“A man just hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”

(Paul Simon lyric)

The eurogroupe is desperate to tell Greeks that tomorrow’s referendum is an In/Out of the eurozone plebiscite. Bild Zeitung thinks it’s about whether Athens should declare war on Germany and gratuitously bankrupt the world. The New York Times insists it’s a vote of confidence or otherwise in Alexis Tsipras. Brussels Parliament Chief Dummkopf Bernhardt Schulz says it’s about whether Communist lunatic dictator monster Tsiprasovitch should be instantly replaced by more knowledgeable technocrats. And Yanis Varoufakis (the swine) is playing the dastardly empirical card by saying it’s about whether Syriza was right or wrong to turn down the eurogroupe terms that have now been taken off the table.

Personally, I’m increasingly of the view that if Greece votes No, Dark Lord Lucifer will arise from the sulphurous depths of his all-powerful domain beneath the ECB, and lead the locust armies to victory over those who would dare to question the hegemony of his personal hairdresser on Earth, Jeroan Dijesslebleom. I could be wrong of course, but I reserve the right to be just as swivel-eyed as the other scarey Eunatics out there.

Further soundings over the last 24 hours suggest to me that a rising number of Greeks have been severely spooked by the bank closure element. These are the folks with whom I have always had the most difficulty: those who bash Dijesslbleom and Varoufakis at the same time. In exasperation, I wind up asking them “So just WTF is it you want?”

And immediately, they rush behind the I Am Greek & Mysterious curtain, yelling “You wouldn’t understand!” I rather suspect I would actually, and my feelings were encapsulated perfectly by a threader who left this at The Slog yesterday:

benthreadYes, quite: how many ‘chattering class’ Syriza voters will stick with their government when the chips are down because the money’s run out? A €210bn question.

There is a huge amount at stake for the human race in this battle, but at base level it is like any other messy divorce. First there is optimistic matrimony, which later turns to acrimony after too much parsimony. There follows an insistence on the need for alimony. And finally, the lawyers benefit from each side’s penchant for sanctimony.

Or – more succinctly – as always, it’s all about the munneeee.

One of two things will emerge from tomorrow’s vote: either a misguided desire to protect personal money; or the clearly stated desire to put mutual social responsibility before greed.