Others claim that it is the "ultravirulent strain" of the terrorism bred and fed on Europe's soil. Not by foreigners, but by the new generation of alienated people. The deep and always renewed gap between "The haves" and "The have nots", between the privileged and underprivileged of an era of never-ending crisis and of the systematic destruction of societal balance, of inequalities disregarded, when they have not been sometimes cultivated knowingly, is roaming Europe from one end to the other and is present in each of its societies. Especially the ones that, for various reasons, have kept their borders open to a significant flow of migrants over the last seventy years. France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain are currently the "schools" that are raising, ideologically train and which the "gladiators" of the new type of locally fed terrorism act in, even if the ideology and the education remain "imports".  The insular communities of migrants, for the most part separated from the rest of society and antagonized have become the breeding ground for this new type of terrorist, born European to die, also in Europe, as a sacrifice to the Islamic jihadism. Every month, every year, France, Germany and other European countries "export" to the Jihadi training camps in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen or Afghanistan hundreds, thousands of young people anxious to return home to blow up the neighborhood or the city they grew up in! It is an equation that nobody was prepared for, hence the head start that terrorists have over the protectors of the legal and constitutional order.  Last but not least, from the institutions that should have kept us safe from terrorist actions, at least the highly violent ones, another "explanation is being disseminated". They, these "overweight" and heavily budget-consuming institutions supposed to defend citizens have been built and trained for a different type of war! Not for terror. No one can change them from one day to the next and truth be told, politicians haven't been exactly in any hurry to define their mission and duties. Even when they did it, meekly, they did so by juxtaposing new duties, as if they had been perfectly compatible with the older ones!!! As if you could hunt for two rabbits that are each running in different directions, with one shot. It isn't exactly possible, but no one is willing to admit that!!

The period of economic boom has exacerbated the asymmetry between customers and banks, and this aspect has created the need to create an entity that would provide consumers with the option for the alternative resolution of disputes with banks, namely the Center for Alternative Resolution of Lawsuits in the Banking System (CSALB), says Bogdan Olteanu, the deputy governor of the National Bank of Romania (BNR).  The official of the Central Bank said: "The financial sector has made this financial effort that I praise, to find the necessary mechanisms for this structure, to remove the need for consumers to bear any costs"  The creation of the SAL has produced a series of controversies, as many people feel that it is a complicated process.  Bogdan Olteanu said, quoted by Agerpres: "For one of the parties, for the banks, what is so complicated is that there currently is a system that treats them asymmetrically compared to the treatment that consumers get! Yes, that's how things work nowadays, at least in Europe. There is an asymmetry in treatment that balances out the relationship between consumers and banks and it is natural for it to be that way, because there is an asymmetry in accessing information, there is an asymmetry in the processing of that information between consumers and banks, and then the institutional system rebalances the relationship which makes it possible, for instance, for a decision rendered here to be mandatory, while consumers are allowed to challenge it further if they do not agree with it".  In the opinion of the NBR deputy governor, lawyers are against the system because they are losing money the moment consumers decide not to go to court to resolve the lawsuit with the bank and they go to the Center instead: "It is a success and I want to celebrate it. We are among the countries that have succeeded in building such a Center. I hope that next year we are going to find that we have also made it functional. (...) Good luck to banks in scrubbing their reputation of the dirt that has accumulated during the boom period. We are, I hope, on the right path to reestablish this relationship of trust, where citizens go to confidently deposit the money earned through their work with the bank, and other citizens go in with confidence to borrow that money, to use it and then pay it back, so that the depositor can get it back at any time".

Ever since the first Greek 'bailout' program was signed, in May 2010, the IMF has been violating its own "primary directive": the obligation not to fund insolvent governments. As a result, the IMF's leadership has been facing a revolt from its staff members who demand an exit strategy arguing that, if the EU continues to obstruct the debt relief necessary to restore the solvency of the Greek government, the IMF should leave the Greek program.  Five years on, this IMF-EU impasse continues, causing a one-third collapse of Greek GDP and fuelling hopelessness to a degree that has made real reform harder than ever.   Back in February 2015, when I first met Poul Thomsen (the IMF's European chief) in a Paris hotel, a fortnight after assuming Greece's finance ministry, he appeared even keener than I was to press for a debt write off: "At a minimum", he told me "€54 billion of Greece's debt left over from the first 'bailout' should be written off immediately in exchange for serious reforms."  This was music to my ears, and made me keen to discuss what he meant by "serious reforms". It was a discussion that never got formally off the ground as Germany's finance minister vetoed all discussion on debt relief, debt swaps (which were my compromise proposal), indeed any significant change to the failed program.

.....     For the picture to be complete, we need to dig into the deepest underground of the terrorist phenomenon. One that has been born and evolves with "genetic information" originating from the "parents" that carefully hide their identity: secret services and special actions which have been around for a long time and span the world. There is no need to fall into the trap of conspiracy theories to understand that operations organized across multiple continents and decades, with multiple and complex links: ideological awareness and indoctrination, recruitment, training, planning, verification, execution and exploitation of terrorist attacks are impossible to achieve straight away, by some faction of semi-illiterate persons gathering in the basements of some mosque, or in the bars of London, Paris, Berlin or Brussels. It takes know how and far more resources than some "networks of evil" organized by some obscure conclave of mullahs with radicalized speeches and anti-Western grudges have available. Just like the story that young people born and raised on the soil of European countries just wake up one day and go to some Yemenite camp, out of curiosity, to get trained on how to then blow themselves up in the Brussels airport, is more of a myth, than a verifiable reality. The undergrounds of the terrorist phenomenon, just like those of the unchecked waves of migrants, that have just swooped down on Europe out of the blue, are being controlled and full of covert, undisclosed and undisclosable activities of some of the most experienced evil puppet masters of "Big Politics" and of the constantly renewed "Global confrontation"

The assault on Europe has entered a new stage. The bridges that connect the continent to the past of its historic normalcy are being blown up one after another. With bombs, literally!  The new terror attack in Belgium is the obvious follow-up of Paris. Like shells in a machine gun, others are waiting their turn, to spit fire and death at a quick pace. "The police" and "the services" have plenty of post-factum explanations, and their learning curve seems to be completely overcome by the speed in planning and execution of the new wave of terrorism. Where does its effectiveness come from? Some people claim that it is simply the exploitation of Europe's historic weaknesses. A continent which, after two devastating wars of the 20th century and after another half a century of "cold war", is not, can not be prepared for anything else but peace. The ideology, the politics, the infrastructure, the military equipment to say nothing of the culture of war have all been marginalized in the European perimeter. Robert Kagan also told us that, in the beginning of the new millennium, but nobody paid any attention to him. The Europeans had an esthetics guided reaction, noting the poignancy of the metaphor!!! Not one European of the 21st century would have been willing to open the door to war, to welcome it back in the city. As a result, the Old Continent has become what the garden of Eden was to the Biblical snake. A hunting ground which makes Adam's innocence the guaranteed reason for Evil's victory.

....Why has Europe become these games' victim?   From Russia's point of view, because it in the "post cold war era", Europe refused to embrace the role and status of "neutrality" in relation to Russia's grand plan to get its superpower status back. To Moscow, Europe's weakening means America's weakening, and America's weakening is the only solution for Washington's imperial grandeur to return to the much sought after - by Kremlin - "strategic parity". For Washington, Europe's weakening has been a historical, untreatable syndrome. When necessary, it has been just perfect for exploiting by sanctioning Europe's "flirting" with Russia, so negligently hidden under the cape of the new German-Russian relations. Through Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks that segment of the radicals of American politics annoyed that Europe has not unreservedly embraced America's "imperial destiny", but it has actually dared to criticize it, or to announce its fading, long before it has reached its historical potential. The threat of cutting the American contribution to Europe's security, through its repositioning in NATO, or even the possible passing into "oblivion", or "torpor" of this organization is just another way of telling Europe that if it doesn't find a way to make itself useful to America, it could very well become a pile of historical relics, not just from a tourist point of view, but politically as well.  With bombs and harsh words, somebody is shaping up the future of a Europe that is different from what the great men of the post-war generation wanted. And in this future, war in its newest, or oldest forms, is not just an integral part, but also a part of the definition of the future itself.

The London Stock Exchange’s merger with Deutsche Boerse is coming under fire in Germany, with politicians and industry veterans speaking out against the deal amid fears that Frankfurt’s status as a financial hub will be eroded. As both exchanges canvass investors about their £21bn merger, the decision to move the combined group’s headquarters to London while giving the German bourse’s chief executive, Car­sten Kengeter, the top job has been criticised. Manfred Zaß, a former Deutsche Boerse director, has warned that the compromises contained within the “merger of equals” could damage Frankfurt’s standing, despite Mr Kengeter’s claims that the deal would safeguard the city while enabling both the UK and Germany to compete in global markets. Mr Zass, who left the bourse after its failed bid to buy the LSE in 2005, told a German magazine: “We should not be naïve… With respect, if you know the push and pull behind such a merger, it sounds more like an investment banker fairy story. "The supposed parity – the boss here, the domicile there – creates a recognisably lopsided Frankfurt," he told a German magazine. Deutsche Boerse’s home district is also lobbying to retain the exchange’s head offices. Ulrich Caspar, who sits in the regional parliament in Hesse, has said he harbours concerns about the majority of the enlarged group’s shareholder base coming from English-speaking countries.  “It is the task of the German, Hesse and Frankfurter politicians to ensure that the stock market can continue to develop,” he told the German media.  Mr Caspar was a vocal opponent of Deutsche Boerse’s ultimately unsuccessful plans to merge with NYSE in 2012, part of a global wave of consolidation among financial market operators. Wilhelm Speckhardt, former mayor of the Frankfurt suburb of Eschborn, has described the plan to shift the holding company to London as “an unimaginable catastrophe for the town”.