Yes, I realize that this is simply a publication, written in haste and glued to a misfit from old pieces, alternatively than a spoiled technological work. Therefore, I omit many cases of stylistic bravado which individual more primal might besides consider to be a sham [3]. What's more, I only take into account things that have the rank of an argument for the author, and at the same time simple, that can be checked with a fewer clicks on the Internet, which you will admit is not an excessive requirement.
Three examples.
A two-time mention of any fantastic Italian Condotists in Malbork shows that Ziemkiewicz did not even want to review the appropriate Wikipedia slogan and wrote only what was knocking on his head. Malbork sold us Oldrzich Czerwonka, leader of Czech mercenaries. The case didn't go fast. The negotiations lasted almost 2 years, initially we had an appetite for twenty-one fortresses, then six, and ended with three. Naturally, due to the deficiency of money with which we were besides short, the communicative that Poles of the Teutonic Knights "armed to death" like Reagan is simply a fairy tale. In the end, we bought Malbork for borrowed money, and Gdańsk granted us credit not out of blind love for the Polish king, but in return for intraitable privileges, so who knows if it was more his "epoque historical victory". But that's another story. [4]. The real spy for whom Dreyfus was convicted was Charles Marie Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. As you can imagine from the name itself - the purest blue blood. boy of a general, a descendant of a branched aristocratic lineage, related and related to all the top clans and dynastys. 1 could not admit that a traitor could be specified a traitor. [...]
This would inevitably gotta lead to an even scarier mystery: he committed her [failies], due to the fact that German intelligence took advantage of the fact that number Esterhazy was an alcoholic addict who was forever in debt with a gambler, and in addition - a completely horrendous thing - a pederast. [...]
If it were found that specified an aristocrat and a advanced officer like Esterhazy could actually be a specified degenerate, undefeated for it and unrejected by his spheres - to what would that result?! (Cham, Chapter 2, subsection "Supermarket in the Time of Dreyfus").
Almost everything in this colorful Esterhazy characteristic is simply a fabrication. Can you call him a high-ranking officer? Depends on what criteria we will adopt, but Ziemkiewicz, just in case, does not mention that Esterhazy was only a major (nb. captain was at the age of 33; Dreyfus, although a Jew, at the age of 30). But you surely can't call him the Count, and it's "the purest blue blood." His grandpa came from an illegitimate bed, was adopted by Dr. Walsin, and "Esterhazy" added to his name only around 30. This inactive someway escaped him (although the Esterházy household tried with him), but the count's title was no longer granted to him: both as a bastard, and as an Esterháze only after his mother. So, even more so, he was not number Esterhazy his grandson of a blizzard of blood that was already powerfully thinned, so for the "branched aristocratic family" no descendant, but only the grandson of a brazen bastard.On the another hand, the grandson spent money on gambling and failed business, but there is no evidence that he was besides an alcoholic and pederast. On the contrary. As determined by Colonel Picquart's tracking agent (who will shortly announce that it was Major Esterhazy, not Dreyfus, who is simply a spy), he besides spent money on a mistress whom he visited almost all night before returning home [5].
Recollected memories of Słomka's mayor, never resumed in the Polish People's Republic, and after 1990 published only in the low-cost jubilee edition of the Tarnobrzeg self-government, are not the only example (Cham, Chapter 6, subsection "Incorrect Diaries"). Memoirs of Wójta Słomka is the most quoted book in Chamie unrebellious. Almost the full subsection "The Boy in judaic Hell" Ziemkiewicz compiled quoting Słomka. Thus, specified a rich origin would not be foolish. All the more so today, erstwhile you just gotta look at the net catalogue of the National Library (this operation takes 2 minutes or more) to find out that the memories of Jan Słomka (The memoirs of the manor. From the Lordship to the DayHowever, they were resumed in the Polish People's Republic and after 1990 they were issued before appearing The Cham of the Rebel at least 3 times [6].And yet specified a fantasy on the can of the memories of Stanisław Swianiewicz:
I remember a fragment of the memories of Stanisław Swianiewicz, a survivor of Katyń, describing the powerful madness of the elites of the Second Poland, built on the belief that we are militaryly stronger than Germany, and that the Soviets are in a state of agony, decay, and otherwise completely nonaggressive, due to the fact that "Russia has adequate of its lands and no more needs". I am reasoning specifically about the passage erstwhile the driver, a simple man, told visiting border officials that the Bolsheviks were preparing for another war, are preparing to attack Poland and that here, at the border, everyone knows this - and these were laughingly (Cham, Chapter 1, subsection "One thing worth it"). Indeed, Swianiewicz in his memories In the shadow of Katynia He writes extensively about the insane belief that Russia did not request fresh areas in Poland. [7]. But a passage with a simple man mocked by self-righteous officials in this book is not there. This praise is the advantage of the Polish people Ziemkiewicz shamelessly made up [8]."It is better not to learn how to learn" - specified a saying was said to have been circulating in the Polish village. most likely born in a time erstwhile peasant children, visiting with empty jars of their parents, began eagerly sharing with them the freshly acquired cognition in the large city.
Perhaps Rafał Ziemkiewicz, trusting in the power of a healthy peasant mind, took that saying to heart a small besides much.
[After years]
"Let him yet come to his senses" - I advised Rafał Ziemkiewicz kindly over 4 years ago. But it's like a pea against a wall, since seemingly they don't pay him to conform the courts to reality (i.e. to respect the classical definition of truth), but for any another services.The following sad-funny thing is little, but I am giving it here precisely due to the fact that it is simply a principled remark on reality and truth.
Under the mediate title "Unsticking from the Reality" Ziemkiewicz explains how they treat fact stripped from the reality of modern elites:
Well, the "truth" has the same meaning as it was frequently given in the 19th century - e.g. in an enthusiastic article, which the esteemed "The Times" welcomed the English edition of the "Protocols of Zion's Wise Men". Yes, the fact has been discovered! Finally, what is happening to our planet has been explained in detail, beyond any doubt, and the game and its faults have been conclusively proven! That is the truth, that is the knowing that we need. (Rafal A. Ziemkiewicz, Scared, "To the Thing", 9-15 December 2024, No. 50, p. 17). Yes, the esteemed "The Times" wrote about the "Protocols of Zion's Wise Men". but he didn't "welcome" them with enthusiasm, but exposed them as a forgery. And this did not happen "in the 19th century", due to the fact that the Russian first "Protocols" was announced at the beginning of the 20th century, while the English translation was published after planet War I.Perhaps Ziemkiewicz erstwhile heard something about "Times" and "Protocols", but again he preferred to make up, alternatively than check, even though in WikipediaBecause it's an elementary. But he didn't.
Instead, he ended up with his tirade with remarks about impotence and obscurantism. Of course, individual else. What about the blade, the beam? They're just non-binding poetic metaphors. Old and Jewish, too.
[1] Examples are easy to find by typing a phrase: research (or reisercz) Ziemkiewiczowski. Although many of his critics have akin sins on their conscience, this is no excuse.
[2] Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz, Cbrake unrebellied. Thing about Polish Mental, mill of Words, Lublin - Warsaw 2020. I utilized the electronic version. I'm inactive quoting as Cham.
[3] I besides omit things already rather commonly noticed, specified as: "Homosexuality was never considered a crime in Poland" (it could be "in post-war Poland") or "Let's compare it with the treatment of Jews in Spain, from which in a large number they have escaped to Poland [...]" (maybe for Ziemkiewicz respective or respective families are already "a crucial number").
Three examples a small little banal.
"Therefore, the subjects of the monks' knights [i.e. the Teutonic Knights], small at risk, established a conspiratorial Lizard Union, throwing themselves for years on Polish victory" (ChamChapter 4, subsection "Strength of weakness").
The lizard union was established openly and without any risk, so any of its targets could have been classified at most.
"What was earlier [as regards the testimonies of the peasant past] - is gone, like the culture of the Etruscans, from which there are inactive any undigitated inscriptions and various shells" (Cham, Chapter 6, subsection "Incorrect Diaries").
However, much more has been preserved from Etruscan culture, which can be learned even from Zbigniew Herbert's short and pleasantly written essay About Etruscans.
Andrzej Mencwel would not be pleased if he found out that his father had been portrayed in Ziemkiewicz's book as "a young heir, occupied with the mission of carrying into the people a kaganka education" who "reads fornals in the property of Sienkiewicz's parents «Trilogia»" (Cham, Chapter 5, subsection "Amnesty for Michael"). In fact, Andrzej Mencwel's father was the boy of a "rural maker from Nowy Tomyśl", and Trilogy read to his peasant neighbors (Andrzej Mencwel, Anthropological imagination. Trials and studies, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytet Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2006, p. 165).
I besides realize that all publicist wants to frazzle readers somehow, but saying Donald Tusk and his colleagues that they are something of an alienated intelligent elite, is indeed an exaggeration. They are all blood of blood, salt of the earth, and people taken.
Another thing, that Ziemkiewicz himself likes to usage the free language of the blocks: "relationship from Catholicism", "for fuck's sake," "they're dying," "he fucked everything" etc. He besides does not despise the backyard Englishisms ("mental"). Sometimes I even felt like he was an unfulfilled rapper.
[4] Who would like to know more about all of this, and does not trust Wikipedia (in this case rather proper), let at least look at the accessible and powerful edition Thirteen Years' War Marian Bishop, the most prominent specialist in this field (Thirteen-Year War and the Return of Poland to the Baltic in the 15th Century, National Publishing Agency, Kraków 1990; in peculiar the "Sale of Poland Malbork and another cities and castles by dense Teutonic Knights" section on pages 51-53).
[5] See Martin P. Johnson, The Dreyfus Affair. Honour and Politics in the Belle Époque, Macmillan Press 1999, p. 41: "[...] Picquart first inquired as discreetly as possible into Commandant Esterhazy's character and lifestyle. An agent set to watching Esterhazy reported that the proposition was in constant request of money to pay for gambling and stock-market losses, and to keep up a mystery, whom he visited close all even before returning to his wife and children".
George R. Whyte in: The Dreyfus Affair. A Chronological History, Palgrave Macmillan 2008, p. 68: "[1 January 1896] In financial ruins, Esterhazy lodges with his mystery, Marie-Hortense Pays, at 49 rue Douai in Paris". Didn't Ziemkiewicz Esterhazy get mixed up with the celebrated Colonel Redle?
Nb. About the pederastia was accused of accusing Esterhazy, unmarried Colonel Picquart: "[...] gossip about his possible homosexuality pursued him throughout his career" (Piers Paul Read, The Dreyfus Affair. The communicative of the Most Infamous Miscarriage of Justice in French History, Bloomsbury Press, London 2012, p. 162).
I don't think I gotta add, however, that in the Dreyfus case large caution is indicated erstwhile formulating all courts. George R. Whyte, quoted above, is right in the introduction that the reader remembers Esterhazy's saying (!) that in an interview and counterintelligence nothing is as it seems to be'" (p. xxv).
[6] First edition in Krakow in 1912. Then the second edition in 1929. In 1983, she resumed the Diaries of the People's Słomki Cooperative of Publishing, while in Tarnobrzeg it was published 3 times: in 1994, 2008 and 2012. The conviction quoted by me is not just a stylistic awkwardness, due to the fact that in another place Ziemkiewicz writes that Manuscripts He won't be in any library. Why? "It may have been due to these parties concerning judaic greed, guile and the many traps they set on peasants."
[7] Since this is an interesting paragraph, I give it here in full:
"We besides wondered with Mackiewicz [Stanisław Catem-Mackiewicz] about the increasing wave of pro-Russian sympathy in Poland. Almost everywhere in Poland, the standard consequence to the remark that in the event of the war with Germany, Soviets could attack us was that: «Russia is large and no additional land needs». This was repeated by politicians, journalists, military superiors, university professors, people who seemed to gotta know the past of Poland and the past of partitions. In June 1939, I heard this conviction about the Soviets' deficiency of interest in our east lands from 1 of our most promising economical politicians, who was the manager of the department in the Ministry of Agriculture and besides knew russian Russia, although he did not know Russian history. At the same time, Władysław Studnicki heard this conviction from Prof. Kutręba, president of the Polish Academy of Skills and Prof. Stanisław Estreicher, leader of the Cracow Staten. St. Mackiewicz told me about his fresh stay with Radziwiłłów in Niezwieł. They all seemed to anticipate russian aid in the event of a war with Germany. In particular, he spoke about a priest with whom he had a longer conversation, and who was peculiarly optimistic about the anticipation of cooperating with russian Russia in the event of an armed conflict with Germany" (Stanisław Swianiewicz, In the shadow of Katynia, Literary Institute, Paris 1989, p. 37; I improved 2 apparent typos).
[8] The most akin pronunciation to the scene with the driver is the following passage from Swianiewicz's memories, but I uncertainty that Ziemkiewicz wanted to support his argument with it:
"For the most outstanding among those russian manufacture administrators with whom I fell out to sit [in the prison in Lubianka], I consider a certain Miroznikov, a tall, well-built man of about 50 years. [...] He was undoubtedly an perfect communist. I don't think it occurred to him that serving the organization his full life was going the incorrect way. Speaking about the party, or the russian government, and about the global politics of the russian Union, he identified himself with them. He always said “we”, “our politics”, etc. [...]
He was well aware of the global situation, but he was very pragmatic about abroad policy. Hitler did not like, the full Nazi movement called «non-principal“, that is, without certain permanent rules, it does not seem to have any reservations against Stalin’s alliance with Hitler and the attack on Poland in September 1939. The mentality of Poles who seemed to believe that Russia could stay neutral in the event of the Polish-German war seemed incomprehensible to him. According to him, it was clear from an nonsubjective analysis of the circumstances that the Polish State, which existed before 1939, could only keep its existence by uncovering certain forms of cooperation with the German Reich. Only this could save the east provinces of this country from being cast by the russian Union sooner or later. This robotist undoubtedly had the head of a statesman and could think objectively" (In the shadow of Katynia, p. 156.
Nb. just in case I checked whether something akin to the communicative given by Ziemkiewicz was in the documentary about Stanisław Swianiewicz Last witness (2005, directed by Paweł Woldan). No, it's not.
