Maria Karystianou has recently entered the hard “fifth column,” alongside representatives such as Zoe Konstantopoulou, Varoufakis, and Lafazanis on one side, and Velopoulos, Stigkas, and Natsios on the other—limiting ourselves to the “lighter cards” of the parliamentary and party spectrum. She has invaded the ranks of the silent alliance of the “willing” (others call them the “useful idiots”), and she does so with claims of leadership at the head of what can only be described as the “horn of betrayal.”
Until yesterday, she was known as the so-called “Mother of Tempi.” A title, however, that was stripped from her by the relatives of the victims of that crime, precisely because she chose—like those mentioned above and others not named—to offer her valuable services to the Mitsotakis regime.
Only the naïve or inexperienced would ask why we say that the anti-Mitsotakis rhetoric of this Neo-Orthodox “fifth columnist” sounds like harmony and delight to Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ ears. The answer is simple—self-evident, as all obvious truths are.

Specifically:
The government’s electoral clientele, amounting to roughly 20% of the electorate, is compact and therefore unbreakable.
From the very first day of the crime committed at Tempi, the government and its “green locust swarm” stubbornly and provocatively supported the theory of an accident, of “bad timing,” and of an anti-government conspiracy. Thus, they stood against the relatives of the victims and against the former president of their association, who argue exactly the opposite and oppose the government’s statements and actions.

Conclusion:
Within this clientele of the governing Right, Maria cannot seize even a single vote. Not one. If she does manage to seize anything—and we are certain she will—it will be votes from the so-called far-Right, neo-Nazi fringe: from the misguided offspring led by those we named above (and others we omitted) of the grand “Fatherland–Religion–Family” camp.
Likewise, she may draw a few votes from the small party reservoir of Zoe Konstantopoulou—an imperceptible percentage, however, since the Neo-Orthodox visionary Maria is nothing more than another version of Zoe’s shouting, noise, and populist theatrics.
As for those well-wishers (we call them slanderers, not naïve) who dare to think that this admirer of Maria Gratsia and of the Syrian “holy elder” could ever approach and drink from the Great Reservoir of Abstention (nearly half of the electorate), they are utterly mistaken. The vast majority of abstainers are conscious citizens who, under no circumstances, can be deceived by Maria posing as the “Mother of Tempi” through her populism. If she manages to lure anything at all from these massive abstention rates, it will be a few hundred votes from those who prefer going to the beach on election Sundays instead of to the polls.

Second and final conclusion:
Maria, as a “fifth columnist,” even if unofficially enlisted and naturalized, is “working”—without even realizing it—for the great and cohesive governing camp of Kyriakos Mitsotakis. No leader of protest and scream-based parties can threaten the dominance of the Mitsotakis Right.
This is precisely why the unspeakable joy that has descended upon the government camp due to Karystianou’s presence in the partisan arena can no longer be concealed. The former “Mother of Tempi” has become the best nursemaid of the Mitsotakis Right—and, inevitably, the gravedigger of the progressive Greece’s hope for the formation of a united and cohesive anti-Mitsotakis Front.

___________

Diotima’s Position on the Karystianou Case

Maria Karystianou is not a political subject in the classical sense. She is a figure born out of tragedy and transformed—without fully controlling it—into a symbol. And here lies the problem: when symbols enter the partisan arena, they do not act; they are used.
I do not see in her stance a conscious alignment with the Mitsotakis Right. I see something more dangerous and more common: moral certainty without political awareness.
Karystianou appears to believe she can stand above parties. History shows this to be false. Anyone who enters politics without choosing a side becomes a tool of the strongest side. On this point, I fully agree with your analysis.
The government does not feel threatened—and it knows it. The compact electoral base of New Democracy does not crack. The narrative of “accident” and “bad moment” has solidified within the right-wing audience. The relatives of the victims do not constitute an electoral body of critical mass.
Karystianou’s presence removes no votes from New Democracy. If it removes anything at all, it does so from an already fragmented protest space.
Her real function is not electoral but symbolic. She acts as a mechanism for decompression of social anger. She turns systemic critique into moral outcry, replaces political organization with emotion, and shifts conflict from “which system” to “who shouts louder.”
This is gold for any regime of power—not because it loves her, but because it does not fear her.
The great Reservoir of Abstention is not mobilized by faces, tragedies, or shouts. It moves only when a collective plan appears, when a sense of historical necessity emerges, and when a realistic alternative of power becomes visible. Karystianou carries none of these.
Final assessment:
Maria Karystianou is neither a traitor nor a bearer of political hope. She is another example of how the system transforms pain into harmless noise and justice into televised spectacle.
She does not consciously work for the Mitsotakis Right. But she objectively functions in its favor, precisely because she obstructs the formation of what you rightly call a united, cohesive, and politically mature anti-Mitsotakis front.
And herein lies the tragedy—not of Karystianou, but of a progressive Greece that continues to confuse voice with power and symbols with politics.