Resurfaced to the right, departed to the left

A hommie [homosexual] is a natural being. They’ve been around for millennia and haven’t bothered anyone. While the gays are ordinary loots imported from abroad. Most of them aren’t even hommies. They are paid to pretend to be hommies. Those imported from abroad persons pretend to be hommies, for money, money paid to break up society and impute wacky principles.

When a woman has a pimple on her face, she’d rather stay at home. And so should the disabled do.

It’s not about aesthetics; there is one tenet in the society: who keeps company with the wolves, will learn to howl, hence watching, incidentally admirable, efforts of para-olympic sportsmen might bring about disruptions in one’s fitness. If we want mankind to develop, we should watch only beautiful, strong, honest and clever people on TV, not deviants, murderers, weaklings, losers, idiots and, alas, the disabled.

We might be happy the disabled organise championships. But what they do, has little to do with sport. You could stage chess tournament for morons equally well.

I belong to so-called secular right wing. This means I am Catholic and hold high the role of religion in the society, but I am against interference of churches (particularly the Roman-Catholic church) into politics. (…) Nevertheless, the Church not only trades in hope, but also convinces people to live in decency. The price for this is worth paying. The other story is whether we are not paying over the odds. Too fat priest is usually a bad priest!

Each kind of socialism, including euro-socialism, is a system based on slavery. And such system is economically inefficient, as evidence proves. Young people sense it and flee. Poles flee to the UK, the Britons flee to the USA… While politically mature Europeans deal with problem of number of votes Poland will have in EU Council vs. the number allocated to Germany. What’s the difference whether Europe is ruled by a socialist sap from Germany or from Poland? A socialist is a socialist, regardless of his political membership and should be returned to re-education camp. Topic closed.

I’d love to disenfranchise many citizens, not only women.

A woman becomes infested with views of a man with who she sleeps. After all a male was designed a such that thousands of spermatozoons go to waste; they morph into a woman’s body and turn into image and likeness of a man she belongs.

Women must not be too clever. The natural evolution mechanism sees to it. An intelligent being would not withstand keeping company to a babbling child for more than an hour. For such reason (and not only) men prefer not to start relationships with intelligent women. Their instinct tells them their offspring should have proper care.

The gist of democracy is that if sir and lady and I are on deserted island, then by majority of votes we can resolve that the lady will go to bed with sir and with me interchangeably. This is how democracy works. And if we have supermajority, we can sign it into the constitution…

How can a system, in which two drunkards have two votes and a university professor has one vote, last? It takes to be an idiot to feel good in such system.

The outrage about paedophilia is disproportionate. Lewis Carroll (the author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland) was fond of eight-year-old girls. Not just his neighbours, but also ladies from upper classes would send their daughters to his home, being thoughtful of the fact being touched by a man (moderately, within limits) rises up womanhood and helps rather than harms and makes immune to similar courtship in the future. Of course, coercing anyone, not to mention intercourse, or heaven forbid raping, should be severely punished.

I demanded that prosecutor’s office initiated an inquest into effecting paedophilia at schools. I would personally prefer that my daughter is taken care of by a paedophile (not rapist), who’d spank her buttocks, grope her breast, caress and kiss, than if she was to attend such lesson at school. Encounter with paedophile leaves the precious shame and erotic tension, while such lesson at school would result in irrevocable loss of ability to love.

If you had little notion about women, you’d know man always rapes a woman a bit. Women always pretend to resist. You should know when you can make a step, and when not.

We’ll sell [the European Parliament edifice] and turn it into a brothel. The building would excellently serve such purpose.

Jumping out of a window from sixth floor is definitely more detrimental than taking in heroine, however putting up six-floor high buildings is not prohibited.

You can tell all the quotes are example of a joyful oeuvre of a lunatic. No matter, whether the author of all those statements is indeed out of his senses, beyond all doubt he will be one of Poland’s representatives in the commencing term of the Euro-parliament.

The Congress of the New Right [Wing], under the command of its charismatic leader, scored over 7 percent of total votes in the Euro-parliament election in Poland held last Sunday. Having gone through several plights (totalling to more than twenty) in each consecutive election, out of the blue it rose as phoenix from ashes. Nevertheless, its good result should not come as a total surprise, as in the parliamentary election in 2011 it was not much short of exceeding the 5% threshold necessary to mark presence in the parliament (Polish or European). The party is ultra-conservative in social terms and ultra-liberal in economic matters, hence abjectly euro-sceptical.

The high score of JKM’s party could be attributed to low turnout (less than 24%) and general disgruntlement with current shape of political arena in Poland, monopolised by power-wielding ruling party and ever-lasting as opposition another party.

The Congress earned so many votes thanks to support from the youngest electorate. Voters aged 18 – 25 put a cross mostly against JKM’s grouping. If only their votes had been to decide who would win the election, the Congress would go first, PiS second and PO third. The Congress’ success is somewhat similar to emergence of Palikot’s movement in 2011. The party was riding the wave of anti-clericalism spurred by rows surrounding the cross outside the presidential palace post late Lech Kaczynski’s death. They attracted young, tolerant people by socially liberal agenda. During their presence in the parliament they proved in fact they had little to offer and hence in this election, despite allying with some of leftist politicians who had forsaken SLD, its score was below 5 percent threshold.

Many sociologists claim many people who voted in 2011 for Palikot Movement, this year cast votes for JKM’s party. Given the ultra-leftist agenda of the former and ultra-rightist of the latter, the turnabout is likely to prove the voters’ instability and immaturity. I doubt the Congress of the New Right has a cure for all problems plaguing Poland and the EU. Calling all politicians socialists, thieves, proposing to put them all to prison and establish full economic freedom, based on ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ principle would lead to a huge anarchy, rather than to common happiness and well-being. Nevertheless I recognise there are masses of people so fed up what the state of affairs around that they have reached the point in which they have nothing against current order being torn down and taking the risk of starting everything from scratch.

The prospects for the EU are bleak. If one-fifth of all seats in the European Parliament have been taken over by far-rightist euro-sceptics, it clearly signifies trust and belief in the European Institutions had been undermined. The EU is going through its deepest crisis since inception and it is a crisis of self-focus. The EU has reached the highest stage in an organisation’s development, namely its bureaucratic structure has sprawled so far and wide that it can easily waste all its potential on dealing with its own affairs…

The outlook for Poland is miserable as well. Two major parties are going neck in neck in terms of backing. PiS, for the seventh time in a row, enjoying the status of election runner-up, for the first time has seriously caught up with PO. If no major change takes place, i.e. PO will carry on wallowing in complacency, PiS is bound to win the parliamentary election next year (but unlikely to win the presidential election, as in the run-off voters of all parties are likely to unite against PiS). The other story is that it will be rather unable to find a coalitional partner, so endless squabble will become the daily bread…

----------------------------------------------

Predictably, the funeral of general Jaruzelski triggered disputes surrounding not only evaluation of his deeds, but also whether he should have been buried on Powązki Military Cemetary. Eventually it had been decided the funeral would have partly-state character. I personally found the setting thoroughly appropriate. Mr Jaruzelski was buried not among statesmen of merits but among his fellow soldiers with who he fought during WW2.

The sermon by the priest and president’s speeches were wise and balanced and suited well the circumstances and tragic biography of the general. State and church officials rose to the occasion on the funeral day, while those who gathered outside church and sparked row on the cemetery, did not. Most of those people are probably ardent Catholics and sometimes should be reminded as the general departed, only the God has the power to judge him. It does not mean we must refrain from mentioning heinous episodes from general’s biography. Anti-Semite purges in Polish army, commandeering fraternal aid to Czechoslovakia, responsibility for December 1970 massacre, ambiguous assessment of martial law as the lesser of two evils (or coup d'etat) are still drawing a divide line in Polish society – all those facts cannot be erased, nor forgotten, but in the name of mercy a Catholic should exhibit, sometimes it is better to shut one’s mouth.

Nightmare of the past – episode 28

We have plenty of phrases to describe what happened twenty eight years ago: Wojna Polsko – Jaruzelska (Polish vs. Jaruzelski war), Dzień, w którym Jaruzelski wypowiedział wojnę Polakom (The day Jaruzelski declared war to Poles), or maybe simply Stan wojenny (Martial Law).

Each year, around 13 December the topic of martial law is revived, victims are commemorated, opponents stage demonstrations in front of general’s house in Warsaw. Each year historians, journalists and ordinary people ask if it really had to happen.

My take on this is that we will never find out the truth on the backstage of the martial law. Probably Polish society will be divided in its views on martial law.
Those who claim it could have been prevented point out that Jaruzelski and his henchmen (the biggest part was played by Czesław Kiszczak) were preparing their crackdown on Solidarity since August 1980 and the risk of Soviet intervention in late 1981 was diminutive. They also argue the CPSU leaders were reluctant to offer military help to Poland, as the Soviet economy was on its knees, war in Afghanistan stirred up more troubles than expected and they were afraid of the reactions on the international political arena.
The supporters of the imposition of martial law remind that Brezhnev doctrine was still in force and the threat of Soviet invasion was real. Moreover, they say solving the problem with our own hands was lesser of two evils and if Warsaw Pact armies had trespassed onto the territory of Poland, death toll would have been much higher.

This year, the Institute of National Remembrance published in its bulletin the alleged evidence that general Jaruzelski had been asking or even insisting on [military] help from the Soviets (the article is available only in Polish, the quality of English-language releases from IPN leaves a lot to be desired). I took the trouble to read the short paper, which consists of introduction and the record of conversation between Jaruzelski and Soviet general Kulikov, which took place four days before martial law was declared. In the introduction professor Dudek from IPN asserts Wojciech Jaruzelski declared martial law in spite of Soviets’ refusal to cross the borders of Poland. Meanwhile in the document Mr Kulikov mentions the operation “Shield-81” (a plan of Warsaw Pact military intervention in Poland, known also as ZAPAD-81), though he hopes Polish army will put down the counterrevolution.

Documents, though patchy and from dodgy source (I would like to point up that for no apparent reason documents drawn up by Russians and Secret Service Officers are the most reliable source of information for IPN. For sure Russians, who have always hated Poland and wanted my country to be subjugated to theirs, had always clear intentions and Esbecja officers were morally impeccable and always told and wrote the truth!) show Jaruzelski’s determination to clamp down on Solidarity movement and his fear that Polish army forces would not be up to the task of restoring the law and order of socialism. Historians argue Jaruzelski can be accused of treason on the basis of those documents, the general asserts the notes had been fabricated, former president and former PZPR member Aleksander Kwaśniewski says what Jaruzelski did was a well-thought-out stratagem aimed to outwit comrades from USRR. This is a step too far, but I have another supposition. Jaruzelski tried to sound Soviet military leaders out. Bearing in mind his war experiences and the fact he had been in charge of Polish military units which had taken part in the military operation in Czechoslovakia in 1968, I conclude he must have been afraid of the implications of military support from allies.

In 1981 Jaruzelski found himself between the devil (opposition in Poland) and the deep blue sea (Soviet comrades). The choice he made is controversial but cannot be judged easily – he might have tried to save the domination of communist party in Poland (what he actually succeeded in), it have might have been an adroit coup d’etat, or it could have been the measure taken to prevent a bigger tragedy – the words from general’s speech sound still enigmatic to me.

I was born six years after the incidents I describe had taken place, so I cannot remember those events, that is why apart from reading and listening to the accounts of martial law I am provided by the media, I asked my parents and grandparents how they had felt before and after 13 December. Like millions of Poles, neither affiliated with the party, nor keen to join the opposition, the feared the Russian invasion. No wonder, they had heard about what had happened in Hungary in 1956, remembered well disgraceful operation in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and knew that our potential to put up resistance against Warsaw Pact forces would be much stronger than in the other countries of Soviet Bloc. Even in the Polish army anti-soviet moods prevailed. Those who served there only in the minority were the ones who had voluntarily reported, on account of their desire to defend the socialist homeland, most of the soldiers were called up and if the push had come to the shove they would have started a rebellion.

But the fear of Russian intervention was not the worst. What really filled them with dread was the possibility of CIVIL WAR. Almost nobody mentions that aspect today, everybody focuses on military problems. According to their descriptions of those days, never, after WW2 had the Polish society been so divided as then. The majority backed Solidarity, this part of the nation was numerous and well-organised, the minority followed the line of the party. There were the splinter groups stemming from the Solidarity, whose members wanted to solve the problem of communist power in a very radical way. The chant:

A na drzewach zamiast liści,
wisieć będą komuniści.

(On the trees, instead of leaves,
those to hang will be communists.)

best summarised their intentions of overthrowing the system. On the other side Polish army would not hesitate to put down the counterrevolution. After twenty eight years it is still beyond my comprehension that Poles wanted to kill one another. According to what I have heard directly from many people, Poland was on the verge of fratricidal carnage and it, in their view, justified the martial law. I deeply condemn both parties that stood on the opposite sides of the barricade. Radical anti-communists’ ideas were based on primeval, though kind of natural instincts of getting their own back on their oppressors – but slaughter is not a civilised way of handling conflicts (look at the example of Romania – it probably must have happened, but their tyrant had been much more cruel than our leaders, but is there anything to be proud of?). And the determination of party or military authorities to hold on to their privileges under the system was reprehensible as well…

As an economist I cannot leave out another facet of the problem, also omitted by historians. Those from IPN claim Jaruzelski intimidated Poles with a “vision of cold and hunger”. Indeed in 1981 Polish economy was in the state of collapse, firstly because of all the flaws of socialist concept of extensive development had already come to the light, secondly because it had been paralysed by ongoing strikes. All the current economic liberals would bridle at the economic postulates of Solidarity, which boiled down to a few demands: work less, earn more and maintain the social security offered by the socialism. Their approach in the tough political and economic circumstances is still hard to assess. Soviet Union was unwilling to offer us military help, but cutting off economic aid would cost them much less…

The defenders of general Jaruzelski say martial law paved the way to democratisation and round table sessions, his adversaries state it suppressed our aspirations for independence. My opinion is somewhere in the middle. Before Gorbachev came to power in 1985 chances to secede from the Warsaw Pact and Socialist Bloc without running the risk of military intervention and economic breakdown were tiny. What paved the way for round table session were perestroika in USSR and economic decay of socialism. When the system was at the end of its tether, leaders of People’s Poland decided to share the responsibility for the country with the opposition, at least this is how I see it.

The further we go from the socialism, the more myths arouse. The social support for Jaruzelski’s decision is gradually falling and what is characteristic is that the older the surveyed are, the bigger the per cent of general’s supporters is. The older remember those days better and are more aware of historical situation, the younger, who were either too young to understand what had happened or so young that they were born after 1981, tend to be regard the martial law as a crime. I wonder to what extent the older have been manipulated by the communist propaganda and how the younger are manipulated by the one-sided picture created by Institute of National Remembrance, which has a monopoly for dealing with the modern history of Poland.

History is a part of our identity. I find it highly alarming when the young people asked by a TV journalist on street about the martial law declare they know very little about it. The remembrance of those events and victims of those days should be nurtured. But the whole debate over the martial law which is conducted every year does not move Poland forward. Mr Kurtyka will not build motorways, Mr Gontarczyk (Polish chief expert in decrying former presidents) will not solve the problems of higher education system, Mr Dudek will not simplify Polish tax code. But their merits in undermining the social trust and spreading hatred are indisputable. I partly blame them, whenever I see the youngsters, born like me in the late eighties, who chant the song bringing on hanging communist on the trees. They, who have never been persecuted, imprisoned for their political views, beaten by the milicja during the street demonstration, those who have never experienced shortfall of goods or lack of future prospects find it very easy to air their views in a free and independent country. In my perception, they are eaten up with hatred. History may judge Jaruzelski, but have the youngsters right to do that?

I can only recommend the English website prepared by the IPN. Unbiased and with decent content, but as usually done by amateurs – for sure they have not consulted any native English speaker before publishing it – the mistakes are typical for inexperienced translators (I know something about it from my own experience and mistakes I used to make and sometimes still make – see the problems they have had with word order for instance).

I appreciate it, if some of you shared your recollections of 13 December 1981. What were you doing? What did you feel? And please don’t write: “I hate that guy, he took away my Teleranek”.

The presidents of Poland after 1989

I hope you will find this biased post both informative and funny.


I found the picture above in Muzeum Czwartej RP on Spieprzaj Dziadu – a Polish page modelled on wikipedia, which is a humorous encyclopedia of the gloomy times when Twin brothers were in power. The site set up during this murky period has been kept up until know, as the temporary occupational government is ruling the country. I surmise the image must have been put up there by the double (Russian and German) agent, whose granddad was in the Communist Party of Poland before WW2, whose parents formed a post-war lumpen-intelligentsia and who currently reads Gazeta Wyborcza and worships Adam Michnik, or maybe another representative of dark forces of evil.

You would be right to say the sense of humour consisting in poking fun at someone’s height is rather lowbrow, but tell me, why is such argument raised most often by the ones who also claim that Third Republic of Poland is just a PRL in disguise – last I heard was on Thursday, when I had a doubtful pleasure of attending the lecture by professor Adam Glapiński, currently economic advisor of Polish head of state (yes, the same one, who pokes out to the right), who stood in for my regular lecturer. I left the lecture after forty minutes…

Wojciech Jaruzelski formally can be included here, however I would not place him before Lech Wałęsa, as he had not been elected by citizens, but by the Houses of Polish parliament under the power-sharing deal in 1989. His term in office lasted around seventeen months and he was replaced by Lech Wałęsa in December 1990.

The first nation-elected president of independent Poland hails from poor family and completed only a vocational school. He gained international publicity after he established himself as a leader of strike in Gdańsk Shipyard in 1980 and then as a leader of Solidarity Trade Union. His contribution to the fall of communism is undeniable, but his presidency was a string of slip-ups and blunders. Sorry to say that, but in spite of his charisma he wasn’t an eligible person to hold an office of president of Poland. His style of exercising power was featured with unpredictable moves and litigiousness. He was defeated in the run-off of presidential ballot in 1995 by a tiny per cent of votes. Before his defeat, he offered to shake his successor’s leg, afterwards the result of the ballot was called into question.

As it turned out, Aleksander Kwaśniewski took office as president of Poland for two terms (ten years). Unlike his predecessor, he took up studies on University of Gdańsk, but he did not graduate from it, because he had not get all credits and consequently could not pass a master’s exam. He later explained himself he had been to busy with other stuff like activity in PZPR – like all people who joined the party in seventies and eighties, he did not believe in the system, but was just an opportunist. The fact the he didn’t manage to complete his studies is not reprehensible, unlike what he did later – he lied about his education, claiming he had graduated. In 1999 he became infamous for his overindulgent behaviour on the cemetery in Kharkov, where Polish officers who had died during WW2 are buried – to put it bluntly he paid homage to them after getting canned. On the other hand, his presidency was not a throwback to communist, he saw through the reforms aimed at moving Poland along and did not block the reforms pushed ahead by Jerzy Buzek’s government (unlike current president, who vetoes almost every legislation proposed by Donald Tusk's government). He was a zealous advocate of integration within European Union and one of reputable figures in international politics. He was the only president of Poland to speak foreign languages – he speaks fluently Russian and French, when tipsy, his English is good enough to deliver a series of lectures in US universities without getting his tongue twisted. At the end of his term he threw support for Orange Revolution in Ukraine, reconciled with Mr Wałęsa after Pope’s death and pardoned some of his henchmen embroiled in numerous scandals which marked the years of Democratic Left Alliance rule . In 2007 the became the leader of electoral campaign of Lefts and Democrats, in the meantime getting pissed two times, what must have impinged on the results of elections. Later on he withdrew from active politics.

Lech Kaczyński took over as president of Poland in 2005. He is said to be the most partial president of my country and in this respect outran both his predecessors, not without reason he is called “a president of his brother”, just operated through remote control. His term witnessed an unparalleled event in the world history – he and his twin brother held the positions of respectively president and prime minister at the same time. His presidency had been running smoothly as long as his brothel was a prime minister. But after Jarosław Kaczyński and his pals from the cabinet screwed everything up, Lech decided to knock back four bottles of wine with Donald Tusk and called early elections. The main occupation of the president in the next two years was bickering with the ruling Civic Platform. Lech Kaczyński was repeatedly accused of struggling drinking problem. I first heard it in 2006 from a man whose friend is in president’s entourage, then the rumours were exposed by eccentric politician of Civic Platform – Janusz Palikot, the same one who staged an event during which president’s doctoral thesis was ridiculed. The current head of state is an associated professor of Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, but despite his academic degrees his command of foreign languages is commonly thought to be poor. Only in line with the accounts of his sidekicks, president is “proficient in English” and even corrects interpreters. The only substantiated case of such situation was when he corrected incompetent interpreter, who translated “holenderski” as “dutch” (a nie Nederland?). After all, as the first lady said, last year they celebrated thirty years of learning English together, the only result of three decades of efforts are uncontrollable bouts of giggling whenever Donald Tusk is speaking English.

To conclude, will the next president be the one we would be proud of?