Recent Posts

Political Landscapes | represented by three Czech Presidents

  • This political analysis is a partial interaction to a speech of president of the Czech Republic Milos Zeman that he delivered to EU parliament at Strasbourgh February 26th, 2014

One World of Nations
By Vlastimil
18 March 2014

By no means is this a comprehensive analysis of Marxist theories or developed theories of socialism. Neither should it be classified as the EU manual of social engineering. This article will only discuss a delivered speech to EU parliament, which might in fact resonate within all EU unelected, or in some lower ranks of elected, leadership structure.

As a background of this analysis here is some information on recent Czech political scene since majority of readership of our site might not be familiar. By recent political scene of the Czech Republic I mean last quarter of century. Czech Republic had 3 presidents since the fall of Iron curtain.

Vaclav Havel
First president was Vaclav Havel who, by his own terms, was an intellectual and a writer - namely drama writer. He descended from a well off families that had been deprived from their social and economic status during socialism and he himself spent a long prison sentence in isolation as a dissident. However, he has been an intellectual, knowledgeable of academia, a humanist. Today I would characterize him as a front-man for elitist groups that ensnare our societies. He could be in fact characterized by "Social Darwinism", though he would just laugh at the term "socialist". Social Darwinism is basically a world view that claims that a final rule and stage of societies is inevitable where total control of fittest social groups that will accumulate all wealth and power at the end of social evolutions. It is simply political and economic Neo-Liberalism. Philosophically we could categorize him as nihilist that crossed the line of Hegelian abstract of total negativism into the new spiritual horizon of some of the elite's ideologies. He could have been used by the 'elite' to be their frontrunner, not exactly knowing what he is representing.

Vaclav Klaus
Second president of the Czech Republic was Vaclav Klaus. As his predecessor, Klaus is a heavy intellectual with a great background in macroeconomics. Klaus would fit with the One World of Nations philosophy. A great leader and right wing capitalist of free open markets. He is a writer and is known "to read books while he sleeps." Klaus has been a needle in the eye of the EU for as long as he has been on the political scene. As the only politician in the EU to stand up rightly to the aggression of Georgia on Russia, while the rest of clowns cheered fascism. He stood up for justice. The EU could not stand him but he has been firm till this very day. Imagine the UK representative Farage of UKIP as an EU sceptic, but wrapped in an intellectual context. Difference between Klaus and Farage is an intellectual paramount at first, secondly, Farage is in my cultural language is a shooter from the waist likening to street combat. Klaus would first think where to shoot and then aimed the rifle from his eye frame, as it should be done. Philosophically we could describe him as materialist humanist pragmatic.

Klaus and Farage

Third president of the Czech Republic is present president Milos Zeman, socialist and EU concept believer. He has been on the scene of political theater as long as Klaus - 25 years. They are rivals in every sense. Zeman is not a writer, as his both predecessors, but it does not diminish his intellect. He is as smart as one can imagine. He keeps reading through his library books like a bulldog. His arguments are brisk and arrogant, because his knowledge is vast. He is an intellectual in the sense of knowing all the classics and theorist in his field. He uses quotes in his speeches and arguments from classic writers like a machine gun. Opponents usually have no chance to defend intellectually. Zeman overpowers them quickly with quotes of classics that suit the discussion. Embarrassed by lack knowledge and understanding, his opponents often fold. All three presidents come from, as I would call, "Center and Eastern European naivete". Meaning that they we all born into an enclosed territorial, cultural, political and economic sector of Easter European people where a developed fairy tale about the West was believed. Some individuals in life need some idealism of one kind or another. The Achilles Heel of the Easter Europeans is in the fact the naive dream of "just and legal West - prosperous, truthful, honest, democratic. Perfectly fitted to be followed". Klaus woke up to that dream during his journey as a politician, that's why the EU cannot stand him. Zeman's weakness is his tendency in his policies to please the West so that he would be accepted as one of them, West European.

This article will deliver an analysis of the last speech of Milos Zeman which he delivered to the EU parliament. His speech really struck a nerve and people should be aware of a trend in the EU, that is apparent, but got a clear verbal definition in Zeman's speech.

The political contextual setting of the speech, as all know, shatters the EU in these days as a coup d' etat goes on in the Ukraine. One would expect Zeman at least touch this hottest happenings in basically a neighboring country to the Czech Republic (former Czechoslovakia). Yet he did not mention one single word of the political dismantling and subterfuge in the Ukraine, which is very interesting to take note of.

Let's begin with how his speech ended to emphasize its real future potential. Zeman's speech received a standing ovation of the EU parliament. I repeat, he received "a standing ovation" for his speech. His ending words are dubious and it is unlikely the EU bureaucrats got the point. Not sure if reasonable intelligence is a prerequisite for an EU parliamentary entry ticket.

Zeman quotes a few contemporary philosophers - Leszek Kolakowski (Polish philosopher of the socialist era), Vaclav Belohorsky and Michael Hauser (both Czech philosophers of our day).

Let's lay down some philosophical terms that are essential for understanding:

  • Liberalism
  • Socialism
  • Neo-Liberalism
  • Neo-Marxism
  • Post-Modernism

Liberalism would be understood in classical terms of Adam Smith's ideal conditions for capitalism which would be totally perfect liberties and equalities across the board, which such conditions for capitalism never existed in our real world. However, markets were liberated to one can say 'masses' in self regulatory frameworks.

Socialism became so profane a scheme that it is not as easy to come to a common ground of understanding since it depends on which cultural view point is used. Socialism would be sharing the same destiny of all concerned; sharing resources and benefits. The aim would be to even up conditions for life to all participants. This social engineering probably is a final version of the NWO transformation of societies when we would have 2 classes, hidden and unknown elite who own all and the rest as a social even class of the same destiny, living in naiveté that they own all and rule all in total denial. This socialism I would call Socialist Supremacism, which is classification in a totalitarian sense.

Neo-Liberalism is a philosophy of present conditions of predatory Globalism of corporations and international institutions regarding practical implications. IMF is in subservient to Neo-Liberalism. The aim of Neo-Liberalism would be to break down standing institutions and structures by different means of destruction or deconstruction and eventually bring them under the total control of the ruling elite. So the wealthy would be even richer. Neo-Liberalism is an ultimate weapon against poor. It is a process of building an all powerful superstate that interferes and regulates, but at first deregulates temporal structures. One could witness this in third world nations and in Easter Europe via IMF loans which were used to aggressively conquer markets. Any possible old structures that could compete were wiped out. They swept Eastern Europe via so called "privatization of state's assets and services" under the hands of corporations and banks. Example: No more Czech Banks in Czech, no more Czech insurance companies etc. It is not uncommon for the average Czech to have money in Austrian bank, pay a phone bill to French company, buy food from Dutch company, have a pension in US company and drive car from UK company which is insured by Italian company. Neo-Liberalism is redistribution of wealth which inevitably will lead to  cuts in social benefits, education and cultural spheres of society. Neo-Liberalist accomplish this by wars or economics through the IMF and/or World Bank control, using deconstruction or destruction. Imagine you have a library that all like to go to and study and generally like that building. Say you want use the library for something else. You can burn it or drive it into bankruptcy. Both ways will achieve the same goal but not both ways will be accepted by library users or general public in the same way. Free Trade agreements are other means for Neo-Liberalists. War in Iraq, Syria or Ukraine are their means as well as natural disasters artificially inflicted on people (Fukushima and Indonesia's tsunami are just two examples. Simply said, the aim is to transfer the societies according to their model. Slow persuasion is in danger of rejection of masses, so a shock type model is usually preferred. Neo-Liberalism would say, get rid of the individual state….Neo-Liberalism is basically using Neo-Marxism as footstool in full sense.

Neo-Marxism is also a philosophy of present conditions of predatory Globalism of corporations and international institutions regarding practical implications. It aims to destroy standing values of Westerner societies (family, spiritual, cultural and economic values). Neo-Marxists attack and attack values of families, it does not matter if they are once or twice rebuffed, they continue doing that for long decades to break down society to be ready for Marxist transformation. In case you did not do any serious studies of development of thoughts you can hardly see it, however, you can see their tactics in politics in present day. They keep attacking Russia and Putin again and again and again. It does not matter that Georgia's aggression was eventually confirmed not Russia who acted in defense. Attacks on Russia and Putin did not stop… and there for 2 decades and they hope that eventually they will break through. Apparently it isn't working, Russia is becoming stronger and stronger. So is Putin. John Kerry is an excellent example, he keeps lying about Russia and Putin regardless if he is caught red handed. If caught lying over and over again tomorrow he would stand up and continue with more lies no matter if contradicts anything he said previously. Neo-Marxism has an answer to monopoly and corporation, and the answer is only one corporation only one monopoly - state monopoly. Difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism developed naturally and spontaneously in societies, socialism is an imposed idea of fraternity on society. From Neo-Marxism we have just a little step to go to enter Post-Modernism.

Post-Modernism is being observed as dismissive of any established centers or pillars in cultural or political or economical sense. Destruction of particular stigmas of society that are being replaced by something else, usual of globalist domain. (Halloween festivities that conquer Easter Europe or Valentine….) This would be identified as cultural deconstruction, when resistance to it is mild. In fact Post Modernism is a strange fusion of opposing parties in traditional Hegelian dialectics. That means in practical sense for example in politics that the political party that is an opposing party finds itself in line with the criticized party. Then at the end of this chain is abstract negativity which will eventually produce emptiness and we will have rebirth of a spiritual hanger that will seek and accept anything to feed upon, this has been observed in history cycles. Regarding a progress of Post-Modernism, at this historical moment I would like pinpoint to a simple fact. As for today people have been so indoctrinated which is beyond anything similar in history, follow this one of today's examples: "Christians of the West are so twisted in their minds that they are supporting those who aim to kill them instead of those who do everything to protect them. This is an unprecedented phenomena. One might say, this is insane who would do it? Yes, it is insane but truth. Westerner Christians do everything possible to oppose Russia that protects alone in the World now, Christianity and they do all possible to support Westerner policies that aim to exterminate them, as a result we see in Syria and other parts of Middle East systemic extermination of Christians conducted under the protective hand of US and West Europe by hands of terrorists. We reached a stage when Christians support those who are killing them on daily basis, as long as they do not need to go against brainwashing of Westerner World MSM that trumpets to them that Russia is undemocratic, dangerous and the West is democratic and protective. This social and moral slide will predestine the following flaws among the Westerners. Eventually people will be indoctrinated and conditioned to get rid of children, families, land and all, without a shot of a gun. It will be done by their enemies whom they will consider loyal friends and protectors.

Finally after specifying social and political trends we arrive to the actual analysis of Zeman's speech that is marking the EU intellectual territory.

Zeman finished his speech with proclamation that "EU is a good thing", period.

Laughable situation. Bureaucrats were either clapping to something that they did not comprehend or they understood and clapped anyway which would mean a double disaster. Consciously or unconsciously carved in the EU political manual, his speech will be a hallmark for EU.

Zeman began his speech appealing to the audience that, as with all leaders in EU, he had a dream and he feels privileged to share his dream about Europe (apparently he heard about MLK) at this very place, Strasbourg, at the EU parliament. Of course it is the magic of dreams that shapes our policies - any serious politician must have them. So, what is his dream that does not let him sleep?

To understand the songs of dreams one must browse through history of philosophical jungle of strange thoughts that people produce throughout history. And in this Zeman is going to help since he will mark off ideas that do not represent his dream at first using a Polish philosopher's speech from the 50's. Kolakowski, when asked to deliver a speech about what is socialism used old theological concept of Dionysius Areopagite of the 5th century AD. Dionysius began describing God by terms of what God is not, rather than trying to find some definition of a infinite God using finite concepts. Dionysius described God in concepts of negative attributes. Like God is not blind, or God is not a do etc. With this concept Kolakowski hit hard facts to listeners when saying that socialism is not a layout camp, assassination of dissidents or censorship of print and supposedly kept going on and on for about an hour defining what socialism is not. Eventually he came to a point to tell the audience what socialism is. He said "Now my socialist fraternity compatriots, socialism is a good thing!" And he finished his lecture saying that. Setting his platform, Zeman continued with his sets of negatives about the EU, (do not forget that he delivered speech in the midst of Ukrainian happenings) yet what he considered worthy of critiquing were trivial issues. What is it that the President of the Czech Republic does not like on EU? Regulation of the type that we have to use in EU light bulbs. Regulations that smooth some alcoholic drinks to some standard line and thus they loose their unique taste. Some food regulations take away traditional stake of its ingredients. Regulations that set moving the EU parliament back and forth from Brussels to Strasbourg. All these are really not part of Zemans EU dream. Having said that now Zeman could finally say what is his vision of EU, his own dream dearest to his heart.

My dear fraternity compatriots, brothers in socialist arms, Eurocitizenship is a choice. Choice that one has to make. You were all born into particular cultures without your choice that you could not influence. In contrary, Eurocitizenship is a choice, your personal choice, that each one has to make over his own culture. It is a "cultural choice", and he quotes Czech philosophers regarding this definition. One has to leave behind the heritage of his culture and embrace Euroculture. (Here we have a typical socialist concept as Kolakowski noticed, capitalism evolved spontaneously within a cultural and economical frames, socialism is an imposed choice in an attempt to institutionalize brotherhood, or in our case fraternity Eurohood).

Such Eurohood would be the abolishing of cultures, statehood and economical markets as the final institutional corporation and jurisdiction. Capitalism would be a kind of human nature at its economic evolution, while socialism is imposed ideology that feeds on capitalism. Nationhood is natural belongings to a social, ethnical, religious, geographical, economical and traditional cultural settings, that each of us inherited from our parents and their social groups. Eurohood is a choice to make as for initial few generations, as understood and promoted by Zeman.

Klaus on EU Nobel Peace Prize

From here Zeman makes a mile jump and tries to defined what is culture in the first place to make sure that we understand it correctly. According to him culture is much more then a simple set of rules, it is certainly more then a set of economical norms and regulations when one sees a just comparison of profit or deficit. Culture is in the EU view is a set of common rules and social behaviors and these rules we must even up in the process of integration, we need such governing principles and regulations in EU politics, let us take an example: 'Kissinger calls to Europe, whom should he call to and to which number?' Yes, we need in the EU a common foreign policy of the EU.

If we have a standard the EU foreign policies then we need to also have a common EU army to protect such policies. We can not have 28 armies, who would protect the EU, only one EU army? Adding to that the EU must have even common taxation policies and fiscal unity. After this Zeman does not forget to say that in fact he is not for unification but for integration. He does not want to have one unified beer of the EU or unified cheese of the EU, yet one fiscal unified policy, one army, one taxation etc….So he blends a few trivial statements with massive cultural and social concepts as he did at the beginning of his negatives categories. After this he finally comes to conclusion, "All youth and old unite not, integrate in the EU Federation not unitarian state of the EU, but the EU federation." And then he ends with closing proclamation "EU is a good thing."

Now if we look back to socialist philosopher Kolakowski and closing of his lecture and compare it how Zeman finished his speech we come to a simple conclusion.

Kolakowski said at the end "Socialism is a good thing" this is what Zeman wanted to emphasize that Kolakowski finished his speech with a simple proclamation… "Socialism is a good thing", period.

Zeman comes to an end of his speech and asserts that "EU is a good thing" period. Two things are alike to Zeman, socialism is good and it evens that the EU is likewise a good thing. That implies that EU is nothing else but socialism according to Zeman, and both are good things. In our philosophical framework that I specified above we know now that Neo-Liberalism with Neo-Marxism and its offspring of Post-Modernism are at work in transforming economical and cultural landscape of the world. All of that is based on ideology of Socialist Supremacism, either economically or culturally submitting given cultures. Socialist Supermacism is a kind of parasite, it needs a host for the beginning.

Now to emphasize one particular element that we can elaborate provided data above about political scene in Czech last 25 years.

First president Havel represents Nihilistic culture of his prison and emptiness of communism that was eating up culture alive as a cancer cell. This represents total abstract negativism of nothingness of Hegelian philosophical framework of dialectics. In the landscape of it we have rebirth of spiritual hunger which actually Havel embraced alongside of the Dalai Lama. Havel did not have any interest in the economy or finance, his domain was philosophy. He would be a Hegelian prototype of a fusion of dialectic opposites when thesis and antithesis fuse, not produce synthesis. It is a fusion, unification of thesis and anti thesis that ends up in nothingness that will cause a spiritual quantitative hunger.

Second president Klaus is a prototype of classic capitalism, economic calculating mind that is pragmatic in all political happenings. He holds classic cultural values and fights against the Eurohood of conformity. Klaus is an economist, capitalist per excellence. Klaus would be creating a functional economy.

Third, and final stage is Zeman the socialist who maneuvers among existing frames, which eventually he represents finishing touches of Neo-Liberalism transforming existing economy into the hands of Socialist Supremacists and scarifies nationhood and culture that he inherited for a willful choice of Eurohood.

Very interesting political landscape represented by three Czech presidents.

No comments :

Post a Comment

If your comment violates OWON's Terms of Service or has in the past, then it will NOT be published.

Powered by Blogger.