“To those who are triggered by Greta”.

There are a lot of discussions, pictures and memes circulating social media for the past year, that are mainly focusing on politicians, Brexit, Donald Trump and other celebrities. 

However, one person that does not fit in the above categories and has made the whole world talking, is a 16-year-old from Sweden.

Greta Thunberg, the daughter of two Swedish celebrities, became known for her activism in her home country in August 2018 at the age of 15. She started sitting out the Swedish Parliament with a sign saying, “School strike for Climate,” yet soon she was not alone.

Together with other students from other communities, they have organized the Fridays for Future Movement, a school climate strike. That movement became global and after Greta’s 2018 UN Climate Change Conference speech, student strikes are taking place every week somewhere in the world, involving millions of participants.

One would have thought that the achievements of this young lady would inspire and be applaudable, however she also attracts scores of negative comments and publications around her image, cause, age and disabilities.

It is a pity that so many people cannot see the good that can come out of her initiative. Over the past few months that I have been following Greta’s presence in social media, I came across numerous articles, comments and memes, claiming that climate change is not real, that she is funded by George Soros, or even more disturbingly making fun of her Asperger’s syndrome, her looks and speech abilities.

I won’t even bother commenting on the later, malicious commentary; however, it is evident that Greta has hit a nerve in many. It is either a fear of change that leads to denial, perhaps coupled with vested interests that hide behind the intentions of such individuals. Or perhaps it is simply envy; a young girl with disabilities, have managed to sit face to face with many world leaders and address them.

Instead of applauding, they chose to slander. I personally have a niece and in all honesty if I would like her to be inspired by anyone and choose a role model, I would prefer if that was Greta and not someone from “Love Island” or any other reality TV program, that shamefully promote a distorted cause for fame.

And I find it very peculiar how some are skeptical about the funding she gets to engage in her activism. Obviously, she receives funding from somewhere, otherwise how could she at that age, cross the Atlantic on a boat? Her parents are celebrities in her home country, so from that aspect, it should be easy for her to attract investments, never mind her newfound fame.

But if this is what we should be focusing on, then why don’t we do the same for her critics and in fact all our politicians? We do not really seek to know who funds any of our elected representatives or journalists, knowing the fact that all electoral campaigns are partially privately funded, and all journalists are getting paid by someone.

Additionally, even if for one moment we accept that climate change is not as serious as some think and calls like Greta’s are in vain, well would it harm anyone to switch to more environmentally friendly industries and finally live more harmoniously with our planet’s ecosystem?

Besides, science and evidence do not lie, however let us for one moment entertain the skeptics. Must we only change our industries and way of life, if the climate change is man-made, I wonder.

Since we have found alternatives to our energy needs, or ways to reduce our one-use plastic addiction, pollution and irresponsible wastage of our natural resources, then why we should be compelled to do something about it, only if we are convinced that climate change will destroy us.

Thus, it comes apparent that it is her critics that should be scrutinized of their intentions and funding. They could be simply trolls that target a young ambitious girl with disabilities, or maybe people who fear the change she brings with her actions in all levels.

Imagine if all young people followed her example, if industries were forced to change to more environmentally friendly practices or if we collectively stopped eating meat, traveling by plane, etc. Our whole economic model would have to be altered and that is not only frightening to some, but it will also be devastating to their pockets.

In addition, Greta’s success could mean a more engaged and vigilant future generation, socially, politically and environmentally that would send shivers down the spines of many of our elites, that are used to make decisions unchallenged, promoting the financial interests of the few.

On the other hand, Greta’s haters can simply be losers. Underachievers, that envy the drive and success of this young girl, because she simply reminds them of all the chances they did not take, all the times they should really have made a stand and express their ideas without fear, but they didn’t. Yet she not only did, but succeeded in it.

Greta Thunberg has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and is personally liaising with many world leaders, scientists and academics. If only every each of us have decided to make a difference in this world, in any way we thought most appropriate, perhaps we would not be bothered by Greta’s actions, rather be focusing on our own very causes. 

She is calling for a radical change in all levels in our society, politics, economy and lifestyle; that is terrifying for sure and that is why many chose to try and keep her quiet. However, one thing is even more terrifying and that is a future where Greta was right about everything and the world chose not to listen, but mock and silence her.

Finally, we don’t have to adopt all of Greta’s vision for the future. If each one of us made just a small change in their lifestyle, if the only promise we made was to manage our resources better and limit our impact and pollution in our environment, then ultimately it would be for our own benefit, not Greta’s.

Religion’s role in Europe needs to be redefined.

Europe is becoming an increasingly liberal, tolerant, modernized and irreligious continent; however, this transformation does not happen at the same pace in every country.

Besides, we observe a rising trend of nationalism, xenophobia and conservatism that often not only questions the permanency of those changes, but also brings back dark pages of Europe’s history that a lot of us would like to leave in the past.

One of the most remarkable developments that occurred in our continent during the past few decades, is the acceptance of almost of all our minority groups, such as the LGBT community.

While not so long ago, people had to hide their sexual orientation or face imprisonment, exclusion, expulsion from their job, rejection by their families, daily ridicule, bullying and intimidation, nowadays LGBT individuals can finally be accepted for what they are; a valuable asset of every society and equal members of it.

Yet, there are still many that see the change of attitudes towards not just homosexuals, but ultimately every person’s sexuality as a threat, or something that needs to be analysed and explained with anathema or outdated, pseudoscience.

Instead of finally accepting that each person’s sexuality is as unique and different as its personality and it is linked to its ability to identify, express and think itself freely, many want to box this side of human nature into two categories that they have learnt to think as “normal”.

Sadly, among the harshest critics not just of the LGBT community, but any “deviant” form of sexual relationship can still be found among our religious leaders. Funnily enough all those priests, bishops and other church representatives, think of themselves as people of “God”, that reflect somehow the divine love for all humanity, apart of course from those who are born “different.”

In Poland, a country that had initially a promising European path when it joined the EU-before it allowed its religious and political conservatism to get the better of it- the archbishop of Krakow, Marek Jedraszewski has recently made some outrageous public comments.

At a homily to mark the 75th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising, he warned of a "rainbow plague", reflecting the ongoing tensions in the country over gay rights. The archbishop compared the increasing demand for LGBT rights, with its communist past that “took control of the country’s peoples’ souls, hearts and minds."

By linking Polish citizen’s human rights to the country’s former communist administration, he intentionally tried to associate LGBT activists to the authoritarian and oppressive past of the country.

Obviously, the only argument he can use to convince his compatriots of his bitter homophobic tirade, is to compare gay individuals to something that the people of Poland have very bad memories of and loath.

The Polish Catholic Church, sadly used to stand as a bastion of national identity, intellectual freedom and hope during the decades that Poland was under communist rule, but now it rather represents all that is bigoted.

As the country made the leap and joined the EU, a club that is comprised by some of the world’s richest and most progressive nations, Poland should have anticipated that together with the economic reforms and benefits, come the social ones too.

And since most of the Western European nations have decided to offer LGBT individuals the recognition and security of the human rights which they deserve, then how can Poland refuse its own citizens theirs?

It doesn’t make sense to have half of Europe offering full rights to members of this minority group, while the other half refusing to modernize on such issues, while maintaining the free movement of individuals and an EU citizenship. Under those circumstances, Europe is forced to resemble America of the ‘50s, when in some states African Americans enjoyed certain rights while in others they did not.

How can the religious elite of Poland justify hate speech towards a considerable percentage of the country’s citizens, portraying them as the enemy, a plague and something as oppressive as the communist regime; the irony in this is that they are the intolerant ones and the persecutors.

Why do they hate LGBT activists so much, people which are only fighting for equal rights with the rest of their society, like recognition and acceptance, something that especially in countries like Poland, a nation that fought so hard to maintain its identity and freedom, should at least be admired.

Yet it is not just in Poland, that religious conservatism has become a toxic, bitter and often laughable example. The same week a Church of Cyprus bishop, Neophytos Masouras, in a speech describing that homosexual (male) children develop when pregnant women are having anal sex!

He went on to claim that homosexuality is a “problem” that is transmitted by the parent to the child by engaging in “unnatural” sexual acts. However, if for a minute we accept that his theory is correct, then how can he explain the existence of lesbian women, or other “problematic” individuals?

His peculiar justifications and explanations are based on the “teachings” of a Greek Orthodox saint named Porphyrios, who died in 1991 and tried to advice all homosexuals that their lives should be dominated by celibacy and constant prayer to rid of their “tendencies”.

Porhyrios believed that when a woman enjoys anal sex during her pregnancy, a desire is created, and then the desire is passed on to the child. Simple as that. Of course, it is doubtable if Porhyrios, Neophytos or any of their naive followers have bothered to study any scientific analysis on homosexuality or listen to members of the LGBT community on their experiences and challenges they are facing in modern times.

These two examples are coming from high ranked religious representatives in Europe in 2019. Both Cyprus and Poland are EU members, relatively developed economically and socially, politically stable, democratic and with a highly educated population.

Yet somehow, it is allowed for priests to speak about things they do not understand, thus should not have a say on, plus project their own bitter, outdated, uneducated and spiteful views on people that often need support, acceptance and love; something the all religions in Europe claim that they offer to their followers.

Members of the LGBT community have proven that are highly valuable in a society, since they are very active and creative-if we only allow them to be. They often hold key positions in politics, arts, education, civil administration, health and medicine, sports, entertainment or science.

They could be your brothers, your children, sons, daughters, sisters, but also your own fathers and mothers. How can anyone allow such ignorant and hateful comments to be made regarding them, especially coming from the Catholic Church which itself has a lot to answer for, regarding millions of sexual child abuse cases across the world.

As for trying to explain how homosexuals are being born, religious representatives should leave such attempts to science, it is not their field. Religion in modern Europe if it is to survive, it will have to drastically reform itself and stop following doctrine which was conceived by men with limited education, centuries or even millennia before our times.

The purpose of religious leaders in our continent, should not be to judge people of how to be basically themselves or live their lives, rather to offer them guidance in their spiritual search. They should offer unconditional love and support, rather target anyone who does not feel cisgender with fascist-like intolerance.

Times have changed and with them our societies and thus, the people living in them. We cannot allow such men to poison the minds and hearts of people against their fellow humans. Any religious organisation, dogma and sect should discourage their representatives from promoting such doctrine, as it is harmful not only to our society but the religious bodies themselves.

How do they expect for young individuals to join any religion that does not accept them or a member of their family, plus refers to them with such diminutive manner, without any justification or evidence, rather the preaching of men who lived centuries ago in a society totally different than ours.

Can we maintain such attitudes or beliefs in our modern societies and if we accept this for LGBT people and activists, then why not for women, ethnic and religious minorities, people with disabilities, migrants and even children?

If we resist change and progress when it comes to attitudes towards homosexuals, then why not regress to the times when we jailed men who had sex with men, when women could not vote or own property, children had to work, slavery being normal and interracial marriages were forbidden. This is not the Europe we should aspire to live in.

We need to establish across our continent, the same basic human rights of all communities and if that challenges some narrow-minded bigoted fascists that hide their true nature behind religion and priesthood, then shame of the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish or any other established religious body and authority that exists in Europe nowadays, for allowing them to hijack religion, in order to spread their hatred and ignorance.

LGBT people do not need to be excused or their existence explained to be accepted, they just need the later. They do not need to be patronized, feared, forced to repent, ridiculed or hated, they need equal opportunities to showcase their talents and contribute to the progress of humanity and its civilization, as they always have done.

Is Macron's plan for a single European army and defense mechanism good for Europe?

Ever since his election in May 2017, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, has been very vocal on several necessary reforms on pan-European level. His overall view is seemingly very keen on deepening the European integration process in the future.

And while some of his plans found strong opposition by Germany and many smaller EU member states, there is one which President Macron is eager to push ahead; the formation of a European single army.

He has repeatedly called for Europe to establish its own defense mechanism and limit its reliance on USA’s military, for its protection. Something of course that has the support of the European federalists in our continent and has been long been discussed in these circles.

Undoubtedly, there is a strong sense of movement towards this direction and goal. The renewal of the Franco-German treaty recently signed in Aachen, pledging deeper economic and defense ties between the two, as well as commitment to the EU, plus the appointment of Ursula von der Leyen as EU Commission President, a German former Minister of Defense and strong supporter of Macron’s plan are seen by many as a prelude.

However, no one can ignore a few problems in this plan. First, what will Europe’s relationship with America be after such development. The two continents have been the two pillars of the most powerful military alliance on this planet, NATO. A rift between the two according to many Euro-Atlanticists, would considerably weaken the West and left it exposed to threats from Russia, China and others.

Secondly, many EU member states have been neutral since WW2 or even before that. How could they compromise their neutrality, to join a military alliance?

Yet, the first step towards a single European defense mechanism has already been taken and it’s called PESCO, which even neutral EU member states like Ireland, Finland, Austria and Sweden have signed. It all remains now to see how this will be developed, progressed and deepened.

A lot of people fear or are skeptical of Europe’s intended militarization, especially in these traditionally neutral nations. But until we have a clear view on what the Franco-German alliance is aiming with this plan, we can only speculate the outcome.

Europe needs a debate on its future defense, although it should not be one of its priorities right now. How can Macron convince the European population that struggles with unemployment, a divided EU with an increasing Euro-skepticism and an overall lack of enthusiasm, populism, xenophobia and an environmental crisis, that the future he promises for them relies on a single EU army?

Well, USA and Europe have had enough differences lately and Donald Trump’s presidency has considerably undermined their alliance. From tax wars and tariffs, to disagreements on NATO’s budget, the Western alliance either many like it or not, has reached a turning point.

Can Europe always rely on America for its protection and with what political and economic cost? If our continent is ever to become a global player, it will need to stop being under America’s shade and that includes its defense.

To achieve this goal, Europe needs its own foreign policy and to do that, it needs to stop relying on USA for its protection. Besides, it is unclear if Americans themselves are willing to pay for it any longer, as President Trump’s remarks on NATO’s budget often suggest.

Another point is the need to demilitarize and cut down on arms expenditure throughout Europe and ultimately the world. Realistically, there are few enemies that can seriously harm our continent, especially if we stay united and establish our own collective defense mechanism.

The worse threat that we are faced with now is not a military one, rather cyber-attacks or internal security and perhaps that is one field that we need to spend money on. There is no need to use bogeymen like Russia, Turkey, China or some Arab and Middle Eastern states still, in order to excuse large military expenditure and industries.

And if we use better diplomacy and trade ties instead, Europe could eliminate any potential threat. Why keep Russia for example always as an enemy that we need to protect ourselves from-with expensive missile purchases and installments of course- while it is unclear if Russians really want to destroy Europe, one of their largest trade partners for their oil and gas.

In addition, it is questionable in we truly need NATO currently. This alliance has been unable to protect Greece from another of its members, Turkey. The two countries have been in an ever-increasing arms race, to the detriment of both nations’ economies and the benefit of those arms industries of their allies.

For decades the two countries were “encouraged” to buy more arms to protect one from the other, while belonging to the same alliance. Even when Greece was seeking a bail-out from its European partners and the IMF, some of its EU creditors allegedly offered their help in return for arms sale deals.

While under its bail-out program, Greece still purchased two dozen F-16 fighter jets from USA, two submarines from Germany and several helicopters and frigate ships from France. All at the cost of billions of euros.

One could wonder how Greece’s allies could be happy with those transactions, then have the nerve to lecture the country on its “irresponsible” expenditures. At the peak of the euro-zone crisis, when words exchanged between the Greek and German government officials turned sour, a lot of allegations were made about dealings and corruption that involved Greek arms purchases from Germany.

The indebted country is one of the largest military equipment importers of the world, behind only India, China, UAE and South Korea. It has double the number of tanks than that of Britain and one of the largest submarine fleets in Europe. All that, with the excuse that it needs to protect itself from its NATO ally, Turkey.

It is evident that this military alliance, serves no other purpose anymore than a huge market of arms, that weaker countries are encouraged, forced, coerced or bribed to buy military equipment that they do not need, in order to make the richer countries, well even richer.

Greece’s three main arms providers are USA, Germany and France, with Italy, Britain and the Netherlands following; all its NATO allies. Greece is coming second only to USA in the alliance, of the countries that fulfill the 2% NATO guideline on its members GDP share on expenditure.

Most others, even much richer countries like Luxembourg, Norway, Germany itself, Belgium, Denmark or Canada fall short of this guideline, with only Britain, Estonia and Poland contributing to the alliance’s expenditure requirements, their agreed share.

So if you asked me if I would like to maintain Greece’s NATO membership the answer would be a resounding no. Many Greeks see the formation of a European army as a hope, a NATO alternative to which perhaps we would not have to contribute as much and spent a large share of our GDP on weaponry that we don’t need, only to maintain this alliance and enrich its most powerful members.

But would a European army offer Greece such relief, or we could end up paying double, maintaining two alliances for “protection”? One of the main reasons that many of my Irish friends are skeptical of a European army, is that they see it as Europe’s militarization attempt and a trap set by the Franco-Germans to make them pay more into their arms industries.

If what President Macron has in mind is another European version of NATO, with the only difference being, the French or the Germans are in command instead of the Americans, forcing smaller nations to enrich their arms industries-just like they have been doing to Greece all of these years, then naturally no one should support such idea.

However, Europe needs a new or alternative defense plan and that is impossible under the current arrangements to achieve. With strong US arms industry interests involved, plus the competition they face from their European counterparts, our continent is doomed to this circle of high military expenditure, that we don’t, or we should not need.

While I stand with the neutral EU member states in opposing further militarization and arms expenditure, they also need to understand that other nations were not as lucky as them during the post-war arrangements in our continent. Besides, how could they enjoy the stability and peace in the continent, if others did not secure Europe’s borders?

Greece found itself in NATO for better or worse, which in the past served as a buffer zone for the expansion of the Soviet threat. Now that the Soviets are gone, why do we still need to invest so much money on weaponry?

Since our EU partners want to appear as good Europeans, they should understand that helping Greece and other nations at the borders of Europe is crucial, yet not with more bailouts. Countries like France and Germany should stop using smaller nations to support their own economies, while neutral nations like Ireland, should allow-even if they opt out in the end- the consideration of a NATO alternative, if it is beneficial to the economies of their partners.

And if you question why should you help Greece, if it wants to spend its money on German submarines, then accept the fact that the next time that its economy will fail because it is forced to support the NATO arms industries, it will be your money that will be used to bail it out and ultimately you will be inevitably contributing to the purchases of US F-16s.

Once PESCO and the Franco-German plan offer an alternative defense mechanism for Europe, a renewed version away from the outdated, riddled with corruption and arms sales NATO, which coordinates the existing European armies rather solely forces them to increase their expenditure, plus it focuses on cyber security and policing, then it gets my vote.

We should not fall for scaremongering about forced conscription and “militarization”, upcoming wars and expansionist invasions, that many of the plan’s dubious opponents often use as arguments to stop such development. There is no evidence that such things are on the agenda. We need to think rationally and preferably collectively on what is best for our future.

Migrations and inbreeding are at the heart of the history of our species.

In recent years both Europe and the USA, have increasingly witnessed fears about the impact of immigration, that have almost managed to rip apart the European Union.

Yet scientists are delivering new answers to the question of European identity and ancestry. Their findings suggest that the continent has been a melting pot since the Ice Age.

People populating Europe today, are a varying mix of ancient bloodlines hailing from Africa, the Middle East, and the Russian steppe. (National Geographic)

In addition, scientists made another astonishing discovery. In southern Greece and Bulgaria, they found bones and teeth of ‘El Greco’, a new human ancestor species, that of Graecopithecus Freybergi.

All remains of early ‘hominids’ discovered until now, have been African. But towards the end of the second World War, German soldiers building a bunker in occupied Greece found part of a fossilized jawbone with human-like features.

Then, in 2009, an ancient tooth was discovered in southern Bulgaria. Until the date at which El Greco lived was determined, the dominant evolution theory was that humans have roots in Africa. Yet now El Greco has become our earliest known pre-human ancestor and he was European.

These remains suggest that modern humans evolved in the Balkan region. The lower jaw of the 7.175 million year old Graecopithecus Freybergi from Pyrgos Vassilissis, in Greece suggests that human ancestors were present in the Balkans before they were in Africa. (Irish Examiner)

The above finding, should seriously make us reevaluate all that we thought about human evolution and the history of our own species. Is it possible that we didn't evolve in Africa, or at least not just in that continent, consequently escaping in one or numerous big migrations to conquer the rest of the Earth?

Could there be a possibility that humans and other humanoid species, evolved in many parts of the world, just like many other animals and through migration, crossbreeding and evolution managed to populate every corner of our planet, in all different forms and subspecies?

What I found very astonishing and hard to understand or accept from the dominant "out of Africa" theory, is that in just 200,000-300,000 years as this theory suggests, humans managed not only to cover vast amounts of land on foot to populate the whole of the globe,but adapt in new and ever changing environments and also evolve in all the different races and ethnic groups that are known today.

All that, by just a handful of early members of the Sapiens species, that against all odds managed to get all other humanoids extinct, replacing their populations with no obvious physical trace, establishing one large single species of humanity that created our modern civilization.

Yet we are willingly and purposely deluding ourselves, perhaps because of our need for a pure national identity, or even worse, our guilt of the crimes and atrocities we committed to other fellow humans in the past. With a deep rooted romantic view of humanity due to religion, philosophy and our arrogance as a species, since we do not see ourselves as animals that fall under evolutionary rules, we cannot accept that other human species may have had an influence in our modern humanity.

In addition, we refuse to accept our most primal need and habit; immigration. We constantly try to find new ways and laws to prevent it or control it, but let's be honest about it, we have this trait deep within us since the dawn of our existence on this planet.

In fact, every single first major human civilization occurred, where continents met, people mingled and mixed, fought each other, interacted and exchanged ideas. And not just in antiquity. 

There is evidence for interbreeding between archaic and modern humans during the Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic. The interbreeding happened in several independent events that included Neanderthals and Denisovans, as well as several unidentified hominids.

In Eurasia, interbreeding between Neanderthals and Denisovans with modern humans took place several times. The introgression events into modern humans is estimated to have happened about 47,000–65,000 years ago with Neanderthals and about 44,000–54,000 years ago with Denisovans.

Neanderthal-derived DNA was found in the genome of contemporary populations in Europe and Asia. It accounted for 1–4% of modern genomes, although estimates may vary. Neanderthal-derived ancestry is absent from most modern populations in sub-Saharan Africa, while Denisovan-derived ancestry is absent from modern populations in Western Eurasia and Africa.

However, in Africa, archaic alleles consistent with several independent admixture events in the subcontinent have been found. It is currently unknown who these archaic African hominids were.
(Wikipedia)

And if you think that inter-species inbreeding and hybridization is something impossible, currently there are numerous living examples. A grizzly–polar bear hybrid, is a rare "ursid" that has occurred both in captivity and in the wild.

In 2006, the occurrence of this hybrid in nature was confirmed by testing the DNA of a unique-looking bear that had been shot in the Canadian Arctic. The number of confirmed hybrids has since risen to eight.

Genetic analysis has revealed multiple instances of introgressive hybridization between bear species, including introgression of polar bear DNA into brown bears during the Pleistocene. (Wikipedia)

In addition, the “eastern coyote” or "coywolf", has colonized the forests of eastern North America. New genetic tests show that all eastern coyotes are actually a mix of three species: coyote, wolf and dog. The percentages vary, dependent upon exactly which test is applied and the geographic location of the canine.

Coyotes in the Northeast are mostly (60%-84%) coyote, with lesser amounts of wolf (8%-25%) and dog (8%-11%). Start moving south or east and this mixture slowly changes. (IFL Science)

So if hybridization can happen in bears and dogs and we are so fascinated and ready to accept and study it, why is it so hard to accept that we as humans, have also been mongrels at some stage? In fact, this gene diversity could be what gives us that amazing variety in our skin color, shape of eyes, texture and color of our hair, stature and so on.

If early humans interbred with other humanoids and then among themselves in their migrations, then we could easily see how this diversity of ours could take place in such a sort time, rather try to explain it in evolutionary and climate factors, like the cold climate, sun exposure and high altitude, which could have a secondary role in human evolutionary morphology.

Furthermore, this reality casts a doubt in any effort to preserve racial purity, or halt immigration by building high walls, since we are all a result of crossbreeding, migration and constant mixing between different human and humanoid groups. 

Ever since the time of the ancient Greek Stoic philosophers that have introduced us to the ideas of cosmopolitanism, followed by Christianity and other religions that were inclusive to all their followers despite their ethnic origins, we see ourselves as one species, one single group of humanity; as we should.

Even more recently in modern times, globalization also makes it necessary for less nationalism, more open borders, less protectionism and the reinforcement of the idea of one human race, living in brotherhood, peace and constant collaboration for a common good and betterment. And rightly so.

But why our vision for a better future, must stand in the way of finding who we really are? Are we so immature to accept that in our past, we were nomads and of mixed ancestry, something that is still very much present today in all continents.

The fact that there has never been an ethnically pure nation, nor racially or even as a species, should actually make us more relaxed about immigration and willing to mingle and come in contact with people of other backgrounds. Sadly, it rather has the opposite effect.

We are reluctant in accepting the fact that the differences among our species, are something to be celebrated, studied and accepted as a proud badge from our time on this planet, it is our heritage and past, rather feel awkward about it.

Because what we fear is that if we openly accept that some of us have partially different gene background, immediately some groups will grasp this opportunity to divide us and spread hate and fear for one another, just like in the past, with horrendous consequences.

In the name of some absurd racial purity or supremacy and superiority, we have enslaved, butchered and annihilated other human beings, in an effort to control them and erase their culture and heritage, together with themselves. Haven't we still learned from our past mistakes I wonder.

Finally, wouldn't it be a great and long delayed recognition to our other human cousins, of their contribution to the modern humanity and perhaps not just with DNA exchanged, rather cultural ones as well.

What if the first Sapiens to enter Europe learned to survive the harsh environment that existed in our continent back then, because of their inbreeding and mingling with the dwindling in numbers Neanderthals. Maybe the latter did not just pass their genes to us, but also their ability to deal with harsh winters.

Since all Europeans are deriving from three major human ancestral groups, which in their turn could have been the outcome of other human or humanoid populations, we understand that we are the product of all these people, of all these migrations and different ethnic, racial, human species or subspecies groups and we owe who we are to all the above.

So instead of sitting comfortably in fear towards migration and bigotry towards the migrants, maybe it is time to accept that change has made us who we are and will continue to do so long after we are gone.

Not that immigration does not pose any challenges and problems that should be addressed and dealt with. Nor that we should be ashamed to feel the need to identify ourselves as part of an ethnic group, maintain our culture and pass it on to the next generation. This is after all what all the humans before us have been doing and that is why we have inherited such a rich and diverse cultural legacy.

But this cultural identity is not just our own, it belongs to all humanity, everyone of us is part of it. And if immigration, multiculturalism and cultural differences or clashes cause some problems, no need to fret, they have always been challenging and sometimes destructive. Yet in the long term, these problems should not stop us from being what we have always been; pioneering, migrating, mingling humans of all kinds. 

Η Ευρώπη αλλάζει στις Ευρωεκλογές του 2019, μα η Ελλάδα παραμένει ίδια.

Τα αποτελέσματα των Ευρωεκλογών του 2019 τον περασμένο Μαΐο, έδειξαν την εικόνα μιας Ευρώπης που αλλάζει και εξελίσσεται. 

Η ήπειρος μας πλέον δεν διαχωρίζεται στους παλιούς πολιτικούς και ιδεολογικούς αντιπάλους των περασμένων δεκατιών, τους Σοσιαλιστές και τους Συντηριτικούς-Χριστιανοδημοκράτες.

Νέα κόμματα και πολιτικά ρεύματα έχουν καταφέρει να αποσπάσουν σημαντικό ποσοστό υποστήριξης των Ευρωπαίων ψηφοφόρων, αν και στην Ελλάδα δείχνουμε σημάδια παλινδρόμησης, συντηρητισμού και κυκλοθυμίας.

Το θετικό γεγονός είναι πως οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες, ίσως ως απόρροια του Brexit, αποφάσισαν να κινητοποιηθούν και να λάβουν μέρος σε αυτές τις εκλογές. Το ποσοστό συμμετοχής των Ευρωεκλογών το 2019, ήταν το υψηλότερο των τελευταίων 15 ετών.

Επίσης θετικό είναι το γεγονός, πως παρά την συνεχή ανέλιξη της ακροδεξιάς και των Ευρωσκεπτικιστών στα Ευρωπαϊκά πολιτικά δρώμενα, δεν κατάφεραν και αυτή την φορά να συγκεντρώσουν μια αποφασιστική πλειοψηφία.

Φυσικά και είναι ανησυχητικό το γεγονός ότι οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες-όπως αναμενόταν- στράφηκαν πρός τον λαΐκισμό και τον εθνικισμό : το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο θα είναι πεδίο μαχών εθνικών και προσωπικών συμεφερόντων, αντί να προωθεί και να θεσπίζει την πρόοδο μιας ενιαίας ηπείρου.

Αλλά παρά τις δυσκολίες και εμπόδια που ένας τέτοιος κοινοβουλευτικός σχηματισμός θα επιφέρει, υπάρχουν και ενθαρρυντικές ενδείξεις πως οι Ευρωπαίοι αποφασίζουν το μέλλον τους συλλεκτικά και σύμφωνα με τα τρέχοντα προβλήματα που τους απασχολούν.

Παρά τις προσπάθειες τους, οι Ευρωσκεπτικιστές και τα εθνικιστικά κόμματα είναι διασπασμένοι σε τρία γκρουπ, τους ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists), το ID (Identity and Democracy) και EFDD (Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy). Μαζί αποτελούν το 24% περίπου του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου, κάτι που θα αλλάξει δραστικά όταν το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο αποσυρθεί από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

Οι τρεις αυτές πολιτικές παρατάξεις, παρά τις ομοιότητες τους και τους κοινούς τους στόχους, έχουν ώς προτεραιότητα τα εθνικά συμφέροντα των κρατών μελών που αντιπροσωπεύουν, καθώς και διαφορετική ιδεολογία, κοινωνικό και οικονομικό υπόβαθρο και εθνική αντίληψη.

Θα είναι ενδιαφέρον να παρατηρηθεί κατά πόσο θα μπορέσουν τα κόμματα αυτά να συντονιστούν, και ακόμα πιο σημαντικά να επανεκλεγούν. Ειδικά όταν οι Φιλελεύθεροι και οι Πράσινοι αναδυκνύονται επίσης ώς ανερχόμενες δυνάμεις στο Ευρωπαΐκό πολιτικό καθεστημένο.

Η Ευρώπη δεν είναι πια η ίδια. Ένα μέρος της κοιτά πρός το παρελθόν, απογοητευμένο ίσως από τις αποτυχίες της Ευρωπαΐκής ιδέας και πειράματος, κάτι που όμως οφείλεται κατά μεγάλο ποσοστό στις εθνικές μας κυβερνήσεις. Ή φοβούμενο απλά από τις αλλαγές που επέρχονται με τις εξελίξεις στη Μεσόγειο και το μεταναστευτικό, και τον οικονομικό μαρασμό πολλών κοινοτήτων λόγω της παγκοσμιοποίησης.

Παράλληλα, ένα άλλο μεγάλο ποσοστό αρχίζει και σκέφτεται «Ευρωπαΐκά» και συλλεκτικά. Το φαινόμενο του θερμοκηπίου και άλλα περιβαντολογικά θέματα, αρχίζουν να απασχολούν σοβαρά τους κατοίκους της ηπείρου μας πλέον και παρατηρείται μια στροφή στο κάποτε «εναλλακτικό» κίνημα των Πράσινων, σε παν-Ευρωπαΐκό επίπεδο.

Η μεγαλύτερη παρουσία τους στο μελλοντικό Ευρωκοινοβούλιο, φανερώνει πως πολλοι Ευρωπαίοι δεν ανησυχούν για τους μετανάστες ή την οικονομία του κράτους τους, αλλά επιθυμούν μια πιο συλλεκτική δραση για την αντιμετώπιση της κλιματικής αλλαγής.

Επίσης ένα μεγάλο μέρος επιμένει στον φιλελευθερισμό και την Ευρωπαΐκή προοπτική της χώρας τους. Ένδειξη αυτού, είναι η συμαντική νίκη του πολιτικού συνασπισμού του γκρουπ Renew Europe, που έκανε σημαντικά άλματα και πρόοδο σε αυτές της εκλογές, ειδικά μετά την ένταξη του κόμματος του Γάλλου Πρόεδρου Emmanuel Macron στους κύκλους του.

Οι Φιλελεύθεροι είναι πλέον το τρίτο κόμμα στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο, ακολουθούμενο από τους Πράσινους, ενώ τα Ευρωσκεπτιστικά κόμματα παρ’όλη την άνοδο τους, δεν κατάφεραν να γίνουν τρίτη και τέταρτη δύναμη.

Οι παραπάνω εξελίξεις δείχνουν την εικόνα μιας ηπείρου που απομακρίνεται από το μεταπολεμικό καθεστώς και ιδεολογία που κυριαρχούσε για δεκαετίες από την ίδρυση ακόμα της Ευρωπαΐκής Ένωσης.

Δυστυχώς η Ελλάδα όμως παραμένει στάσιμη και συντηριτική. Έχει γίνει παράδοση πλέον ο δικομματισμός στην χώρα μας, και οι Έλληνες αδυνατούν να αλλάξουν εκλογική νοοτροπία. Όπως αναμενόταν, ακολούθησαμε για μια ακόμα φορά το πολιτικό μάντρα που έχουμε υιοθετήσει από την Μεταπολίτευση.

Όταν ένα κόμμα μας δυσαρεστεί η δεν πράττει όπως αναμένουμε, το τιμωρούμε με το να εκλέγουμε τον αντίπαλό του, που αντιπροσωπεύει την ακριβώς αντίθετη πολιτική ιδεολογία-μια από τις δύο που κυριαρχούν στην χώρα μας τις τελευταίες δεκαετίες.

Και φυσικά όπως αναμενόταν, τα αποτελέσματα των Ευρωεκλογών ήταν προάγγελος των επερχομένων κοινοβουλευτικών εκλογών στην χώρα μας. Η Νέα Δημοκρατία αναδείχθηκε νικητής, με τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ να περνά στην αντιπολίτευση. Ένα πολιτικο-κοινωνικό ντεζά-βου της δεκαετίας του ‘80, θα μπορούσαμε να το πούμε.

Είναι σχεδόν αδύνατο να δείς αξιωσημείωτη στήριξη για φιλελεύθερα, φιλο-Ευρωπαΐκά και κόμματα Πρασίνων στην χώρα μας, αντιθέτως οι Έλληνες προτιμούν να στραφούν προς τα εθνικιστικά και λαΐκιστικά κόμματα, ώς ένδειξη της απογοήτευσης τους προς τις καθεστωτικές παρατάξεις.

Κάτι που δεν περιορίζεται μόνο στην Ελλάδα φυσικά, απλά στην χώρα μας είναι η μόνη εναλλακτική λύση. Στην Ιρλανδία όπου διαμένω τα τελευταία 15 χρόνια και είμαι πλέον πολίτης, ο δικομματισμός είναι επίσης ένα πρόβλημα.

Για δεκαετίες οι Ιρλανδοί ήταν χωρισμένοι σε μπλε και πράσινες παρατάξεις, ένα καθεστώς που είχε εδραιωθεί μετά από έναν εμφύλιο πόλεμο. Μέχρι την δεκαετία του ’90 η χώρα ήταν μια από τις φτωχότερες και πλέον συντηριτικές της Ευρώπης.

Αντιθέτως με την Ελλάδα όμως, οι Ιρλανδοί ψηφοφόροι σε αυτές τις εκλογές στράφηκαν σημαντικά προς ανεξάρτητους υποψήφιους Ευρωβουλευτές, καθώς επίσης ακολούθησαν τον Ευρωπαΐκό προσανατολισμό, ψηφίζοντας δύο Πράσινους στο Ευρωπαΐκό κοινοβούλιο. Ώς αντίδραση φυσικά και ένδειξη διαμαρτυρίας προς τα καθεστωτικά κόμματα, που τους απογοήτευσαν την τελευταία δεκαετία.

Και παρ’όλη την ταπείνωση που αναγκάστηκαν να δεχθούν μετά τα οικονομικά μέτρα εγγύησης που υπέγραψαν με το ΔΝΤ, οι Ιρλανδοί δεν στράφηκαν ως επί το πλείστον στην ακρο-δεξία και τον εθνικισμό.

Όχι οτι δεν υπαρχει κάποια έξαρση και εδώ, αλλά η Ιρλανδία επιλέγει να ακολουθεί τις πιο φιλο-Ευρωπαΐκές τάσεις και κινήματα, για αυτό και εξέλεξε Πράσινους. Φυσικά θα πρέπει να σημειωθεί πως η νοοτροπία των Ιρλανδών, λόγω του Καθολικισμού τους, ποτέ δεν επέτρεψε ακραία κινήματα και πολιτικά κόμματα να εξελιχθούν στην χώρα, είτε ακρο-δεξιά είτε ακρο-αριστερά.

Ίσως όμως εμείς ώς Έλληνες να είναι αναγκαίο να αναλογιστούμε, τι αποσκοπούμε με το να εκλέγουμε ακροδεξιούς στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο και να στέλνουμε κόμματα όπως την Ελληνική Λύση στις Βρυξέλλες. Τι θα καταφέρουμε όταν επιλέγουμε εκπροσώπους όπως αυτούς για να προωθήσουν τα συμφέροντά μας ως έθνος, και να συνομιλήσουν με άλλους Ευρωπαίους εταίρους για την ελληνική πραγματικότητα.

Θέλουμε να δείξουμε οτι είμαστε μια χώρα άκρως συντηρητική που το μόνο που μας ενδιαφέρει είναι το έθνος μας και ο πατριωτισμός μας, ή ίσως ότι είμαστε μια χώρα πρόθυμη να συνεργαστεί, να διαπληκτιστεί και να διαφωνίσει ακόμα αν χρειαστεί, με εκπροσώπους άλλων κρατών για το καλό της χώρας μας, των Βαλκανίων και της Ευρώπης?

Και γιατί πρέπει να πάντα να μας κυβερνούν δύο ειδών παρατάξεις, μερικές οικογενειακές πολιτικές δυναστείες, εκπρόσωποι σωματείων και άτομα που έχουν συνδικαλιστεί από τα φοιτητικά τους χρόνια για πάντα?

Η Ελλάδα αν πότε πρόκειται να αλλάξει και να γίνει μια Ευρωπαΐκή χώρα, χρειάζεται νέους πολιτικούς που θα εκπροσωπούν εποικοδομητικά την πατρίδα μας, σε συνεργασία με τους αντιπροσώπους των άλλων κρατών της ηπείρου. Σίγουρα όχι εκπροσώπους που το μόνο που έχουν να υπερασπιστούν είναι το παρελθόν της χώρας μας-όσο ένδοξο και εάν είναι αυτό- και όχι το μέλλον.