In this polemic statement, I would like to mention to the column col. Przemysław Piasty "On the Roads of Antisystem". It formally refers to the start of Grzegorz Braun in the presidential elections and his way of campaigning, but in practice only the last paragraph is devoted to this issue.
Most of the words of a colleague The Przemek is in fact the refutation of the Antisystem itself, which the author accuses of lacking ideological content and acknowledges as a collection of unrelated views whose only common feature is to push beyond the margin of strategy discourse. In my opinion, this is simply a false diagnosis, and the facts I present below talk against it.
System and Antisystem
Let's leave System definition: Politology under the word "political system" understands the variable in terms of defining the content of public life (politicality) a set of elements and their relations – the density and strength of the relation between the individual elements of the strategy must be greater than between elements of the strategy and elements outside it. Going down to the circumstantial level, under the name “System” a liberal strategy should be understood in all its dimensions "The strategy is so described on a variable in the form of politicalism and its relations in order are liberalism.
With the definition of the strategy as a mention point, it is easy to specify content of the Anti-system – it will be anti-liberalism throughout its spectrum relating to the regulation of public life, so: 1) political system; 2) economical policy; 3) abroad policy; 4) social relations entities. The common denominator of these 4 dimensions will be the identity of the political community. Let us first find the content of the Anti-system on each of these 4 levels – in general terms, of course, which would let this definition to be applied to all the entities that reasonably identify themselves as “Antisystem”.
Political dimension
Politically, antiliberalism will be rejection of the strategy of liberal democracy. In Western history, another alternate to it was the sovereign monarchy in the 19th century, right-wing authoritarianism in the 20th century, and populism (non-liberal democracy) in the 21st century. In turn, direct democracy and anarchy were put forward as an alternate from below. The bottom-up alternatives can be brought to replacing a state organisation with a structured society.
The top-down alternatives in turn are the common denominator political reinforcement of the head of state replace the liberal doctrine of political reinforcement of parliament and unity of political power in place of the liberal doctrine of its division. At the same time, it is easy to see that in the following decades the “top-down” alternatives to liberalism were increasingly slipping from social elite to populism, which was linked to the decomposition of conventional Western elites and the Western Logos itself (Roman Catholic Christianity).
It is interesting to note that Grzegorz Braun did not go through what the German politician of Swiss origin Armin Mohler called “eight of time”: in the name of the group founded by Braun and his metapolitical postulates is found restaurant of sovereign Catholic monarchy. Monarchist (although not Catholic) and anti-democrat is besides late the formal coalition of Braun Janusz Korwin-Mikke. Both gentlemen talk rather warmly about historical and Modern dictators and any ‘rules of strong hand’, therefore, it can be said that the spirit of the Anti-system speaks through them, for in their political sympathies they confound successive phases of the evolution of its political and systemic concepts.
Economic dimension
In economical policy, the thought of the Anti-system can, in my opinion, be put forward by the emancipation of Poland from centres of Western capitalism. Anti-systemists (and not only in Poland) are the opponents of BigTech, BigFin, BigPharma and the partner of the liberal corporate capital state ("too large to fall"). The criticism of this scum of capitalism is carried out from the position of both libertarian, Marxist and nationalist. It takes the form of both a macroeconomic policy concept and all those mocked by Przemek as "totally absurd" partial requests: defence of cash, opposition to vaccines, GMOs, chemtrails, 5G telephones, worms added to food, censorship of public debate and information circulation on social platforms, etc. announcement that the origin of all these phenomena attacked by the Antisystem is the technological and financial centres of Western capitalism, so we are dealing with simply translating their negation into concrete language.
As a constructive anti-system, it opposes global western capitalism or this thought centralisation of the economy by the state (nationalism, socialism), be it ‘human capitalism’ family-based businesses and local markets (traditionalists, identityists). announcement that these visions do not necessarily should be excluded – on the contrary, they can complement themselves in a dynamic balance, thus fulfilling both the historically demonstrated shortcomings of the natural economy and the statistic. These visions besides have a clear share in the form of Economic protectionism, autarical tendencies and rejection of liberal globalisation (free movement of capital, labour, goods and services).
The Libertarians would most likely powerfully argue specified as the above-mentioned case, trends in the improvement of the Antisystem in western Europe (Nouvelle Droite, Mouvance Identitaire, etc.) and even in the US (Alt Right) seem to point to The breakdown of conventional libertarianism for anti-system masculinistic anarchotribalism and anarchoindividualism which joins government liberalism with its concept of guarding the freedom and equality of individuals of the "state of law". The breakdown of Polish libertarianism into systemic mentalism and anti-systemic corvinism is simply a local derivation of this wider trend.
The geopolitical dimension
In the field of global policy, the Anti-system calls for Poland's exit from the Western geopolitical structures. This is apparent for NATO, which is nothing more than a military protectorate of the U.S., whose price is to adapt by the European vassals Yankee constitutional, legal, linguistic and cultural standards, and (maybe even above all) concessions for Yankee capital, including industrial and energy complexes.
This was not always apparent in the context European UnionBecause in the Antisystem, Europe's emancipation has always been strong from the US and the creation of the European Empire. This thought has its roots on the German and French right, but in practice a fracture of France's ideological spine by the 1789 revolution and The German war defeat of 1945 made present Germano-Romano heart of Europe It is pumped into it not by life-giving spirit and civilization, but by liberal ideological poison and streams of non-European immigrants. No realistic policy script in the foreseeable future is capable of curing the German heart of Europe, so Europe is dead. And if so, it remains to abandon this affluent corpse, carrying with it what is left of his valuable inheritance.
Social dimension
On the social level, the Anti-system is expressed in rejecting the liberal belief of the individual's precedence towards the community. The various currents of the Anti-system clearly indicate different communities of a more or little natural nature, but the clearly visible common denominator is what we could negatively describe as Anti-individualismand positively as Community. On this level, the worldview of Grzegorz Braun is the most problematic, due to the fact that it seems to be burdened with deposits of sociological individualism; the gateway to the planet of the thought of the Anti-system in this field could be the internalization of the social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, but it is said to be disrespectfully called "socialism".
Sarmatian Idea
Here we scope the most simple plane of the ideological Anti-system, which includes the individual dimensions discussed above – the transformation of the collective identity of the Polish political community. So far, I have adhered to the rule of not going into besides detailed considerations about the content of the perfect Anti-system. I meant to point out its common perfect foundation, thus proving the reality of the Przemek. At this point, let me break the logic of my own text and alternatively of descriptive claims, I will present my own proposal – for consideration of the full Antisystem, including, of course, Grzegorz Braun and his colleagues and coalitionists.
Until recently, I had a very reluctant attitude towards the Sarmatian idea, due to the fact that under the influence of any occult and conservative environments, I associate it in its contemporary form with the anti-Slavic shuria on the level of "Great Lechia", in its real historical form, and for generating alienation of nobility from its own Slavic ethnos. On second thought, however, I think that I have succumbed to a misleading proposition (or even manipulation) which throws Western ideas specified as "premural" or "Latin civilization" and anti-Western Sarmatism into 1 bag. Sarmatism (yes, I know this word was utilized by communist historians as an invector – but what of it, since it is operationally handy) was an effort to adapt the Polish identity to expansion on the large Step. So he was Polish version of Eurasianism, emphasizing in Polish identity what is non-Western and oriental and Poles' relationships with the Orient.
As such, Sarmatism present could be valuable. It could be upgraded as a Polish version of the "Scythian" movement, from which eurasianism grew among Russian emigration in the second decade of the 20th century. Sarmatism has the possible to mention to the old Polish tradition. It has the possible of anarchical attitudes (repeat: replacing the state organization self-organizing society). It even has hidden possible to build a civilization bridge with Russia, Ukraine, and even Central Asia and Iran as a Scyto-Sarmat space. It does not necessarily gotta have an anti-Slavic blade, just as the Scythian movement did not have it in Russia. Adaptation of Sarmatism by Antisystem It would besides partially disorganize Polish Westernism, taking from it an crucial component of its historical appeals.
I would not like the last 2 paragraphs to be treated by Readers as having the same weight as the erstwhile and following parts of my argument. Above and below I am trying to indicate already empirically existing facts, in the erstwhile 2 and next paragraphs I propose a modern explanation of Sarmatism for the purposes of the Anti-system, i.e. I am writing what could become a fact. For people burdened with anti-Slavic phobia of Catholicism and sentimentality to the Republic of Both Nations, Sarmatism could become a flywheel Civilization and identity return to the East. It is not essential to bind the thought of Sarmatian and the thought of "Latin civilization": I would like to propose their separation.
Anti-systemists, who, like Grzegorz Braun, request that Poland abandon aggressive policies towards Iran, Russia, Belarus and another countries trying to follow a non-liberal way of development, and who associate the Slav doctrine with the native Slavic faith, rusification and the like, should direct their attention towards Sarmatian idea, carefully separating it from Western ideology of "Latin civilization". The Sarmatian thought would be Polish Eurasianism, the ideology of Latin civilization, and the ideology of Polish Westernism. The separation of the erstwhile from the second would deprive Sarmatism of the anti-Slavic dimension and make the identity acceptable.
In Dmowski's school and Giertych's school
Finally, I will make 2 more comments on the political method. First, col. Przemek suggests that the road to political power is the way to the political center. It is true, of course, but there are 2 ways to get there. Illustrationally, we can call them the "endeck method" and the " neo-endeck method" or the "Roman Dmowski school" and the "Roman Giertych school". Both the goal of pre-war endection and modern neo-endection is to master the mainstream political trend. The concept of Roman Dmowski for this intent was introduction of the Endeck doctrine into the mainstream of Polish political discourse and filling it. The concept of Roman Giertych to accomplish this goal was to fill the doctrine with endecimal content of the mainstream political discourse, or to fill it with liberal content, to remove or hide from it everything that would be a "nonliberal anchor".
The Bosakists of the neo-endek part of the Confederacy grew up in Roman Giertych's political ‘school’ and consistently follow his way (political osmosis with liberalism – with PO in the case of Giertych himself, with fresh Hope in the case of Bosak and his acolytes). Endeci who are in the Antisystem should, in the meantime, stay in the political ‘Dmowski School’ and work on filling the mainstream of Polish national life by antiliberalism, which would change their position in the political-ideical life of the nation from peripheral to central. These non-endextending participants of the Anti-system, who – for example, identityists, traditionalists, socialists, etc. – they are moderately curious in the teachings of the perfect school of Dmowski, they should be inspired by the achievements of his political school, while they avoid the wide arch of the “science” of the political school of Giertych and its contemporary pupils like Bosak and his clones.
Power in Politics
I besides find it completely untimely to take the col. It's a variant of power taking over. His rejection of specified a anticipation is all the more bizarre that he was late in Budapest, where the right came to power just by street revolution 2006. In the case cited by France, the local anti-system branch is not the thought and moral bankrupts of the Rassemblement national, only movement of ‘yellow vests’ which in late 2018 launched a yet unsuccessful revolution against Macron's liberal tyranny. Even where anti-system currents took over by election, they usually had to usage force to preserve it: to suppress the coups in Venezuela (2002) and Turkey (2016), the revolution in Nicaragua (2018), Belarus (2020), Georgia (2023-2024) and now Slovakia and Turkey.
Politics is ability to make and usage force to gain and keep power. Power and force are always present in it, even if they are not visible at the minute and be only as a threat or a possible to usage them. Whoever seeks power will not avoid a confrontation of force and political realism will have it prepared. Especially since the dream is that the strategy will let the environment to take over and fulfil its power. It has built-in defence mechanisms and does not accidentally identify persons identified by its entities as a threat to it get shot in the tummy or in the ear, go for respective years without conviction to mining detention, are banned from taking part in elections and arrested, are stripped of budget subsidies, etc. The strategy will play “unclean” and it is worth that the anti-systemists should not engage in systemic propaganda of the "state of law" by recognising them as an impartial arbitrator to whom they can appeal – that is, in fact, the various services and authorities of the state are the tools of the strategy that will be utilized to neutralise the risks to it, including to neutralise anti-system environments.
Violence in Liberal Society
A word about Braun's “performative” kind of politics, widely criticized by many of my political colleagues – not only by Przemek and not only by people from the “Polish Thought” environment. This is in a way a question of the origin of the issue of the usage of force in politics discussed above. Political ‘performance’ is simply a form of ‘forceful’ appropriation of public space and neutralisation of specified activities by the opponent. The demolition of the public installations of the opponent undermines its political credibility and takes respect for its symbols. His business of public space is no longer the creation of further facts made, but it becomes something comparative – which can be challenged and rejected.
In liberal society, specified as today's Polish society, there is, of course, a limit beyond which attacks on various demonstrations and manifestations of the opponent harm the attacker more than the opponent. This border is easy identified: it is violence and panic against people. Antifa utilized force for years and tried to make panic among participants of national manifestations, resulting in only a leap in their attendance and their mainstreaming in Polish social and cultural life.
Throughout the era, the modern usage by the state of force against various demonstrators – feminist, labor, anti-colonial, for racial emancipation, sexual subcultures, etc. – only strengthened their political strength (the brightest examples are Gandhi and Martin Luther King). Liberalism delegitates aggression and physical violence, to scope out to terrorist measures, therefore, makes it impossible to bring any component of the strategy to the organization applying them. There was no case of full social alienation of communist terrorists from the German Red Army Fraction, Italian Red Brigades, nipponese Red Army etc.
But what's different Humiliation and demolition of installations and symbols – especially of general aversion and disgust. The first case of specified a affirmative socially accepted action which I remembered in my life was to cut in 2000 the saber of the exhibition “Nazis” by a far distant from any Antisystem of Daniel Olbrychski. In later years, subsequent rainbow arsons in the Savior Square had more fans than critics. Grzegorz Braun's current actions are besides very popular, due to the fact that no 1 will regret a Christmas tree or posters with symbols of a deviant subculture.
In general, there are quite a few believers around the Antisystem a snobby concept of cabinet policy. They are frequently representatives of the Endec tradition – an emblematic case is simply a tiny party, sometimes called "professional". In the first half of the 20th century, however, the adepts of cabinet politics were not endecids, but conservatives who, as it is known, lost all meaning with the fall of east European monarchies.
Conservativeism has always been lost for 2 100 years, due to the fact that by professing the fetish of the state and order, it disowns itself from the illegal usage of force to gain and keep power – against violence, the last monarchs and their conservative supporters have always given up the field without a fight. The left side won due to the fact that its policy was not only a cabinet policy – alongside the intellectuals active left-wing movements besides had activists embezzlement of streets, college halls and public spaces and attacking, embarrassing and damaging symbols of the contested social system.
The current movement to halt climate change would not have achieved its position if it had limited itself to technological debates – political issues made it to a large degree onerous, inelegant and under-subtle activists. Braunism is the acquisition of a method which has been monopolized by the left and environmentalists by the right.. Braun is the right-wing equivalent of counter-cultural activists possessing erstwhile public space for the ideas of fresh Left intellectuals.
Braun does not make militants resorting to physical aggression and terror, which would alienate him from modern society with liberal sensitivity, but alternatively uses force to the degree of liberal society – " Symbolic violence". Navet, if only intuitively, Braun better understood the principles of political conflict in the liberal strategy than his critics accusing him of prostizing a "serious policy" happenings. Today, however, happening is what the militias were in the 1930s. The omen of this transformation was the gnomes of the “Majora” Fydrych, who yet defeated the state zoo.
Anti-system distillation
Braun's start in the presidential election is not, as Przemek claims, a blind game for the Wipler team. It is precisely the opposite: so far the Antisystem has always been someway mixed with the government forces. We couldn't vote for Braun due to the fact that his vote would have been involuntary vote for Bosak, Wipler and Mentzen.. The second were indeed anchored to prevent them from immersing themselves in the mainstream of liberalism, but on the another hand they blocked the full crystallization of the anti-systemic movement and the articulation of the anti-systemic idea. With Braun leaving the Confederate strategy babore, these harmful political blockades were removed for both sides.
Braun won't be president, of course, but he's gonna win the presidential election politically. For it will stand focal point for Anti-system, which will enable the articulation of what existence negates Przemek: the political identity of the Antisystem. Finally, we will be able to talk with our own voice, undisturbed by various Bosaks and another Wiplers. gathering in 1 place and defining your identity is the starting point for working on such a change of consciousness and social sympathy, so that being an antiliberal does not push beyond the margin of political life of the Polish nation as it is now, but alternatively sat in its main stream. This will be our “March to the Centre” – but at the school of Dmowski alternatively than Giertych.
I do not agree that the place for ideological parties specified as Braun's environment is to be a satellite for nonideal parties specified as the Confederation. The function of the ideological parties is to saturate the mainstream of national life with its own idea, so bringing the political center towards itself (Dmowski School). The noide parties renounce the values they initially adhere to and deny their identity (the legacy of the idea) in order only to flow to the mainstream of liberal society (the school of Giertych), which, as is known, only liberal sewage flows.
Of course, I am aware of all Braun's personality and political shortcomings and flaws that make the antisystem's problematic permanent integration around him. However, these are all secondary issues, in view of his actual political victory, which is the political release of the Antisystem from the previously obscured and blurring Basakov-wiplerowski complications. I haven't voted for years due to the fact that there were no candidates I could consider representing my political attitude. Now For the first time I can vote: not for "minor evil", but for "your candidate".
Ronald Lasecki
photo ‘X’ profile
Editorial: Answer by Przemysław Piasty
