Ο ΛΑΟΣ ΔΕΝ ΞΕΧΝΑ, ΟΚ. ΑΛΛΑ ΤΙ ΣΗΜΑΙΝΕΙ (ΚΕΝΤΡΟ)ΔΕΞΙΑ;

Ο λαός, λέει το σύνθημα, δεν ξεχνά τι σημαίνει δεξιά. Όπως όλα τα συνθήματα, έτσι κι αυτό είναι αστείο. Ο λαός ξεχνά και ξαναθυμάται κατά το συμφέρον του, και τη μανούβρα αυτή μπορεί να την κάνει και σε μετα-γνωσιακό επίπεδο: ξεχνά πως κάποτε ήξερε, ή θυμάται πως κάποτε ξέχασε, τι σημαίνει Δεξιά. Έτσι κάπως η ΝΔ ανακαλύπτει το αντιμνημόνιο που ξέχασε μετά το 2012 και η πρώτη φορά Αριστερά συγκυβερνά με Ανελ και κάνει (προσωρινά) υφυπουργό τον Πόρτα-Πόρτα.

Εντούτοις, ενόψει των εσωκομματικών εκλογών στη ΝΔ, με τον Καμμένο άλλη μια φορά κυβερνητικό εταίρο και την ΧΑ σταθερά τρίτο κόμμα (αν και ευτυχώς σε απόλυτους όρους η ψήφος της πέφτει) το σύνθημα είναι τουλάχιστον επίκαιρο αν εκφραστεί λίγο διαφορετικά. Κυρίως δε γίνεται επίκαιρο το τί σημαίνει κεντροδεξιά: ένα ερώτημα-δείγμα παρακμής από μόνο του, όπως και η συζήτηση περί κεντροαριστεράς που προηγήθηκε της τελικής διάλυσης του ΠαΣοΚ.

Προσωπικά δεν με ενδιαφέρει πώς ορίζουν την (κεντρο)δεξιά οι επίδοξοι ηγέτες της. Τα λόγια είναι τσάμπα εξάλλου, και όλοι έχουν κίνητρο να ανοιχτούν σε ένα πλατύ κοινό. Ούτε με ενδιαφέρει πώς την ορίζουν οι αντίπαλοί της. Με ενδιαφέρει μόνο το πώς καταλήγει κανείς να θεωρεί τον εαυτό του (κεντρο)δεξιό - ποιές αρχές, αξίες, μνήμες, συνθήκες διαβίωσης και παραστάσεις ωθούν κάποιον στο να ταυτιστεί με αυτή τη λέξη. Ευτυχώς υπάρχει τρόπος να το ελέγξουμε.

Τα στοιχεία μου εν προκειμένω προέρχονται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Έρευνα Αξιών του 2008 - την πιο πρόσφατη δυστυχώς. Περιμένω πώς και πώς την επόμενη έρευνα του 2017, στην οποία έμαθα με μεγάλη ανακούφιση ότι θα συμμετάσχει η Ελλάδα. Η σύγκριση των δύο ερευνών θα μας πει πιο πολλά για την κρίση, τα αίτια και τις επιπτώσεις της από δέκα διδακτορικά οικονομολόγων πάνω στο θέμα.

Το δείγμα της Έρευνας Αξιών είναι σταθμισμένο και αντιπροσωπευτικό: 1.208 Έλληνες άνω των 16 (η έρευνα περιλάμβανε γύρω στους 1.500 αλλά τόσοι απήντησαν στις ερωτήσεις που με απασχολούν - δείτε παρακάτω). Το ερωτηματολόγιο μπορείτε να το δείτε εδώ. Η πολιτική τοποθέτηση των ερωτηθέντων μετριέται σε κλίμακα από 1-10, όπου 1 είναι ο πιο αριστερός Έλληνας και 10 ο πιο δεξιός. Σε καμμία φάση της συνέντευξης δεν δίνεται ορισμός σε αυτές τις έννοιες. Πέρα από την ερώτηση περί πολιτικής τοποθέτησης, υπάρχουν και πολλές άλλες που εστιάζουν στις νοοτροπίες, αξίες και ιδανικά του συνεντευξιαζόμενου, αλλά και στην καταγωγή, την οικογενειακή και οικονομική κατάστασή του, και τη θέση του στην κοινωνία γενικότερα.

Η λογική είναι απλή: αν βρούμε τις νοοτροπίες, τις ιδέες και τα ιδανικά που τείνουν να ενστερνίζονται περισσότερο οι αυτοαποκαλούμενοι 'δεξιοί' από τους υπόλοιπους Έλληνες (και τα οποία τείνουν να ενστερνίζονται σε μεγαλύτερο βαθμό όσο πιο 'δεξιοί' θεωρούν ότι είναι), τότε έχουμε στα χέρια μας έναν εμπειρικό ορισμό και της δεξιάς, και της 'κεντροδεξιάς.' Και επειδή αυτό που στην πραγματικότητα αναζητούμε είναι μια σειρά από στερεότυπα, σκέφτηκα να χρησιμοποιήσω μια απλή μέθοδο - decision trees. Ουσιαστικά, η μέθοδος αυτή επιτρέπει να δοκιμάσουμε πολλές τέτοιες νοοτροπίες, ιδέες και ιδανικά, μία-μία, για να βρούμε ποιές χωρίζουν πιο ξεκάθαρα τον Ελληνικό λαό σε 'δεξιούς' και 'αριστερούς'. Μόλις βρεθεί η καλύτερη διαχωριστική γραμμή, η διαδικασία επαναλαμβάνεται για κάθε ένα ξεχωριστά από τα δύο μέρη στα οποία χωρίστηκε ο πληθυσμός με όλες τις μεταβλητές που δοκιμάσαμε και νωρίτερα - και ούτω καθεξής, μέχρι να καταλήξουμε σε υπο-ομάδες που παραείναι μικρές για να διασπαστούν παραπάνω, επειδή τα επιμέρους μέρη δεν θα μπορούσαν να συγκριθούν μεταξύ τους με στατιστικά σημαντικό τρόπο.

Εφαρμόζοντας αυτή τη λογική πάνω στο πλήρες δείγμα της έρευνας, βλέπει κανείς ότι μερικές ερωτήσεις χωρίζουν το δείγμα με ξεκάθαρο τρόπο σε περισσότερο και λιγότερο δεξιούς. Σημειώνω με (+) τους παράγοντες που σχετίζονται με πιο 'δεξιά' άτομα, και με (-) αυτούς που σχετίζονται με πιο 'αριστερά' άτομα. Τα 'επίπεδα' που σημειώνω υποδηλώνουν πόσες φορές έχει υποδιαιρεθεί ο πληθυσμός όταν εμφανίζεται για πρώτη φορά ως σημαντική διαχωριστική γραμμή μια μεταβλητή.

• Επίπεδο πρώτο: πόσο εμπιστεύεται κανείς την Εκκλησία ως θεσμό (+); 
• Επίπεδο δεύτερο: Πόση εμπιστοσύνη έχει στους δημοσίους υπαλλήλους (-) Έχει ποτέ συμματάσχει σε διαδήλωση (-); Πόση εμπιστοσύνη έχει στα εργατικά σωματεία και τους συνδικαλιστές (-); 
• Επίπεδο τρίτο: Θεωρεί αποδεκτή την έκτρωση για μια ανύπαντρη γυναίκα (-); Θεωρεί αποδεκτή συμπεριφορά το περιστασιακό σεξ με αγνώστους (-);  Θεωρεί ανεπιθύμητους ως γείτονες τους Ρομά (+); Θεωρεί επικίνδυνο το να επεμβαίνει ο άνθρωπος στο φυσικό του περιβάλλον (+); θεωρεί σημαντικό η δουλειά του να τον φέρνει σε επαφή με (ενδιαφέροντες) ανθρώπους (-); θεωρεί ότι είναι δουλειά των ιδιωτών ή του κράτους να φροντίζουν τους πιο αδύναμους; (-)

Δοκίμασα, βέβαια πολλές ακόμη ερωτήσεις που δεν αποδείχθηκαν καλές στο να ξεχωρίζουν τον πληθυσμό σε 'δεξιούς' και 'αριστερούς.' Δεν τις παραθέτω εδώ για λόγους συντομίας, αλλά περιλάμβαναν και πολλές δημογραφικού χαρακτήρα μεταβλητές όπως ηλικία, φύλο, οικογενειακό εισόδημα, καταγωγή και λοιπά. Θα προσέξετε ότι η ανάλυσή μου δεν εξετάζει την επίδραση των διαφόρων μεταβλητών ταυτόχρονα - δεν υπάρχουν controls. Οπότε δεν απαντά στο ερώτημα 'ποιές επιρροές κάνουν έναν Έλληνα δεξιό/αριστερό;' - μόνο στο ερώτημα 'τι σημαίνει στο μυαλό του Έλληνα δεξιά/αριστερά;'

Μιλήσαμε λοιπόν για το πλήρες δείγμα. Όμως και η αριστερά έχει τη 'δεξιότερη' μεριά της, και η δεξιά επίσης έχει την, αχέμ, 'δεξιότερη' μεριά της. Τι σημαίνει 'δεξιά' σε αυτό το πλαίσιο; Για να το εξηγήσουμε αυτό επαναλαμβάνουμε την ίδια ακριβώς ανάλυση, ξεχωριστά για 'δεξιούς' (6-10 στην κλίμακα αριστερά-δεξιά) και για 'αριστερούς' (1-5).

Για τους αριστερούς τα πράγματα έχουν ως εξής (τα θετικά πρόσημα υποδεικνύουν παράγοντες που σχετίζονται με την κεντροαριστερά):

• Επίπεδο πρώτο: πόσο εμπιστεύεται κανείς την Εκκλησία ως θεσμό (+); 
• Επίπεδο δεύτερο: πόσο σημαντικό μέρος της ζωής του είναι η πολιτική; (+) πόσο θεμιτό θεωρεί το να παίρνει κανείς επιδόματα πρόνοιας τα οποία τυπικά δεν δικαιούται; (-) πόσο σημαντικό θεωρεί ότι είναι για την υγεία ενός γάμου το να έχει το ζευγάρι ένα καλό σπίτι; (+); πόσο σημαντικό θεωρεί για τη ζωή του το να έχει άφθονο ελεύθερο χρόνο; (+); 
• Επίπεδο τρίτο: Θεωρεί αποδεκτή την έκτρωση για μια ανύπαντρη γυναίκα (-); πόση εμπιστοσύνη έχει στις ένοπλες δυνάμεις (+); θεωρεί σημαντικό για την υγεία ενός γάμου να έχουν οι δύο σύντροφοι ίδιες θρησκευτικές πεποιθήσεις; (+)

Για τους δεξιούς τα πράγματα έχουν ως εξής. Όπως πάντα τα θετικά πρόσημα υποδεικύουν παράγοντες που σχετίζονται με τη δεξιά, εν προκειμένω με τους αυτοχαρακτηριζόμενους ως πολύ δεξιούς ή και ακροδεξιούς. Άρα τα αρνητικά πρόσημα υποδηλώνουν συσχετισμό με την κεντροδεξιά:

• Επίπεδο πρώτο: πόσο σημαντικό θεωρεί ότι είναι για την υγεία ενός γάμου το να ζει το ζευγάρι ξεχωριστά από τους γονείς των δύο συντρόφων; (-)
• Επίπεδο δεύτερο: όταν τον ρωτάς αν η συντήρηση των φτωχότερων είναι καθήκον των ιδιωτών ή του κράτους, και όταν τον ρωτάς αν ο άνθρωπος έχει δικαίωμα να διαχειρίζεται τη φύση όπως νομίζει, απαντά με απόλυτο τρόπο (σίγουρα ναι ή σίγουρα όχι;) (+)
• Επίπεδο τρίτο: θεωρεί με απόλυτη βεβαιότητα ότι οι άντρες πρέπει να κάνουν παιδιά για να ολοκληρωθούν σαν άτομα; (+)

[Το γράφημα μου βγήκε λίγο λάθος - το διορθώνω σύντομα]

Συμπέρασμα - το 2008, οι Έλληνες θεωρούσαν 'δεξιά' μια θρησκευόμενη, κοινωνικά συντηρητική μερίδα του πληθυσμού που έβλεπε ως απειλές προς τον τρόπο ζωής της μια σειρά από επιστημονικές, κοινωνικές και γεωπολιτικές εξελίξεις και προέβαλλε ως αξία την άμυνα ενάντια σε αυτές. Η 'δεξιά' στο μυαλό του μέσου Έλληνα έβλεπε κάποιους συνανθρώπους ως ανεπιθύμητους, έβλεπε με δυσπιστία το συνδικαλισμό, τον ακτιβισμό , και είχε επιφυλάξεις απέναντι στο κοινωνικό κράτος και την πρόοδο της επιστήμης. Έβλεπε δε τη δουλειά πολύ περισσότερο ως μέσο βιοπορισμού και λιγότερο ως χώρο έκφρασης ή αυτοπραγμάτωσης.

Με βάση την ίδια λογική, οι δεξιότεροι Έλληνες θεωρούσαν 'Κεντροδεξιά' το κομμάτι της δεξιάς που φοβόταν τους δογματισμούς σε περίπλοκα ζητήματα, και έδειχνε ανοχή σε όσους αμφισβητούσαν τις δομές και αξίες της παραδοσιακής (εκτεταμένης;) οικογένειας.

Οι αριστερότεροι Έλληνες από την άλλη θεωρούσαν 'κεντροαριστερά' το κομμάτι της αριστεράς που ήταν θρησκευόμενο ή θεωρούσε την εκκλησία σημαντικό θεσμό, δεν εξέφραζε αντιμιλιταριστικές θέσεις, είχε μεσοαστικές αξιώσεις (οικονομική άνεση, πολιτική έκφραση και ελεύθερο χρόνο), και επιπλέον το ενοχλούσε η σπατάλη στις κοινωνικές δαπάνες.

Πού να είναι άραγε τώρα όλοι αυτοί οι κεντροαριστεροί και κεντροδεξιοί; Η πρώτη μου αντίδραση είναι ότι οι κεντροαριστεροί του 2008, με τις μεσοαστικές και (γιατί όχι;) υλιστικές αξίες τους, πρέπει να τσαλακώθηκαν περισσότερο από όλη την υπόλοιπη χώρα την εποχή της κρίσης και να εκφράζονται πλέον εντελώς διαφορετικά - ο χώρος τους δεν υπάρχει. Οι κεντροδεξιοί του 2008, από την άλλη, έχουν ελαφρύ ιδεολογικό στίγμα και θα μπορούσαν πλέον να ψηφίζουν ό,τιδήποτε.

Μια τελευταία σημείωση: Το 2008, από τους ερωτηθέντες που δέχτηκαν να πουν πού τοποθετούνται στην κλίμακα δεξιά-αριστερά, το 61% ήταν από κεντροαριστεροί (5) ως @conclavios (1). Το 20% προτίμησε να μην απαντήσει. Το 'κέντρο' (5-6) συγκέντρωνε το 40% της ψήφου, ανώ τα άκρα (1-2 και 9-10) το 18%.

WHAT WE DO ON SUNDAYS (IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS)

The underbelly of the Greek blogosphere has been in a state of outrage over the last few weeks, as the prospect nears of some stores being allowed (gasp!) to stay open on some Sundays. More specifically, major stores (over 250sqm) will be allowed to operate seven Sundays per year. Smaller stores will be allowed to stay open every Sunday.  Sounds super-duper evil, right?

Actually it sounds suspiciously like the England and Wales Sunday Trading Act of 1994 (Scotland, of course, allowed Sunday trading earlier.) Whatever its original inspiration, the measure, which has met with protest before, has faced opposition all along on three grounds.

• First and foremost, it is seen as the thin end of a wedge that will in time crack open the regulatory framework that currently allows small Greek retailers across sectors to potter along at sub-optimal scale rather than being swallowed up by larger ones, some presumably foreign.
• Second, Sunday trading is seen as a measure benefiting employers at the expense of workers, who will be coerced or otherwise tempted into giving up their most valuable leisure time to either work or consumption.
• Third, Sunday trading is seen as social engineering, either upsetting an ancient tradition of upholding the Sabbath (which has, since Constantine the Great's Days, moved to Sunday), and/or setting aside a day for rest and family life.

I'll consider all three objections but I'd like to start with the religious argument which begs the question of how often people in Greece go to church anyway, and how religious we are. 

A brief introduction to religion in Greece

Loyal readers will know I'm a fan of the European Values Survey of 2008 (see here and here). Based on a large-ish, representative sample, it provides a snapshot of the values and beliefs of pre-austerity Greece combined with detailed personal information on interviewees and their background. In fact, you can check out the full questionnaire here. The full dataset is available here. 

When asked how important religion was in their lives, 43% of Greeks said it was ‘very important’ and another 40.4%, said it was ‘important’ – which must surely rank us among the most pious of the European nations. A number close to the total of the above, 85%, claimed to be religious; 11% claimed to be non-religious, and only 3% claimed to be convinced atheists. 

Orthodox Christianity is the dominant faith in Greece, with 93% of the Greek sample claiming to be Orthodox when asked. About 2% claimed to be Muslims, and about 1% were Roman Catholics. Moreover, religions don’t shift easily in Greece. Only a tiny 1.6% of the sample used to belong to a religious denomination other than the one they belonged to in 2008, and 74% of those used to be Orthodox Christians. This suggests that there is more conversion to the majority faith than otherwise, but the base sizes here are too tiny to reveal much on the movement of people between faiths.

Overall, 90% of people in Greece claim to believe in God, and another 3% claim (admit?) that they just don’t know. Yet believing in God doesn't mean you have to take the full package. Only 49% claimed to believe in life after death. When asked what kind of God they believed in, 23% said they believed in a non-personal ‘life force or spirit permeating nature.’ A more modest 69.5% believed in a personal god. 4% didn’t know what to think, even though they believed in some sort of God.

Consistent with the surprisingly high number of believers in a non-personal God, about 20% either never pray or pray less often than ‘several times a year,’ excluding religious services. Still, the majority (55%) pray more than once a week, most of them every day.

Religion is more prosaic than people might think; only 57% of the sample claimed to be ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ interested in the spiritual. And when it comes to moral issues, even religious people such as the Greeks like a little bit of moral relativism. Only 21% of Greeks believe there are clear, absolute guidelines between good and evil. Another 36% believe that guidelines exist but some deviations can be excused. 42% believe there are no clear guidelines at all. 51% believe in heaven; 47% in hell. Yet 76% believe in the concept of sin.

The Church tends to be seen as an abstract force – it is seen as having useful answers first to spiritual needs (52%), then to moral problems (42.5%), then to family life issues (33%) and finally to social problems (24%). That's partly a function of how people engage with the church. Only 1.6% claim to belong to a religious organisation and 2.2% claim to volunteer for one.

This permissiveness still coincides with a fair amount of intolerance. 41.5% of the Greek sample believe there is only one true religion and other faiths have no truths whatsoever to offer. Another 29% are OK to concede that other faiths share some core truths but there still is only one true religion. This leaves 23% who felt that all faiths share some core truths and there is no true religion, while 4% who felt that no religions offer any truths.

On to that Sunday matter...

50% of the Greek EVS sample claimed that when they were 12, they were going to Church at least every week (71% went at least every month). Only 18.5% claimed to go to Church at least every week now, although 40% go once at least a month. 

Both sets of figures varied dramatically by age cohort, as can be seen on the graph to the right. The blue line may look definitive, but actually it doesn't tell us whether people naturally go to church more as they age or whether people brought up in different times tend to vary in piety. 

However, because the EVS asks people how often they went to church at the age of 12, and because it's easy to assume that churchgoing children are always accompanied by churchgoing parents, it is possible to infer how the churchgoing habits of parents have changed through the years, and compare them to the 2008 figures for parents only. I do this in the figure to the right (mind the jump from the 1990s to 2008 - the X axis would have to be twice as long normally). 

What's also possible is to tease out the effect of parenthood on attendance both in 2008 and extrapolate for previous periods, through a very simple binominal regression analysis involving just parenthood and age cohort. This revealed that, after accounting for age cohort, adults without children were 48% less likely to go to church than parents. This is a bit of an heroic assumption of course, since this ratio of parent vs. non-parent attendance may have changed over time.

Overall, we've got a pretty convincing downward trend in attendance, this it is possible that the recession  

Finally, the usefulness of religious services was questioned widely: 62% agreed partially or completely that they have their ‘own way of getting in touch with God, without Church or religious ceremonies.’

... and on to small retailers

Shielding small businesses from competition is a sure fire way of creating zombies, as the chart below demonstrates for 2008, the last pre-crisis year. You can find the data here, although be warned that these are only extrapolated estimates. If they're right, though, most small retailers in Greece were zombies even in the good days, barely surviving by trading rents with the State and avoiding competition whenever possible.

TO BE CONTINUED

STOP FUNDING FASCISM! (BY AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE)

Best way to start this post:

U know Metapedia? No? It's like wikipedia. For nazis. — Katerina Vrana (@Vranarama) April 2, 2013

Maria Margaronis is a Greek journalist.

Although we have had no one-to-one real-world dealings, and I cannot subscribe to her views on all matters, we’re FB friends and I appreciate her deeply. You can read a selection of her work for the Guardian here and for the Nation here. She’s worth following on Twitter as well.

Recently, she posted an article on FB about herself from an online resource called Metapedia, which I had not, to that date, heard of. Metapedia’s  article on Maria is reproduced below in full, with heartfelt apologies to my readers:

Maria Margaronis is a middle-class, anti-Greek, communist media propagandist, married to the Jew journalist D. D. Guttenplan.✡ They have a Jew son together, Alexander Guttenplan.✡ Margaronis operates between London, Greece and Vermont. A Europhobic agitator, she promotes the demographic genocide of Greeks and is an enemy of the people. She is a supporter of the extremist openly communist Synaspismós organisation. Along with her Jew husband, she is associated with the London branch of The Nation magazine, though her propaganda has also featured in The Guardian.

The tabs under the article very probably say more about its authors than about the subject of the article:

Categories: Gentiles with Jewish spouses | The Guardian | The Nation | BBC | Greek | Communists in Greece | Propagandists against the Golden Dawn

Think this is bad? The discussion pages behind the main article are much, much worse:

She looks very much, like a jew herself. Hu1 22:20, 10 October 2012 (CEST) 

The hook-nose and beady eyes said "Jew" to me as well, but I can't find any source that says she is. She might just be ugly. She definetly has a communist agenda in her "reporting". Basileus13:24, 11 October 2012 (CEST) 

Yes, the nose, the nose-mouth part, which is slightly ape-like, the eyes, her overall untidyness and uglyness, and the last indication is her style (and usage of presumably faked photos). If a person shows these indications, I automatically categorize her as a crypto Jew. Which Jew says openly, he is a Jew? Hu1 19:55, 11 October 2012 (CEST) 

@Hu1, @Basileus: Maybe you should start a metapedia article about which physical traits are indications for a possible jewishness? Such an article could contain many example images and may be very useful as a practical guide. What about masculine appearance for females, feminine appearance for men? And are freckles also an indication for a possible jewishness? I don't think they are, but someone once told me that. (Galileo 21:43, 11 October 2012 (CEST)).

Now, you might argue that, as with all things wiki- the crowdsourced nature of the material makes it difficult to vet in real time. Users come and go, some are anonymous, and the marginal cost of an edit is so low that persistent users can get their way for quite some time.

Except of course, the persons entirely responsible for this vile post are three users by the name of Basileus, Galileo and Hu1, all three of whom are Metapedia admins.  Hu1, as I see, specialises in the question of Gas Chambers, Galileo fancies himself as a scientist, while Basileus is the Orthodox Christian link, with his own views on orthodox supremacy.

Metapedia’s style guide, which the admins at least must be familiar with, pathetically states the following:

Language

§  Make sure to write in a neutral tone. Hard biases, exaggerations and irony don't belong in Metapedia. Take a look at other encyclopaediae to get a feeling for what the texts should look like stylistically.

This suggests to me that Metapedia admins don’t see this article as exemplifying ‘hard bias’. It’s very difficult to understand what would.

Again, I sincerely apologise for posting this filth but I think it’s important to share the nature of the beast. 

While mercifully brief, this post demonstrates the following:

1. That metapedia admins are actively involved in peddling racial hatred.

·     2.  That metapedia admins aim to monitor criticism of Golden Dawn, which they label as ‘propaganda’ and equate with ‘promoting demographic genocide of Greeks’. While I cannot prove that the admins’ purpose is to direct retaliatory action or pre-emptively discredit GD’s critics, the latter are labelled ‘enemies of the [unspecified] people’ and Syriza sympathisers, regardless of the nuances of their political attitudes.

·        
3. That metapedia admins are obsessed with ethnic and racial origin (their definition of which is extremely broad, judging from the fact that they feel compelled to list ‘Gentiles with Jewish spouses’  and try to work out the ‘Jewishness’ of individuals from their facial features.

·        
4. That metapedia admins are obsessed with Jews to the point that they need to prefix even the names of their children with ‘Jew’, as well as mark them out with a special yellow star of David icon/tab. That last bit bears re-reading. I find it chilling.

·         5. That metapedia admins have such a broad definition of communism that it can encompass Greece’s syncretic leftist cacophony, Syriza; mainstream (if culturally statist) media such as the Guardian; and the whole of Twitter itself.

6. That metapedia admins have no interest in this being an encyclopaedia or any kind of reference resource, as none of the claims in this article (for instance, the claim that Maria advocates 'demographic genocide of Greeks') are actually referenced in any way.

Now - on to my complaint. 

Metapedia solicits donations via Paypal, principally through Facebook and Twitter appeals, and has to date raised just over $4,000 from a substantial number of contributors. As a longtime user of Facebook and Paypal, I find that this grossly violates both platforms' acceptable use policy. Sadly, not that of Twitter.

From Paypal’s Acceptable Use Policy:

“You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:

1.     violate any law, statute, ordinance or regulation.

2.     relate to transactions involving […] (e) items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime”

From Facebook’s terms:

We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it. We need your help to keep Facebook safe, which includes the following commitments by you: […]

6. You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.

7. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

10. You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to report such groups under Twitter's terms of service and rules/guidelines, but since the Twitter posts simply direct back to FB that's not a big issue. 

Note that Metapedia is careful not to own up to its purposes on Facebook – their page explains, coyly, that they are “An alternative encyclopedia about culture, art, science, philosophy and politics.” Alternative indeed, the Nazi cowards. Similarly, Twitter repeats the above statement with no further details and posts are extremely opaque.

It is clear to me that Metapedia is a hotbed of racial hate and its fundraising activities are in violation of both Paypal’s and Facebook’s terms of use. The article in question is one of many, and is clearly not untypical of the website or the policies of its admins.

I invite you to help me kill Metapedia’s funding stream by reporting this activity to Paypal and Facebook. Let’s become ‘enemies of the people’ together. 

For details on how to report hate speech on Facebook, see here. For Twitter, see here. Their account is @metapedia

Reporting a hate group on Paypal is harder, but the best way in this case is to write to compliance@paypal.com who are supposed to be notified by any group 'collecting donations as a non-profit or charity organisation.' If Metapedia haven't done that they would be non-compliant even without all of the hate speech association. There is good precedent for Paypal withdrawing services from hate groups. Read more here for instance.   

For further information on Metapedia, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapedia

UPDATE: The Metapedia admins, spineless cowards that they are, have rewritten Maria's page thoroughly following this publication, and particularly the feature on Harry's Place here. Their racial profiling banter is gone and there is now a section on Maria's supposed 'Crimes of Hellenophobia.' This, a lamentable copy & paste job to be found elsewhere on their website, simply lists a number of crimes by non-Greeks against Greeks, with the implication that any journalist choosing to focus their writing on any other violent act committed on Greek soil is a Hellenophobe. 

INDIGNASHUN NASHUN

If you have been watching Greece over the last couple of days, you will know that Parliament is being peacefully besieged by large numbers of protesters trying their best to emulate the Spanish Indignados. Nor are the protesters in Athens the only ones. Check this map out for a hint at what's happening. Braving the elements, these folks have decided that by telling the Greek Government that they are upset they will somehow make history. I wouldn't be so certain, unless the bar is set abysmally low. Plus I kind of think the Government already knows.

It is perhaps not surprising that the key rallying cry involved in these developments was an internet meme - destined for viral status almost from the start - to the effect that the Spanish Indignados were taunting our complacent compatriots with the chant "Shhh, quiet, we'll wake up the Greeks". Although this was merely a fabrication based loosely on Spanish football taunts, it nonetheless struck a chord. Over Twitter, one user made it abundantly clear to me that in their view the truth of the matter was irrelevant. What mattered was the need to rally the people. This echoes the reactions I got from people forwarding the newly-resurfaced Weisbrot hoax, and makes me wonder whether that whole nasty episode wasn't just a dry-run for this sort of thing. I think we'll be hearing a lot of this sort of noble lie going forward as the great friendly hand of populism reaches for the nation's collective buttocks.

Now to give the protesters their fair dues, the protests appear to me to be genuinely non-factional and peaceful. Union troops from the National Electricity Company were even briefly booed by the assembled crowd. Despite many years of allegations that our murderous anarchist splinter groups (such as these and these) were agents provocateurs planted by governments in order to discredit all legitimate protests, these gatherings have not been disrupted, give or take the odd minor incident.

More to the point, the protestors do not appear to have any recognisable agenda beyond registering a) their numbers and b) their indignation. The only output I've seen so far is a loose collection of rants from the assembled throng charitably christened the minutes of the first assembly (standby for more; there's also been this call for Direct Democracy Now.) At any rate, manifesto items include things like "We have Beauty on our side, against the devious Banker and the evil Politician". In fact the whole thing reads like the kind of thing HR people put on flipcharts while one tries to stay awake during "workshops." Some way to go then, and people will probably have to stop using crayons first.

It amuses me to watch as media commentators visibly try to calculate the chances of this nascent movement ever amounting to anything, and to then watch as half of them slowly -ponderously- align themselves to the protesters, while trying not to be called out as fakers in the process. I wish them well. Me, I'm not too keen on this movement (read on though, I think they can come in handy!) and I won't be even if they take over the entire country.



Question no. 1: Who are they?

Simply put, they are the sum of the non-violent among these guys, these guys and these guys (both latter groups are nonviolent anyway). It's not a naturally cohesive mix; in Spain, maybe this sort of grouping got along well, but in Greece mistrust runs deeper and spirits run higher. It will take a sustained effort to make a movement out of this. I've no way of knowing how many they are, but I would say about 200,000 active so far is a reasonable estimate. Their numbers will grow substantially over the next week, barring any particularly stupid mistakes, as the three groups (non-violent nationalists, defaultniks and disillusioned voters-for-sale) together number much more than this. Frankly, they number in the many hundreds of thousands, so it's only a matter of mobilisation.

Question no. 2: How many are they? I mean really?

I think it's best to be realistic here and consider how many potential supporters this group has. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt with regard to this number because these are turbulent times and people tend to jump on bandwagons. Luckily I can run an approximation, using data from the European Values Survey of 2008 (data can be found here). I am only going to assume three things about these people: first, that they would at least consider joining a lawful demonstration. Second, that they believe that Greek society needs to change radically, not by incremental reform. And third, they they had little or no faith in Parliament as of 2008 (I'm allowing the 'little' response as faith in Parliament has slipped substantially since). That's all. I doubt any of the protesters would argue with any of the above. I really believe I'm throwing many more non-Indignados into this calculation than I'm keeping out of it, so I think my estimate is at the very least not conservative. They are, to illustrate, the group highlighted below:

The grand total? 8.4% of the Greek adult population or 625,000 people (calculations here). Where would that put them in parliament, if they were to all turn up and vote for one new party? Just ahead of the Greek Communist Party. They would command roughly 23-24 seats (I'm extrapolating from here).

Question no. 3. How did they use to vote?

According to the model I built above, the Values Survey can give me an answer of sorts to this question, but I must warn you the sample is really tiny, so take it with a massive pinch of salt. The sample is so small that answering this question is like asking a focus group or a room full of people, so don't read these results as statistically robust findings. THEY ARE NOT.

For the most part, these possible Indignados were pretty active voters. Nine out of ten said they would turn up to vote if an election were to be held the following day - which is way better than the average. The breakdown of votes would be as follows: 

Now I'm not surprised by these results, although I should caveat them further by saying that the conservative share of the pie is probably under-estimated as the Conservatives were in power in 2008 and thus their voters were more likely to trust Parliament. Similarly the Socialist share of the pie is probably over-estimated, though less so than the conservative slice is overestimated, as many socialist voters will have had a drastic change of heart in the last year.

Question no. 4: What do they want?

It's very hard to hear the triumphalism with which people report on these protests and assume that they are not getting drunk on illusions of power. I believe it is only a matter of time before some charismatic populist stage-dives into this crowd and into mainstream politics. It's going to be almost precisely like this:



Until then, it's important to note that the core of the protesters would probably agree on the following things:

• Greece should default on its external debt immediately.
• Greece should reverse the fiscal measures taken so far under the Memorandum
• Greece should review its constitution in order to ensure further accountability for those in power
• Greece should investigate most of the people who have served as Ministers in the last 30 years
• Greece should investigate most Greeks with substantial assets abroad
• Greece should engage in rapid tax reform aiming to shift a substantial amount of the tax burden to the richest.
• Greece should  henceforth rely more on plebiscites and less on politicians or technocrats for the purposes of policymaking  
• Greece should ally itself more explicitly with other peripheral European and developing countries 

Question 5: What will they do next? 

In short, they will both organise and splinter. As slightly less cohesive and slightly more paranoid versions of the Spanish protests, the Greek ones will organise around issues of security (including the thwarting of agents provocateurs), food delivery, daycare and political speech, in that order. The first three are not contentious, but the latter is, and will become more so the longer the initial wave of protests continues. People will want influence proportionate to what they see as their investment as a matter of the distributive justice that we Greeks are so fond of. The more nights one camps in Syntagma, the more say they will come to expect. Besides, splinter groups of the Greek Left (a major constituent of this moevement) have such a long tradition of choosing fragmentation over effectiveness (more here) and such a deep-seated (and requited) hatred of the nationalists that make up another large segment of the protester population (illustrated perfectly here) that it's only a matter of time before someone mentions policy and the fireworks start.


Question 6: How will they evolve?

I do believe that, as long as they remain civil, these people can be useful as leverage in negotiating better loan terms and a Greek default; Although the Troikans will hardly be crapping themselves at the unrealistic prospect of having a Greek Hugo Chavez across the table from them, this group could swing a closely-fought election.

UPDATE:

One quick way of thinking about the dynamics of the movement is to borrow an analogy from social media monetisation.Social media networks invest in growing their membership at significant cost, against the promise of turning members into paying customers one day. Except not having to pay is critical to sticking with the network. While the service is free, what matters is they way it is delivered, not what the content is. Users make up the content and literally come up with uses for the medium as they go along. All the owners of the network have to do is keep their fingers crossed that eventually the network will become so integral to users' lives that they will be unable to get around paying for it, like a utility. Otherwise, they either hope that they can skim a tiny bit of money out of a very large volume of interactions that inevitably happen through the network, or sell very inobtrusive access to their membership.Either way, investors generally fall for the hype and put massive amounts of resources into the networks regardless of their real prospects.

Now similarly, the Greek Indignados are growing in number. Clearly, they want influence but the more intelligent among them have cleverly made a point of refusing to sign up to a charter of beliefs or policy demands precisely because they realise that this will halt the growth of the movement; which will in turn interfere with the pursuit of power. Sooner or later, they will have to confront this dilemma, although they should have enough committed followers to put off the decision for some time. As they decide, there are three possible dimensions in which the 'movement' can grow (and it can grow in all three simultaneously):

• The Movement as Fixture: Campsites become permanent (I'm thinking Parliament Square in London but feel free to insert your own image). Supporters are encouraged to contribute goods, services and their presence when convenient, around a hard core of die-hard campers who are present at almost all times. More importantly, a 'virtual campsite' is set up, with an aggressive social media presence courtesy of sympathetic online and offiline journalists, which provides supporters with an immersive experience of political news and discussion. Just like social media entrepreneurs, protesters probably view this as a preferred scenario.
  
  
• The Movement as Crowdsourced Think Tank: The movement becomes expert at crowdsourcing political statements via social media or physical assemblies. This produces a steady stream of initially generic political speech, asymptotically converging to the maximum level of seriousness and precision that doesn't constitute an actual political commitment. Crowdsourcing does rely on very careful and skilled moderation, so it will be interesting to see how this will be handled. 

• The Movement as Recruiting Ground: Essentially this means that relevance is achieved by becoming a recruiting ground for other political agents. As the movement is currently hostile to people with an overt political affiliation, this is a less likely direction of travel and this is unlikely to change. Still, although the Movement cannot allow political parties access to its members in the pursuit of greater relevance, it could do so for other stakeholders that are seen as 'kosher'. Bear with me while I try to visualise this.  

U CAN HAZ TIPPING POINT

As you'll have guessed, I am beginning to worry a little about the possibility of civil unrest in Greece. I still don't think this is a likely outcome, but it's a high-stakes game.

One possible avenue for this nightmare scenario is the smoldering tension between the native population and the large number of immigrants (604,000 legal and 172,000 to 209,000 illegal ones, as estimated painstakingly here) living in the country. Greece got its first far-right parliamentary party in 2007, just as the golden age of immigrant labour had come to a close for our country, and its first neo-nazi local councillor in the 2010 local elections, the run-up to which was marred by racial tension in some parts of Athens.

More recently, 237 illegal immigrants (frequently rounded up to a symbolic 300, which matches the number of Greek MPs) occupied Athens' Law School, taking advantage of the iconic law prohibiting police from entering any Greek University grounds to launch a hunger strike in protest against the Greek state's unwillingness to acknowledge their long residence in the country as grounds for naturalisation. This inflamed the existing debate between Greece's large liberal left and its equally large nationalist population.

So far, so rubbish. But public debates are not fought on facts or argumentation, but on stubbornness and apologetics. As this brilliant paper demonstrates, public debates are ultimately won by the side that can call upon the largest number of unblinking, unwavering zealots. The trick is not to persuade the 'swing voters' or win the enlightened middle ground. It is to harden the new recruits to one's cause into zealots and sow the seeds of doubt in the hardliners of the other camp, force them to concede they may not be entirely right.

In that respect the two sides of the immigration debate are evenly matched in Greece. However, all of this could change rapidly, given the right sequence of events. For instance: one of our artistic darlings, Stelios Mainas, who, after a long acting career, found nationwide acclaim with 'The Island', lately the toast of Greek hostesses over 40, recently got seven kinds of sh*t kicked out of him by a gang of immigrants while wandering in the centre of Athens. His statements are particularly telling:

"I cannot believe what happened to me. They almost killed me. They were hitting me mercilessly for some time. I could not breathe. The feeling of despair I felt at the time was tragic. I would not want this to happen to anyone else. [...] It's logical that people who are crammed into a square metre would want to vent their anger on their fellow man. I was saved by two Greeks, the only ones in a crowd of 150-200 foreigners, and I say this without any national pride. The State should be present. I wonder how one can justify not looking after one's own."

Mainas is in fact a long-time champion of the immigrant cause, having recently taken part in a high-profile gig to support the Law School 300. He noted in further comments that his attackers could easily have been Greek, but that the centre of Athens has become extremely dangerous.

This kind of turning-point event, if repeated enough times, could trigger a backlash - by weakening the resolve of immigrant sympathisers as it becomes extremely clear that nice, decent and caring people with money and kosher politics can suffer at the hands of immigrants. If this happens, the far Right will smell blood very quickly and it's going to be a matter of time until things start getting ugly.

Update:

Getting the measure of anti-immigration sentiment in Greece is difficult but definitely worthwhile. The most recent Eurobarometer survey (carried out in Nov. 2010) suggests that 7% of Greeks see immigration as one of the two biggest problems our country is facing right now and 4% cite it as one of the two most important problems they face in their own daily lives. That's 840,000 and 480,000 Greeks respectively, a veritable army, and both of these figures have roughly doubled since the previous survey, carried out in May 2010. Of course many of these people are not racists, most of them don't mean to cause any harm, and many will be too old to be violent anyway.

According to the European Values Survey of 2008 (data available here), only about 3% of the Greek population (still a cool 360,000 people) had all of the following characteristics:

• Strongly agreed there are 'too many' immigrants in Greece
• Spontaneously mentioned they would not want to live near people of a different race
• Spontaneously mentioned they would not want to live near immigrants or foreign workers
• Did not spontaneously mention they would not want to live near far-right extremists.

Bearing in mind about a third of these are under 38 years of age, that still leaves 120,000 reasonably young people with some pretty worrying attitudes.

I think we can all agree these people are racists. Worryingly, 82% of them would have voted in a 2008 election, a bigger share than we generally see in the more moderate population. The interesting finding, however, is that most of the ones that would vote would not identify with our no. 1 nationalist party or even our major conservative party. Now, bearing in mind this is a very small sample, here's what the breakdown of the racist vote would have been, in 2008 (note that none of the racist vote would have gone to the Communist Party or the Coalition of the Radical Left, our two main parties on the Left): 

This is the current ruling party winning by a landslide, by the way. God only knows what these racist PASOK voters (hardly socialists, of course) are thinking now but I'll bet you they are avid Tro(ma)ktiko readers.

Then again, the number of anti-immigrant activists could rise. By far the strongest determinant of whether a Greek (or any other European for that matter) would say that there are too many immigrants in their country, was the perception of being 'a stranger' in their own country. It's about three times as strong an influence as the statement that immigrants are a 'threat to society'.  As of 2008, an amazing 43.4% of Greeks felt this way. This may sound like a lot, and it is, but it also means we're less worried than the Cyrpiots, the British, the Irish, the arguably distinct case of the Kosovars and of course the ever-tolerant Austrians.  See below (deeper shades indicate greater concern):

FROM BRUSSELS WITH SOLIDARITY

The French text reads: "Solidarity with the Greek rioters"
The Greek text underneath reads: "Hellas [i.e. Greece] f*cks b*llocks anarchists"

DIM SUM!

From the Manifesto of the Democratic Alliance, Greece's newest political party, in Greek and in English (via Google Translate as I don't have much time). I'm not sold on this and will explain when I have time.

I CAN HAZ DOVEY-WUVVY?

The IMF, we are often told, is a fiscal hawk whose single-minded, ideological pursuit of fiscal consolidation overrides all other concerns, including those of an indebted country’s citizens and even its creditors.

Why then is the IMF being so dove-ish these days?

First, the EU and the IMF tolerated a complete lack of progress in effective control of spending at the local government level which made it impossible for Greece to report against one of the explicit quantitative targets of our adjustment programme.

Then they allowed us to not count municipal authority employees in our controversial census of civil servants.

Then they tolerated the cover-up of our ‘final’ 2009 deficit figures until after the November elections, even though nearly everyone and their dog knows the figure is now estimated at around 15.1% to 15.5%.

Then they allowed us to delay the submission of our draft law on tax administration reform (draft here and rationale here), which they must know is desperately important.

Then they allowed us to set out a dubiously budgeted EUR2.3bn - 2.6bn plan to subsidise employment by offering incentives conditional on a stay in redundancies.

And for good measure, they now seem set to allow us to put off our capital gains tax hike until 2012 (here).

I can only assume that our creditors are incredibly invested in a Socialist victory in the 7 November municipal and prefectural elections, which they see as a make-or-break moment for our Government. Our creditors’ fears are well-founded. As I’ve explained here, while I hold most of them in deep contempt, the Socialists do offer our creditors their only hope of a stable and compliant government in Greece. Don’t forget, the Greek Right has foolishly tried to paint itself as the Greek version of Hungary’s Fidesz by claiming that signing up to the Memorandum was a choice made freely by the Prime Minister despite a host of alternatives (Russian money, anyone?) and that they would be able to bring Greece’s structural deficit down to 0% in two years (LOOOOOOOL).

Yorgo's thinly-veiled threat tο call a snap election unless his party does well in the upcoming elections has gone down very badly among Greeks, who resent being blackmailed. What they do not understand is that it is the IMF and our creditors that Yorgo is blackmailing. His signal says: 'cut me some slack, make me look good, or I swear I'll bring this whole motherf*cking place down with me.'

What our creditors and, worse, our Government, seem to forget is that the protest calendar is an even more important determinant of Greek bond prices than elections and that it is absolutely pulsing after 7 November. The 17 November celebrations are traditionally accompanied by an explosion of violence and last year’s spilled over into December due to the murder of a teenage protester.  Then four people died in May, and this too will pale in comparison with what could happen this November. 

It is amazingly short-sighted of the Government to kick the can further down the road – 7 November will simply never give it a mandate strong enough to survive another bout of austerity and the people will feel deeply betrayed. And although bad news before the 7th might dent its substantial lead in the polls, bad news between the 7th and the 17th could spark an urban war.

WE NO CAN HAZ OPPOSITION

Readers will by now be familiar with my libertarian leanings, but will also not be surprised to find that, in the few instances in which I have voted in Greek elections, I have often voted Conservative. As with most libertarians who do so, I have been bitterly disappointed.

Greeks find libertarianism not just unpalatable but actually inconceivable; we don’t even have a word for it, so discussing it with friends feels like being part of a slightly nerdy cult. Moreover, in our highly confrontational politics it is impossible to frame any kind of libertarian argument except in opposition to the prevailing collectivist mindset. The result is that one has to often side with corporatists and rent-seekers rather than truly like-minded people. None of this exonerates me for helping vote in the recent incompetent Conservative Government back in 2004. I was very enthusiastic about their victory at the time. I was wrong and I apologise unreservedly for my lack of judgment.

I take the opportunity now say this because I have written many a sarcastic post mocking the Socialist Government's impotence, incompetence, confusion and general bullshit, but none so far to target the people I have in the past voted for.

No one better illustrates the deeply unpleasant opportunism of the Greek Right than Antonis Samaras, the leader of our main opposition party. The man is, in my estimation, a profoundly inadequate stop-gap, rescued from the political scrapheap by our last Prime Minister, Kostas “PlayStation” Karamanlis in a show of strength against pretenders to the party leadership. In another worrying sign of Greece thinking it is Hungary, Samaras has for some time made headlines for his outspoken opposition to the Greek bailout and the terms on which it was agreed, now summarily known as “The Memorandum”.

His argument for voting against the Memorandum is confusing and thoroughly flawed. It is also cynical and maddeningly patronising of Greek voters. While he has published an alternative to the Memorandum, it is a little bit scant on the costed detail – a major problem when one claims they can restore Greece to growth and a balanced budget within two years. (That’s two years starting in early 2010). The only halfway-solid number is to be found in the statement below:

“It is estimated that EUR50bn in total can be found over the next two years through commercial exploitation of a small part of the State’s real estate portfolio and the bold pursuit of a comprehensive programme of privatization. This would cover the borrowing requirements of the next years and achieve a net reduction of government debt by at least 10% (EUR30bn)”

This is, of course, factually incorrect unless the utterly vague “next years” is taken to mean the last three quarters of 2010. Even, so this would assume that Greece would run a paltry EUR4.2bn deficit (1.8% of GDP!!!) within the first year of adjustment (evidence here).

UPDATE: It now appears that Samaras meant he would be targetting the structural deficit rather than the overall figure. He calculates this at 6.7% but also slyly cites the obvious economist-for-hire, Joseph MUPPET Stiglitz, who calculates it at 4.5%. Later in the same speech he suggests that it is only the ability to tap the bond markets again that he had in mind for 2011, not a zero deficit figure. Perhaps we will soon learn that it is the structural primary deficit (ex interest) that he wanted to target all along. God knows. That in itself tells you that his idea of narrowing the "deficit" would consist at least in part of changing the way it is calculated. How realistic any of these projections are, you may want to consider in light of this. Mind you, I often wonder what business our Conservatives have quoting a "structural" deficit - a deeply Keynesian concept steeped in the voodoo of "potential output".

Blatant lies and idiocy aside, I find it amazing that anyone with the wherewithal to achieve this utterly unprecedented feat of fiscal adjustment would be slaving away in the Conservatives’ rubbish little policy outfits, instead of taking over the world.

UPDATE: Conservative MEP Theodoros Skylakakis has just been struck off the Conservative Party for making the exact same argument as I do above. He is currently refusing to hand over his seat at the EP. I hope he is a reader.

Below is a list of the Conservative views that I find particularly annoying. I will update it as I go along.

1. The present Government caused Greece’s funding crisis by inflating the 2009 deficit figures and spreading alarmist rhetoric.

I appreciate that some of our ministers, especially Andreas MUPPET Loverdos, have not helped matters with their statements from time to time. It is also clear that, in adjusting the deficit figures, the Socialists may have had an incentive to take a big bath and overstate the seriousness of our situation, just like the Conservatives did back in 2004. However, unlike that of the previous government, their timing was appalling as it linked the Greek fiscal situation with the Dubai default.

However, as Samaras himself admits, the crisis was coming regardless. Greece has a fundamental solvency problem and has been financing itself on a fairly short-term basis. Combine the two and a liquidity problem is only a matter of time. Of course, one might argue that, had the Government chosen to lay low for a while during late 2009, no one might have noticed what state we were in.

This is a misguided argument; to begin with, no government should wager its fiscal future on its continued ability to avoid proper scrutiny by its citizens and its creditors. Not that this would have worked in any case; Greece’s debt came up in the analysis of the Nov. 08 riots and bond yields spiked accordingly. The 2009 and 2010 riots had the same effect. So did news of the Dubai restructuring back in 2009.

[In fact, rioting probably has more to do with Greek bond yields than the fundamentals, because it is the fundamental in itself – at once a measure of the Government’s ability to levy taxes in the future (the ultimate government asset) and of the people’s appetite for default. And we have a schedule of riots almost as regular and reliable as national statistics releases, which Greece-watchers would do well to mark on their calendars.’

At any rate, we know for a fact that fundamentals (including the debt and deficit figures) accounted for almost identical changes in bond yields in the first three months of the new Government’s term as they did in the last three months of the Conservatives’ last term. It was global financial contagion which dealt us the fatal blow and somehow I doubt it was all down to one MUPPET putting his foot in it.

Finally, if the Government’s sole intention had been to inflate the deficit figures, surely Eurostat would not have been able to come up with another upward revision within a few months of our announcement of the ‘new’ deficit figures. Once you’ve decided to revise up to 12.6, you might as well go for 13.6%. Or even 14.1%, which is the upper end of the range of Eurostat estimates. At any rate I’ve failed to dig up any statements from our Conservatives endorsing the expert report on the reliability of government statistics. Surely a peep on switching to IFRS for the public sector or some other established methodology is not too much to ask for? Or is it the case that the Conservatives cynically realise that the Big Bath will come in very handy when it’s their turn to take the helm again?

2. Greece would not have defaulted in May had we refused to take the IMF's money.

This is a bizarre argument which I can only relate verbatim (Greek source here).

"We were asked where we would get the EUR110bn that [Greece] borrowed [under the terms of the Memorandum]. The answer is simple. First, [the IMF and the EU] did not lend us EUR110bn. To date, they have only lent us EUR30bn. This is money that the markets were offering earlier this year, and which we didn't take! We were being offered EUR43bn for bonds with maturities above one year - mostly 5 or 10 years - of which the government only took EUR14bn! That's back when spreads were still at 200 to 230 basis points. Not the 500 we saw in May or the 900 we see today. So they ask us to give them the money now that they themselves did not take from the markets, and which they subsequently had to sign the Memorandum to get!"

This is madness. Samaras' argument is that the Government borrowed EUR14bn earlier this year, in bond sales oversubscribed by a factor of roughly three to one. So far, so almost true. His argument is, however, that would could have taken all of the money offered at the same yields had we wanted to. Not true. Had Greece announced we were tapping the market for EUR43bn instead of EUR12bn, and pushed for long maturities, we would have got fantastically high yields. Selling bonds in superbulk (like apples or oranges) makes them cheaper to buy, not dearer.

What would have happened, in the face of an inverted yield curve, is that we would have been unable to borrow anything short-term and would have had to sell long-term bonds against an implied 75% probability of default. All of this before we even begin to contemplate the other EUR80bn, by the way. This man is an economist apparently. He should know better.

Even if one concedes all this MUPPETRY, it does not explain why the Conservatives voted against the terms of the memorandum in May. Maybe we could have done any number of things before the May riots but, at the time of the vote, we hadn't. So what was our other option? Default.

But astute readers will also notice an even darker aspect to Samaras' statement. Read the last bit again:

So they ask us [meaning the taxpayer] to give them [the Government] the money now that they themselves did not take from the markets, and which they subsequently had to sign the Memorandum to get!"

Noticed it yet? The money the Government is asking for is tax - equity in other words. The money Samaras said the Government could have got from the markets, and of course the Memorandum money, are both debt. The fact that the Conservatives have degenerated so much that, even now, they prefer to finance the state via debt rather than equity just makes me want to cry.