FSTDT

[Translation from Croatian by Vman. Tomorrow, July 5th 2020, is the day of parliamentary elections in Croatia. Projected to win more than 10% of the vote, the quoted man’s party is likely to participate in the next Croatian government.]

Miroslav Škoro, the leader of Croatia's third most powerful political party, the Homeland Movement, addressed Andrej Plenković and Davor Bernardić, respectively the leaders of the ruling party, HDZ, and the main opposition party, SDP, with a video message this Thursday.

“Dear sirs, I have some bad news for you: I come to ruin your plans. And I will succeed, believe me. I’ll be like the little David who defeated the arrogant and invincible Goliath, and I'll do it with five carefully chosen stones. Just like David did with his sling, I too will hit you where it hurts.

You have done me a great deal of harm these days. But I actually forgive you, for I know that’s the limit of your capabilities, and because I am not here to speak about myself. There are, however, sins which I cannot and will not forgive you for.

Sirs, you have put my people in heavy chains. You have imposed upon them the yoke of an unreachable referendum, so that their voice cannot reach your laws; you have twisted their arms with an anti-Croat civil society which you finance; you have blindfolded their eyes with an anti-Croat culture; before the eyes of the entire people you rape and denigrate the Homeland War [the early 1990s war in Croatia], our heroes both living and dead, and you have also forsaken and discarded our diaspora and the Croatia beyond the homeland, which are a tissue of our own being. That I cannot and will not forgive. Though I am but one little David before an arrogant Goliath, with five chosen stones I will hit you where it hurts most.

Thus, here’s the first stone: I am bringing and returning the people to the political scene. I will make it so that the referendum initiatives of the citizens will be realistically available. We will request that both the law and the constitution be changed, so that only 150,000 signatures will be required to start a referendum, and the timeframe to do so will be one month*. It must be possible for the people to say what they want to, in order to forestall and prevent your plots. After all, the people are the only reliable guardian of Croatia.

* [Currently, to start a referendum you need to have the signatures of 10% of the country’s voting population, so about 370,000 people, collected over a period of 15 days.]

That is why a second stone follows: I will fight for the sanctity of the Homeland War, which must be elevated to the holiest place in Croatian history. The truth about the Homeland War, the beauty and splendor of that victory, must spark forth from all Croatian institutions, the media, the education system, culture, as well as public and social life in general. The truth and beauty of the Homeland War has the potential to thrill our kids and our youth, becoming their permanent inspiration for the motif of the creation of Croatia. And Croatia must be widely recognizable for that. Without this, there will be no coalition with me.

With a third stone, I tell you that Serbia must pay reparations to the Croatian state. Without war reparations, there is no truth or justice. And the truth must be known and repeated: Serbia was the aggressor, Serbia recruited and sent its army against Croatia, our defenders [war veterans] were taken into concentration camps in Serbia [Vman’s note: that did happen]. Serbia destroyed our towns, factories, churches, sowed fear, inflicted material damage, and robbed us. Only through the truth can we build a future and good neighborly relations.

So, here’s the fourth stone – I will bring one strong world lobby: THE CROATIAN DIASPORA. Yet you fear the diaspora, for it is capable and honest. We will bring back their patriotism, knowledge, skills and recognition in the world. That is Croatia’s actual greatest potential. They will thwart the plots and intrigues you have maintained all the way from the communist times.

Finally, David’s fifth stone shall be a change of the election system. That will be the blow which will sink deepest into your skin, and it will be a vengeance from within. After all, even in your own parties you circumvent those of your members who are noble and good, for they cannot reach positions of power unless they bow to you. Preferential voting will bring forth the right people, which will mark your end and the dawn of a new time.

Pride and dignity will return to our Croatia, and then honesty will as well, leading to the influx of money and good investments, and the beginning of the return of our youth who have left the country seeking a better life. I know that you didn’t count on me; that I don’t fit your templates and that my arrival bothers you. But that is nothing compared to how long and how strongly you have been bothering us… and remember, I don’t do this for any kind of personal interest, but because I love my own people!“

[Posted on Facebook by Miroslav Škoro on Thursday, July 2, 2020]

Many have highlighted the Ayn Rand Institute (and other similar groups) taking PPP funds as hypocrisy. Their thought process goes; Rand opposed welfare, they are getting government assistance, thus hypocrisy. This is a shallow and mistaken view of her philosophy and the reasoning behind taking these funds.
-The ARI didn’t secretly apply for PPP loans, hoping no one would notice. They wrote an article back in May proudly announcing the move, “we *will* take any relief money offered us. We will take it unapologetically, because the principle here is: justice.” So how could taking government money be justice?
-Ayn Rand herself explained in a 1966 essay. She explained the recipient in such a case is morally justified “so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare-statism.” Those who support such handouts, “have no right to them; those who oppose them have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.”
-Rand recognized that the welfare state (the taking of some people’s money by force to give to another) was wrong. To advocate for or support this was also wrong, but what about those who oppose redistribution but are still stuck in the system? “The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.”
-Similarly, if someone advocates for private roads, but given the current system there’s only government roads, they are not obligated to refuse to use all roads, that would be absurd. To get taxed for the road and not use it out of some sense of principle would make one unnecessarily suffer. And for what? The same holds for programs like Social Security, Medicare and certain government scholarships and grants.
-As for the PPP funds, the government shut down most of the economy, adversely affecting virtually everyone (including ARI and their donors). They then offered money to virtually everyone to ease the pain. But the government has no money of its own, so essentially it is taking from all to give to all. Money that will likely not be paid for through taxation, but through inflation and deficits, which will effectively take from all productive people in the future. To refuse some of this restitution, so that others who might be indifferent or wholeheartedly support government redistribution can solely benefit, is not standing on principle, but enduring yet another sacrifice.
-Rand lists some other factors to consider in accepting money. One must not compromise their values or views and continue to advocate against the welfare state (the ARI was clear in their article that they would continue to fight for laissez-faire and their efforts wouldn’t be affected). And they shouldn’t take part in providing moral or ideological support for such programs, nor help in enforcing immoral laws.
-Rand admits these are often difficult moral questions. “It is a hard problem, and there are many situations so ambiguous and so complex that no one can determine what is the right course of action. That is one of the evils of welfare statism: its fundamental irrationality and immorality forces men into contradictions where no course of action is right.”
-One major drawback to these stimulus programs is it forces almost everyone into these moral quandaries. Essentially, it’s a free-for-all for government money, should you take yours or simply let everyone else benefit at your expense? There’s no purely virtuous move, but the fault of that lies with the stimulus programs themselves.
-She concludes with this caution in accepting government money, “The ultimate danger in all of these issues is psychological: the danger of letting yourself get bribed, the danger of a gradual, imperceptible, subconscious deterioration leading to compromise, evasion, resignation, submission. In today’s circumstances, a man is morally in the clear only so long as he remains intellectual incorruptible. Ultimately, these problems are a test, a hard test, of your own integrity.”