It is hard to get a greater contrast than between Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, and Javier Mileim, president of Argentina. This contrast manifested itself peculiarly clearly in Davos, through the speeches of both politicians. This is not only a question of the subjects raised, but besides of the shocking intellectual difference between speakers.
Mrs von der Leyen for the function of president of the European Commission, which she took thanks to the voices of the Euro MPs of the Law and Justice, who was very arrogant of at the time, came from a German policy in which she played an average role. To this day, she is being accused of embezzlement of millions of euros, which the Ministry of Defence was to spend under her direction on unnecessary audits, conducted by external companies.
(Here we request to explain and remind another crucial matter. erstwhile PiS politicians present convince that in 2019 the choice was only between Mrs. von der Leyen and Frans Timmermans, they lie. Non-approval of both possible candidates by the EP would mean uncovering individual new, and so we were not sentenced to a German.)
On the another hand, Javier Milei, academic lecturer and economist, gained experience in applicable economics, in large banks – although, as you can see, this experience resulted in completely different concepts than in Mr Morawiecki. The extremist program of liberal and even libertarian reforms that Milei applied to Argentina was not accidental. We are talking about a man who has his views on the economy and the state not only well thought out, but besides based it on the uncommon erudition level of politics among practitioners.
Ursula von der Leyen spoke in Davos about the European Union. She spoke, utilizing boring new-word, unpolared, putting together schmuck phrases, so characteristic of EU bureaucrats. In addition, her speech included a typical mainstream European absurdity policy. She pointed out, for example, that the main barrier to economical improvement of the EU was to overregulation and, as she announced, it would shortly be presented... 28th package of regulations. This package – note – does not contain any deregulation. It does not destruct nonsense specified as the EUDR – an idiotic EU regulation, introducing a two-story bureaucracy ordering reporting on deforestation at importation of certain natural materials outside the Union. This package, on the another hand, is intended to let the company to operate under peculiar pan-European rules. How this relates to the national legal systems or jurisdiction of the courts of the associate States – it is not known.
The head of the EC has been forcefully creating a contrast with the strategy of the Washington administration, bragging about the conclusion of an agreement with the Mercosur countries and announcing that the EU is focusing on freedom of trade – it is only a pity that in the Union itself this strategy of freedom binds the increasing number of regulations, prohibitions and orders.
She stated that the planet order was changing – she was right here – and the EU must so change its mind. But this reorientation is about the same thing that has been going on for years, and which has brought the Union into the function of a player from the second line: more renewable energy or deregulation, which would not have been needed at all, if it had not been for overregulation.
Above all, her speech was washed out of any deeper inspiration. It contained only sets of mandatory phrases. Here's a sample:
Whether in trade, business, capital or energy, Europe needs to realize that the situation is urgent. Our starting point is good. It is here that global champions are based in areas specified as wind energy and next generation batteries. [...] But as global competition becomes ruthless, we must show real ambition – especially in sectors that are crucial to our independence.
And so on. Another thing is that the claim that "global champions" are based in Europe is very bold. Although the commercial implementation of a fresh kind of battery – coal-silicon – which importantly increased the working time of mobile phones, is of course a substance for Chinese producers. Another thing is that European manufacturers of this kind of equipment do not actually have (a fewer European brands produce in Asia anyway and have a trace marketplace share).
One who could read between the lines could easy see that behind Mrs. von der Leyen's words there was an ideological and intellectual void. The deficiency of any values there is only a panic effort to save yourself from marginalization.
Milei had to go to the EC president like Heidegger to Ferdek Bad. His highly structured speech was a lecture on the fact that the only coherent, effective and fair strategy is the 1 based on ethics and values that form Western civilization, which must consequence in private ownership and freedom. Mielei's performance showed what is the uniqueness of this leader. His reasoning reached the antique erstwhile he recalled the classical (III century) Roman philosopher of the law of Ulpianus, and the later times drew from Adam Smith, Murray Rothbard, a classical of libertarian thought, or Jesús Huerta de Soto, a proclaimer of the concept of dynamic efficiency, to which the president of Argentina repeatedly referred.
In a nutshell, his thesis was: the system, to be just, must be based on a solid foundation of ethics and values, which can only be maintained with respect to the foundations of the Western world: Greek philosophy, Roman law and Christian Judaism. These foundations imply the request to take care of freedom, private property, and disaggress towards another person. Socialism destroys the key rule of linking the production of goods to distribution, which inevitably has dramatic consequences due to the fact that it deprives entrepreneurial people of the motivation to act. The worst is socialism in the utmost version of the Woke’ist version, due to the fact that it undermines the very foundations of civilization.
If we ask ourselves why Europe and Poland look like they do, possibly the answer is in the combination of the speeches of von der Leyen and Milei. To break up with a widely accepted paradigm and become a truly counter-revolutionary leader, 1 must be like Milei: 1 must realize where ideas come from and know how to translate these ideas into political practice. erstwhile you perceive to the president of Argentina, there is no uncertainty that he is simply a leader who understands the metapolitical network of dependency. erstwhile you perceive to Ursula von der Leyen, Donald Tusk, Mateusz Morawiecki or even president Nawrocki, you can see that there the knowing of reality remains at the level of organization combinations and juggling phrases to satisfy the public's emotions.
Luke Warches
