I remember once a contest held in Washington (attended by around one million people) for the most appropriate description of a people, who will present the best psychology of a nation. A panel of fifteen scientists chosen unanimously and awarded Judge N. Kelly for the successful characterization of the Greek.
"Confronting the court of impartial history, writes the judge, the Greek was not to the occasion, always "below the circumstances", but from a mental point of view, always had primacy. The Greek is brilliant and selfish, active and unmethodical, sportsmanlike, but full of superstitions, hot-blooded, impatient and a warrior.
Built the Parthenon and after having drunk from the prestige, left it later to become targets of contention..,
Highlighted Socrates to poison him, admired Themistocles to exile him, he served Aristotle and then hunt him, gave birth to Venizelos in order to murder him. Built the Byzantine Empire in order to enslave to the Turks, brought the '21 and then compromised it, created 1909 in order to forget it. Tripled Greece but also nearly buried it. One moment is cut for the truth but the same time hates the person who refuses to serve the lie. Greek is a strange creature, wild, weird, and egopathe. Pity him, if you want admire him. And if you can try to classify him.'
Is it ok not to to play by the rules?