It is uncommon that the most crucial question and the most crucial answer contained in a recording are between words, and words of completely unaware authors.
Authors of the sub-cast “Politics Insight”, journalists associated with the weekly “Politics” Wojciech Szacki and Michał Piedziuk wanted a small – shortly I will show that this colloquialism is appropriate here – make a mistake about Grzegorz Braun and who is behind him.
So – a small detectivery, a small conspiracy explanation and a small darkness that you want to shine on. It wants to shine – due to the fact that 1 can't forget that erstwhile you don't know what akin recordings are about, they're about themselves. And they're actually the podcast. They themselves as an answer to the question of the origin of Braun's advanced ratings, as well as the good result of his own presidential election – about the lenient and contemptible "Warsaw-centrism".
"You-know-who" and "Warsaw"-centrism
In the approach of the authors of the podcast to Braun, 2 of the most fast streams of “warszawkowa” of contempt and permissiveness accumulate – the first 1 flows towards “dark garden” and “antisemites”, while the second 1 towards the people and its most celebrated goal was Andrzej Lepper, and Karol Nawrocki.
Braun is portrayed in the mask of “you-know-who”, a subject of sentences specified as: “I wouldn’t want to talk about this man.” He is not so much the subject of analysis – the "educated" "European" even shakes (and feels the environmental force to shake down to the convulsive) to think that the reasons for his success could be found anywhere another than in his vulnerability to manipulation or bad character of people surviving in the country where he lives.
The paradox, 1 of many, is that the “warszawka” depicts Braun in the same aura as the 1 in which anti-Semites depict Jews. In the "Insight Policy" podcast itself, it is vain to look for anything that we would not find after a short exploration of the Internet. The authors most likely believe in the large and spelled power of understatement – this casting of grain of unknown origin, due to the fact that possibly something will grow out of it. All suggestions, specified as the fact that Grzegorz Braun is financed by a more utmost part of the MAGA movement, the conventional presumption of cooperation with Russia (because, as we know, the primary intent of each agent's operation is auto-deconspiracy) – after all, the same people could be assured in calculating how many Jews did not come to work on September 11, 2001.
The full image is complemented by this mediocre projection mechanism, which commands to cover with the sinister curtain of the enemy, erstwhile man himself drifts in the clouds of ambiguity, irrationality, words-keys which are signposts for not reaching the truth, but for safe movement on roads reserved for his own world.
Braun's misunderstanding of success is due, among another things, to his acceptance of “anti-Semitism” as the origin of his popularity. In the meantime – so to put it – even this “anti-Semitism” feeds on social aversion not to Jews, but to what we call the system. The crossing of taboos has its finale not only in the courtrooms – it besides has, or above all, the effect in the form of a universal “someone said it.” I do not know whether the indictment should cover Grzegorz Braun – the social act of the accusation should undoubtedly concern people who, in their proudness, felt that they would always teach and never understand. Brauns do not let "good company", but to halt him they would gotta environment the ostracism of election urns. Their problem is that “good company” has besides prevented millions of those who are Braun’s possible electorate.
This may be fun by the demasking “president is simply a simple kibol”, confirmed by the clicks of “bloody and acquainted rabbits” under the same profiles, by the environmental extermination of repetition for a 1000 times the same, as if each next time would be smarter. If we are to talk about politics, society in specified categories, it would be appropriate to answer: the average boy from the blockage, which in Poland is simply a lot, does not dislike "kiboli", but "fades". This may not be written, it may not be understood, it can be outraged again with the “simpleness” – but for the improvement of well-being due to ritual patting on the back you will see the effect of subsequent polling percentages of Braun.
The symposium of what young people call “detachment” and the defeat of our “political class” were ritual and poignant races after Braun put out Khanuk candles. Braun won not only on this action – Braun learned “service” from the modern planet better than those who sing this modern world.
The authors of Insight Policy are not a coincidence but a sign. A sign of dominance of akin thinking. They compose about the people cooperating with Braun as “whores”. No, gentlemen – the uninfected “warszawko”-centralism Pole sees weirdness in theories about the existence of respective twelve genders, weirdness (or, as 1 of the authors of the podcast said, “dangerous weirdness”) sees in men dressed as women and beating women in sports competitions. Your measurement of quirk ends where your planet ends.
They should feel the dissonance of podcast authors if they perceive to what they say, not just their own vanity. Well, according to them, Braun says "yet more foolish things" from Corvin—and at the same time Braun's motto according to them takes over the Law and Justice. It's like saying stupid things is simply a patent to win in elections? Or is the measurement of stupidity utilized by humans not your measurement of stupidity?
Grzegorz Braun in almost all poll before the presidential election had the consequence he would have had if he had precisely as many people voted for him as he had voted in 1 constituency in the elections to the European Parliament. People were ashamed to say they'd vote for him? I think quite a few people would admit that. What I think doesn't substance – the fact is that Braun got an excellent score (I don't write, "despite a common media boycott" – due to the fact that I don't know if it's due to him). Now Braun's organization is present in the polls – the scare tactics have replaced the silence tactics. Anyway, possibly it's not a tactic. possibly it's completely spontaneous and sincere opposition to Braun. The effect is similar.
The full planet is not “Warsaw”
The "educated" "European" believes that the full planet looks like its environment – and even erstwhile it sometimes sees it as different, the intellectual blockade does not let reflection on individual as "disgusting" as Braun does. Conformism, on the another hand, does not let to go beyond the set of situation-reactions of stigmatizing and depreciating terms. The authors of the podcast, but besides a full bunch of akin publicists, are characterized by dogmatism – dogmatism containing its 2 most crucial properties, namely opposition to reasonal arguments and invariability in time.
That is, until the end of the planet and 1 day longer we will say that the biggest problem is “anti-Semitism”, even erstwhile Jews commit genocide. That is, without appeal and to the very end, we will be tracking “racism” erstwhile the murders and rapes of immigrants in Europe are ongoing. That is – we will tell children at dinner how crucial it is to care about "the mediocre people who escaped from Ukraine before the war", even if they truly consider our good as a weakness, due to the fact that they are not even able to apologize to us for the slaughter done on our ancestors. Unfortunately, reality has its own autonomy – even if it is “not right” to see it.
A void covered by ‘apropacism’
No, the interior void is not going to scream. The most commonly utilized patent on its cover is precisely the other – it is the usage of intelligent language, the appearance of nuances, announcements (not having cover) of analysis and English-speaking verbal scraps. So, the authors of Insight Policy outlined the "bigger picture" to hide that for respective minutes they had nothing interesting to say. It was a speech of powder on a bad face — a ‘general image’ (instead of a ‘bigger picture’) that took the hazard that it would encourage him to look at it. A akin charge was made to philosopher Martin Heidegger – utilizing a language no 1 understands to avoid a polemic with the content of what he wrote. The creators of “Insight Politics” may have had a somewhat different intention: “What will you do to me here, pariah, has questioned what people like us say?”
Before the light-blowed moral reason, the authors went on a hunt – to be honest, to be honest – they did not go besides far. I am the last to think that the number of clicks reflects the value of the 1 for which you click – but the consensus contained in the sub-cast about the deficiency of peculiar popularity of Grzegorz Braun in social media led me to devote a fewer minutes to my own ‘risercz’. I stated that while the authors of Insight Policy had 500 recordings (later this number increased to little than 2 thousand), Braun had 500,000 followers on Facebook. If Braun has little, then 2 "Insight Policy" journalists are in the online Marian ditch. Well, possibly underground journalism makes listening easier.
Guilty of his own mind
It is no place to dwell on what anyone thinks of Braun, to mention all the statements and scandalous actions with him in the lead role.
Of course, there is no place to curse that "I do not vote for Braun" – although I was already starting to explain myself. Why should we explain ourselves to anyone we support or not support? Why should we aspire to engage in a debate aimed at making organization qualifications alternatively than proceeding views on circumstantial subjects whose vote in elections is simply a result?
Why should we be clapping in the “Warsaw” orchestra of pompous moralists, trying to convince us that politics is simply a substance of shame and taste, not fact and logic? For why should we aspire to “good company” from our own devotion and look into dogmatism from the sign of “it is not appropriate” to drift to the bottom, euphoricly intoxicated by our own superficiality or fatally offended by reality, in addition, erstwhile and for all by doing what it truly does not?
As a man acknowledging Bronisław Wildstein as 1 of his authorities, I have never felt the peculiar request to engage in this hypocritical “I am not an anti-Semite, but...”. At the same time, it seems to me even curiosity.
Why should we do this erstwhile the Jews destruct another nation, sometimes wandering around in the fumes of sadistic hedonism, following this “talmudical racism” which Braun spoke of, just out of the rabbis' speeches proving that Palestinians are not people? Why should we – if no 1 asks, possibly past will – consider the shooting of thousands of Palestinian children to be morally incriminating more than expected or even actual “anti-Semitism”?
Why should we recognise the advantage of the reasoning pattern – even if universalism "don't kill" should give way to universalism "no or anti-Semitic"? Why should we plunge into a swamp filled with propaganda cripples, accept the religion of the dogmas of the people most outraged by logical arguments that undermine the “warszawkow” order of the world? Why should we respect ourselves as our own, having not received an explanation of the dogma of secular religion, which are undisputed only due to the fact that they would not defend themselves in any discussion?
Critic builds popularity
Assuming that people like the authors of "Insight Policy" – and yet akin messages in relation to the president of the Confederation of the Polish Crown dominate – are not hidden allies of Braun, they could even approach the analysis of the social causes of the success of the latter. They could effort to point out the points where Braun was wrong, since there is simply a clear suspicion that he was just right about many things. A man who is incorrect suffers harm to his reputation and popularity – the enemy of the system, the “non-community man” appointed for this function all akin subcast becomes for those whom he has so far attracted, an even stronger magnet. This charming faithfulness to dogmas, which even self-destructiveness in the accompaniment of parsing and outrage is unfeasible.
The fact that Grzegorz Braun is not invited to any bigger television, although he received over a million votes in the election, and his organization in the polls each time exceeds the electoral threshold is typical of limited democracy. I do not want to repeat the arguments that are emerging in the increasing public debate – about the deficiency of openness of these "officially open" ones, about how to complain about the actual democratization of its declarative bread. 1 of the authors of Insight Policy complained that "every view is now being proclaimed through social media", and that "there are no taboo themes". He and his likes have always thought so – democratic centralism has survived the change of system. It's beautiful that Braun's success was diagnosed by the authors of the podcast completely unconsciously.
Jacek Tomczak
Think Poland, No. 45-46 (9-16.11.2027)
![A gdyby śmierci nie było? [o „Trzecim królestwie” Knausgårda]](https://krytykapolityczna.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Szablon-rozmiaru-obrazkow-na-strone-2.png)
