Sławomir Mentzen.
With amusement and increasing disbelief, I read an interview with prof. Włodzimierz Lengauer in Gazeta Wyborcza entitled “It is easier to live according to John Paul II than Mark Aurelius. Why Mentzen and Right win".
I admit I have no thought who prof. Lengauer is, I've never heard of him and I don't know anything about him. He doesn't know anything about me either, but it didn't prevent him from giving a long interview about me, in which he admitted rather clearly and as he himself admitted. Consciously, he suggested that both me and the full Confederacy were just a bunch of dangerous Nazis.
According to the professor, our program is enslavement of gays and women and beating Jews. So it's hard not to consider us Nazis. Just look at our passwords. Turning over the table? Pure Nazism, Hitler wanted to turn over the table, too. Well, possibly he never said it, but he surely thought it! So the analogy is obvious.
Latin civilization besides got in, for referring to it. According to Prof. Lengauer, Latin civilization is simply a witch-blowering and smoking people at stakes. Conservative values? Here the prof. was no longer in detail, but referred to Tetmajer and dedicated this:
“We only walk about 1 thing
Prayers k’ sky from our hut:
So our shoes can stink,
How they smelled a 100 years ago...”
They can compose large works on conservatism or Latin civilization, but who would be interested. After all, it is known that everything comes down to the fact that it was the way it was, you could beat gay men, rob Jews, burn witches and enslave women. So I will say, as I have now read, erstwhile Dean of the University of Warsaw Historical Department, and then Rector of this university – prof. Lengauer.
For the record, he's the 1 who's accusing us of being foolish people looking for simple answers.
The professor, however, is not only confused. It besides identifies liberalism and levitation with freedom, and Latin civilization with murderism. He says, “liberalism is about not imposing anything on anyone and leaving everyone free choice.” Then, “the limits of my freedom end where the freedom of another individual begins.” It's all true. But immediately afterwards, he adds, “the patron of levitation could be Socrates with the rule that everyone can live as he wants, unless it bothers anyone.” And I can't agree with that.
Modern leftist-liberal governments want to control our all step, follow our all move, and in all small matter, they want to impose on us how we live. We're losing the right to pay in cash, to free speech. They want to ban us from buying cars, they get active in how we heat our own homes, how we rise children. They force companies to comply with an increasingly absurd amount of legislation, and everyone to pay more and more taxes, premiums and fees. They effort to reduce meat consumption or the number of holidays. They put their noses in our plate, into our house, into our companies. They even want to impose parities on company boards.
That's the freedom? Is that liberalism? I am, of course, opposed to all of this, standing on the side of freedom, against a state that wants to subject itself to all public and private life. And the prof. doesn't understand. It got into his head that freedom is erstwhile gays and abortion, and everything else is fascism. He accuses me of wanting to control someone's life in a situation where I don't want to control someone's life, and they want to do it and do left-liberal elites, which prof. Lengauer himself includes.
Returning to conservative values that professors associate only with stinky shoes. I'll effort to explain it so simply that even the Dean of the Department of past of the University of Warsaw understands it.
When I take the road in bad weather, erstwhile it snows, it's dark and slippery, I definitely slow down. I have mediocre visibility and a long braking path, so I'm reducing velocity to keep the right level of safety. I think that's almost all driver. It seems perfectly natural to us. If we don't know what's ahead of us, we're slowing down so we can have more time to react. We're not waiting for proof that there's a blockage, a tire on the road or any another dangerous obstacle. The only thing that convinces us to fire is not knowing what's ahead.
Does the claim that it is better to slow down seem obsolete, unsuited to modern times, medieval and non-scientific? I don't think so. However, if we apply the same reasoning to social or economical processes, we will surely meet with that reaction. Do we know what will happen in the long word to complete the redesign of societies and families? How will millions of immigrants from the end of the planet end up here? Do we know what will happen if we keep immense debt, low interest rates and free money policies? Do we know what happens erstwhile we inject everyone with a fresh preparation? But the leftist-liberal elites of our planet shout: full ahead! We drive faster and close our eyes.
With amusement and increasing disbelief, I read an interview with prof. Włodzimierz Lengauer in Gazeta Wyborcza, entitled :” It is easier to live according to John Paul II than Mark Aurelius. Why Mentzen and Right win".
I admit I have no thought who Professor...
After all, there is no proof that we are moving towards disaster, there is no reviewed technological article stating beyond uncertainty that we are facing problems, there is no consensus among scientists, so no reasonable individual will defy this inevitable change.
Since the second decade of the 21st century, the planet has been acting like a driver pushing the gas pedal in bad weather. We see immense changes in lifestyle, household shape, state functions or transnational institutions. Everything is changing very quickly, the function of technology is increasing, its impact on both the economy and our regular functioning. All these are experiments that have never been carried out so far, we do not know the consequences, we do not know where they will lead us. possibly to a better world, possibly to the brink of destruction. Basic sense would require caution. Instead, we have a complete rejection of caution, driven by pride, a conviction of full control of reality, an illusion of predicting the consequences of our own actions.
Basic common sense would require caution and consideration. And that's what conservatism is. A certain reserve and caution against violent changes, the effects of which are completely unpredictable. He's a freeway with bad conditions and mediocre visibility. It is simply a concern not to crash, not to throw distant what dozens of generations have worked for, building our nation up our customs. It respects tradition, our ancestors, how they lived and what they gave us. It is simply common sense in this increasingly changing world.
But what does prof. Lengauer say? “Appealing to conservative values and common sense always gives me a sense of distance and disbelief that something like this could happen. I am a strong opponent of common sense."
Unfortunately, I can see that. And with that assessment, I can agree with the professor.
