Polish football representation at the European Championships played, traditionally (as can be seen with spite), 3 games. Named a while ago consecutively: beginning match, match about everything, match about honor. You might ask why you should play the game for honor. Failure, triumph or tie don't change anything. They can only make it easier or harder to advance individual else, or change the order of the teams in the table, which will affect who our group rivals face after the promotion. The same can be asked why we should act in a situation where failure is doomed or triumph does not yield anything. "Honor" is possibly an inaccurate answer, but it depicts something important. The belief in the existence of values puts another requirements before us, pushing efficiency to the background.
As boomerang returns to me a speech by Joseph Beck in consequence to German demands on the eve of planet War II. Minister SZ then stated that there are values quantifiable as peace in contrast to honor that is invaluable. I have frequently wondered whether Beck's policy was right, but not here for specified consideration. Wisers have thought about it, and they do not necessarily come to the same conclusion. It seems that Beck gave any attitude to Poles (professor Żerko utilized to talk about this) who were ready to fight with Germans and possibly an alliance with III The Reich would encounter strong resistance, as well as that with a speech that reached the hearts of Poles, Beck could cover his earlier mistakes in accepting the British guarantees with honor (as Cat-Mackiewicz claims).
Leaving Beck on the side alone, it is worth considering whether being in a camp that is in a weaker position, but at the same time being convinced of its reasons, which directs public preaching and speaking in general, attempts to influence legislation, etc., the action should be based on the thought of success. This, in turn, does not make sense if it has to sacrifice values for it. I mean, achieving half- or partial successes evidently makes sense if, for example, the legal state is approaching at least a small bit what we want to achieve. What is different, however, is reaching power at the expense of implementing a programme that would conflict with the values it wants to carry out. Another problem is getting utilized to failure and not looking for ways to increase your effectiveness, to feel good about yourself and not betray your beliefs, to put in a group of likewise reasoning and to strengthen your convictions. It is essential to make specified groups. I'm just saying it might not be enough. The nonsubjective of good practice and the accomplishment of values in public life must inactive be set before us. You can't be content with failure even if there are no prospects for success. yet the situation can improve (very slowly, or for a amazing reason, but maybe). In a way, I besides compose to myself not to be content with the fact that you are right in contrast to those who endure from the Uroża (as Rafał Ziemkiewicz defines the preeminent delusion of certain circles), which takes the chance to view frequently full issues and closes the way to reasonable arguments, giving only a sense of being a "man on a certain level" in contrast to "shures".
In fact, that is what I wanted to focus on in this text, on the cause. Why do we do what we do? The aim is (I talk for myself, but I presume that the national environment will agree most with me) that the state implements the common good, that Poland exists as an independent state, that non-negotiable values are not undermined by law, and that Catholic morality and social discipline be implemented in social life. Of course, more details can be mentioned, but even within 1 environment can be argued about details.
Dr. Wojciech Szewko, a well-known global affairs commentator and expert on terrorism, erstwhile said in 1 of the talks on net tv that interior and abroad policies are fundamentally different. interior policy can prosecute values and ideas, abroad policy pursues the interests of the state. This definition can make appearances of contradiction. However, it seems to me that the 2 sectors of policy can complement each another very well. I would put it this way: for the accomplishment of values inside, we request a stable, sovereign state. It is so essential to guarantee the safety and independency of diplomatic actions (except for the actual existence of defence capabilities through its own efficient army) like alliances. This is simply a essential condition (as is said in mathematics), but again – it is not sufficient. The accomplishment of values in interior policy requires the promotion of ideas in society and circumstantial work at the core. This, of course, is simply a hard task and results do not appear overnight, but the national environment is utilized to it, which can be considered a affirmative and good forecast for the future.
In the end, just a kind of digression. As it is known, the organization with the national programme, i.e. the National Movement, does not have an iron electorate at a advanced adequate level to introduce Members of Parliament freely, let alone the majority of the mandates. Nationals are now entering the parliament as part of a organization that brings together parties, the Confederates. This alone requires certain compromises. The largest partner (a coalitionist is not the best word) of nationalists are freelours, or liberals (or alleged conservative liberals). The programme differences between the 2 factions are rather well visible and there would most likely be sharp disputes in many fields, but it was possible to put it aside to effort to break in the "betoned political scene" and slow build up its credibility and convince the next voters to each another looking for something another than lesser evil (i.e. Tuska or Kaczyński), or another (third) road. In the autumn parliamentary elections, she benefited virtually from the 3rd Road. The Confederate, moving in a run alternatively towards a city voters who wanted to live better, focused on a free pass, hiding in the shade a small identity message valued by a conservative voter. The Confederacy programme has even received a critical assessment in the national environment (on this portal Jakub Marszałkowski wrote about it, part 1 of 3 available here) noting that economical issues obscure another aspects of human life and the functioning of society, and the effects of education improvement or cheaper housing (according to the programme's assumptions) could bring even more propaganda to schools (school sponsors could be supporters of LGBT agendas, etc.) and lower housing prices would benefit developers alternatively than consumers. Not to mention it wouldn't fix the pathology in the real property market. So the unsatisfactory election consequence has its good side, giving the wind to the sails of the national wing after an ineffective run in a freestyle.
A small different can be described what happened to the French right, or with the Front (now the National Reunification). As in Poland, nationalists are seen as fascists or neo-Nazis by many nationalists. Let us skip the issues here, as it was worked on, so that people, in case of emergency, would not even perceive to what national organizations gotta say. I mentioned it on this portal, describing part of Władysław Pasikowski's work. Similarly, the Le Pen party. Currently, following the success of the National Unity in the elections to the European Parliament and the dissolution of the National Assembly by president Macron, there is hope/opportunity that the Marine Le Pen formation has a chance to make a government. Despite years of stigmatisation (which is not over, how can you read here), she managed to scope the place where she begins to number as a presidential candidate in 2027 (even to victory, not only to the second round), and her formation may even co-ordinate soon.
Unfortunately, Marine Le Pen had to change her program a lot. Now her electorate is mostly a working class, and the message is dominated by the creation of division into patriots and globalists. Moral conservatism is not a distinguishing sign of a organization whose members have a different attitude to abortion or alleged same-sex marriages. More news about France and politics there can be provided by editor Casper Kit from the fresh Deal portal in their articles, as well as in a fresh book about the Le Pen family. For my part, I will leave the question, is it worth changing your program so much to carry out any part of it? possibly it's inevitable in politics. However, I do not want to gotta decide whether or not to vote in the future, due to the fact that no 1 is going to make the demands that are close to me. But... possibly it's even worth getting into power, then utilizing it to spread ideas that have been abandoned for tactical reasons. But again, can it be done?
Going back to the beginning: is it worth playing a game of honor? I think so. Both in the sports world, where each experience, especially a match with a strong opponent at a major tournament, is valuable and builds up individual footballers as well as a team, and in social activities it gives fresh experiences and teaches activists or politicians what to improve, but it can besides give a residual triumph bringing closer to the indecisive, or possibly even somewhat shaking those who were guided by the "overlord" to open themselves to discussion and start looking for real answers alternatively of those for which individual would pat them on the back. A football match of honor lasts ninety minus (plus what the justice will charge), and specified a social match lasts and lasts.
Nationals.net
