Constants and Change: Why you shouldn’t Ask Historians for Advice on the Stock Market.

Some time ago, a friend asked me, which themes and issues I — as a historian — see most significant in the near future.

We were then talking about investments and stock markets. Long term financial sustainability.

I then remembered a podcast by the U.S. think tank Council on Foreign Relations, where the author, a political scientist, elaborated on various issues that, due to their global character, would of major significance in the near future:

Climate change, epidemic diseases, terrorism, water, cyber security etc.

In retrospect, I feel bad for citing this answer.

Not only did it require minimal intelectual work from my part — I just repeated what speaker told me some time before —, I didn’t honestly answer his question, either.

He wanted my opinion as a historian. I did barely better than sending him a link to the podcast.

While I still have no own answer to his question, I can give you some reasons why a historian makes a bad advisor when it comes to stock market investments. Thats short-, mid-, or long-term if we keep in business slang vocabulary.

Short-term — for a historian that is years or decades — I would say, look for consistencies, meaning developments that go beyond presumed breaks and paradigm shifts.

Take the stock market crash in 1929. It didn’t mark the assent of German national socialism or the decent into another world war. It influenced both, but was based on a global development and had global consequences that went beyond Black Friday in both directions on the time axis.

If you were heavily invested into the stock marked, this assessment probably didn’t help you much. Not in 1929, nor in 2008. You just lost your money and some academic observing the (re-) emergence of populist politics cashing in on the consumers’ dissatisfaction does not bring your cash back.

What about long term then?

Say you want to make sure you can retire comfortably and give your (grand-)children the opportunity of higher education.

Well, if you are looking to secure your far future offsprings tuition fees, invest in change.

Buy shorts (although I’m never quite sure if I understand these correctly), bet on bankruptcies, expect major wars, and reorganisations of the the global geopolitical order.

Historically speaking (that is long-term in this case), things that you can invest in on the stock market don’t last very long.

Name three companies that were founded over a hundred years ago. Okay, well, two hundred now — think about your descendant who wants to go to college from the example above.

Didn’t think so.
(Some examples below)

Also, I personally think humanity still can’t look beyond the three generation horizon. We care about our grandchildren. Everything beyond — sadly — is not our problem.

So what about investing into more general ideas?

Progress? Modernity? Globalisation?

Well I got news for you. Historians started to contemplate if these concepts are cyclic, too (Osterhammel 2017).

Was that good advice?

I think it was an interesting discussion, but I probably won’t yield much dividends, at least financially.

Long story short, don’t trust a historian with your money.








  1. Bank of England (1695)
  2. Vacheron Constantin (Swiss watchmaker, 1755)
  3. Kongō Gumi Co., Ltd. (Japanese construction company founded in 578 and bought up in 2006; so close…)
    All curtesy of google.




Blind Elections

As the first Democrat’s are announcing their candidacy for the 2020 presidential elections in the United States, the country as well as the rest of the world is bracing for quite a show.

Certainly, U.S. presidential elections (and politics in general for that matter) have always featured polarised characters. It seems though, at least from the other side of the Atlantic, that Donald J. Trump’s presidency has brought this to a whole new level.

It thus makes the keen observer wonder, when did the debates about a nation — and the case of the United States, debates about the fate of the world — become prime time entertainment?

Similar points can be made for Ukraine and Turkey, who feature a presidential and municipal election this weekend.

The guy leading the polls in Ukraine is a comedian. His campaign basically consisted of a well-timed reality show featuring him — you guessed it — becoming president!

So in light of the upcoming voting season in many part of the world, here is a proposal to Americans, Ukrainians or Turks from a humble Swiss observer:

Do blind elections.

Hear me out…

Agreed, we don’t have blind elections in Switzerland. In theory, we still know what candidates are competing for office.

In practice, however, ever since the demise of the centre-right populist Christoph Blocher a couple of years ago, the average Swiss citizen is not quite sure, who exactly is in the seven-headed team that runs the country.


Because they are doing their jobs. Just their jobs. They are executing the policies of our parliament (hence its called the Executive)

And this, for the average citizen, is quite uneventful.

Nobody cares if our ministers go golfing every weekend, what cars they drive, which e-mail accounts they use, whether their wives or husbands have been unfaithful in the past, or how hot their daughters are.

Remember the guy from above? Christoph Blocher, for better or worse, was the single most notable Swiss public figure since Henri Guisan became head of the Swiss Army during World War II.

Blocher’s most notable moment? Someone threw a yogurt at him…

A yogurt!

(Don’t believe me? Check it out here)

Thats it. No impeachment, no FBI investigation, no government shutdown, no public scandal. Just a youtube video featuring a yogurt on a new suit.

Other than that, our politicians are boring. And they should be. It means they are sticking to their jobs.

If they make mistakes — and all people do — let the judiciary check whether the mistake merits a removal from office. There is no need for a public trial by combat.

So to my friends around, who are so invested into the reality show-like politics of their country:

Try a blind election!

No names, no faces, no voices. Just defining each candidate by what polices he or she stands for. And then let the people choose based on their interests, not based on their perception of the candidate’s charisma.

You can still have your yard billboards and TV debates. Just blur the faces and alter the voices.

Tell your politicians, what general direction you would want the country to go and then let them do their boring jobs. If you like the result, re-elect them, if not, try a new guy.

But don’t stick to a candidate because he or she is your gender, your skin colour, or wears your favourite kind of baseball hat.

Give it a try. If you don’t like it, you can always have your show back for the next round.



Game Theory: The Rules of the Game in Academia

chessLooking back on the stages if my education that I’ve gone through so far — from kindergarten to my current PhD position — it feels like the average hours I studied/worked per day peaked somewhere around the second year of high school.

I was about 16 at the time.

Somehow that made me wonder. Isn’t it supposed to intensify as you grow older?

Why did I spend most time at a desk during my teenage years, when I probably should have been working on my social skills?

Make no mistakes, the output of my working time increased since and I still encounter intensive long hour working days over an extended time period (usually deadline related).

But it has noticeably decreased.

High school started 7:20am and ended around 5 or 6pm. Then homework and sports.

Undergraduate meant two or three lectures a day, with the exception of Friday, which professors tended to avoid and student happily took as a regular three-day weekend.

Graduate studies: Two maximum and a couple of “free days” a week.

And as a doctoral student? I’m lucky if I can attend my supervisor’s seminar and get a language course in. I found out I’m not even supposed to enrol in classes anymore.

The rest happens at my own desk.

Here is another thing. My performance, at least the one measured in grades, went up.

I achieved a solid high school diploma which I had to put in a tremendous amount of work in for (oh French you…).

My B.A. diploma reads “good”, which is mainly due to some strategic blunders at the beginning of my academic career (taking classes that sounded interesting but were graduate level already).

By the time I stared my master’s, I had figured out the rules of the game. The “very good”-predicate is built less on hard work than at figuring out what buttons I had to push for good grades.

It worked. I got 1s and 1,3s showing that I understood some basic methodological principles of my field and showed some independent thinking.

Sure, I spent my time in the library, did my research, prepared my presentations. But it was in no relation.

I learned half “The Little Prince” by heart for my first book presentation when I was 13 and the week in advance was spent being nervous.

When I held my presentation on Soviet mega-projects during the first semester of my Bachelor’s, I compiled it entirely from primary sources. I started coughing uncontrollably about 20 minutes in.

Talking about the Suez Crisis during my Master’s involved getting some books out that have been lying in my shelf since from my undergraduate time, making a nice presentation, and enjoying the discussion with my peers and professors.

There was no plowing through 300-page readers on the train and late at night anymore, only to find out the the relevant information for the exam or term paper had to be found elsewhere.

For my high school graduation paper I worked day and night, shedding tears when dad’s printer went on a strike on the night of the deadline (I just read it again. Read your old work. Trust me.)

The B.A. thesis was three months of jogging 7am, working at 8am and closing the books at 10pm.

For writing up my M.A. thesis, I spent a summer at the desk, too, but there was the occasional going out or sleeping in. And the project involved traveling to a foreign country and doing field research.

There is an interesting pattern showing here. Whenever there was a new “phase” in my education, I would struggle first. Put in a lot of work for mediocre results. And only slowly learning the rules of the game.

The principle of putting 20% effort to achieve 80% of the work.

Sad actually.

Education should be aimed at learning out of curiosity, not figuring out a way to get good grades.

But hey, we all want that diploma in the end.

But there is an advantage to this whole concept, which is also the reason I’m writing this at the moment.

At every new step, you have to learn the rules of the game anew.

To me this is the scariest period, but also the most exciting!

And this time, it takes exceptionally long.

Getting thrown into cold water.

Do I know how to write a PhD? In theory, yes, in practice, no.

Do I know how to write a fellowship application? Do I know what the committee wants to hear? Nope, no idea. Seven rejections and counting; and they never give a feedback.

Do I know how to teach an undergraduate class? I could probably do that if I knew how to get such a position in the first place.
Asking everyone around and writing to every possible department in the University’s administrative apparatus got me close, but no cigar.

Do I know how to write a publishable article? Do I know what reviewers want to see? Hell no!

Do I know how to position myself within the academic community? Strategically chose papers where to publish to get a head start for post-doc positions or tenures? How to present at a scientific conference? How to know the right people?

And what not to do?

All no’s.

So can I put in 20% of work for a comfortable 80% result. You wish!

So, the working hours have being going up again recently. And the qualitative output down.

Gotta do it from scratch again…

Learn the rules again.

It has been two years…



My humble advice:

If you have figured the rules of the game, enjoy it a while.

Then try something new!

The 21st Century Bottleneck


Atomic Fission and Fusion: A built-in mechanism to filter intelligent life?

“Where is everybody?”  Enrico Fermi famously asked in 1950, addressing the paradox of basically indefinite possibilities for intelligent life in our universe and yet so far zero encounters with alien life-forms.

There are countless theories on why this might be the case. (Here a condensed animated break down

We are alone.

There is no technology for interstellar travel yet.

We are too far apart, even with the technology.

Be patient, they are on their way (it just takes some millions of years).

We are the first and therefore most technologically advanced, so we have to make the move.

We are looking at the wrong scale (too small or to big).

We didn’t notice (“they” communicate on different levels).

We are not encounter-worthy.

We are overlooked (think an anthill on the side of a six-lane highway).

“They” don’t want to be revealed, for whatever reason.

There is one theory, however, that has lately caught my mind:

It’s sometimes referred to as the “Bottleneck” or the “Great Filter”.

Basically it says that under the physical laws that govern our universe, life develops in a why that once we speak of intelligent life, technological progress quickly outpaces the development of social capabilities.

Bottom line, all intelligent life will first acquire the technological means for a collective suicide before maturing enough as a species to control this technological edge.

The main hypothesis: All life carries the seeds of its on destruction.

We are currently in a time-period, which some theorists have fittingly called the “21st century bottleneck”.

Somewhen in the 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union, both investing heavily in their respective nuclear programs in an upward spiral known to political scientists as “security dilemma”, acquitted the capacity of  “mutual assured destruction”, cynically known as “MAD”.

Although the Cold War ended and we lived — sometimes more due to luck than brains — through its most precarious episodes, these capacities have since developed.

At the same time, the explosion of earth population has intensified the competition for resources, which, historically, leads to more violent conflict.

Although the there is no infamous “big red button” on the U.S. president’s desk (see Donald Trump vs. Kim Jong Un), we retain the capability to end life on earth in a matter of hours.

Let that sink in.

3.5 billion years of evolutionary history.



Did this happen to other intelligent life forms in our galaxy?


In the universe.


In this case, they didn’t make it through their bottleneck.

There was no time for social maturity to catch up with technological progress.

Now, how is humanity doing in this regard?

Honestly, I don’t know, but it might be interesting and well worth it to take a look at it.

Since the end of World War I, we are trying to build an international system that to some extent contain our destructive capacities.

Actually, since the end of the Thirty-Years War and the Westphalian Treaty…

Actually, when I think of it, we have always been trying to do this in one way or the other.

So is it working?

Are we pulling ourselves together, or have we just been lucky?

I will keep you posted from a historian’s point of view.

Any insight from your field?

Will we make it through the bottleneck?

Or is it more like a tightly screwed cork?




Change VS. Make America Great Again

Trump and Obama

Trump and Obama: Source:

“Trump and Obama are doing essentially the same thing.”

My 90-year-old landlord is convinced I should write my dissertation about Donald Trump. He says it would be “more interesting”. Fair enough.

Instead I’m “stuck” with Obama’s Middle Eastern policy. How he tried to extend his slogan of “Change” into that troubled region by promoting a “New Beginning”.

I marvel at questions like  these:
Why was there a new beginning needed?
How did the ‘new’ look like in the eyes of the charismatic 44th President of the United States?
And what on earth did he refer to as ‘old’? Bush? Clinton? Cold War diplomacy? The New Deal? Slavery?

Then it struck me, sipping my tea at the window and watching my landlord bring the trash bins to the street.

Trump is essentially doing the same thing!

Let that sink in.

The beloved champion of the free world that seduced Europe in his 2008 speech at the Brandenburg Gate.

And then what many on this side of the Atlantic consider an erratic Twitter lunatic on the who starts fires everywhere, and whose ego might as-well bring the end of humanity as we know it.

They are doing the same thing.

Making an un-great America great again or changing America for the better. Where is the difference? For Trump, the past is bad, of course. And for Obama? If everything was alright, there would be no need for change.

Two Presidents. Is this a pattern? Let’s have a look at some past slogans:

John Kerry (2004): Let America be America Again

George W. Bush (2000): Reformer With Results

Walter Mondale (1984) America Needs a Change

Jimmy Carter (1976) A Leader, For a Change

Gerald Ford (1976): He’s Making us Proud Again

Warren G. Harding (1920): Return to Normalcy

James Blaine (1884): Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha

Alright the last one is an honorary mention, though it seems like politics were more fun back in the 19th century.
(Have a look:

The others all promote change in one way or the other. Promising their voters a departure from the current status quo, which of course is undesirable, seemed to be a common thing.

Just like Trump.

Just like Obama.

Like pretty much every other politician. They rarely promote the status quo.

Or would you vote for “Same old thing with Nils”?


Change sells.

The present is never perfect, and future promises are easily made.

Politicians get votes and voters are inevitably disappointed.

But it wins elections.

Just like Trump.

Just like Obama.

The devil, of course, lies in the details.

Hitler’s Car Accident – Why Historians Don’t Engage in Counterfactual History and You Shouldn’t Either


Hitler in a car (but no accident), 1940.

“What if Adolf Hitler was killed in a car accident in 1933?”

Chances are that at one point of your school or college formation you came across a question that sounded something like this. With me it came up in a high school history class. Little was I aware how superfluous the question was.

The direction which this question is trying to aim is obvious: If Hitler was killed in 1933, would there be a World War II. Would 6 Million Jews have been murdered in concentration camps? All of a sudden, everybody in the classroom had an opinion on the issue. As one Ancient History professor once said: “Discussion without factual base is an easy exercise.”

However, the question is nonsense.

Firstly, Hitler quite obviously did not die in a car accident in 1933, World War II happened and 6 Million Jews were murdered in the Nazi’s death camps.

Secondly, historians struggle to determine the significance of different factors for a certain outcome — even with events that actually happened.

Thirdly, there is an infinitive number of alternative scenarios if we venture into the realm of the possible. History might have played out the same minus the personal life of Hitler. We might have world peace today and settled on Mars. The United States and the Soviet Union might have entered in a low scale conventional war without the common German enemy, eventually developed nuclear weapons, escalated the war, and annihilated humanity. For what we know, elephants might have enslaved mankind in some wicked turn of events. What is the point?

Finally, the uncertainty factor exponentially increases with time. Most likely, Hitler’s friends and relatives would have buried the would be dictator after his fatal accident in 1933. This was common practice then as it is now. A funeral would be held. In other parts of the world history might not have been affected immediately. In 1933, the New Deal would still have been advanced and prohibition would have ended in the United States, Paraguay would still have declared war on Bolivia, and Choudhry Rahmat Ali would probably also have published the Pakistan Declaration. But what about January 3rd, 2018? Would I even write this post?

History happened. What historians do is reconstruct plausible scenarios based on the information (sources) they find. Look at different factors that led to events and developments. If there are no sources and only assumed factors, the exercise is pointless.

How does this translate to one’s personal life?

Ever doubted a decision you made? What if i took/didn’t take this job offer? What if I married/broke up with that man or woman? Recently our house burned down. We are now looking for the reason. Maybe if had called the night the fire broke out, someone would have had to go look for the phone, seen the fire a little earlier, and could have put it out before it was too late. But I didn’t. The house burned down. This is history now.

Whenever I look back on a decision therefore I assume it was the right one. Why? Firstly, I am still here reflecting the consequences. In a worst case scenario this wouldn’t be the case. Secondly, my loved ones are still around too. It can’t be that bad.

So why spending energy on alternative outcomes.

Do it like the historians. Don’t engage in counterfactual history.

PS: Unless you are a language teacher and are giving your students an exercise on how the use conditional clauses.



Of Immigrants and Refugees

Ethnic curds at the Syrian-Turkish border 2015. Photo by John Stanmeyer for National Geographic.



The history of mankind is one of constant migration. Peoples have always moved, be it for food, violence, or simple curiosity. Looking at the big picture, the recent controversies on the topic of (im-)migration seems all but marginal. Nevertheless, the debate has gained a considerable political momentum.
In Europe the current so-called “Refugee Crisis”, a direct consequence of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, dominates the public debate. In the United States, President Donald Tump managed to ride on the populist theme of immigration from Latin America. “The Wall” carried him through much of his electoral campaign.

Between security concerns and compassion, opinions are split. As the debates heat up, losing the overview on the issue is an all too human trait. The main arguments for a more liberal or conservative immigration policy will therefore be recapitulated below; three on each side, starting with the ones for a more restrictive policy. The reader is invited to weight each of them based on his/her on values and is highly encouraged to do further research. This is by no means a scientific article, rather a summary of a public debate. The reader may or may not continue with the author’s personal stance in the concluding paragraph.


The far most compelling arguments for enhancing national borders controls and tightening immigration policies are security concerns. The large influx of oftentimes undocumented people from different cultural backgrounds alone might be cause for distress. Immigrants from Middle Eastern countries are, due to the nature of medial representation, associated with the main issues that haunt their native societies: War and Islamic Terrorism. That fundamentalist Islamist represent a tiny fraction of the Islamic faith and even of that constituency only a fraction incorporates violence into their methods matters little. Indeed, groups and individuals with background in the Middle East and/or ties with terrorist organisations such as al-Qaida and the Islamic State (ISIS) have executed attacks in Europe and elsewhere, as have so called “lone wolves”, generally referring to people who have no direct ties with the organisations but have been inspired by their radical ideology. The security dilemma is at the heart of many who see the taking on of refuges as a generous gesture by the host country, which in turn is repaid with violence. However, one has to bare in mind, that the main strategic aim of terrorism is, by definition, to spread terror. A basic risk cannot be denied; still, one has to be mindful not to distort a rational argument with exaggerated notions of media-fed fear.

Cultural Identity

The loss of cultural identity, although less of an immediate concern, goes in the same direction. The large influx of people from an alien culture, so the argument, threatens the cultural heritage of the host country. One only needs to take a walk through the more densely populated suburbs of a European metropolis to validate this point. Indeed, every wave of refugees has brought with them parts of their own cultural heritage. In the case of Switzerland (the author’s home country) it has been people of Jewish faith during the Second World War, orphans from all over Europe after that war, then people who fled from various Communist regimes during the Cold War (Czechoslovakia, Hungary), then economic migrants from Southern Europe (Italy) during the second half of the century, and refugees of war-torn disintegrating Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The recent wave from Iraq and Syria is a continuation of that list that can and will be extended in both directions of the timeline of history.
The recent wave of immigration has caused augmented concerns because of the apparent import of sociopolitical and religious norms. Although not a new phenomenon, the simplified argument that immigrants from Muslime countries would prefer to live under Shari’a law in Europe makes a good newspaper headline. With it comes the whole train of controversies on the headscarf (or its more “elaborate” form, the niqab), mosques, minarets, and prayer calls. Add the language barrier, archaic paternalistic family structures, and domestic violence to that list and the case is made for a protectionist cultural policy.

Economic Concerns

The third main case made against immigration based on economic calculations and split into two parts. Firstly, every economy features a national unemployment rate. The mere existence of such a statistical number validate the rationalisation that if there is not enough work for the local population, there are even less available jobs immigrants and refugees. The fact that employers still hire foreigners, presumably because they are willing to work at a lower wage than their native competitors, has given birth to the idea that immigrants are stealing “our” jobs.
The second economic rational concerns the host country’s social security system. At the base of this system, each member of society pays a percentage of his monthly pay check into a fund. If such a member for some reason cannot work (accident, illness, pregnancy, unemployment, retirement), he/she will live off this communal fund until he/she is able to resume work. In theory, every citizen is eligible for such social benefits. Immigrants, on the other hand, are considered to be cheating the system because they also qualify for the program once they become citizens but may till then have made no contribution to it.


Ironically, the economic case for immigration are based on similar arguments. Firstly, so the findings, Western economies are in dire need of labor, despite the base unemployment rate telling otherwise (there is a difference between unemployed people and unemployed people looking for a job and cannot find one). This includes skilled (permanently in demand) and unskilled work (especially jobs that local population is more and more unwilling to do). With a bare exception of the United States, every Western economy features a demographic trend deemed unhealthy for the mid- and long term economic development. Simply put, wealthy societies do not have enough offsprings needed to maintain the standards for more than a few generations without a healthy immigration.
This is especially the case for the social security system. True, immigrants theoretically could benefit from the system without having contributed in the fist place, however, it is much more likely that they first contribute and then benefit like their local counterparts (with the mandatory exceptions, of course). That an ageing society on its own is not able to uphold these services for a growing retired population is no secret.
Additionally, in case war as a main cause for the displacement rather than economic strains, the socioeconomic background of immigrants is quite diverse, meaning that highly skilled workers arrive at the border — as it has been the case with refugees from Syria. With a simple language course, and some additional training, a doctor or lawyer thus could be integrated into the host country’s work force where the state otherwise would have paid hundreds of thousands of Euros and a minimum of six years in higher education for such a professional.

The countering argument to the notion of identity loss is one of cultural enrichment. Metaphors such as “melting pot” and “salad bowl” have been used to describe a process where cultural diversity is seen as a positive development, even a desirable, synergetic process. Popular traditions, the cuisine, and other, less political aspects of the foreign cultural heritage are often named as example to validate this point.
Taking a historian’s point of view, a second argument against the apparent loss of identity might be even more compelling. Taking into consideration that idea of a “nation state” is a mere one-and-a-half centuries old, the term “cultural identity” is highly ambivalent, even if national roots are searched beyond the idea of a nation. In the case made above about waves of immigration into Switzerland that considered only the last 70 years or so, the terms “Swiss culture” and “Swiss-ness” are hard to grasp if one looks beyond popular clichés of chocolate and cheese. Taking the example of the United States, which predominantly defines its modern history through immigration, the case for cultural identity is even harder to make if it does not include diversity. The questions that remain are whether there is such a thing as “national identity”, and if yes, how does (should?) it look like? Does it need to be protected or can it coexist? Finally, should it be politicised? Is Shari’a law really a plausible scenario in Western democracies, be it Switzerland, Germany, or the United States? If religious freedom and free speech is compromised for the sake of cultural protection, would this process not undermine the very same values it intends to protect, namely the idea of liberal democracy and equal rights regardless of race, creed, color, or gender? The resurgence of far-right wing organisations and political parties in Europe sure is worrisome.

Responsibility and Compassion
The final argument for a liberal immigration policy is based on human compassion. In an interconnected world, so the (idealist) rational, it is the responsibility of the global community (whatever this term means) to take supporting action in the case of a humanitarian crisis such as the Syrian Civil War. When in 2011 hundreds of thousands Syrians came to knock on the European door on its Southeastern flank as direct consequence of the war, this argument dominated the political debate. With the continuation of the war and the fading media actuality of the issue, however, it has become more and more difficult to keep this discourse alive beyond expert circles and humanitarian groups. That the six-years ongoing conflict does not seem to end in the near future has turned to notion of an “overnight guest in need” into one that is here to stay; a far more difficult thing to sell as humanitarian responsibility. At the same time the number of refugees is constantly growing. However, the accustomization to the ongoing crisis does not diminish the severances of the humanitarian situation or the gravity of individual fates.
Furthermore, it is rather impossible that in a globalised world, issues in one part of the world will stay in that part. The refugee crisis and the issue of immigration is such an issue by definition. A protectionist policy is hardly solving the problem but the consequence of such failure to address the issue will be felt globally, although in different degrees.


The discourses on security versus human responsibility, cultural identity versus diversity, and economic strains versus demographic relief dominate the debates on refugees. The dichotomy, however, is misleadingly simplified and to be consumed with care. To attribute the reality to either end of the spectrum runs the danger of muting the dialogue between the two positions only adding to the polarisation of the debate. If anything at all, it is important to keep the debate open and find common grounds.
The evaluation of each of these aspects is left to the reader and may well be influenced by personal believes, socioeconomic and sociopolitical background, education, cultural identity and so on. In my opinion, the arguments for a more liberal immigration policy are more compelling. This conclusion may be altered or adapted to new information and extended research and I am well aware that this represents a rather idealistic position in face of the current realities. Still, I believe that in the long run, compassion is a more suitable guideline for political and social developments than fear. Furthermore, as the issue of immigration and refugees affects societies on a global level, fact-based and balanced discussion should not be reduced to the political and academic spheres but should also be a habit in the public ones. As with any issue, keeping up a sane dialogue is a good start to its solution. Let us use the platforms.


Dear reader,

welcome to The Past in Present – A Contemporary Middle Eastern Project. The goal of this website is to promote research on the modern Middle East across the scientific fields. This is a humble beginning where I share my current and former projects on the topic and present some useful information and links for fellow researchers and curious readers.

Additionally, this first “Home” section is reserved for various contributions in a blog-like manner. Please note that unless otherwise indicated, these entries do not so much represent scientific research as they do subjective opinions on political developments and global affairs. This often features outside content and media of which this site does not own the copyrights.

Finally, readers are highly encouraged to comment, share their opinions, and I am happy to feature guest posts. Of course, with respect to common curtesy on all matters where opinions diverge.

Nils Lukacs