It's Sunday again, and it's another election Sunday. So there is no another option or another subject – it will be about the current presidential election. We have 2 candidates: the right Charles, the 1 from supposedly right-wing and rainbow Rafał – indeed left-wing or even left-wing. Rainbow Rafał took on white-red colours for the election. Which 1 will win? Elections next week, Sunday? Right Charles or Rainbow Rafał? And it tempts and attracts.
A small more serious. The polls, or supposedly technological research, give the advantage to one, the other. What does a survey of various companies depend on? I'm guessing it's from whoever's liable for this research. Of course, this is simply a "independent" survey of public opinion. The polls are like weather forecasts. A fewer weeks or months? It is simply a pity to even read; you might as well compose specified a prediction from the ceiling. Forecasts for a fewer days are luck tellers. But the predictions for the day, or even more, a fewer hours have a advanced check. Take 1 day, this Sunday for my village. I compose this at 10 p.m.; according to 1 forecast it will rain in the afternoon – 80 % rain probability. According to another forecast for the same day and the same area: no rain, rain probability little than 20 %. Forecasts are scientific, so they usage a technological sounding word – probability, here precipitation. Will it rain in 4 or 5 hours or not? The answer is simple – we will live, we will see. In the afternoon, we'll see which forecast will work. 1 of them will work, that's for sure. It's gonna rain or it's not gonna rain.
Weather forecasters pay government institutions. Governments pay the salaries of scientists, they fund computer centers with super computers, networks of measuring fingers on ocean land, they pay for herds of weather satellites in orbit. They truly cost a lot. Why? But due to the fact that these predictions seem to be something and it pays off in the long run. Profits from the forecasts hit are much higher than losses on false ones. Otherwise, I have polling, polling, which besides cost money, and private profit-seeking companies and... clients run it. A satisfied client will return and submit fresh orders. It's a tough conviction how to walk on a rope. How to satisfy the client and give him what he pays for – polls that will satisfy him and at the same time do not exaggerate besides much? In the end, poll results verify voters. Yeah, me with the weather: either it rains or it doesn't. That's our world. Reality verifies all prophecies.
The bright forecasts of whether pre-election polling is truly what we call prophecies. Or fortunes. Fairies from cards, Tarot, coffee or wax. In the past, animal entrails or bird flying were utilized to tell. Lots of ways of divining, their score is the same. And it weighs as much as weather forecasts or pre-election polls. Like research, like results. Like a researcher, like a study. Yeah, let's talk about researchers, scientists. The most well-deserved, the most prominent, the most crucial with a professorial title. There are respective specified on-call professors in the progressive media. Especially active in election times, who eagerly scatter the pearls of their wisdom among the public, like pearls before the hogs. My favourite professors. The Critics of Wisdom. The stone of reason and knowledge.
The first of them was prof. Radosław Markowski (born 1957), sociologist and political scientist, prof. appointed, or belveder, on-call wise man of the 3rd Republic. A actual oracle, a lantern casting a shep of moral light in the planet of darkness and right-wing reverse and fornication. This is 1 of the most excellent and final remarks of prof. Radosław Markowski on the current presidential elections. At least prof. Markowski doesn't change his mind, it's an advantage. As said by prof. Markowski, Radosław Markowski. "As you look at electoral geography, you can see that we have 1 candidate supported by hard-working Poland, which contributes to GDP, which is successful. And on the another hand, there is Poland, which is waiting for budget transfers that are not doing well." Incidentally, prof. Markowski has been preaching 1 and the same for years. Here 1 could complain that prof. Markowski, an academic teacher, belongs to those who draw from hard-working Poland, the 1 who takes and does not add to GDP, but let us skip the subject. Let us call prof. Markowski in short prof. Miark, as a self-proclaimed measurement of all that is good, wise and right. Let's not be petty.
Another diamond from prof. Miark's brain deposits – his thoughts on democracy and those not adults to this democracy. "The problem is serious due to the fact that in democracies we have found that everyone is equal in public affairs and can speak. Fraud, absurdity, and the horrendous social cost. Somehow, it is easy for us to conclude that a surgeon with shaking hands should not be allowed into surgery, and an engineer incapable to calculate the strength of a bay eliminates by profession. What to do with citizens who do not meet basic requirements?" True, Socrates first said this 2 and a half 1000 years ago, considering the same problem. erstwhile we are sick, we search the best, experienced doctor; erstwhile we build a house, we choose the best builder or mason by carefully checking what he has already built; we entrust the ship with the best helm. In a democratic state, there is simply a paradox, as ancient, as Athenian as modern. To the regulation of the state – the most crucial function of all, due to the fact that the welfare of the state and the happiness of the citizens depend on them – neither those who choose, nor those chosen, must be experienced or wise or have run in their craft. The thoughts of Prof. Miark given as the original, it turns out to be powerfully secondary and folded.
It's like a cofka soup from a highland joke. The mountaineer asks his guest if he likes his soup. I like it very much, and what kind of soup is this? – the guest asks. It's ino cofka soup, panock. What do you mean, "back"? Yeah, I gave it to my client and she went back. I gave it to the dog and it went backwards. Oh, the panock's back, too! This is the case with our “thinkers”. Prof. Miark solved the problem of democracy in his own way. If voters choose those who are good to him and are chosen by him, then voters deserve praise, the name of good and wise. And if they vote against prof. Miark's instructions, they're a stupid and leaking noise. Motley. prof. Markowski with the measurement and test of wisdom and democracy! Let's perceive to Prof. Miark! Prof. Miark is neither the first nor the last. We have many specified “thinkers”. Prof. Geremek was the first in the 3rd Republic. In 1990, erstwhile the candidate recommended by him lost the presidential election steeply, Prof. Geremek said he was... “the society did not grow up into democracy.” I admit: in 1990 I voted according to prof. Geremek's instructions. Mea culpa. According to the processor Bronisław Geremek (born in 1932 as Benjamin Lewertow, deceased - 2008), 1 of the creators of III of Poland and its many successors, Poles are besides stupid to choose well. Unless, of course, they screw up and choose those recommended by better and wisers. Not only our “sages” have akin thoughts. In another democratic countries, the enlightened elite with passion teaches the dark crowd.
Let's go back to our pasture. Another professor, Michał Bilewicz, associate professor, manager of the Center for investigation on Preliminaries of the University of Warsaw and lecturer at the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Warsaw. From 2000 to 2001, the editor-in-chief of the diary "Jidele", later the editor-in-chief of the "Jewish Word", indicating its origin better, chosen. Prof. Bilewicz (born 1980) did not hold his hand, that is, the language, speaking the language of sports commentators. Confused with results, prof. Bilewicz wrote: “Do not be misled. The choice is simple: it comes down to which side of the barn in Jedwabne you stand. Or with her arsonists, killing victims with axes and pitchforks? Or possibly on the side of Antonina Wyrzykowska, who saved Jews, for whom she had to flee the city.” Prof. Bilewicz fired a truly large caliber from the cannon. Those who do not vote as much as he does, Prof. Bilewicz likes, are the same as those who murdered Jews in the barn in Jedwabne. Who murdered Jews in Jedwabne? Poles? Germans? Germans and Poles? Prof. Bilewicz knows this and shows that the same who murdered Jews in Jedwabne are now choosing the incorrect candidates. What's to add? I'm in trouble, I admit. It is hard to comment on specified words of a well-known Warsaw intellectual from the chosen nation and in addition to doctor of habilitated psychology delicate to subtle intellectual nuances. I'll say this. It is from the bottom of my heart to congratulate the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Warsaw for hiring a delicate psychologist, an expert in the human soul and past like Michał Bilewicz. To the position of the manager of the Center for investigation on Prejudice an individual with specified severe prejudices that they pour out their noses. Prof Bilewicz couldn't have done better. And the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Warsaw can't dream of a better lecturer and a academic at psychology. Or psychiatry? Warsaw University is the best Polish university. Apparently. It's scary to think what happens on the worse ones. Or is it better, much better? It can't be worse than the UN Psychology Department.
Another thinker from the chosen nation, Jan Hartman (born 1967) prof. of doctrine at the Jagiellonian University, the second leading Polish university. prof. Jan Hartman late expressed the following conviction à regarding the presidential election: “The vote at Nawrocki in the second circular is not stupid, naive or incompetence. He's just something immoral - like cheating on his granddaughter, shoplifting or kicking a dog. These elections are a test of the ethical level of Poles.” I like prof. Hartman due to the fact that you know what to anticipate from him. I wrote about him a fewer times. In his academic activity, the philosopher, prof. Hartman, is besides active in ethics! Right. prof. Hartman is an ethically pure water.
Prof. Hartman has worked in many leftist parties over the last 20 years. In 2010, he ran for the Sejm election with a letter from the Alliance of Democratic Left. He lost the election. Then he entered the Palikot movement. erstwhile the ephemeral organization of Palikot dissolved in political nirvana, Prof. Hartman jumped on another left-wing flower to the organization of Your Movement! He ran for the European Parliament in 2014. He lost again. A well-paid and peaceful occupation in the EP went past prof. Hartman. This profession is filled with bitterness. The justified sense of superiority of the prof. of doctrine from the nation chosen, or contempt towards Polish neighbours, coworkers, and students turned into pure hatred. Kilak years ago Prof. Hartman committed an entry in his blog an entry that fulfils all the signs of racism and hatred towards Poles. His dog was missing, whether individual kicked his dog and for this reason Prof. Hartman revealed how he felt about his Polish neighbors. If a akin text were to blacks, Hispanics, or another minorities in the USA or the Great. Britain, any prof. would dare to publish, would be immediately discharged from his work and with a wolf ticket. No state or private college would find a job. Atoli free to compose specified things especially to the judaic professor, but only about Poles, most of them. It is comforting to feel the speech of resignation in the quoted statement. Prof. Hartman says that voting in II circular is simply a test of the moral level of Poles, but he feels with resignation, he knows that Poles will not pass this exam. Poles cheat, steal, kick dogs (ah, that trauma with that dog), they're just like they always are. Equally vile, cruel and immoral, judaic ethic, how it feels, what is better than its neighbors! Why? due to the fact that he's circumcised! Circumcision is super important. Interestingly, for so many people who consider themselves a wise and delicate criterion and a test of human values, there is simply a deficiency or presence of foreskin on a member.
This is how it is with our self-proclaimed moral authorities, these lanterns setting paths and moral paths. I like to read them. Order of the world. Elite and common. The elite is in charge, the people are listening. besides in democracy, the common people are to obediently vote for those who will tell you better and wiser. Although it's kind of like kissing a sore tooth. If you don't have what you like, you like what you have. It is very good that our self-proclaimed elite – professors Markowski, Bilewicz and Hartman talk their views clearly and loudly. That's how we know what they are and what we are. Or we're not, or we're not. It's a large benefit. Besides, their full of false and venomous comments act frantically against their kind candidate. This shows that their conviction of their own professorial wisdom is, say, greatly exaggerated.
As for the weather forecast. It's been a fewer hours and a small rain has fallen. Was it rain? Question: what does it mean it's raining? It's a dispute. It can so be said that both predictions have been fulfilled. One, it's gonna rain and the other, it's not gonna rain. Another triumph of discipline and certified specialists from forecasting the future. In weather forecasting, 2 logical sentences can be both true.
What happens at the election next week? I'm certain 1 candidate will win. Is Right Charles or Rainbow Rafał? I'm not trying to foretell the winner. Who wouldn't win... It's gonna be okay. If the Rainbow Rafał wins... Well, Poland has survived the incorrect terms. And so will we. Worse with our intellectuals if the right Charles wins. It's scary to think about how they're gonna last erstwhile the incorrect candidate wins. But, actually, it's not my problem. This will not affect their visions of the world, Poland and themselves and beyond, to the best of their own wonders. And cheers.
© Copyrighted material - all rights reserved. Further distribution of the text only with the approval of the author.
