Nicolas Gomez Davila wrote that 1 must learn to usage enemy weapons, but with appropriate disgust. We live in a time where, while doing our moral work and following what is happening in politics, we must besides do so with appropriate disgust, and a clear proof of that is the form of yesterday's performance in the Horses, called the loudly presidential debate. Out of these 3 hours, the image of intellectual, substantive and even rhetorical misery should prompt the inhabitants of Horses to pursuit the debaters with sticks and never let them return to town again. A akin destiny should be met by political commentators who effort to outrun “who won the debate?” and strive to argue for their assessment. As if the most crucial issue was not that we had a festival of mediocrity and deficiency of simple decency not only at the level of the organisation itself, which is crucial after a year and a half of Tusk's rule, but besides at the level of the speeches themselves.
Yesterday's debate shows that the same script has been happening for 20 years. 2 representatives of the main driving force of the revolution in Poland, namely PiS and PO, did what they could best – they grew the spice with their standard batons of savages plucked from caves, in which they gather what they have looted. Karol Nawrocki sustained his image of Kazik's uncle from the wedding, which due to the fact that he finished college, after 3 glasses gains a bit of excitement and begins his symbolically patriotic fanfaronade attacking the main opponent and praising himself. Rafał Trzaskowski utilized the standard for his perfect formation run maneuver, i.e. he confirmed his hypocrisy besides by exclaiming sleazy patriotism while pretending to be a cool, open-minded guy who does not succumb to any crazy narratives like his main opponent. A typical creation of father-phobic communicative for pseudo-intelligents from the Wyborcza paper – a cool Pole who knows perfectly well that a large part of Poles must face patriotic symbolism, although a candidate standing behind it would most gladly throw it in the basket as a relic of the dark garden mentality. As usual, both barbarians did not force themselves specifically to show their substantive backdrop, most likely due to the fact that it is residual and they did what the minds and souls of Poles have been poisoning for 2 decades – with thoughtless beating toward the opposite, sustaining conflict and pretending that the form of Poland, which they constantly complain about, is not the consequence of their alternate governments. The 2 major aspirants confirmed their deficiency of thought and continued to be stuck in the same scenario, erstwhile the maneuver with the flag known from the presidential debate, attended by Andrzej Duda and Bronisław Komorowski, was repeated. At the time, Andrzej Duda gave his opponent the EU flag alternatively of the rainbow flag yesterday, but the pronunciation was identical – there are “we” and “you” camps, which treat each another as 2 hostile tribes, which were accidentally located in the same latitude. The fact that the Law and Justice Government, which stood behind Andrzej Duda in action, has always been powerfully pro-EU (just remember Jarosław Kaczyński's words about the Green Deal) did not prevent us from saying that they would not let the EU get on our heads. likewise now – after years of backing Political Critic from budget money or spending millions on sex grants, PiS puts itself in a contrast to the rainbow flag with which Trzaskowski should be identified while maintaining the illusion of qualitative difference in relation to PO.
Besides the 2 chief savages of the revolution, there were besides statists. Circus isn't just a performance of 2 actors. This is not a staging “Waiting for Godot”! This farce needs to be given a small bit of healing, so in the interest of pluralism, despite organizational embarrassment, we managed to scope and present respective another candidates. These gave a bit of tragical colour to the full show. Marek Jakubiak, as usual, made any rather accurate remarks, but proved that unfortunately he is not a presidential man and has any exotic ideas (minimum price for alcohol).
Maciej Maciak, whom I did not really know before, seemed like a mad fighter, but managed to play an crucial role. Namely, he showed the intellectual weakness of another candidate – Szymon Holownia, whose fewer better moments in reception arising only from years of experience in front of the camera and empty gestures intended to connect society, not from the material background, were obscured by the presentation of the authentic face of the Rotative Marshal. Well, attacked by Mr. Maciak Holovnia, he proved to be an emotionally unstable, terribly weak boy. He abruptly turned red, stopped controlling his facial expressions, his eyes glistened, and he snarled at hysterical snarls. He thus proved that he is not a politician—he is simply a tv boy who, given the script, can be expected to play a role, but any spontaneous, somewhat more stressful, and demanding to keep his nerves on the reins completely decomposed. He is incapable to act rationally at the time and is seen as a weak man. If not adequate laughter from the performance “Zenada in Koński”, imagine Holownia-President’s reaction to confronting Donald Trump. If our rotational merry-go-round met specified an adventure in the Oval Office as Żeleński, we would see the face of the weeping Szymus again. It is crucial for our policy that specified a individual considers himself suitable for the position of president of Poland.
Another statistic was Magdalena Biejat, whose thought for Poland was a typical example of the soy left from “Warszafka” – the deficiency of real contact with people caused her to say something about social housing, due to the fact that if you are from the left, then you gotta throw any social phrases, but mostly it is about equality – a rainbow flag. If not for this element, Mrs Biejat might not be at all in the debate, due to the fact that she threw formulas like reciting a poem in the 4th grade simple school, showing that "frayerocracy" comes from everywhere. However, this flag situation was rather a strong blow in Trzaskowski, who, by hiding the LGBT flag, proved to the viewers his hypocrisy.
Two people were liable for the typically comedy part – Krzysztof Stanowski and Joanna Senyszyn. Editor Stanowski fell out of the full company best due to the fact that he consistently implemented his idea, that is, showing the election process from the back, without trying to gain support in any way. Of course, part of the commentary has large grievances that he attacked Rafał Trzaskowski, but let us agree – if the organiser of the debate, the main contender to the presidential seat on behalf of the ruling organization is so weak, then only stupid would not usage this gift. Ms Senyszyn proved that mentally she was inactive stuck in the 1990s erstwhile anti-cleric newspapers like “Facts and myths” recorded evidence sales and the SLD was in power. She attacked the Church from all possible side – attacking even Rafał Trzaskowski. However, I was most impressed with the last speech erstwhile she could have given herself free thought. I urge readers to see this passage, due to the fact that Mrs Senyszyn with her demonic laughter saying that she wants to be the parent of all Poles looked like Władysław Gomulka possessed her. She was hilarious and scary at the same time. Class B classical horror movies. There was only a deficiency of appropriate music background and in this substance I number on netizens, due to the fact that Mrs Senyszyn is simply a Korwin of the left – she has an amazing meme potential.
No substance what the opinions of part of the commentariat looking blindly at the polls, 2 things are known. First of all, the best decision about the debate in the Horses was made by those who did not step on it. They did not nominate their presence with this festival of mediocrity, benefiting their time more productively. Secondly, the absence of Sławomir Mentzen, Grzegorz Braun and Adrian Zandberg showed how fatal the mainstream political class is. Not to mention all 3 mentioned, the level of discussion with each of them is respective levels higher than with the duopol-status savages. Mentzen, despite his considerable limitations, tries to operate on facts, mention to things, and his reasoning is seen. Braun, despite his storyteller style, approaches problems with principles, hierarchizing them and thus arranging reasoning, so he will besides talk in substance. Zandberg, despite the circumstantial key of explanation of reality and frequently under this key of selected data, besides speaks logically and sees any reasoning. So it is crucial to the state of our elite and our policy that the blow-up left and right debate took place without the top 3 candidates.
Marcin Sułkowski
