Jan 262015
 

”To The Undecided Voters”

The question of the undecided voters is this: “What shall I do? Whom do I vote for?” If i was with SYRIZA ideologically, I would be there from the beginning. Yet, until now, it does not mean that the general ideology approaches towards that of centrist. What does torment him? On one hand, one is faced with New Democracy that has hurt the pocket, and that has hurt with its decisions and political choices. Many of undecided voters are frustrated, as they tell (me) everyday. What options do they have then?The reaction would be either to go for another party, to vote for one that is ideologically akin to the center-right, or to stay the same. In the first case, they will weaken their own traditional area and give the ideological opponent the opportunity to take advantage of their indignation and to win. The consequences of such decision can be painful for themselves and for the country, because different political culture will seize the power. Another concept, as was already announced, will return to logic of public and statism. In other words, it will turn to their homes as now our destruction. However, that is not what these voters want. What they want is a change. They want freedom of action in entrepreneurship and in investment. And a mindset of government does not allow it. Therefore, it is neither rational nor beneficial for the country if voters jump in to vote for SYRIZA just for the sake of indignation. The old ND members are not like many of the old PASOK members who hide SYRIZA so they can win and continue there “illegalities”.In the second case, the undecided voters can vote for a party akin to the center-right perception. But again, they will weaken their party. Moreover in this case, they play the game of SYRIZA unintentionally. They will contribute indirectly to dismantle cultural and human values, which New Democracy has advocated for years. They will synergize in relativism and, as SYRIZA advocates, in weakening of concepts such as homeland, religion, innovation and competitiveness. And I know that they do not want it.There remains the third case: maintaining the status quo. And the anger? Their indignation? My suggestion to them is to redirect the votes to young and old, but capable ones from New Democracy. To vote for those people can bring a new style, a new aesthetic and a new political discourse in New Democracy. We are in the time of changes. We live in such time. The society is urgently calling for new proposals, new leaders to face the requirements of new Greece and new Europe. And the very puzzled (frustrated, angry) ones, who can help with their vote, will contribute to provide the country with the tidiness and political credibility. With their vote, undecided voters can change a lot in our troubled country. Let’s do it. Let’s hear the logic and usefulness of anger.

Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Eleytheros Typos today January 23, titled    
''To The Undecided Voters''

The question of the undecided voters is this: “What shall I do? Whom do I vote for?” If i was with SYRIZA ideologically, I would be there from the beginning. Yet, until now, it does not mean that the general ideology approaches towards that of centrist. What does torment him? On one hand, one is faced with New Democracy that has hurt the pocket, and that has hurt with its decisions and political choices. Many of undecided voters are frustrated, as they tell (me) everyday. What options do they have then?The reaction would be either to go for another party, to vote for one that is ideologically akin to the center-right, or to stay the same. In the first case, they will weaken their own traditional area and give the ideological opponent the opportunity to take advantage of their indignation and to win. The consequences of such decision can be painful for themselves and for the country, because different political culture will seize the power. Another concept, as was already announced, will return to logic of public and statism. In other words, it will turn to their homes as now our destruction. However, that is not what these voters want. What they want is a change. They want freedom of action in entrepreneurship and in investment. And a mindset of government does not allow it. Therefore, it is neither rational nor beneficial for the country if voters jump in to vote for SYRIZA just for the sake of indignation. The old ND members are not like many of the old PASOK members who hide SYRIZA so they can win and continue there "illegalities".In the second case, the undecided voters can vote for a party akin to the center-right perception. But again, they will weaken their party. Moreover in this case, they play the game of SYRIZA unintentionally. They will contribute indirectly to dismantle cultural and human values, which New Democracy has advocated for years. They will synergize in relativism and, as SYRIZA advocates, in weakening of concepts such as homeland, religion, innovation and competitiveness. And I know that they do not want it.There remains the third case: maintaining the status quo. And the anger? Their indignation? My suggestion to them is to redirect the votes to young and old, but capable ones from New Democracy. To vote for those people can bring a new style, a new aesthetic and a new political discourse in New Democracy. We are in the time of changes. We live in such time. The society is urgently calling for new proposals, new leaders to face the requirements of new Greece and new Europe. And the very puzzled (frustrated, angry) ones, who can help with their vote, will contribute to provide the country with the tidiness and political credibility. With their vote, undecided voters can change a lot in our troubled country. Let's do it. Let's hear the logic and usefulness of anger.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Jan 192015
 

”The internal enemy”

The real enemies are within us, so say the sages from Greek antiquity to the present day. The truth may best be demonstrated by the current political reality in France. Astonished French people discovered, after the recent massacres in the country, that the “madmen of Allah”, as they call themselves radical Islamists, are not in other countries, but within their own country. Moreover, they have French citizenship. Guided by an uncontrollable hatred for the country of their birth, these madmen wish to attack at any time. The French prime minister called them internal enemies, and they are such. In Paris, Lyon, Dijon and other cities, these enemies are growing uncontrollably, and threatening democracy, security and the peaceful life of France. This is as if French people no longer need to send their soldiers to external war fronts, now the enemy emerges from inside. And here is where political leaders must be very cautious. They should be very rigid and hard against such threats. It is not possible that slaughterers in Paris to contain terrorist species previously without being monitored by the police. It is not possible to hear Islamic priests lecturing the hatred without being intervened by the French Justice. Our ancestors said so, and that should be applied. The precautious security is required. Repentance is not enough. There are so many young French people from other European countries, who are leaving to join the ranks of Jihad in Iraq and Syria. There are many of them who decapitate hostages. When they return to their countries, they are potential terrorists. Therefore the precautious security of the state cannot function. The role of the Left is an obstacle to such policy. Because, with the logic of tolerance, it endangers the country and its citizens. Mixing it all together indicates inertia in prevention. And such an attitude is fueling extremism of internal enemies, who are hidden in their communities. They interpret the Republic as a weakness. It is time to protect Europe from the inside enemy. And this can be done by the Education, Culture and also by the State prevention.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to Mr. Antonis Samaras on culture

My article, which was published at Paraskinio on saturday January 17th, titled
''The internal enemy''

The real enemies are within us, so say the sages from Greek antiquity to the present day. The truth may best be demonstrated by the current political reality in France. Astonished French people discovered, after the recent massacres in the country, that the "madmen of Allah", as they call themselves radical Islamists, are not in other countries, but within their own country. Moreover, they have French citizenship. Guided by an uncontrollable hatred for the country of their birth, these madmen wish to attack at any time. The French prime minister called them internal enemies, and they are such. In Paris, Lyon, Dijon and other cities, these enemies are growing uncontrollably, and threatening democracy, security and the peaceful life of France. This is as if French people no longer need to send their soldiers to external war fronts, now the enemy emerges from inside. And here is where political leaders must be very cautious. They should be very rigid and hard against such threats. It is not possible that slaughterers in Paris to contain terrorist species previously without being monitored by the police. It is not possible to hear Islamic priests lecturing the hatred without being intervened by the French Justice. Our ancestors said so, and that should be applied. The precautious security is required. Repentance is not enough. There are so many young French people from other European countries, who are leaving to join the ranks of Jihad in Iraq and Syria. There are many of them who decapitate hostages. When they return to their countries, they are potential terrorists. Therefore the precautious security of the state cannot function. The role of the Left is an obstacle to such policy.  Because, with the logic of tolerance, it endangers the country and its citizens. Mixing it all together indicates inertia in prevention.  And such an attitude is fueling extremism of internal enemies, who are hidden in their communities. They interpret the Republic as a weakness. It is time to protect Europe from the inside enemy. And this can be done by the Education, Culture and also by the State prevention.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to Mr. Antonis Samaras on culture
Jan 152015
 

The Phantom of the New Regime”

The words are, as you know, the conceptual picture of things. While listening to the representatives of SYRIZA these days speaking about the programs and their desires, I find that the reasons or their texts are possessed by rhetoric of the new regime. The phrases used are penetrated by unnatural optimism, a climax of ”promising” messages, so extreme that it can easily be wondered whether they have any relation to the reality.Not only by proclaiming to become a political tycoon who will impose your own policy on the Europeans, but even to become a political leader within Europe that will change the Merkelism (such pleasure in saying), it verges on a dangerous naiveté. This is not to say that the EU does not need changes and renewals. But those are the dominant forces inside. And such force is not SYRIZA. The Europeans are not waiting for the leadership speech to make corrective movements. They have already begun. It’s just only towards one different direction from which the opposition of our country proposes. A typical example is France. The logic of ”there are money”, on which Hollande was based for his raising to power, collapsed. The French president has not fulfilled any of his promises. And that is because the policy has been hampered by the harsh reality. What is this? It is the globalization that requires stronger competition among states. But in order to become competitive, country needs reforms that will reduce statism and make entrepreneurship more flexible and creative through research, innovation and new technologies. Hollande had to accept that. By appointing Manuel Valls as Prime Minister of France, it simultaneously marked the change of course. The French Prime Minister aligned with budgetary austerity while denounced it as “obsolete” in the words of the Marxist sense. Despite the reactions of his left-wing party, he continued and continues the “socialist liberalism”. Can this happen with SYRIZA? Many of the officials have already changed the words and the proposals. But the postwar rhetoric remains as a phantom that threatens to lead our country into dangerous paths. Today, more than ever, we need a political discourse of realism, which will begin the phraseology of the European Union and will work for changes within it. The rhetoric of the new regime is an escape from the reality. May SYRIZA change its language, and may it change its word as it is not possible to live with phantoms, but with the dynamics of the present. This is political responsibility.

Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Eleytheros Typos today January 15th, titled
''The Phantom of the New Regime''

The words are, as you know, the conceptual picture of things. While listening to the representatives of SYRIZA these days speaking about the programs and their desires, I find that the reasons or their texts are possessed by rhetoric of the new regime. The phrases used are penetrated by unnatural optimism, a climax of ''promising'' messages, so extreme that it can easily be wondered whether they have any relation to the reality.Not only by proclaiming to become a political tycoon who will impose your own policy on the Europeans, but even to become a political leader within Europe that will change the Merkelism (such pleasure in saying), it verges on a dangerous naiveté. This is not to say that the EU does not need changes and renewals. But those are the dominant forces inside. And such force is not SYRIZA. The Europeans are not waiting for the leadership speech to make corrective movements. They have already begun. It’s just only towards one different direction from which the opposition of our country proposes. A typical example is France. The logic of ''there are money'', on which Hollande was based for his raising to power, collapsed. The French president has not fulfilled any of his promises. And that is because the policy has been hampered by the harsh reality. What is this? It is the globalization that requires stronger competition among states. But in order to become competitive, country needs reforms that will reduce statism and make entrepreneurship more flexible and creative through research, innovation and new technologies. Hollande had to accept that. By appointing Manuel Valls as Prime Minister of France, it simultaneously marked the change of course. The French Prime Minister aligned with budgetary austerity while denounced it as "obsolete" in the words of the Marxist sense. Despite the reactions of his left-wing party, he continued and continues the "socialist liberalism". Can this happen with SYRIZA? Many of the officials have already changed the words and the proposals. But the postwar rhetoric remains as a phantom that threatens to lead our country into dangerous paths. Today, more than ever, we need a political discourse of realism, which will begin the phraseology of the European Union and will work for changes within it. The rhetoric of the new regime is an escape from the reality. May SYRIZA change its language, and may it change its word as it is not possible to live with phantoms, but with the dynamics of the present. This is political responsibility.

Demosthenes Davvetas
Jan 132015
 

”Hybrid wars”
When Russia first was engaged in war with Georgia and later with Ukraine, quite a few were talking about the return of “cold war”. When again President Obama and the US declared war against the Islamic caliphate, as many talked about war against terrorism. In both cases thoughts are automatically directed to events of the past. In the first case we think about war amongst CIA and KGB agents, interventions in neighboring countries for setting examples (Czechoslovakia, Hungary) all the analogies that the friction between Kennedy and Chrutsev provided. In the second case we think of a US military expedition like the one in Iraq or Afghanistan after the fall of the twin towers in 2001. Infantry, tanks, airplanes, modern weaponry, all in the service of the “good” as President Bush Jr. named those actions against the “evil” that was presented by they anti-democratic forces of Islam. Neither is occurring despite the current tension. What has changed? To start, Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore.the 1945 – 1989 era cannot be repeated. Because, at that time, perestroika emerged. It changed the Russian physiognomy and dismantled the Soviet model. Even Kremlin is not leading some international alliance under the prism of formatted ideology or any other socioeconomic system as the communist idea was. So Russia is not proposing any new ideas about word order. On top of that the daily routine resembles very much that of the west, while its economy is similar to the western standards. As a result President Putin, despite his ex KGB background is not a secretary that a Gorbatchof will succeed.
On the same note, the Islamic state does not operate like Al-Khaida, although it is Bin-Lnden’s offspring that dreamed of the caliphate. Caliphate Islamist operate differently. They do not engage in military confrontation. They blend in the crowd and they appear as sudden as they disappear, they provoke civil and religious battles in chaotic states such as Iraq, Syria and Libya. Air bombardment strikes them, but they learned to sneak out and reduce their losses. This way the force westerners, by not being able to find them as they are not regular army, to think that a battle on ground is necessary to end some war with the jihad. President Obama is reluctant to proceed the same way as in Iraq or Afghanistan, since he feels that the enemy is asymmetric and these battles are not as the tactical ones used to be. We are facing hybrid wars. President Putin and the Islamists are specialists. They used covert strategies, with humanitarian aid, economic punishment, media of provocation, or the propaganda of decapitating innocents or mass murdering through creation of Islam martyrs, that blow themselves up as human bombs geared with explosives. Wars are not as they used to be in their classical form. They are complex and unexpected. They lost their traditional simplicity and the opponents are present and absent, visible and invisible, and very complex. So the West is obliged to adapt quite often in the hybrid war reality. It would be preferable not to follow, the jihad military agenda, but to find ways to prevent the situations. To enforce the war agenda: The West needs its hybrid practice, something that is happening now in hybrid wars.
Demosthenes Davvetas
University Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to the Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras, on culture

My article, which was published at Paraskinio January 10th, titled
''Hybrid wars''
 When Russia first was engaged in war with Georgia and later with Ukraine, quite a few were talking about the return of “cold war”.  When again President Obama and the US declared war against the Islamic caliphate, as many talked about war against terrorism. In both cases thoughts are automatically directed to events of the past. In the first case we think about war amongst CIA and KGB agents, interventions in neighboring countries for setting examples (Czechoslovakia, Hungary) all the analogies that the friction between Kennedy and Chrutsev provided. In the second case we think of a US military expedition like the one in Iraq or Afghanistan after the fall of the twin towers in 2001. Infantry, tanks, airplanes, modern weaponry, all in the service of the “good” as President Bush Jr. named those actions against the “evil” that was presented by they anti-democratic forces of Islam. Neither is occurring despite the current tension. What has changed? To start, Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore.the 1945 – 1989 era cannot be repeated. Because, at that time, perestroika emerged. It changed the Russian physiognomy and dismantled the Soviet model. Even Kremlin is not leading some international alliance under the prism of formatted ideology or any other socioeconomic system as the communist idea was. So Russia is not proposing any new ideas about word order. On top of that the daily routine resembles very much that of the west, while its economy is similar to the western standards. As a result President Putin, despite his ex KGB background is not a secretary that a Gorbatchof will succeed. 
On the same note, the Islamic state does not operate like Al-Khaida, although it is Bin-Lnden’s offspring that dreamed of the caliphate. Caliphate Islamist operate differently. They do not engage in military confrontation. They blend in the crowd and they appear as sudden as they disappear, they provoke civil and religious battles in chaotic states such as Iraq, Syria and Libya. Air bombardment strikes them, but they learned to sneak out and reduce their losses. This way the force westerners, by not being able to find them as they are not regular army, to think that a battle on ground is necessary to end some war with the jihad.  President Obama is reluctant to proceed the same way as in Iraq or Afghanistan, since he feels that the enemy is asymmetric and these battles are not as the tactical ones used to be. We are facing hybrid wars. President Putin and the Islamists are specialists. They used covert strategies, with humanitarian aid, economic punishment, media of provocation, or the propaganda of decapitating innocents or mass murdering through creation of Islam martyrs, that blow themselves up  as human bombs geared with explosives. Wars are not as they used to be in their classical form. They are complex and unexpected. They lost their traditional simplicity and the opponents are present and absent, visible and invisible, and very complex. So the West is obliged to adapt quite often in the hybrid war reality. It would be preferable not to follow, the jihad military agenda, but to find ways to prevent the situations. To enforce the war agenda: The West needs its hybrid practice, something that is happening now in hybrid wars. 
Demosthenes Davvetas
University Professor, artist, poet
Advisor to the Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras, on culture
Jan 092015
 

“The Endgame?”

It is perhaps the first time since the dictatorship until today, I, as an active citizen, strongly feel like posing this excruciating question to my fellow citizens: ND or SYRIZA? At other times such dilemma would have been fun just as in a game with two players. This time, however, the threat can take us to the endgame, which reminds me of the namesake play written by Samuel Beckett. It threatens the end of the country’s European path. Would the Devil’s Advocate still call it scaremongering? Would you wish to terrorize and intimidate the world? None of these readers would. Let’s look at things with logics, which the creator Aristotle generously developed. So what does the logic say? On one hand there is the European Union with its rules. These rules apply to all countries participating in it. There is also the euro. And on the other hand, there is SYRIZA that wants to change the rules and to enforce its own magic solution. What does SYRIZA say? I do not pay my debts, because it is unfair and also because the world is suffering. It is true that the world has been unbearably overstrained in recent years due to the crisis. And we must find a solution to overcome this deadlock. But what if we refuse the debt with our own unilateral decision? Logic says that the other part of the conciliation will be refused by the side that has made so far, i.e. giving money. And this will cause the country to sink into chaos and misery. Ιs this scaremongering? No. This is the harsh reality. This is the Truth. It is funny that the SYRIZA members think that the Europeans are afraid of them. It is irresponsible to play dice on the homeland. Then what is this metaphysical belief of SYRIZA, that we will altogether convince the Europeans to change? It is the belief in the cult of power. Let us take the power they say and see. If we have to be overthrown, it will claim that we were forced to do so because Samaras could not change everything even though he tried to accelerate. If you default, it will tell the world that bad Europeans blackmailed us and punished us. So in both cases we are vindicative patriots. And yet: in both cases the country is lost. The Greece is threatened with destruction. So that leads to the logic of SYRIZA. In deadlock. The deterioration of the initial state that it wants to correct. Conversely, ND does not support magic and prefers reality as it is shaped in Europe. It does not offer dream of revolutions and expectation for bankrupt. It insists on the way of good faith and cooperation with partners. This responsible attitude does not endanger the Greece and the Greeks. The first two years were the years of consolidation. The next two will be those of growth. SYRIZA, with its attitude at the presidential election, stopped this growth path, on which we should to keep going. And in order to do this, the ND must be authorized to complete its work. And the Greek people can do so with their votes.

Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Eleytheros Typos today January 8th, titled<br />
The Endgame?</p>
<p>It is perhaps the first time since the dictatorship until today, I, as an active citizen, strongly feel like posing this excruciating question to my fellow citizens: ND or SYRIZA? At other times such dilemma would have been fun just as in a game with two players. This time, however, the threat can take us to the endgame, which reminds me of the namesake play written by Samuel Beckett. It threatens the end of the country's European path. Would the Devil's Advocate still call it scaremongering? Would you wish to terrorize and intimidate the world? None of these readers would. Let's look at things with logics, which the creator Aristotle generously developed. So what does the logic say? On one hand there is the European Union with its rules. These rules apply to all countries participating in it. There is also the euro. And on the other hand, there is SYRIZA that wants to change the rules and to enforce its own magic solution. What does SYRIZA say? I do not pay my debts, because it is unfair and also because the world is suffering. It is true that the world has been unbearably overstrained in recent years due to the crisis. And we must find a solution to overcome this deadlock. But what if we refuse the debt with our own unilateral decision? Logic says that the other part of the conciliation will be refused by the side that has made so far, i.e. giving money. And this will cause the country to sink into chaos and misery. Ιs this scaremongering? No. This is the harsh reality. This is the Truth. It is funny that the SYRIZA members think that the Europeans are afraid of them. It is irresponsible to play dice on the homeland. Then what is this metaphysical belief of SYRIZA, that we will altogether convince the Europeans to change? It is the belief in the cult of power. Let us take the power they say and see. If we have to be overthrown, it will claim that we were forced to do so because Samaras could not change everything even though he tried to accelerate. If you default, it will tell the world that bad Europeans blackmailed us and punished us. So in both cases we are vindicative patriots. And yet: in both cases the country is lost. The Greece is threatened with destruction. So that leads to the logic of SYRIZA. In deadlock. The deterioration of the initial state that it wants to correct. Conversely, ND does not support magic and prefers reality as it is shaped in Europe. It does not offer dream of revolutions and expectation for bankrupt. It insists on the way of good faith and cooperation with partners. This responsible attitude does not endanger the Greece and the Greeks. The first two years were the years of consolidation. The next two will be those of growth. SYRIZA, with its attitude at the presidential election, stopped this growth path, on which we should to keep going. And in order to do this, the ND must be authorized to complete its work. And the Greek people can do so with their votes.</p>
<p>                                                                                       Demosthenes Davvetas
Jan 052015
 

The “Wreck” and SYRIZA

The electoral period was marked by an unpleasant event at the outset. It was the fire in the ship, “Norman Atlantic”, the dead and the missing people. This event could be used as a sad metaphor. The ship is the country heading to the destination: Europe and the end of the Memorandum. And the fire is the result of some inadvertent and irresponsible actions of passengers, who were traveling. Now again, if passengers are the metaphor of SYRIZA, then one can easily make the parallelism. A normal course of the country may be subverted easily by the fire. And here one can ask, “but is it so dangerous? Are you scaremongering?” Unfortunately, the answer is no. I am not being an alarmist. I am simply shedding light on and point out the reality. When you have agreed on a path and you then change it, many risks could be imposed. And most significantly, it could break the confidence of lenders in the country. Our credibility is lost. Why you don’t accept someone, who does business, decides towards the end of the course in order to change direction. And most importantly, in contrast to the wish of the majority of the Greek people. Most Greek people do not want elections, they wish to avoid the risk of sinking. They may grumble, but they liked silently even when the country was beginning to be in order. How is it possible that a student who start going to the classes again, now begins to think the dissolution of universities would resume, because of the possible coming of SYRIZA in power? How is it possible that a taxpayer who started paying its settings, now threatens not to pay by seeing others around him, because they hope that SYRIZA government would change everything? You can even mention other examples. But in one place, I wish to emphasize. Let us now hear it as axiomatic opposition. We no longer live in the era of Keynesians logic worldwide, i.e. the logic of the theory of Keynes, which gives more weight to demand rather than to supply. We live in another era, that of Schumpeterian. And in the theory of Schumpeter, the weight is given to the first bid and after to the demand. It indicates that we innovate, research, create and become competitive in the markets. The habit of loans is disappearing in general and worldwide. More self-sufficient and self-generating a country is, it progresses. The public and the statism must be alleviated if the minimum limit is necessary. Thus, only citizens-individuals will unleash their entrepreneurial imagination, and will energize the dynamic creativity in the service of his country. You will see a new Greece that will stand on its feet.

Demosthenes Davvetas

My article, which was published at Eleytheros Typos January 2nd, titled
The “Wreck” and SYRIZA

The electoral period was marked by an unpleasant event at the outset. It was the fire in the ship, "Norman Atlantic", the dead and the missing people. This event could be used as a sad metaphor. The ship is the country heading to the destination: Europe and the end of the Memorandum. And the fire is the result of some inadvertent and irresponsible actions of passengers, who were traveling. Now again, if passengers are the metaphor of SYRIZA, then one can easily make the parallelism. A normal course of the country may be subverted easily by the fire. And here one can ask, “but is it so dangerous? Are you scaremongering?” Unfortunately, the answer is no. I am not being an alarmist. I am simply shedding light on and point out the reality. When you have agreed on a path and you then change it, many risks could be imposed. And most significantly, it could break the confidence of lenders in the country. Our credibility is lost. Why you don’t accept someone, who does business, decides towards the end of the course in order to change direction. And most importantly, in contrast to the wish of the majority of the Greek people. Most Greek people do not want elections, they wish to avoid the risk of sinking. They may grumble, but they liked silently even when the country was beginning to be in order. How is it possible that a student who start going to the classes again, now begins to think the dissolution of universities would resume, because of the possible coming of SYRIZA in power? How is it possible that a taxpayer who started paying its settings, now threatens not to pay by seeing others around him, because they hope that SYRIZA government would change everything? You can even mention other examples. But in one place, I wish to emphasize. Let us now hear it as axiomatic opposition. We no longer live in the era of Keynesians logic worldwide, i.e. the logic of the theory of Keynes, which gives more weight to demand rather than to supply. We live in another era, that of Schumpeterian. And in the theory of Schumpeter, the weight is given to the first bid and after to the demand. It indicates that we innovate, research, create and become competitive in the markets. The habit of loans is disappearing in general and worldwide. More self-sufficient and self-generating a country is, it progresses. The public and the statism must be alleviated if the minimum limit is necessary. Thus, only citizens-individuals will unleash their entrepreneurial imagination, and will energize the dynamic creativity in the service of his country. You will see a new Greece that will stand on its feet.

Demosthenes Davvetas