and anti-war elements, arguing that the White House needs congressional approval on the basis of the War Powers Act of 1973 in order to proceed, and that there must be a broader strategy that explain why striking Syria is warranted to benefit the US in terms of the regional balance of power.

But what if the punitive strikes against Syria were to have no impact on Assad, what comes next? Invasion like Iraq and Afghanistan, both ending with massive losses to the US public debt and nothing to show in terms of economic or geopolitical gains? If there is futility to US foreign policy toward Syria, it is because the assumptions and results of that policy are naive and based on short-term immediate gratification thinking; a sort of fast-food approach to foreign policy, fast and immediately gratifying to the senses, but bad for your entire health long-term.

The balance of power in the Middle East is very delicate, and the last thing the US wants to do is upset it to the degree that it further benefits Iran, Russia and China. While the US is the clear world military superpower, its power is its own detriment, because it weakens its geopolitical and economic position in the world every time that it opts for a military solution. Given that neither China nor Russia will strike at pro-US targets in retaliation of the US strike on Syria, the US figures that it is worth risking the adventure to satisfy the defense industry, Israeli lobby, hawkish elements, and distract from the massive public debt and debt ceiling matters. However, the price the US will pay will be incalculable, largely because Obama came in office to change the tarnished US image in the world, but has proved that US foreign policy is indeed bipartisan and he is not much different than Bush who was at least honest about his war mongering.

It is safe to assume that as a modern empire, the US would behave as an imperial power for to do otherwise would mean it is only an empire in title and not in reality. Exercising imperial power, however, also means paying the the price of predicable and unpredictable consequences. In a world where the other Great Powers and regional ones would seek to protect themselves from imperialism, the US is realistic enough to expect all sorts of problems arising from its policies of military action. Unlike Winston Churchill, who counted on the US to do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities, I am counting on the US to pursue military solutions where none are needed to further its national interests.

PHARMA CORRUPTION AND WELLNESS OF SOCIETY

When a friend from Cyprus informed me that the cost to have a pacemaker runs around $1,500, I had to investigate why it goes for as much as $75,000 in the US. Actually the price of the unit in the US is roughly the same as it is in Cyprus. While the unit price runs around $1,500, the patient will pay between $25,000and $75,000, depending on the hospital. Why is that?  One answer is the enormous corruption that takes place in pharmaceutical companies, scandals that are world-wide and involve bribes that go to doctors directly, hospital unit management, as well as others in health ministry positions.

Eli Lilly is the latest company in headlines for bribery of millions of dollars to Chinese doctors. However, Lilly is not alone, for there is hardly a company that does not engage in bribery to push its products. How does the system work? Just to enter the national market, the drug company has to go through several steps where along the way it could be required to grease palms of officials to secure its drugs in the domestic market and to keep generics off the shelves. It was not until the IMF-EU austerity teams across southern Europe that the issue of generics vs. brand names arose as a major cost factor and burden to the government budget and to the EU that subsidizes pharmaceutical products.

The next step is for the sales force to contact the hospitals where administrators and unit managers also need to have their palms greased to accept the product of machinery. For example, if an eye laser machine costs $500,000, the price will rise based on the bribes paid along the way until that machine reaches the hospital. In some hospitals in Greece, for example, there are machines waiting to be used because there are no operators trained to use them. Then comes the individual doctor who actually uses the machine or prescribes the drug, and finally the pharmaceutical association and wholesale pharmaceutical companies. All along the chain, the price tag for the product rises and the final cost is then passed on to the consumer, and/or the taxpayer if the product is one that receives a subsidy.

The bribery scandals are routine on the part of US and EU drug makers and medical devices companies. Besides the chain of bribery I mentioned above, there is another level of bribery that takes place and it has to do with bribing government officials directly to keep generics at a minimum in the market.  Because drug companies bribe tens of thousands of doctors, hospital and pharmaceutical personnel, and government officials, and because the money runs into tens of millions, the cost of health care is enormous. Even so, how do we explain that health care is ten to fifty times higher in the US than it is in many non-Western countries where bribery is more commonplace?

Even for bribes taken into account, why does a pacemaker cost up to $75,000 in the US and it is only a fraction of that cost in Cyprus? Why does health care cost twice as much in the US as it does in Canada? Clearly, that cannot be the bribery so commonplace around the world perpetrated by the same US and EU drug companies doing business in the US. 

Some reasons for high medical costs include:
1. over-prescribing of drugs and procedures (the notorious overly-medicated society issue that is now spreading beyond the US);
2. excessive profits by drug companies, insurance, and health care providers;
3. waste and inefficiency, fraud and bribery;
4. absence of government regulation to streamline procedures and products, so as to eliminate wild price variations - as in a pacemaker costing $25K in one hospital and $75K in another;
5. multimillion-dollar compensation packages for top management and executives that are at the core of the corruption scandals; and
6.  lack of preventive care services.   

Big pharmaceutical companies have always argued that research and development costs warrant both protection from generics as well as high prices. However, many of them make incredible profits marketing drugs for long-term incurable, but temporarily treatable diseases. This means taking medication in order to live in relatively high level of pain and/or vegetative mode. Naturally, the family of the patient will go along with the doctor who recommends the treatment and/or procedure, even though the patient will suffer and die within a few months.

This "disease management" mode is where the big money rests with big pharma, whether the disease is chronic mental disorder or physical one. Even worse, extremely costly procedures that cause immense pain for the patient in the last few months of life is where big profits rest for health care providers and big pharma. What are some answers to benefit the patient, family members and protect society from big pharma that is interested in "disease management" and prolonging the life by a few months, a few weeks, a few days? Government must protect the patient first as well as society from predatory big pharma. But what if people who are in government receive substantial political campaign contributions and some individuals in key positions receive bribes to protect the big profits of big pharma?

Although health care is very costly, the costliest in the world for Americans, does this translate into longer and better life? Absolutely not. Ironically, the life expectancy for the US is not as good as one would think, given that it ranks 27th among 34 of its peers - 51st in the world - or about the same as financially bankrupt Cyprus where pacemakers cost 20-65 times less than they do in the US. Even worse, the US has experienced a rise in chronic disabilities caused by poor dietary habits, smoking, physical inactivity and alcohol. This despite the fact that the US is the world's largest consumer of legal drugs, just as it is of illegal ones.

The lesson from all this is that globalization has been spreading the US drug culture around the world, even if it means using bribes to impose its pharmaceutical and medical devices products on the rest. But even if we accept bribery as a part of doing business, is the end result an improvement in the quality of the consumer's life? Judging from the US statistics on life expectancy and health wellness, the end result is not good. The neoliberal (laissez-faire) approach to the health of people is a crime that only government can stop. But what if government is itself corrupted by the criminals dishing out money legally for campaigns and illegally for favors?

ISRAEL BEHIND THE EGYPTIAN MILITARY COUP?

On August 20, 2013, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan insisted that he has evidence Israel was behind the military coup that ousted Egypt's first democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi and unleashed the de facto civil war of the last two months. It is no secret that Erdogan has been faced with domestic opposition from secularist (Kemalist) elements concentrated mainly in urban centers and mostly in the Western parts of Turkey. Perhaps he lashed out at Israel to prove a wider conspiracy against Islamist politicians like Erdogan. Perhaps he was simply trying to use the opportunity to unify his own popular base and to let the Mulsim world know that the enemy is still Israel and the West supporting Tel Aviv. 

It is also possible he was sending a message to the domestic elites, everyone from businesspeople to the armed forces and street protesters that there is a conspiracy rooted in Israel, backed by the West, to keep the Middle East weak and divided. Therefore, this is no time for questioning legitimately-elected authority. Whatever, the Prime Minister's motives, he certainly attracted the attention of Washington, the "mother protector of Israel". Naturally, Washington could admit that Erdogan was correct, nor could it say that its own policy, one from backing both Turkish and Egyptian protesters contributed to destabilizing the duly-elected regimes. The only response of the US was that Erdogan is wrong to accuse Israel of a conspiracy. 

Does Turkey have any evidence? The evidence is a recorded meeting in France between Israeli Justice minister and a French scholar where it was said before Egypt's 2011 elections that even if the Muslim Brothers win the ballot box, there can be no government, because democracy is more than just elections. That is the extent of the evidence Erdogan presented, unless of course the Russians or other intelligence services have provided him with more evidence he has not disclosed in order not to compromise his sources. It is literally impossible to determine by the very thin evidence Erdogan has disclosed to the press whether Israel is behind the military coup in Egypt. My reading of events tells me that we need to follow the current financial and diplomatic support of the Egyptian armed forces to see who is for and who is against the military dictatorship.

The US, EU and the conservative Arab states, led by the Saudi regime, all backed the anti-Morsi movement and the armed forces that staged the coup amid the protests. When the situation was becoming out of control and people were killed on both sides, the US as well as EU had to come out6 publicly and advise restraint on the parts of all parties. At the same time, they had to threaten that they would cut off aid. However, this is for public consumption only. The reality is that the US and EU did not want Morsi and prefer the military dictatorship that they can count on to remain in the Western camp in exchange for aid. Erdogan knows that foreign aid is behind the Egyptian armed forces, so he asked why is it that $16 billion has been pledged to the military dictatorship in just a few days, but nothing comparable to the Morsi government in the last eighteen months. Moreover, Tel Aviv made the mistake to declare publicly its support for the Egyptian military and to urge EU and US to back the dictatorship of the armed forces, thus raising suspicions among the already "conspiracy-minded" Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Naturally, Tel Aviv made a dreadful mistake even commenting on the Egyptian situation, but I suppose the right-wing government could not contain its enthusiasm.

Even with hard evidence that Tel Aviv was behind the coup, it really does not matter. The bottom line is to follow the money, and that has a trail leading right back to the same suspects that want a military dictatorship allied to the West and to Israel. The situation becomes even more complicated because the US government has been following a public diplomacy that is not the same as the private one, something a number of administration critics, including Sen. John McCain pointed out. After all is said and done, it seems to me that while the CIA coup of 1953 was very plausible, the military coup of Morsi is much more complicated, and it could not possibly have taken place without mass public opposition to Morsi.

That some secularist anti-Morsi politicians initially backed  the military, but then backed out is an indication that they too want to  distance themselves from the military dictatorship enjoying the support of reactionary Arab states, Israel, the US and EU. Regardless of the public statements by the EU and US about permitting peaceful protests and demonstrations to take place, in the end the West will only support a pro-West regime not very different from the Mubarak one that was overthrown during Arab Spring. Ultimately, responsibility for the political turmoil in Egypt rests inside the country, no matter the external forces pulling from different directions so they can serve their own agenda.

While Erdogan is right that the conservative Arab states and the West did not help Morsi, and actually undermined his regime by refusing massive aid so it can stabilize, long-term solutions still rest inside Egypt. I had written during the Arab Spring uprising that Egypt will not see systemic changes because of internal resistance to change but also because the US and EU can only support a regime that can serve their military and economic interests. I hope to be proved wrong, but this is where we are today and this is where we will be in the near future.The lesson from all of this is the blatant hypocrisy of the West that continues to insist it supports freedom and democracy, even if it means direct military intervention to impose a pro-West regime at gunpoint, or if it means backing a military force that imposes the same at gunpoint. Long live Western democracy!

MYTHS AND REALITIES OF THE MODERN POLITICIAN

In an interesting study that the Los Angeles Times published a study on 15 June 2009, it was revealed that politicians share personality traits with serial killers.  Those traits include: "superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others."
 As fascinating as the LA Times article may be, I am not interested in comparing politicians, American or others, to serial killers. This is largely because I dread that many politicians throughout history actually have done far greater harm to humanity than all of the world's serial killers combined in all of human history. Instead of making the unpleasant comparison between politicians and serial killers, I have compiled my own list that I believe applies to all politicians regardless of ideological orientation.

I am not presenting the following traits as exclusive to politicians, but rather as a reflection of society and what citizens expect and tolerate of their politicians in modern times. In short, I believe that people recognize that politicians in the last analysis are a reflection of the broader society and their traits reflect those of the rest of humanity. This does not mean that all politicians throughout the world have the traits I have listed below, but many, if not most of them do, and that is largely why they are successful in achieving their personal goals.

1. Myth: Politicians are idealistic, driven by high moral principles rooted in social good.

Reality: Politicians are pragmatic, driven by opportunism that often goes against the public good but benefits the politician and a narrow group of people in his/her circle of power.

2. Myth: desire to serve the "public" and to do "good" for all people.

Reality: boundless ambition to accumulate power and wealth along the way by serving the narrow interests of the elites

3. Myth: Passion and hard work for public service and promotion of institutions designed to further the public good.

Reality: Passion to rise as high up the hierarchy as possible and to remain there for as long as possible, always without regard to the public good and often to its detriment.

4. Myth: Confronts crises with truthfulness toward citizens and does not take risks that jeopardize the majority interest to serve narrow interests.

Reality: Blatant lies are at the root of a politician who tries to appear as though he/she is telling the truth while lying in order to harm the public welfare for the benefit of elites that sustain the politician in power. Even worse, the politician tries to cover up or justify the lie when caught by surprise and asked to account for it.

5. Myth: Public accountability. In policy-making, the politician takes into account the welfare of the people and not small interest groups that have powerful ties to the regime.

Reality: Policy making is a process of competing powerful interest groups with access to the regime, and the welfare of society at large is rarely, if ever, an issue. Public accountability is only a factor for the politician's PR machine and not at the root of policy.

6. Myth: Politicians must be able to persuade voters with rational, just, and socially-beneficial policy proposals that would result in the material progress of society and its overall edification. Therefore, politicians sacrifice themselves for society and its interests.

Reality: Politicians must be able propagandists, have an ability to appeal to people's emotions instead of intellect, manipulate public opinion so that the narrow interests the politicians are advancing appear to be one and the same as the interests of society as a whole.

7. Myth: Politicians are patriotic and genuinely have the national interest in making policy.

Reality: Politicians must appear patriotic, convince the public that they genuinely represent the national interest, and that their policies are best for the nation, which equals all people. All of this is at the level of rhetoric, while the reality is that the business, military and other politically powerful elements define patriotism and national interest on behalf of the rest of society.

8. Myth: Politicians must have integrity and honesty, rather than sink into the spiraling hole of telling people what they want to hear for the sake of retaining popularity.

Reality: It is simply impossible to be a politician and have the traits of honesty and integrity, but it is equally difficult to be a successful politician without appearing to have those traits, as Nocolo Machiavelli wrote five centuries ago in THE PRINCE.

9. Myth: Politicians are generally more intelligent than the average person, and they surround themselves with other intelligent people, experts of all sorts to make "the right decisions" for society's benefit.

Reality: In general, politicians are about average intelligence or slightly above. Their IQ as well as their aides have zero relevance to the policies they pursue because those policies are not a reflection of intelligence but of tangible specific interests. The intelligence level of a politician and that of their aides is not particularly as significant as the will to carry out policies that advance social justice. The real driver behind policy is the powerful elites on whose behalf the politicians conduct policy. Intelligence is only important to justify to the public why the government is advancing narrow special interests, and to make those appear as best for society.

10. Myth: A charismatic, self-confident, well-communicating leader that inspires the citizens.

Reality: All of the above are essential for the public to have confidence in their politician, because all such traits are significant to convince the public to vote for the candidate and to further convince citizens that government works for their interests, instead of the interests of the elites. At the same time, the traits stated above are not as important because image-makers create the appearance of charisma, self-confidence, and well-communicating leader.

11. Myth: Politicians rise to the top of the heap because of a merit-based system that he/she supports and tries to advance for all people.

Reality: The only way politicians rise to "the top of the heap" is through some societal mechanism - business, military, political machine - that propels them to the top and then expects them to carry out policies that reflect the interests of those who advanced the politician. Although the politician may have a college degree, speak several languages, and is even a great golfer, merit has nothing to do with the rise to power and sustainability of it. Paying dues to the machinery that propelled the politician to the top is the only criterion that matters.

If these are the traits of politicians, does this mean that people revert to non-civic participation, lapse into cynicism and fatalism, or remain idealistic and try to take matters into their hands? Do we refuse to accept that there is a better system, arguing that Plato was correct to construct The Republic, and utopias exist not in society but inside our own minds? Actually, the common thread is that politicians are arbiters of the social contract. But if socioeconomic, military and political elites have highjacked the social contract, then it is up to citizens to change the system so that it serves them.