A nationwide performance entitled "The Election of the president of Poland" is underway.
As part of this performance, there was, among another things, a debate organised by the "Super Express", in which all candidates could participate and in which all candidates had a comparatively comparable chance to present their views.
It was amazing, considering another debates of this kind so far.
This does not change the fact that all these elections are simply a "status"; they were played before the elections. The debate in "Super Express" was, indeed, organized so as not to favour any of the candidates (although I omit the fact that the time of participation "on a vision" of individual candidates was different, but this was due to the decisions of individual candidates, whom to challenge "to a duel"), but after the debate the media and polls immediately went to work so that the viewer could not draw the incorrect conclusions.
"Objectivity with objectivity, and our candidate must win anyway – 1 of two."
The participation of the alleged "public media", which have been "reflected" from the writing by the present "power" is peculiarly shocking in this "foam beating". Wajcha was immediately switched 180 degrees. The only difference is the packaging of pushy, partyy and world-view propaganda in slogans: "objectivism", "democracy", "lawlessness", anti-so-called "talk of hatred", etc.
If we were to "grade propaganda", it could look like this: Goebbels' propaganda – Ku(.)vision (Kurkish television) - Tusk.
For more than 20 years, the P(K)O-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P And even gaining a certain number of mandates, in parliamentary elections, by specified candidates, does not change anything – it inactive governs, for a change, KOPIS.
In the current presidential election, however, the participation of the Confederate candidate is variable.
In the earlier presidential elections (those for more than 20 years) the participation of candidates outside KOPIS was usually simply a decoration to sustain the fiction of democracy. Only P. Kukiz's participation in the 2015 presidential election was to fulfil a somewhat different role.
Social sentiments then, after the 8-year-old governments of the PO and the coalitions, after hundreds (mostly "legal", or "in the majesty of regulations"), were bad adequate that individual had the thought to manage them so that they could usage them as small as possible. And from day to day, Kukiz's "pump" began in the media.
As it ended, we all know – in the end, he won who was to win: 1 of the 2 from KOPIS; but not the 1 who was working with Kukiz.
A tiny reason for this story, but adding its additional spice, is the fact that originally specified a function was to be played by the leader of another team, besides a presidential candidate. He had already organized meetings in the media and abruptly just before the recordings he found out that it was out of date (information from my individual conversation with this candidate). any spin doctor concluded that Kukiz would play the function better (interesting, how consciously?).
In the current presidential election, the situation of the Confederate candidate, S. Mentzen, is different, although at any point also, like Kukiz once, was somewhat "pumped up", including by the presidential environment.
Kukiz was a created "expension", but S. Mentzen has the support of the formation, which owes his position to, to a large extent, the same environment - rising from discord to the social-political situation in OUR public space (i.e. in Poland) - which supported Kukiz 10 years ago, but which is simply a formation, in contrast to Kukiz, a wailing moronism about the construction of "structureless structures", effectively transforms this disagreement into a well-organised political structure, as you can see, for example, in the run to collect signatures, or in organizing hundreds of election meetings.
In a fewer years, after the next parliamentary elections, it will most likely not be possible to make a "government" without the Confederate's support. Of course, if the opposition is not sooner – "legally", it is apparent – devastated and marginalized by the present "power". Already present we see far-reaching urges in this direction (although attempts to "starve" competitors – "left" and "law"), and after a possible win by Trzaskowski "machine will start full steam".
The Scriptures wanted to destruct the competition, but fortunately he did so, as well as many another intentions, in the Czech Republic.
(Maybe it's time to change the name of this formation to "Partners and Sweeps"? Copyright to this name will be made available free of charge).
KO will act – this is apparent – in "the majesty of the law", "democracy", "restore the regulation of law", fighting "the speech of hatred" etc.
In the end, not without reason, the abbreviation KO is commonly read as "The Coalition of Cheaters" (in this name the copyright already has individual else).
By the way, if the opposition, including the Confederate, survives without major losses until the next parliamentary elections and if, after these elections, the Confederate decides to make a "power" with any part of the KOPIS, it will be the beginning of its end; but this is simply a subject on a completely different text. This text is about the current presidential elections, seen as pars pro toto our reality.
And these elections, the Confederate candidate, S. Mentzen, will not win. Could he?!
The narration of KO and candidate KO in these elections is based on a description of the state's devastation by the PIS governments.
3,000 judges, starting with the regional courts, ending with the ultimate Court, are not judges, but neo-judges (receiving, however, in full amount, a judge's salary!!!) Judgments issued by these "judges" may be challenged, which for tens of thousands (or possibly even hundreds of thousands) of people will make gigantic problems and gigantic losses. And it will origin thousands of damages.
For all this we pay and pay, 1 way or another, we all - citizens of Poland.
The ultimate Court Chamber, which is to approve elections, is not decently cast and as a full is not recognised, including by the TEU, as a court.
This home approves elections, examines appeals against decisions of the State Election Commission, and will besides regulation on the validity of the current presidential elections.
There is already a problem with decisions on subsidies for political parties, but the decision on the validity of the current elections may have far worse and far further implications.
The Constitutional Court is erstwhile a Constitutional Court if it decides in accordance with the expectations of the present power, another time it is not, according to the transmission of the present power, a Constitutional Court if it decides against the expectations of the present power. It is then argued that TK is not decently cast. Super logic! And a specified paranoia, but in all seriousness sold by the media to the audience.
However, with the Constitutional Court, the current "power" has a problem, due to the fact that it itself started, in 2015, combinations with its cast.
At the D.A.'s office, the current squad conducted an audit and discovered that at least a fewer 100 proceedings had been breached by regulations. Most likely there are many more specified proceedings.
What? Nothing. A simple "beating foam under the public", for the purposes of the current election run and for the purposes of gameplay with opposition. And besides, no one's gonna get hurt. At most, individual from 1 hot occupation will be moved to another, besides very well paid, job.
And so on and so forth: pathologies and scams in state-owned companies, bringing money to various foundations and associations, stealing from the Government strategical Reserve Agency ...
In general, the state has been devastated, the "democracy" has been breached, and it will be repairable if Trzaskowski wins.
Democracy will then flourish like crazy (as long as only its branches do not break from excess flowers and fruits!): what Tusk will come up with, then the Sejm will pass, the legislature will clap, and Trzaskowski will sign. No, and the Constitutional Court, "rebuffed" yet from the mean paws of the PIS and "properly" cast, confirms compliance with the constitution.
And how do I get the weirdest feeling that it's already happened? No, it's most likely déjà vu. It must be déjà vu!!!.
The "citizen" PIS candidate plays a wider array of keys.
In general, however, his statements can be taken collectively – everything was OK for the writing, and this "Koalicja 13 December" destroys the "democracy", as examples include a jump on National Media, a jump on the prosecutor's office, etc.
In this situation, erstwhile candidates of 2 formations, for almost 25 years "managing" Poland, accuse each another of "destructing democracy", S. Mentzen has a facilitated task.
At many rallies across Poland, to which a large number of authentic participants are actually coming, the image of the swamp: systemic, information, economic, social, etc., drawn by 2 major counter-candidates, the swamp in which we gotta live just as a consequence of the long-standing "execution" of KOPIS, complements with examples of many another pathologies, including those resulting from the "policy" of the European Union.
This policy, contrary to the claims of the Writ, is simply a common acquis of the KOPIS: the best proof of this is who negotiated and who signed the Treaty of Lisbon.
Nevertheless, S. Mentzen will not win these presidential elections. Unless there's any unpredictable and crucial incidental on his side of the candidates. Why?
S. Mentzen describes our current reality as pathology. It describes many aspects of this pathology. At least 2 elements are missing.
First, there is no diagnosis of the genesis of this pathology. What's that coming from?
Secondly, there is no "treatment plan", "repair plan".
I am a lawyer, by education besides a Polonist after the University of Warsaw, and "nearly", I did not start, alternatively of Polish studies, studying at the Faculty of past of the University of Warsaw (at the last minute I moved "papers"). Why am I writing this? It is to explain the following combination.
In ancient Rome, erstwhile the Roman republic had already been rotting and entering the end age, erstwhile on the 1 hand the oligarchy had attained influences which it had never had before, erstwhile more and more – previously free and self-employed workers on their bread - people, had passed on to the pot of the state, thus becoming a convenient tool in the fight of ruthless, cynical shrewds, striving to master the ever-increasing or even the full public power, the emergence of Spartacus (73-71 BC).
This uprising was choked and 6,000 crosses stood at Via Apia. We all know that. But let us ask ourselves: what would happen if the insurgents had won. Would the strategy of the Roman republic be changed? Would universal freedom abruptly prevail?
Impossible, for a simple reason - insurgents would gotta realize the essence of the strategy in which they lived.
Moreover, they would request to know what to replace this system.
Moreover, they would request to know what possible future government can become a "greater hell" (video: russian Russia) than the 1 in which they lived.
Spartacus' insurgents: mostly gladiators, slaves, depopulated peasants, as well as Cossacks in 17th century Ukraine, fighting 'gentlemen' – fought to become masters themselves.
This is my private association, which, fortunately, no 1 can yet forbid me. Of course, individual may attack me, claiming that this association does not adhere to the present reality and to the present presidential capon. His right.
However, as I observe the Confederacy, I can see how this formation is effectively gaining a place on the current political stage, within the framework of the existing regime.
He has more and more MPs, he already has Euro MPs, he is gaining headships in local governments, most likely after the next parliamentary elections he will make a "power".
Criticizing the current agreement: political, information, economic, social - it besides becomes part of it.
So why should individual support S. Mentzen in the fight for the palace in Krakowskie Przedmieście? About that later.
The candidates of the KOPIS hold each another liable for the swamp in which we live, S. Mentzen with the disadvantage of expanding the image of this swamp, but all 3 candidates have something in common. Everyone says we live in "democracy." possibly devastated by the Writ or KO, or collectively by the KOPIS, but nevertheless in a political strategy that is simply a "democracy".
The concept of "democracy" has been formulated many times. Each was denied. (This is what my book "Democracy", 2013 is about, among another things).
Of course, criticisms of the concept of democracy were not made by Polish scientists, due to the fact that for 50 years Polish universities identified "democracy", with "people's democracy" and written texts demonstrating the superiority of this "people's democracy" over the rotten "burger's democracy".
Since no verification of staff was carried out at universities, equally "discovery" texts are published until today. Washed up after the rinsing, long ago.
By the way, for interesting reasons: who was the promoter of J. Kaczyński's "doctoral work"?
In turn the definition of "democracy" was counted over 3 100 and no of them is considered mandatory.
However, aside from theoretical-scientific disputes about "democracy", this common feeling is that something with this "democracy" is not so that the surrounding reality is any unusual "democracy".
We can see that the surrounding reality: political, informational, economic, social, etc. is little and little the consequence of the will of the NAS – citizens and increasingly little the performance of our interests, and increasingly the mafia reality.
We can see that this reality has become the prey of the mafia (oligarchy) organization and the colloquial oligarchy of another types.
I have written about this many years ago in texts:
"The Mafia War", 2016, "]]>https://www.mpolska24.pl/blog/edit-post/13694]]>
""Is the Mafia Ruled in Poland", 2014, ]]>https://www.mpolska24.pl/blog/edit-post/6934]]>
In 2022, Michael Franzese's book "The Mafia of Democrats" was published in the United States.
The book is weak, due to the fact that although it describes a number of pathologies in "preparatory policy" in the US, it does not even approach the effort to scope the essence of these pathological phenomena, to their origin.
Besides, the concept of "terrorist democracy" is just as revealing as the concept of "people's democracy" – it creates an entity that does not truly exist, an entity that is, only and exclusively, an idea.
Democracy is or is not. And democracy with an adjective is not democracy either.
The slogan itself, however, is "strong" and "discovery", which is why it appears in parallel in another texts. Here's an example: "]]>https://www.onet.pl/information/neweuropaeast/Kirgi-democracy-m...]]>
To clarify, I, in my texts of the regulation of the modern political mafia, do not mention to it as "democracy", or even more so as "democracy of the mafia."
Governments of organization mobs are NOT democracy!
Going back to the mix, this time biological. erstwhile I observe the Polish political scene (the same is besides in another "democracy"), including the Polish parliament, but besides erstwhile I accidentally turn on the tv and for 2-3 minutes I perceive to any programs (because no 1 - average and reasoning - will most likely hold out), for example, specified as "Point of View" or "Bzdyra's debate", where not only organization scouts, but besides the leader of a given program, the aggressive speech is shown by "his own rations", then before my eyes a image of the flocks of bawians, which with pointed lies (and glowing a red tail) attack each another (i.e. a movie on you tube)
This image is appropriate to our political reality after being supplemented: the struggles of baboons last respective twelve seconds-minutes. KOPIS has been hosting its production for over 20 years.
Moreover, baboons are aggressive, but clashes do not lead to elimination of the opponent. In this direction, the efforts of the Kopis have evolved in fresh years: previously, this goal wanted to accomplish the Piss, now – in a more camouflaged way – aims to accomplish it.
For this reason, I am associated with another animal event: the chimpanzee war in the Gombe Stream National Park.
In the herd of these animals, as a consequence of the conflict for dominance, for leadership, for the position of alpha male, there was a division into 2 groups, between which there was then a clash. The shock for researchers was that it was a war - deliberate, targeted - and that it lasted 4 years. It has led to the demolition of 1 of the groups and to a crucial weakening of the winning group. The consequence was besides the failure of much of the first territory to neighbouring flocks.
Sound familiar? You don't? I propose to look through specified a "prism" on the past of the Second Republic.
And may our modern past end differently. present we hear slogans again, that "we will not return a button" and another propaganda nonsense.
At the same time, our nation is destroyed from within by the preachers of these nonsense.
When material concepts of democracy were negated respective decades ago along with their definitions (for example, classical: "democracy is the power of the people" "or formulated by A. Lincoln as "governments of the people, for the people, by the people exercised"), and procedural and then procedural concepts began to be invented (e.g. 1 of the most advertised R. Dahla contained in the text: "About democracy") turned out to be, the formulated criteria of democracy had to be supplemented by further criteria to the criteria and so on, and despite this failed to build a canon that would specify democracy as a system.
The fundamental mistake of procedural and procedural concepts lies in the perception of modern states to which these concepts were to refer, precisely as "democracy". Based on the strategy of modern states, they attempted to make "imaginations" of "democracy" (defined canon of procedural-prcocesual criteria) which would describe "perfect democracy", a pattern to compare with the state's system.
Only that these modern states, democracys, are not and never were.
Modern states, called "democracy" in no way - in their essence - even match states that are the forerunners of democracy, i.e. any Greek policies, in which the essence of their strategy was the actual exercise of power by the general public.
(More about this, but besides about the non-continuation of the model of the systemic policies of the time, called democracy, to modern times, I compose in books: "Democracy", 2013 and "Postmonarchy or Democracy", 2013)
These modern states, which are called "democracys, in their essence are republics, foreshadowed by Republican Rome. It was in the Republican Rome strategy that the "founding fathers" of the United States modeled in the second half of the 18th century.
A fewer decades later, the Frenchman A. de Tocqueville traveled to the United States from the monarchy of Europe, fascinated with the freedom of the inhabitants (the drobiazg – a large part was not free) and scribbled a two-volume work which, unfortunately for many descendants, he called "About Democracy in America".
The title has no support in facts, but it is – loud stupidities are reproduced without reflection indefinitely.
What does it substance to us: here and now? Fundamental – the essence of democracy is that power actually exercises the general, that is, all citizens. How do you do that in the modern world? It's a subject for another text, but in the book Democracy, I present 1 of the possible models.
In the republic, however, the general public can only choose power. 1 of the modern gurus of "democracy" J. Schumpeter stated that:
"Democracy only means that people have the chance to accept or refuse to accept those who are to rule".
Brilliant!! Adolf Hitler won the "democratic" elections in the Weimar Republic in 1933, so according to Joseph S.'s concept people accepted his rule. So A. Hitler's regulation was democracy!!!.
Genius, genius!!!!
Such moronisms, with all seriousness, are repeated to this day in universities around the planet and in texts of "theorists of democracy". And about the level of reading these theorists is evidenced by the fact that no 1 even thought that this "definition" of "democracy" J. Schumpeter is washed after J. Bodin's concept, a fewer centuries ago, according to which the "people" can choose a prince (ruler), but since the transfer of power to the prince, power becomes his (prince) standalone attribute.
J. Bodin created a "baseline" for the concept of monarchial sovereignty in France!
Someone will ask: what do these explanations gotta do with the current presidential election? We will come to this, but in order to realize what the fight is about in these elections, knowing what kind of a strategy we live in and why this strategy is not a democracy, it is necessary.
Authorities in the current "democracy" which are de facto republics, however, are elected in elections. any even claim that choices, with many adjectives: "fair" (? for whom?), equal (according to what criteria?) are the essence of this system.
These elections can be formally attended by various actors (e.g. groups of citizens, associations, etc.), but in most countries political parties have constructed an electoral strategy to effectively destruct competition.
A citizen – the only individual with an active right to vote (the right to choose), but besides the only entity to whom the passive right to vote (the right to be electedcm) is assigned – if he wants to actually exercise his right to be elected, he must search the consideration of 1 of the capo di tutti capi of these organization formations (the mafia) that have occupied parliament (the KOPIS).
Of course, it is possible for fresh parties to appear (sometimes about the genesis and actual position specified as the Kukiza group or earlier Palikot Movement), sometimes authentic (I think this is the Confederation), but they besides become part (beneficiaries) of this system.
According to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, no "power" was assigned to political parties.
According to Article 11: "Political parties associate on a voluntary basis and on the basis of equality of Polish citizens in order to influence democratic methods on the formulation of state policy."
According to Article 4 of the Polish Constitution:
"1. The superior authority in the Republic of Poland belongs to the Nation.
The nation exercises power by its representatives or directly."
Article 1 of the Polish Constitution: "Poland is the common good of all citizens."
There is no "power" of political parties anywhere.
However, the authors of the constitution of the Polish Republic suffered from schizophrenia due to the fact that they besides wrote in Article 10:
"1. The strategy of the Republic of Poland is based on the division and balance of legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. The legislature is exercised by the Sejm and the Senate, the executive power of the president of the Republic of Poland and the Council of Ministers, and the judicial power of courts and tribunals."
If – and thus TO BE expected – the power in the state belongs to the sovereigns of that country, that is, citizens who collectively can be referred to as a "nation" (I compose more about this in my book: "In search of a sovereign. Is each of us sovereign?", 2009),
There can be no another "power" in this country.
There may be legislative, executive, judicial, information, control and others.
Entities carrying out tasks delegated by the sovereign.
Entities under his control and control.
The provisions of Article 10 are a non-reflexive duplication of the concept of "division of powers", created in a completely different reality, erstwhile bourgeoisie (great capital), enriched on plunder practically all over the world, combined how to limit the king's power and gain a crucial part of that power, and yet – the whole.
Apart from the above reservations – here (in Article 10) there is besides no evidence of any "power" assigned to political parties. And we won't find that in the constitution.
If, according to the Constitution, the power in Poland belongs to (all) citizens, collectively perceived as "nations", since according to this Constitution no power is assigned to political parties, why for over 20 years has the actual power in Poland exercised, alternately, 2 men, capo di tutti capi of 2 "party" political parties?
After all, they (either themselves or together with the related organization oligarchy) decide on the cast of the "legislative authority", the "executive authority", to a large degree (previously only indirectly, late besides directly) besides the "court authorities", as well as a number of another "central" positions, e.g. in the Constitutional Court, the RPO, etc.
There are besides hundreds of thousands of posts in various types of offices and companies of the Treasury.
Is this just a Polish warp? The rhetorical question - just look at what happens in the most powerful "democracy" of the world, that is, in the US.
Here we come to the point – why is the system, which is actually a republic of the Roman type, "sold" as a "democracy"?
The blurry and recognition of these concepts causes the "people" to be so manipulated that they believe that they live in a strategy that, yes, has its flaws and distortions, but – "the better was not invented" (W. Churchill).
(More in the text: «So-called 'democracy', the biggest scam of modernity» 2014,
]]>https://www.salon24.pl/u/grudziecki/588138, so-called-democracy-the greatest...]]> )
An explanation of why political reality, and consequently besides social, information, economic, etc., does not correspond in any way to the normative order, as enshrined in the Constitution, is just banally simple.
As they teach in political science, the goal of the political organization is to gain "power".
It might seem to us that the constitution and acts of the lower order SHOULD be so constructed that the political organization "can only fill the authorities of the state performing the executive function.
State authorities acting in legislative, judicial, information and control functions should be excluded from the anticipation of political parties straight and indirectly influencing them.
And it is, as we all know. The strategy is so constructed that a political organization to form a government ("executive authority") must get or build a majority in parliament ("legislative authority").
Having legislative power, that is, the majority in the parliament and the senate, and the "his" president, can pass what he wants.
And as Wójt/Senator says in "Ranch" – "only a fool would not benefit from it"!
And this is what the Coalition is fighting for on December 13 (KO + appetizers).
I wrote earlier about procedural and procedural concepts of democracy and about the inability to build any canon of procedural and procedural criteria to specify democracy. There are, however, global actors, of course not elected by citizens, de facto oligarchical, who usurp "the right" to justice states, in terms of their "democracy".
Immanent nonsense – democracy is or is not.
In modern countries – which are not democracies – 1 can study:
to what degree sovereign rights of human individuals are actually exercised; rights attributed to each human person: the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property, etc., political rights, and then all others, of another status;
where a republic is between a democracy that is not a republic,
and autocracy, despoty, tyranny, totalitarian state (North Korea, China), which, of course, are not republics either.
They besides note (report) that "democracy" is in reverse. And they have a problem – they compose quite a few words, trying to explain why this happens, but after sifting these words through a sieve, the sieve remains empty. Just "they have no idea."
But erstwhile we reject the "silence" that we live in any "democracy", erstwhile we realize that:
the strategy of our states is simply a republic, the first of which was the Roman republic;
The goal of political parties in this republic is to gain as much as possible, and if circumstances allow, then all the power -
It will become clear that the immanent trait inscribed in the essence of this strategy is its gradual or abrupt transformation into its opposite: autocracy (Russia, Iran), or dictatorship (Republic of Weimar > III Reich).
And the transformation of these republics into democracy? A song of the future. Let us hope, however, that this is possible.
Otherwise - with avalanchely emerging fresh tools (new technologies), giving completely fresh possibilities, in the previously unimaginable scale: surveillance, control, control, most likely besides genetic modification – we will finish, if not us, our descendants, in the "wonderful" planet of the "Chinese type".
Now we can go back to our presidential election.
KO is trying to convince us that Trzaskowski must win to "fix democracy".
I do not intend to talk of Trzaskovsky's intentions, but to focus the full "power" in the hands of 1 political party, without any anticipation of control and restraint, is simply a repetition of the situation from 2015 – 2023 (Piss-governments).
It is unlikely, or alternatively entirely unlikely, that KO will fix anything. It is certain that it will "cut out the competition", cast as many seats as possible.
And it will make regulations that universal theft, which has been a part of the KOPIS for over 20 years, continues to take place "legally", "in accordance with procedures", in the majesty of "law".
The eventual win of Nawrocki in turn will consequence in the current clinic continuing. A fewer wasted years and deepening the demolition of the state.
Do I urge you to vote for S. Mentzen? Yes, I believe that in our current political situation (in current realities) the president outside the KOPIS would be the best solution, because:
could hold back the coalition's authoritarian lines on 13 December and could, to any extent, counter the rules allowing legal theft;
it would not be part of the mafia's "snake" within the KOPIS, so it could sign these laws that are beneficial to the general public and could veto the others.
. S. Mentzen has the best real chances of winning from candidates outside KOPIS. But will he win? I uncertainty it.
For more than 20 years, KOPI has built himself a immense advantage, a immense material base, has media. He built himself a immense number of clients, connected interests, materially curious in winning 1 or the another candidate. Itd, etc.
And the key component comes to this – a immense crowd of voters are "resistant" to both cognition and thinking.
It is stilted in the desired direction by 1 or the another side of KOPIS.
It is essential to add Stockholm syndrome to this – a individual enslaved over the years is attached to his torturer. Sad? Sad, but that's the reality.
What about a question about the title? The answer's been answered before.
