My Life, Economics, and Finance

Vaclav Havel, former president and anti-communist dissident is (from my personal experience) still highly respected in the West. He gave a critical interview for Bloomberg this past week, criticizing amongst other things the state in which is Czech Society twenty years after the Revolution. He said:

“The moral code is something unwritten but understood about what is proper and what is improper, what is right, what is wrong…“

That all sounds very nice, in fact I agree with that, I am just not sure whether man who was cheating on his dying wife is fit to lecture anyone on what the moral code is…

Original article can be found here:

http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/tema/index_view.php?id=383343&id_seznam=2015

I have read Obama’s Cairo speech, I have read it very carefully and I didn’t like it… To start with, there are the two famous factual mistakes.

First one is the claim that “nearly 7 million” Muslims live in the US. Based on CIA World Factbook (Or just use Wikipedia Mr. Obama) the number is 1,8 million.

Second one is the reference to Moorish Spain. “We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.” The Moors ruled Spain for eight centuries until 1492. Considering Spanish Inquisition was founded in 1478, there is only 14 years overlap (which is nothing).

I have an alternative explanation: I think what he might be referring to is relatively peaceful coexistence of different races and religions under Moors in contrast to the later terrors of the Inquisition. But this makes no sense! You can’t compare religious fanatics like the Inquisition with anything. They’re not representative of Christianity, same way as Sharia law, enforced by Talibs in Afghanistan and now in parts of Pakistan, is not representative of Islam.

Finally, I didn’t like Obama’s reference to Islam paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance. I am no historian, but I would say that he is deliberately forgetting a big part of the picture. Renaissance was a rediscovery of the classical that is Greek and Roman wisdom. Mentioning only Islam (though important it was) is like during a speech at Michelin (or Continental, Pirelli…) saying: “There is no car without wheels!”. True, but there is also no car without an engine, without seats, without a steering wheel, without a gear stick, without a windshield, without… You are deliberatelly leaving important information out in order to overemphasize one fact.

It’s like going to Louvre and seeing only Mona Lisa…

I didn’t agree with many of his opinions, but more on that tomorrow.

I am not sure about the situation in the Western part of the EU, but in the East radical parties are on the rise.

Now, when I say radical, I don’t mean those parasite-like populists whose program is based on hate towards immigrants, but real radical. Radicals, whose programs brings back (bad) memories of the 1930’s.

And when I say on the rise, I mean that they got slightly above 1 % in past week’s Elections to the EU Parliament. Given how disciplined their voters are (they always vote) and that only 25% of the population did vote in the elections the real support of  Delnicka strana (Worker’s party) Czech radical party, which openly endorses National Socialism falls to approx. 0, 25 %. That’s at least in my eyes nothing to worry about.

The majority society has evidently different opinion. Extremist parties are seen as a threat not only to the development of the country but to democracy itself. There is a strong lobby to outlaw anyone who is on the far right side of the political spectra (read: National Socialists). As hinted above the argument is that they pose a threat to democracy and/or that their programs are racist (which is illegal).

I think the second argument is valid, if one of the principles of modern democratic society is equality between people, you must not praise inferiority of one part of the society. To put it differently, modern democracy has certain principles, if you want to campaign in the framework of modern democracy you have to respect them.

I don’t think the first argument makes sense though. Democracy is translated as a Rule of people. Starting from a narrow group of man in the Ancient Athens to basically everyone above certain age limit nowadays, understanding who “People” eligible to rule are has changed significantly over the course of time.

If those eligible to vote want to vote for National Socialists (Communists or similar sick bastards) who pose a threat to democracy, I believe they have a right to do so. If people decide that they want to end “The Rule of People” (democracy), I believe their decision should be respected, because if it is not, then by definition they can’t be those who rule.

I don’t think I would have written same things had I lived in the 1930’s. I think present state of the World allows me to argue for principles. If some sick party (communists, National Socialist like parties etc.) wins in elections in country where I am currently located, I will just pack my stuff and leave the next morning. I think those with intelligence above the intelligence of communist/National Socialist voters will do the same… Such luxury was hardly possible between and shortly after the World Wars.