The End of Politics, or the Clash of Civilizations

                                          Bohumil Fišer*

      In the 21st century, two comprehensive views of politics exist that are diametrically opposed
to each other.  In his book, The End of History and the Last Man,^^[1] Francis Fukuyama stresses
that, in synchronization with the progress of natural science, humankind has found the optimal
arrangement of society -- liberal democracy.  And, despite the reverses that may occur in this
country or that one, it is this social system that has triumphed in most countries, and therefore
we are at the end of history.  Samuel Huntington advocates the opposite view as he predicts a clash
of civilizations in his book of the same name.^^[2]  Both authors are leading political
philosophers, thus they utilize a scientific method of philosophy.  From the perspective of a
natural scientist who, as a government minister in the Czech Republic, worked for a short time as a
professional politician and therefore came into contact with practical politics, this methodology
differs from the one he has used all his life, the methodology of the natural scientist. This
methodology can lead to different practical political conclusions.

      Today there is no notable natural scientist who would not accept Darwin’s evolutionary
theory.  No one doubts that there are such differences between the functions of animals’ brains and
the human brain that human psychology as a science cannot be advanced by experiments on animals or
by observation of their behavior.  On the other hand, we can see elements of human behavior in
rudimentary form in our closest relatives, chimpanzees, and the study of the behavior of other
animals living in groups, such as dogs, can also be instructive.

      In all animals we encounter a survival instinct that leads us to avoid potentially fatal
danger, a fear of pain and the attendant effort to avoid injury, and hunger forcing us to secure
food.  Besides this, animals living in groups are, in the form of their neuronal networks,
genetically programmed for behavior that makes life in a group possible, and the group itself
represents an evolutionary advantage that this genetic pool maintains and passes to further
generations.  The notion that the mutation of incipient deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) leading to
behavior that threatens the group is eliminated from the genetic pool appears to be correct,
because such a group dies out.  On the other hand, positive mutations lead to propagation of the
group, and a greater number of individuals increases the likelihood of survival.  Evolution has
therefore ensured that our brains are programmed in such a way that our psychology helps us to
survive.

      Thus there are several types of behavior reinforced by evolution that are characteristic of
life in a group.

1.      Respect for property.  If human behavior did not include this element, it would mean
permanent fighting among member of the group for food, and we do not see this in other groups of
animals, for example, dogs in a pack.

2.      The sense of freedom.  This allows individuals to move freely while seeking food.  With
dogs as with children, we see that they take pleasure in freedom when it is allowed them.  This
feeling is the source of our enjoyment of exploration, of moving to other places, of independent
decision-making.  Advancement is tied to the sense of freedom.  Every discovery has resulted from
this feeling.  Only when we freely decide upon a specific step can we discover new things.  No one
can give us an order to do this, because he does not know what that step is.  We see in chimpanzees
that some of them discover new things -- for example, how to fashion a stick for hunting termites
-- and others are capable of learning from them.

3.      The desire for acceptance by the group.  This is closely connected with a feeling of
friendship.  Among chimpanzees, an individual displays an inclination toward another individual by
grooming, patting and hugging.  We encounter patting as an expression of a feeling of friendship
among humans as well.  A person sees from this that he is not alone.  The feeling of loneliness is
a negative emotion that an individual tries to avoid, and this, coupled with the positive emotion
created by interaction resulting in a sense of belonging, strengthens the group’s cohesion.

4.      A feeling of solidarity.  An individual is willing to risk his life in the interest of the
group.  In a pack of dogs we see that, if one individual is threatened, the others defend him by
attacking.  This sense is very important for the survival of the group.  The survival of peoples
and nations has often hinged upon the bravery of warriors.  The courage to take a risk in the
interest of the group is obviously at odds with the instinct of self-preservation.  Evolution takes
care to see that both feelings are balanced in the group.  Those who are too courageous perish in
the fighting, and they do not transmit genes of heroism (or the courage to take risks) to their
descendants.    A group in which there are no genes of courage whatsoever is extinguished, because
it cannot defend itself.  Evolution thus ensures a balance that we see in all human societies, and
in communities of animals.

5.      The desire to be led in the case of risk.  Practically all groups are organized
hierarchically.  This is true of packs of dogs, groups of chimpanzees, and all human societies.  In
the case of a threat, liberal democracy transfers tremendous authority to the commander-in-chief of
the armed forces.  Frightened chimpanzees hide behind the male leader, and free movement in the
surrounding area is put aside.  Non-delegated command authority increases the group’s chance of
victory.

6.      The feeling of envy.  We can observe this in dogs.  Dogs in a room are lying about on the
couch.  We give one of them a treat.  In the next moment, the others jump from the couch and beg
for one as well.  It appears that envy motivates members of the group to act.  Most of the time
this is positive.  An envious individual tries to attain the success of the envied individual
through activity -- in the case of humans, by working; in the case of animals, by searching for
food even without any feeling of hunger -- which is a positive for the further existence of the
group.  Envy is a motive for hatred, and that is the negative price for a positive motor of
activity.

7.      The desire to apply one’s own talent.  There are endless examples in the case of humans.
In the case of chimpanzees, we have evidence of one talent:  political talent.  I will come back
here to the descriptions of Jane Goodall, the greatest expert in the world on the behavior of
chimpanzees, from whom I have taken all the information about chimpanzees that I mention
here.^^[3]  Goodall describes how a male chimpanzee, Mike, seized control over a group, and she
adds:  “Mike had a strong desire to dominate, a characteristic that is pronounced among some
individuals, and almost completely lacking among others.”

      All the feelings and desires I have mentioned above are most probably a result of the
arrangement within the brain of neurons modified by DNA mutations.  The process of learning is
rudimentary among animals, and all individuals essentially mature in the same environment.  If such
an arrangement of neurons is evident among chimpanzees, there is no reason to assume that it does
not exist among humans.  It will understandably modify our behavior, and no one doubts the
influence of the psychology of leaders and the psychology of the masses upon political
decision-making.

      Here it is appropriate to pause and examine the controversy over Fukuyama, with whom, unlike
Huntington, I mostly agree.  Fukuyama considers, as does Hegel, the motor of social activity to be
the yearning for recognition, which he labels with Plato’s term, thymus.  Thymus is a human
attribute.  The concept of isothymia is described as the desire to be recognized as the equal of
others, and the concept of megalothymie as the desire to be recognized as the leader, the desire
for fame.

      This philosophy presumes that the fundamental interest of every person is politics; but that
is not how it is in reality.  People with political talent are actively engaged in politics, and
others are only interested peripherally, so long as they are satisfied with their lives.
Conversely, they attribute dissatisfaction with their own lives to the political situation.  I have
already mentioned that politics sometimes determines people’s lives, and I offered the Holocaust as
an extreme example.  In a liberal democratic society, things are not that way, and a person capable
of leveraging his political talent becomes a celebrity in the same way as people who are capable of
maximizing their talent in sports, music, literature, acting or science.  Again, there is no doubt
that genetic disposition is responsible for at least some portion of talent; but environmental
influences, especially those of childhood, make themselves felt as well.

      Not much is written about the existence of talent variation among animals, but this is
certainly the way it is.  A racing horse is differentiated by his athletic talent, and some animals
of the same species learn better than others, for example, dogs that are trained.

      To exhort political talent above other talents in a form of megalothymia does not seem right
to me.  We encounter this because certain people have multiple talents.  Their decision about which
one to pursue is often not understood even by those closest to them.

      In evolution, the existence of diverse talents within a group is desirable when there are
changes to the surrounding natural environment.  Sometimes the athletic talent of the warriors or
hunters is needed; sometimes it is the extensive knowledge that some people accumulate.  At other
times there is a need to solve a problem, and here is where the talent for science pays off.  There
are people who are adept at establishing intimate relationships, and others who excel in music or
acting.  Political talent ranks with other talents.  But just as there are many talented athletes,
but only some of whom end up as national champions, so only a few of the many people with political
talent occupy the highest offices in national government.  Here external influences play a major
role.  If Napoleon had not been an artillerist, he would never have become an emperor.  Not every
artillerist becomes a Napoleon.

      There is no politician without political talent, just as there is no musician without an ear
for music.  We can divide politicians into those with a vision, and those who are simply attempting
to maintain the status quo.  But history has not known a politician whose own vision changed the
perceptions of society.  Hitler’s vision of a Third Reich, of Lebensraum and the elimination of
Jews from society was already in place before Hitler.  Except for the murder of the Jews, it
dovetails with the vision of Wilhelm II.  Lenin’s vision is described in Marx’s writings, and
Churchill’s vision of defeating Germany was attuned to the mood of Britons.  The division of
politicians into those with a vision and those without is, to some extent, artificial.  People with
political talent will always be with us, and their approach is similar to that of the chimpanzee
Mike, who attains his position as the dominant male in the way described by Jane Goodall.

      Mike, as Jane Goodall named him, initially held low status within the hierarchy of male
chimpanzees.  He was one of the last to get access to bananas, the primary food of chimpanzees, and
he was threatened by practically all the other mature males, who even actually attacked him.

      Mike’s later behavior is reminiscent of a planned advance on the path upward.  For his shows
of aggression, Mike began to use more frequently than the other males the empty kerosene cans that
were strewn about Goodall’s camp where the chimpanzees went for bananas.  Once, a group of mature
males were grooming each other.  It lasted for approximately twenty minutes.  Mike was about 25
meters from them, often looking in their direction, and occasionally grooming himself.  Suddenly he
moved toward the empty kerosene cans and returned with them to the place where he had been sitting
beforehand.  Armed with these cans, he continued to observe the other males.  After a few minutes,
he began to sway from side to side.  He gradually swayed more vigorously, his hair sticking up, and
then, quietly at first, he began a series of screams.  As he did so, he stood up, combatively
placing himself facing the group of males, and he began to smash the cans against each other over
his head.  This, along with Mike’s screaming, made such noise that the other males ran away.  After
a few moments there was silence.  Some males returned to the group and continued grooming, but some
remained further away out of apparent concern.

      After a short interval, Mike’s screams and the smashing of cans rang out.  The other males
fled again.  Before they could return, Mike aggressively placed himself facing Goliath.  Goliath
was the leader of the group, and he had not run away like the others.  Mike remained in a combative
stance.  Suddenly, Rudolph came to him, making soft sounds of subordination, and he deeply bowed to
Mike and began to groom him.  Finally, the male David Graybeard came to Mike, placed his hand on
his flank, and began to groom him.  Only Goliath remained sitting off to the side, and he looked in
Mike’s direction.  It was clear that Mike had created a serious threat to Goliath’s heretofore
unchallenged leadership.  It took a year before Mike’s position was secured and he himself felt
secure in it.  Tension remained between him and the former leader, Goliath.

      Goliath did not give up his position without a fight.  He posed combatively in front of the
other members of the group, and a confrontation with Mike was unavoidable.  The confrontation began
with Goliath jumping onto a tree near Mike, and then Goliath remained still.  Mike looked
momentarily at Goliath, and then he began to put on a show:  He shook branches, threw stones, and
finally jumped on Goliath’s tree and shook the branches.  When he stopped, Goliath replied; he
shook the tree and the branches.  Finally, they both ended up on the ground.  There they stopped,
sat down and stared at each other.

      Then, one after the other, they shook branches and faced off combatively.  This lasted for
about half an hour.  Each subsequent performance was more combative than the last; but, aside from
the fact that they occasionally hit each other with the branches they were shaking, they did not
attack each other.  After a particularly long break, it unexpectedly appeared that Goliath had lost
his nerve.  He ran toward Mike, bowed before him, and began to groom him intently.  For a while
Mike completely ignored Goliath.  Suddenly he turned and began to groom his defeated opponent.
They sat and continuously groomed each other for about an hour.  This was the last actual duel
between these two males.  Thereafter it seemed that Goliath had accepted Mike’s superiority.

      However, Mike had to defend his leadership.  Once, a chimpanzee male named David ran from
Mike and screamed, running toward Goliath, whom he hugged before turning and screaming in Mike’s
direction.  The humans who were observing saw that he was angry.  Suddenly, David started to run
toward Mike, and Goliath followed him.  Meanwhile, Mike was making a combative show in front of
another group of males who retreated.  When they saw that David and Goliath were running toward
Mike, they joined them, and suddenly there were five fully mature males standing against a lone
Mike.  Mike screamed and jumped on a tree, and the other males pursued him.  The observers were
certain that Goliath was going to regain his status as the leader.  But Mike suddenly turned and
started shaking branches, and in the next moment he jumped headlong toward the five males.  They
were startled and hurriedly jumped from the tree to run away.  When Mike sat with his hair standing
up, the other males stood cowering at a distance.  Mike had defended his status.

      This description demonstrates what political talent looks like in a group of chimpanzees.  I
will relate two more interesting situations.  Mike attacked an older female, Flo, grabbed a bunch
of bananas from her, and struck her.  Two hours later Mike came to Flo and started to play with her
fingers.  After a few minutes they were tickling each other and playing together.  When a
chimpanzee leader exerts his status, he usually very quickly calms the subordinate member of the
group by touching and hugging.

      Chimpanzees often move about in pairs.  Some of these pairings are so stable that we can
speak of friendship.  While he was still in a subordinate position, Mike had a friend, J.B.  J.B.
was obviously subordinate to Goliath.  When Mike became the leader, Goliath did not want to allow
J.B. to get at his bananas.  J.B. screamed, and after a while Mike arrived.  He did not interfere
in the squabble, but when Goliath saw him, he allowed J.B. to have some of his bananas.  Friendship
with the leader ensures higher social standing.  These episodes are not intended to show that the
politics of people and chimpanzees are the same; but I am writing about chimpanzees only to
demonstrate the fact that some individuals have political talent, and some do not.

      We see that Mike gained his position by convincing the others in the leading group that he is
the right individual for the position of leadership.  This is the politician’s approach whether in
a dictatorship or a democracy.  Just as an individual prefers freedom, but when endangered
sacrifices it for security, there is no diametrical difference between a politician in a
dictatorship and a democratic politician.  Thus we are not surprised that communist politicians who
helped create or sustain the communist dictatorship became supporters of democracy when they
concluded that democratization would benefit society.  This is true for Czech politicians who,
after actively participating in the seizure of power by the communists in 1948, declared the policy
of the Prague Spring in 1968.  The same is true for Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Shevardnadze in Russia.

      Sometimes Kant’s Categorical Imperative which I mentioned earlier is emphasized.  Certainly
neither German fascism with domination by Germanic races, nor the attitude of American settlers
toward Native Americans -- or that of democratically elected politicians in the southern states of
the Union toward slavery -- passes the test.  On the other hand, the Crusades aimed at spreading
Christendom, or the Muslim conquest to spread Islam, just as the communist revolution designed to
turn all people into proletarians, are, from this perspective, debatable.  The current conflict
between the democratic left and the democratic right is also about what the supporters of both
directions consider to be just.  One group wants the same standard of living, the other the same
starting position, augmented by socialized networks for medically impaired citizens.  Each group
considers its opinion to be fair.

      I conclude this discussion of politicians with the observation that they will always be with
us to carry out policy that is dictated by three main factors:

1.      the factor of efficiency,

2.      the factor of timing,

3.      erroneous quantitative estimation.

      I already addressed these factors in the introductory chapter.  Now I will mention them in
connection with criticism of Fukuyama and Huntington.  Fukuyama cites Hegel’s theory about the
first person and the beginning of history.  According to this theory, there was a conflict between
a master and a slave.  The master was willing to risk his life, and he valued rulership more than
life.  The slave preferred life over an equal or ruling status, and he decided to serve the
master.  This theory accepts inequality as a result of the victory of courage over cowardice.  The
last person refuses to accept this arrangement, and the result is liberal democracy and the end of
history.  I have tried to show that, from the perspective of natural science’s view of man, the
situation is different.  Slaves began as captives in war.  The principle of efficiency dictated
having an army to defend property, and when an army came into existence, efficiently making use of
it to gain more property, including slaves.  Democracy has a chance when there is security and
safety.  This condition existed for millennia after the advent of agriculture and very rare
surpluses.  Empires must defend themselves, and if they did so successfully, then they attacked so
that they would be even more powerful.  When a combination of factors weakened them, they were
immediately attacked by neighboring empires taking advantage of the second factor, timing the
attack for when the opponent is weak.  Erroneous quantitative estimation led Napoleon to his
campaign in Russia, Hitler to his attacks on all fronts, and Japan to an attack on the USA.  The
mistaken calculation that, if we redistribute the country’s wealth, the majority will attain a good
standard of living led the poor into the communist revolution.  When, after nationalization, they
saw that it was an erroneous quantitative estimate, they continued in a revolution spurred on by
hate.

      Having criticized Fukuyama, I will move to criticism of Huntington.  Huntington says that the
divide between us (located in one civilization) and them (located in another) is a constant of
human history.  He indicates that differences in behavior toward people from the same or from a
different civilization result from these causes:

1.      from a feeling of superiority (sometimes as well from inferiority) over people considered
to be fundamentally different;

2.      out of fear and mistrust of these people;

3.      from the difficulties accompanying communication with these people as a result of differing
languages and norms of social behavior;

4.      from a lack of familiarity with the prejudices, motivations, social relationships, and
customs of these people.

      These factors certainly appear in economic competition.  But there is nothing wrong with
that, because economic competition is the driving force for improving living conditions, and all
liberal democracies, including the American one, are founded upon it.  Armed conflicts arise from
entirely different causes.

      In the past, wars were exclusively about property.  The group that was militarily stronger
found an ideology allowing it to be reconciled with inherent respect for the property of others
(our enemies do not have any rights, because they worship other gods) and attacked.  In agrarian
societies, every war ended with territorial gains, or with the confiscation of arable land, the
source of all wealth.  In the present, I know one example:  the occupation of Kuwait by Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq.

      Civil wars are a continuation of revolution, and they are about control over property within
the nation.

      It is more complicated with wars of liberation.  The longing for liberation is connected with
the longing for freedom.  What is essential is that a group of people with political talent
attempts to gain control by convincing the public in their own country of the advantages of
independence -- the majority is looting us and outvoting us in the elections is the argument in
democracies; or, in dictatorships, we want to rid ourselves of domination -- and obtains the
financial means for war.  What is more complicated is that, in some cases, the breakaway means
economic advantage, and at other times there is only the result of erroneous quantitative
estimation.  A war for independence is a war to break away from a large state.  The breakup means a
weakening for both sides, and the state’s leaders will naturally try to prevent it.  The war of
North versus South is a typical case.  The southern states mistakenly believed that the abolition
of slavery would ruin them economically.  Lincoln, by preserving the unity of the nation, created
the conditions for the rise of the most powerful country on Earth in the following century.

      A similar example is the breakup of Yugoslavia.  For three nations the current
post-Yugoslavia arrangement is advantageous:  Slovenia, the level of whose economy could subsidize
the rest of former Yugoslavia; Croatia, which can base its economy on tourism thanks to the
Adriatic coast; and Montenegro, which was in no way oppressed by Serbia, but can profit from
tourism thanks to a low population and beautiful beaches.  Independent Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, independent Bosnia-Herzegovina, and independent Kosovo have no advantages from the
breakup.  Serbia would have won militarily without the intervention of the USA and the EU.  The
current situation works thanks only to the EU’s economic assistance in Bosnia, and the USA’s in
Kosovo.  Bosnia could be a powder keg in the future.  Kosovo’s independence was declared at a time
when there was already a democratic government in Serbia willing to guarantee Kosovar Albanians all
possible rights.  The Americans decided to finance a military base there instead.  This resulted
from their flawed analysis that they had caused the collapse of the Soviet Union by force, and out
of fear that Russia would later intervene militarily on behalf of the Serbs.  Not even in Stalin’s
time did the Russians intervene in Korea; they did not intervene in Vietnam (I will take note of
Afghanistan later); and they were not preparing to intervene in Serbia after they had voluntarily
departed from Eastern Europe, including the Baltic republics.  The USA has a military base for a
conflict with no one.  If the Americans had created an independent Kosovo without Srpska Mitrovica
by changing the borders, they would have gotten rid of the part of the population that does not
like them and reduced future tension.

      All other wars in the second half of the 20th century were wars under the rubric of “the
wheels of the revolution must not stop.”  These are the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam, the war
in Afghanistan, Argentina’s war to liberate the Falkland Islands, and the wars of the Arabs against
Israel.  I will not take up the numerous wars in sub-Saharan Africa, because they are a result of a
combination of the aforementioned causes (war for property, war for independence from a large
state, and war to confirm the success of dictatorship).

      It is worth mentioning two wars, in Vietnam and in Afghanistan.  Communist Vietnam came into
being as a result of a gross mistake by the French.  The battle for the fortress at Dien Bien Phu
is a textbook example of faulty strategy.  It was not their own error that left the French to be
defeated there.  It was the strategic success of communist General Giap.  The mistake was that the
French were there at all.  They were supposed to establish the defense of Hanoi, Haiphong, Hue and
Saigon (the shield), and, through assaults supported by air cover, to attack communist
administrative centers (the sword).  That is the military aspect.  It is my opinion that they
should have formed a government along the lines of Norodom Sihanouk’s in Cambodia in a timely
manner and departed.  The American strategy was even worse.  The Americans believed that, if they
kill lots of Vietnamese communists, then they will give up the attempt at revolution.  During
senseless American offensive operations, many American soldiers lost their lives.  In a training
course for reserve officers one learns that, if both forces are roughly equal, losses to the
attacker are higher than losses to the defender.  Moreover, the Americans constantly changed their
strategy.  If, with air superiority, they had organized the occupation of Hanoi and Haiphong by a
South Vietnamese tank army, they could have obtained a better negotiating position.  America’s
engagement cannot, however, be unilaterally condemned.  The Soviet Union would have continued in
more proxy wars to keep the wheels of revolution from stopping, and to strengthen its own
dictatorship.

      The war in Afghanistan is proof of this.  It began in classic fashion.  The communists seized
power in the capital, and a civil war broke out.  Because Afghanistan was not a country of rich and
poor, envy and the hatred resulting from it was not great, so the communist revolutionary army did
not have many adherents.  The Soviet Union arrived to assist militarily.  American surface-to-air
missiles destroyed Soviet helicopters, and the Red Army left the country in defeat.  It seems that
this defeat strengthened alternative ideas in the Soviet leadership and contributed to Gorbachev’s
succession.

      Samuel Huntington predicts dangerous clashes in the future that will apparently arise from
Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance, and Chinese assertiveness.  He sees three main problems
dividing the West and the other societies.  The West is trying:  1) to prevent the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction; 2) to promote human rights; 3) to preserve its own culture, and social
and ethnic integrity by limiting the number of immigrants or refugees it accepts.

      The spread of nuclear weapons can only be prevented with difficulty.  The technology was
developed over a half century ago, but up to now it has held true that whoever possesses nuclear
weapons is more powerful than others.  For fifty years the USA and the USSR mutually threatened
each other with such a quantity of missiles and bombers with nuclear payloads that it would have
been enough to kill two-thirds of the population of both countries.  Anyone would wonder about the
danger of accidentally starting a nuclear war.  Members of the military were all under time
pressure, because the advantage of a first strike was obvious, and seconds counted.  Nowadays, such
danger has passed.  All other nations have nuclear weapons more or less for reasons of prestige.
The exception is Israel.  If there was a threat of the Israeli military’s defeat by Arab neighbors
with a total population twenty times larger than Israel’s, then the threat of the destruction of
Cairo or Damascus might dissuade them from a further advance.  Like Jordan, Egypt currently does
not have offensive goals.  Iraq has been pacified after the American intervention, Iran is far
away, and Syria is weak.  But Israel correctly takes into consideration that future regime changes
in neighboring countries could alter the situation.

      North Korea has nuclear weapons for its own defense, but no one is attacking her.  After the
lessons from the unification of Germany, with money shifting from west to east for twenty years,
South Korea does not much long for unification.  North Korea itself is not dangerous for anyone,
because it knows that a potential conflict would not cease.  North Korea is driven only by the
effort to maintain its own dictatorship.

      Nuclear India and Pakistan are not preparing to wage war over Kashmir with nuclear weapons,
and I will discuss China later.

      Human rights are not the exclusive province of the West.  Authoritarian regimes are focused
upon the danger of chaos to which democracy leads.  The freedom to vote is one thing, and the
freedom to go out for a walk at night without becoming a victim of a criminal street gang is
another.  I think that the West has some catching up to do.

      Immigrants are not a problem of the country from which they departed.  Their countries tell
them to stay home.  Most immigrants are motivated by a yearning for a material well-being that most
religions either condemn, or at least do not favor.  When they find out that everything in a
liberal democratic society must be paid for, that the goods they can purchase are a symbol of
status in their country of origin, but not in the country where they have arrived, and that they
are on the lowest rung of the social ladder, they begin to envy and hate.  This personal problem
has no solution; but if the result is an insistence upon rights that contravene the historical
rights of the majority of the population, then there must be a discussion.  Demonstrations calling
for outlawing cartoons of Mohammed are in accordance with the right of free speech; but calls for
violence are not.  I think that prohibiting women from wearing a veil in public is not in keeping
with liberal democracy; but compulsory education, including physical education, with a standardized
curriculum is.  I think that sufficient use is not made of the “carrot and the stick.”  More social
services are needed.  On the other hand, in the future it will be desirable to establish a region
(an island near Africa, or a portion of purchased territory) where those who do not respect the
laws -- including even those who have EU citizenship -- will be exiled.  Sharia law could be
enforced in this territory whose inhabitants would be adequately fed, and who would be able to
leave for any other country willing to accept them.  I do not think that the countries of the EU
will find a way to do this, so anti-immigration populists will get votes in elections for a long
time to come.

      According to Huntington, the clash of civilizations is more than just a clash of people of
different races and religions.  A more detailed analysis reveals that religion was always a
secondary factor, though an important one.  The Christian Crusades to the Holy Land appear to be a
prototype of religious wars; but they culminate in the sack of Constantinople.  The religious wars
of the 17th century between Protestants and Catholics see participating rulers and military
commanders switching sides from one camp to another, and the acceptance of the stricture that
subjects will have the same faith as their lord is evidence of the fact that there was no great
consistency in relation to faith.  Ideology serves as justification for why the enemy has no right
to his property.  No one doubts that the driving force behind the conquest of the Americas by the
Spanish and the Portuguese was not faith, but gold.

      One area, however, is a strong argument in favor of the notion of a clash of civilizations:
the attacks by Islamists.  Some judge that this is connected with the religion of Islam; but there
are several arguments indicating that this is not true.  The great campaigns of conquest by Islamic
armies were always marked by religious tolerance.  This is true for the Arabs' conquests in North
Africa and on the Pyrenean peninsula, as well as for conquests made by the Turks.  In both cases,
the rule was:  “If you surrender without a fight, you can keep your own religion.”  In other words,
we want your taxes and a portion of your property, but religion is secondary for us.  Islamic
states on the Pyrenean peninsula tolerated Christians and Jews, and religious tolerance ceased with
the victory of the Christians.

      The second argument is also from history.  Terrorist attacks are not a Muslim invention.  We
know more about this from the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany in the 1970s than from 19th-century
anarchists.  Under the banner of urban revolution, this group of young intelligent people
terrorized German society for several years.  A group had formed whose members were people inclined
to risk their lives in the interest of the group.  This is, as I indicated, a very important
inherent characteristic in human evolution.  The group in this case was neither an extended family
nor a nation, but an armed cell.  They were successfully defeated by crime-fighting methods, though
they found a number of sympathizers around the world.  We know the same about al-Qaeda.  Religion
is secondary, and what is primary is the group and its victory in the form of spectacular terror.
It carries out a series of attacks against citizens of its own faith and is entirely undisturbed by
this.  The problem in destroying al-Qaeda is not the USA or Europe where there are highly capable
security forces, but countries where government efficiency is low.  As happens everywhere in the
world where there is not thorough oversight by the organs of a legal state, an authoritarian police
force will certainly infringe upon human rights; but it seems that this is the only effective way
of dealing with terrorism in these countries.  Neither America nor Europe is threatened by a
massive attack.  On the other hand, murdering thousands of people in a shopping mall is not
difficult now, just as it was not difficult in the past.  Losses must be expected; but there is no
alternative to detailed and deliberate police work.

      Let us answer the question as to whether the USA and Europe are threatened by a clash of
civilizations with China and Russia.  After the enormous communist Chinese military swept Chiang
Kai-shek from mainland China to Taiwan, it waged a war in Korea against the USA (operating with UN
forces) that ended in a stalemate and many times higher losses for China, and later conducted a
senseless and short war against Vietnam.  However, China’s communist leader Máo Zédōng made a most
important decision that positively affects life on this planet more than most people realize.  He
decreed the “One Child Policy” for Chinese families.  Even in a poor family, one child will
generally not go hungry, and the parents can usually invest money in its education.  Mao wanted to
prevent famine with his decree.  Not only did he succeed, but at the same time he opened a path to
prosperity for China.  If we compare India and China, China achieves better economic results mainly
because the rate of its population growth is slower than India’s.  For example, in 1961 India’s
population numbered 452 million, China’s 673 million.  By 1977 the rate of population growth was
the same percentage-wise (143% over 1961), but in 2001 India’s population had grown by 226% over
1961, and China’s by 192%.  The annual per capita production of rice in India was 33 kg, just as in
China.  In 2001, the respective numbers were 76 kg for India and 115 kg for China.  Similarly for
wheat:  in 1961, 28 kg for India, 22 kg for China; but in 2001, 57 kg for India and 78 kg for
China.  The production of meat in 1961 was 3.7 kg for India, the same as China’s 3.8 kg.  In 2001,
the production is 4.5 kg for India, and China’s is ten times greater -- 50.1 kg.  China has ever
more resources to devote to research and education, and prospects for high-tech advancement that,
as I have already shown, determines a country’s economy and the standard of living of its
population as a whole.

      Once child per family has one important psychological effect, however: The parents are
worried for the child’s safety, and they do not want to lose him in a war. China is a communist
dictatorship with a ruling group at its head.  And all members of this group do not want to lose
their only child in a war. China will thus not embark upon military adventures, even if its economy
allows it to arm its military at a high technological level.  The USA and Europe can feel secure in
the face of the Chinese armed forces -- but not in the face of Chinese economic competition.  Thus
far, China is competing with low salaries for its workers, just as Japan did in the 1950s.  China
expects a destiny similar to Japan’s, the destiny of a wealthy country with a high level of
technological advancement and a high standard of living.  On the other hand, the vast Chinese
market can consume high-tech products from the USA and Europe.

      As far as democracy is concerned, it appears to be a long way off.  The ruling group is in
favor with the people when prosperity grows, and there is no pressure from the public for a change
of policy.  Advocates of a hard-line communist dictatorship still exist within the ruling group,
however.  The West must not make mistakes giving them the opportunity to gain greater influence.
This means accepting the formal One China Policy.  If Western politicians say that Hong Kong is a
part of China and that they are satisfied with this state of affairs -- and, when there is the
occasional tension between Hong Kong’s municipal authorities and those of China, if they do not
highlight the disagreement -- everything will be in order.  If Taiwan accepted the notion of a One
China Policy, stressing its autonomy and allowing for the possibility of full reunification in the
22nd century, it would help the economically-minded leadership of China in its struggle with the
militaristic police-state wing of the Communist Party of China.  Pressure to respect human rights
is correct; but the release of a dissident from jail must be explained as the correct move of
strong leadership, not as a retreat under pressure.  The problem of Tibet it not entirely
clear-cut.  The suppression of human rights is connected with a rise in Tibetans’ standard of
living resulting from Chinese economic assistance.  I think that recognition of Chinese
accomplishments must accompany the pressure for greater human rights, including religious freedom;
but the demand for an independent Tibet damages relations with China.  No one in China is flying
the flags of Native American tribes and demanding that the United States abandon its territory and
pay reparations to Native Americans.  The same is true in Europe.  China does not interfere in the
affairs of the Basques and the Irish in Northern Ireland.  The outlook for cooperation with China
in the future appears optimistic.

      Under economic pressure, Russia has been carrying out a one child policy for a long time
already.  Russia did not leave Eastern Europe so that it could again try to occupy it.  Non-Russian
peoples in the Russian Federation should make demands for the economic development of their regions
and investments in education and culture; but an attempt at independence is out of the question.
None of these nations would subsequently be truly independent, but under the influence of another
power, and the Russian Federation will not allow this.  Cooperation between Europe and the USA and
Russia in reducing international tension should be expanded, because both sides will profit from
it.  When the Americans put Patriot missiles in Poland, these missiles will not shoot down a single
Russian missile, because Russia will not launch any missiles into Poland; but Russia will, under
any pretext whatsoever, limit natural gas exports to Poland as a way of saying, “If you make
problems for us, we will do so for you.”  There will be no war, but it will be an argument for
those politicians who are anti-American in their orientation, which could negatively impact
cooperation between the USA and Russia in other parts of the world.  It is a shame, because the
USA, Europe and Russia all face the danger of Islamist terrorists, and therefore have common
interests.

      Conflict with the Arab world appears most serious.  All Arab nations are authoritarian;
rather, with the exception of Tunisia and Egypt and perhaps Yemen, they are dictatorships.
Sometimes the ruling group is composed of military officers, in other places it is a classic
monarchy.  Dictatorships need an ideology with the threat of an enemy to justify their existence.
For the Muslim world, the enemy is the State of Israel.  Israel came into being on the basis of a
historical argument:  It was the original homeland of the Jews.  Israel should never have come into
existence.  If the status of the Jews in the countries of Europe had corresponded to their
education, industriousness and skills -- and if they had not lived under the threat of
anti-Semitism -- they would never have emigrated to the Holy Land.  Hitler excluded them from
German society, and Western European democracies acted as if it was not their business.  Here the
quote cited earlier applies:  “It is what it is.”  Israel exists within territory where the
Palestinian Arabs once lived.  Israel has a most powerful friend in the USA, and is therefore
indestructible.  The dictators are able to foist upon their people the mathematical error that
Israel is responsible for their relative poverty.  All presidents of Muslim countries in the region
have been visible in the struggle against Israel, from Egypt’s Nasir to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein,
Libya’s Qaddafi, Syria’s Assad, and the presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Israel and the
USA complete a picture of friendship:  they are wealthy, and they do not recognize Allah.
Petroleum producing countries conduct a policy whereby they are protected by the USA from their
poorer, yet better armed and warlike Muslim neighbors so they can get the best price for their
oil.  The domestic policies of all of these countries are, with a few exceptions, the worst on the
entire planet.  They use their oil riches to finance social policies, but investments in education
are relatively low.  There is no widespread education oriented toward the natural sciences, despite
the fact that it could be the foundation for the high technology that these countries need to
develop a modern economy.  This separates them from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand,
Malaysia, Indonesia, China and India.  Only Tunisia and Egypt focus on the tourist industry.  The
ideology of Muslim dictatorships contains religious elements condemning birth control.  The result
is large uneducated families, and uneducated women are the main factor in the population
explosion.  The intervention of the USA in Iraq, where the army of Saddam Hussein represented a
permanent threat to Israel (with the danger that, when it least needed to be, the USA would be
drawn into a war resulting in high American casualties) was certainly the right thing.  The
destruction of al-Qaeda’s bases in Afghanistan was similarly warranted.  After the military
victory, however, the Americans made a mistake when they naively assumed that establishing
democracy would solve the situation.  The greatest danger of democracy after the violent overthrow
of a dictatorship is chaos.  This is what happened in Germany after the First World War, and much
of the population supported Hitler’s rise because he guaranteed the elimination of the chaos and
rampant crime that the government could not handle.  Czech politicians were aware of this danger
after 1918, and in democratic Czechoslovakia they assumed control over the entire repressive
apparatus represented by the Austro-Hungarian police and gendarmerie.  It must be added that
Austro-Hungary was an authoritarian legal state before the First World War, where the repressive
apparatus was under the oversight of judicial authorities.  The fact that the Americans
underestimated the role of repression did not matter with the Kurds, who received the Americans as
liberators; but, by not utilizing some of the elements of Hussein’s repressive apparatus (after
removing Hussein’s fanatical supporters, of course), the Americans ended up harming democracy
itself.  People cannot feel free in a country where bombs explode daily, even if they have the
right to vote and freedom of speech.  Another error of the Americans is their distaste for
cooperation (meaning financial support) with socialists.  They confuse them with communists, but
even communists are not dangerous for America after the fall of the USSR.  Their agitation in the
same poor regions where the Islamists recruit most of their fighters would gain the support of many
unpropertied citizens against the Islamists.  The same applies for Afghanistan.  Here there are
groups from the time of the communist dictatorship that loath the Taliban, and the Americans could
make use of these groups in the battle against them.  It applies here as well that police work and
a network of informers can yield positive results, mainly without the loss of American soldiers.
The most powerful enemy of the USA in the region is Iran.  The policy of sanctions can delay
armament, but it strengthens the leadership of the Islamic republic.  Under pressure from the USA,
the leadership’s order is to close ranks and not produce any alternative ideas that lead to the
self-destruction of the regime.  In my opinion, an optimum strategy for Iran should recognize that
it is an authoritarian state with elements of democracy such as multi-party elections, which
automatically means an election campaign with the free dissemination of ideas.  A major theme for
the upper middle class could be “My home is my castle,” meaning a prohibition against the
Revolutionary Guard entering someone’s home without the permission of a court, which would allow
young people from these wealthier classes to live in the American lifestyle they crave.  If
politicians received financial support from these people, then these alternative ideas would
spread.  For addressing the poorer classes, financial support to socialist parties is important.
Their platform of social welfare would gain the support of many, and would lead to pressure to
limit militarization.  Perhaps the leadership of the Islamic republic would react by restricting
the democratic elements of the state.  But this would radicalize the socialists for a revolutionary
struggle against the Islamic dictatorship, and lead to a certain lessening of international
tension.

      Israel is behaving correctly when it limits risk by building a protective wall between Israel
and Palestine, and it is unfairly criticized for it.  However, it is not reasonable to make
irreversible decisions about the access of Palestinians to a mosque in Jerusalem.  Within the
framework of a definitive peace settlement, the supporters of peace in the Palestinian state will
have to demonstrate a certain symbolic success, and leaving the Temple Mount under Palestinian
control does not impair the authority of the State of Israel, just as the authority of the Italian
state is not impinged by the fact that security in St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome is handled by the
Vatican.

      I consider investment in Palestine by the wealthy oil nations -- for example, the
establishment of modern firms -- to be an important element of stability.  The USA would ensure
that these enterprises do not become the target of Israeli reprisals for terrorist attacks on
Israel.  Palestine’s economic prosperity would automatically lead to an attempt to normalize
relations with Israel, in similar fashion to China’s normalization of its relations with Taiwan.
Peace in this region is possible, but the USA must rid itself of its incorrect notion that we are
on the verge of a clash of civilizations.  When it places Patriot missiles and radars on the border
of the Russian Federation, it shows that it has not yet learned to do so.

      I have tried to show that there will be no clash of civilizations.  This does not mean that
history has ended, and that liberal democracy is a kind of arrangement in which anyone who has
tasted it will desire nothing else.  There are great differences between liberal democracies.  They
are not just differences of per capita GDP.  This is not too important for internal stability.
People understand that there are wealthier nations; but they consider it to be unjust when some
citizens possess enormous wealth, and others have trouble taking care of their basic needs.  It is
economists who consider the socialized state incapable of being financed, and therefore
unacceptable.  Statistics show that this is not so.  The differences in the incomes of the rich and
the poor are best shown by the Gini coefficient, named for the Italian economist who introduced
it.  His mathematical explanation is somewhat complicated, so I will content myself with a
substitute solution offered by a calculation of the ratio between the average income of the 20%
best educated and the 20% least educated.  In some countries this ratio is around 3, in others 8
(e.g., 8 in the USA, 7 in the United Kingdom, 4 in Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland and Sweden,
3.5 in the Czech Republic, and 3.4 in Japan).  If it is 8 in a specific country, transfers can lead
to the doubling of the income of the 20% poorest, while the wealthier will still have three times
as much, which is just simple arithmetic.  High taxes reduce business initiative, and we pay for
this with a lower tempo of economic growth.  Statistical data do not support this idea, however.
They show that high taxes are not a curse, because a society that is more egalitarian enjoys more
solidarity, and is thus more stable.  Significant social stress does not occur.  Simple calculation
demonstrates that, if the 20% most poor are to have the same standard of living, then a country
with a ratio of 8 must double its GDP, with all of the negative consequences for energy consumption
and the resulting pollution of the environment.  In the USA in 1966, the income of the 20%
lowest-income households was 7,000 dollars, for the next 20% it was 20,000 dollars, for the next
20% 31,000 dollars, for the next 20% 44,000 dollars, and for the 20% highest-income households
79,000 dollars (with the income of the top 5% at 79,000 dollars).  In 1998, for households with the
lowest incomes it was 9,000, for the next group 22,000, for the next 37,000, for the next 58,000,
and for the highest-earning 20% 123,000 (215,000 for the top 5%).  This shows that thirty years of
economic growth had a practically negligible impact on 60% of American households (the data are in
dollars adjusted for inflation to reflect the same buying power).  The highest tax rate in the USA
around 1960 was 90% of one’s income; in 2010, it was 30%, which sheds more light on the
aforementioned distribution of household incomes.  The Cold War was at its height in the 1960s,
however, and the rich did not protest against high taxes, because they realized that the money was
going to armaments, and, if they lost against the Soviet Union, they would lose all of their
property.

      If the socialized state focuses on health care, education, and benefits for the elderly --
without interference in the private economy, and by financing its programs with higher taxes -- it
brings no danger.  (Data from 2009 show that tax revenues in the USA are 28% of GDP, but in the
United Kingdom 39%, in Belgium 47%, in Austria 43%, in Denmark 50%, in Finland 44%, in France 46%,
in Germany 40%, and in Sweden 49%.)  In view of the environment, population growth, and limited
energy resources, emphasis on economic growth is not without controversy.  The relationship between
the amount of income and the satisfaction index in the USA in 1973 rose sharply up through an
income of 10,000 dollars annually per capita, and then stagnated.  The differences between an
income of 10,000 dollars and 25,000 dollars were minimal.^^[4]  Much more important is a sense of
safety and security.  Income is definitely an engine of progress, but not the only one.  People
whose creative works have contributed most to the advancement of society have not been among the
poorest; but, with few exceptions, neither have they belonged to the wealthiest groups.

      Some poorer nations in South America have gotten into trouble, however, because they have
placed emphasis on state enterprises, on protectionist policies of high customs duties, and on
intervention in the financial sector.  The result was stagflation:  high inflation with
imperceptible growth.  This is a disadvantageous approach.  The right thing is for the state to
just collect taxes and intervene against speculators.  If companies are producing to obtain a
profit, there is no need for economic interference by the state, though the participation of labor
unions in the management of the companies -- as we know it, for example, in the Federal Republic of
Germany -- is desirable.  If, however, the owners attempt to influence government policy in their
favor -- for example, before elections they halt the delivery of medicine to harm the socialist
government -- the state has a responsibility to intervene on behalf of its citizens by imposing
temporary receivership.  Moreover, the state should not relent in its intervention against
speculators.  The American crisis of 2008 was caused by a crisis in the mortgage market.  This
crisis would never have occurred if the government had reacted to the fact that the price of real
estate was rising so high that the difference between investment costs and sale prices were
reaching tens of percentage points.  A proper reaction for communities in this situation is to
start developing and selling real estate for a profit of about 10%.  The home building industry can
only react by reducing its prices as well to an acceptable level in relation to the builders'
costs.  The state should intervene as little as possible; but in some cases intervention is its
responsibility.  The proposal I offer is, for now, from the realm of science fiction.  On the other
hand, I am familiar with a practical case with which I became acquainted during my first trip to
Sweden in 1964.  At that time, the largest Swedish labor organization owned a chain of shopping
centers and a number of industrial firms that supplied them.  This was when the use of household
automatic washing machines was getting started, and they needed new powder detergent.  Foreign
firms were selling the detergents in Sweden at a high markup, though it could not be proven that
there was a price-fixing agreement.  The labor unions established their own industrial firm that
began to manufacture the detergents and sell them at a much lower price.  The foreign firms reacted
by setting their prices even lower, and the labor unions' firm went bankrupt.  This loss was
compensated, however, by a savings for all Swedish households.

      The socialized state, as it occurs in various forms in developed European countries, has
three main tasks:  to ensure quality, modern health care to meet the needs of all, regardless of
income; to ensure education for all, regardless of income, who have skill and determination to
apply themselves; and to ensure a dignified life for the elderly, and for those with medical
problems.  The rest will be taken care of by the market economy that, through taxation, is a source
of financing for the state’s tasks.  As for other interventions in the economy -- for example,
support for research, infrastructure improvements, agricultural subsidies, subsidies for culture,
for urban renewal and for environmental cleanup -- a democratic discourse must occur to select the
path of compromise which leaves all participants equally dissatisfied.  Everyone wants security and
rights; everyone knows that these areas must be financially covered by taxes; but each person wants
those taxes to be paid by others.

      If nations select American liberal democracy as their model, it will lead to ecological
catastrophe.  The planet does not have energy resources for everyone on the scale that they are
consumed per capita in the USA.  On the other hand, if the model is the Swedish socialized state,
where the 50% poorest inhabitants -- more than three times lower GDP per capita than in the USA --
have a higher standard of living than the 50% poorest Americans, then the victory of liberal
democracy on our planet is possible.

      My conclusion is thus a conditional end of history.

Summary

      From the perspective of the natural sciences, humans are animals living in a group.  Thus, in
addition to forms of behavior common to all animals -- obtaining food, fear of death and pain,
sexual behavior -- we find with humans those forms of behavior allowing us to live in a group, and
which facilitate the success of the group in the struggle for survival.  These are:  respect for
property that prevents constant fighting between members of the group over food; the desire for
freedom that makes it possible for individuals to search for food and relocate to new areas; the
need to take refuge under authority in the case of danger; the attempt to be accepted by the group;
the willingness to risk one’s life in the interest of defending the group; envy that motivates
individuals to activity beyond that which is essential for simply staying alive; and the effort to
develop one’s own talent.  Because talent varies among different members of the group, the
development of talent is a positive when there are changes in life’s circumstances and a different
situation calls for different skills.  All of these forms of behavior have been observed in animals
living in groups, with chimpanzees being closest to humans.  All of the aforementioned forms of
behavior have developed over the course of millions of years of evolution through natural selection
of mutations that influenced the arrangement of neurons in the brain.  At the same time, all of
these methods of behavior are applied in politics.  Respect for ownership requires an ideology that
established reasons for confiscating property (e.g., religious ideology, or the ideology of class
struggle).  The desire for freedom leads to a preference for liberal democracy, the desire for
protection to dictatorship.  The effort to be accepted by the group leads to reactions of the
masses.  The willingness to risk for the group leads to heroic deeds, and to suicidal terrorist
attacks.  Envy and the hatred that flows from it are the driving engine of the proletarian
revolution.  One talent, political talent, is a talent also observed among some chimpanzees.
Individuals with this talent take advantage of it to persuade the group of their abilities to lead,
whether in a dictatorship or a democracy.

      A dictatorship is justified by the existence of a threat, and for its survival there are four
essential conditions.  There must be an ideology emphasizing the need for ownership transfers and
for protection against real or imaginary enemies.  The declaration of successes is necessary for
justifying the individual actions of the leading group in the dictatorship (Lenin’s wheels of the
revolution that must not stop).  Rewarding followers is an essential condition, because without it
the supporters of the dictatorship would become the advocates of freedom.  The last condition is
the suppression of alternative ideas in the ruling group.  The formulation of alternative ideas
always occurs upon the death of the dictator, because the struggle for the leading position in the
ruling group is conducted as arguments about alternative ideas.  The fall of a dictatorship is only
possible militarily (the fall of fascism in Germany) or when the condition of suppressing
alternative ideas is not respected (the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, and also the Prague
Spring of 1968).  Thus, from the outside, the fall of a dictatorship can be orchestrated
militarily, or by clandestine support for alternative ideas in the ruling group (promoting the
American way of life in films and books).

      Political decisions are determined by three principles.  The principle of efficiency has been
applied since the onset of agriculture, when surpluses had to be protected.  Armed forces are most
efficiently used for attack, and for the seizure of property from neighboring groups.  The result
is the rise of empires.  The principle of timing is used by the ruling group when a judgment is
made that an opponent is temporarily weak (campaigns into neighboring empires, such those of the
Egyptians, the Persians, the Macedonians or the Romans, predated today’s quick-strike warfare).
The principle of erroneous quantitative estimation explains the failure of a number of political
steps (assuming weakness of the enemy in the case of Napoleon’s and Hitler’s campaigns; the
inability to develop without living space and without raw materials in the case of Germany and
Japan at the end of the first half of the 20th century; the assumption that the redistribution of
the wealth of the rich will lead to wealth for all as a basis for the communist revolution).

      In the future, it is possible that there will be a world without wars if there is a halt to
rapid population growth, and if there is support for a system of liberal democracy allowing more
equality in the distribution of pensions.


________________________________

* Bohumil Fišer 1943-2011, professor of Masaryk University Brno, minister of healt of the Czech
Republic 2000-02. The text comes from essay Politics from Viewpoint of a Natural Scientist, Úvahy o
politice, Joštova akademie Brno 2011, ISBN 978-80-904880-0-7.

^^[1] Francis Fukuyama: The End of History and The Last Man, Avon Books, New York 1993.

^^[2] Samuel P. Huntington: The Clash of Civilization, Touchstone, New York 1997.

^^[3] Jane Goodall: In the Shadow of Man, Houghton Miffling Company, New York 1988.

^^[4] William J. Bernstein: The Birth of Plenty, The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York 2004.