Why does liberal mainstream support asymmetric relations between Poland and another countries? Why does he tolerate in another nations what would fire in Poles? Why is he utilizing specified infantile arguments? – i.e. to feel your own moral superiority, to root out and to view “Europe” as the foundation of the left-liberal worldview.
February 24, 2022 Joanna Szczepkowska could announce: “States, present in the liberal mainstream has ended >>unucism“.
Various authorities (not)moral began their own investigations in search of “ruskie onuc” – this bizarre pursuit of their own tail, grotesque, although the always very serious fight with their shadow. Yes, the same people who had been threatening “rusophobia” and warned that “Kaczyński is leading us to war with Russia” abruptly began to lead to it – alternatively than Russia, due to the fact that the attitude to Russia (but besides Ukraine) is in this case only a function of approach to Poland, more specifically Polishness. I'll get to that shortly enough.
The fundamental manifestation of self-esteem is its evolutionaryness, or modification of convictions corresponding to changing circumstances, fresh facts. They don't think for themselves people stuck – due to the fact that they don't think at all, if any processes happen in their heads, they aim at rationalizing unchanging beliefs. They don't think on their own, due to the fact that they “think” as individual tells them.
PRACTICE OF ASYMETRICITY: “RESET”
Liberal mainstream served as a supplier of ideological justifications for the “reset” policy with Russia led by the Donald Tusk government during his first 2 term.
The manifestations of building an aberraticly asymmetric relation between Poland and Russia by the Tusk government are more than adequate – the Prime Minister himself as if he had internalised the alleged expectations of president Vladimir Putin and faced the unspeaked expectations.
Of course, the loudest manifestations of submission are the dedication of the investigation of the tragedy in Smolensk to the Russians, and earlier – the correspondence between the 2 leaders, in which Tusk's loyalty was addressed to the leader of Russia, not the president of Poland. These terms of the “reset” policy were, however, the multum – Tusk refused to build a rocket shield, his people signed a SKW agreement with the FSB, meaning a commitment to spend “agents” (which in this case straight reconciled the provisions of the North Atlantic Alliance), they detained the Chechen leader Zakayev, whose 2 another European states did not want to release Russia, they restored russian monuments on a large scale, they imprisoned the Legia fan Wojciech Braun under false accusations of force against Russian supporters straight at Putin's command.
Of course, only deaf silence can appear after asking the question, “What did we have out of it?” In fact, it is simply a question which the author can consider to be formulated in dense and harmful fumes, like the smog of moralism, condemning liberal mainstream.
The misfortune of the Polish public debate is that, managed by PiS TVP as the most incriminating event, Tuska considered a walk with president Putin on the Sopot pier and falling into his arms in Smolensk (which, from a human point of view, is understandable), which provided the another organization with a summary to trivialize the character of the submission described here.
It is besides harder to prove that not so much submission as supporting elements harmful to Poland is entered in the DNA of liberal mainstream. I will mention here that the second is different from submission, that it means rejecting the category of “we”, adopting an external position on our own nation – not due to the weakness of character (like submission), but due to the combination of nihilism and fascination.
There is no place here to dwell on the justifications of a pirouet made by a liberal mainstream. Let us spare the unfortunates who lament that “they did not know what Russia truly was”, let us leave all those who repeat that “all Europe has done so” as if they could not erstwhile be independent, their love of copying to get free of them, alternatively than treat them as an argument that in any way justifies them. I'll just compose that erstwhile I couldn't believe in the level of shallowness, infantilism, and the average falseness of the justifications presented by people usually educated and intelligent, I began to look for their genesis.
PRACTICE OF ASYMETRICITY: UKRAINOFILIA
With the same zeal with which the liberal mainstream assisted the “reset”, he began in fresh years to track down “ruskie agents”, “ruskie onuce” and any action conducive to “rusian interest” (such as the mention of worthy burial and commemoration of victims of the Volyn massacre). With equal tenacity of rhetoric and with equally shocking shallowness – add. Calling individual a “Russian agent” turned out to be a release of yourself from any intellectual effort. This crypto-anti-semitism, in which the fresh version: “It is simply a Jew” is to replace any argument.
Of course, exposing the absurdity of a large condition of the charges of “advocating the Russian interest” is an entrance into a blind alley built by specified accusers. They themselves frequently simply operate with rhetorical sabers to accomplish a circumstantial goal, specified as blackmailing anyone who does not approve adequate of the European Union's ideas.
With as much submission as this policy against Russia, which was respective years ago, liberal mainstream began to approach relations with Ukraine. It is simply a paradox that akin analogues are comparatively seldom drawn by publicists, as critics of the “reset” in a large part supported the blindly Ukrainian policy of the government of the Law and Justice and president Andrzej Duda.
In Poland's relations with Ukraine we are dealing with a two-dimensional asymmetricity, akin to that characterized by our relations with Russia during the “reset”. So, first of all, we give a lot, not getting almost nothing in return, but, secondly, we are in a situation much worse than another countries building specified a relationship. As far as point 2 is concerned, its content has been neatly summarized in a meme: “You will accept respective million Ukrainians and in return we will take over the property of the Russian oligarchs”.
It seems interesting to diagnose something like a “right-nationalist deviation” in erstwhile Prime Minister Leszek Miller. It is very characteristic to replace polemics with his views on Polish-Ukrainian relations by indicating how specified views supposedly attest to himself and his alleged metamorphosis.
LOOKS TO BE LIKED
If individual has not even gone through so much metamorphosis as a pirouet was made by critic Leszek Miller – he himself considers this issue, as it seems, the same as he has always considered.
Critics of his statements treat political views as clothes acquired in the boutique – and at the same time fashionable jackets can end up in the blink of an eye next to their disdained bazaar sweaters, as long as fashion dictators indicate another object of admiration. This attitude towards views seems to explain the infantilism and shallowness of the arguments formulated by them – after all, since views are a substance of aesthetics and social placement, since they service to spread halos over themselves, the logic of reasoning serves only a service function and is secondary.
Previously, the desire to show itself as the brightest sons of his era was satisfied by the display of cooperation with Russia as an antidote to the relic of the past, or anti-Russian demons, as well as the repetition of slogans about “civilization” and “democratization” of Russia. The second were to come as a consequence of designation of the liberal mainstream's goodwill, as if it were touching the magic wand – after all, all geopolitics specialist knows that politicians like Vladimir Putin respond to a grin with an even more warm smile, and the Russians dream of nothing else, like Western democracy.
Currently, appearing in the halo of a man of light and formulating views that preach “falls out” requires showing unconditional and unquestioning enthusiasm towards Ukraine and Ukrainians.
WOMEN'S EARTH OF UKRAINOFILI
What are the intellectual fruits of virtuosity? Let us add that the interviewer usually ends on their application – after all, the more intelligent representatives of the liberal mainstream do not give peculiar meaning to the logic, while the little intelligent ones, no substance how far they go, are incapable to reliably defend the axioms of their environment. Take the first examples.
So popular, which is repeatedly repeated is the view that “Ukrainians fight for us”. It is kind of like saying that Poles during planet War II we fought for Ukrainians, disturbing German forces, wanting to hit the russian Union with the top momentum. Of course, the formulation of specified a view will justify that it is simply a thought shorthand—saying that their communicative so breaks from various thought shorthands, understatements, suggestions, generalities that Sherlock Holmes himself would not find the fact or logic in their thicket.
The thesis of “Ukrainians fighting for us” assumes, of course, that the Russian leader, who is struggling with immense problems in the fight against the Ukrainian army and who cannot overcome it for almost 4 years, will want to attack NATO countries. Putin can be accused of evil, lies, cynicism – fewer people consider him crazy.
Of course, saying that individual is fighting for something or for someone, we must appeal to the intentions of who we are talking about. What a surprise it would be to the Ukrainians if they learned that they were fighting for Poles – and I wonder if their will to fight would not importantly weaken.
The amount of neural connections in the brain of unreflective Ukrainians may be awesome – they usage the kind of logic a genius would not have invented. The argument that “Ukrainians fight for us” is that they must keep social privileges for Ukrainians surviving in Poland. It is clear that Ukrainians must be kept in Poland if they are to be useful to the fighting Ukraine – or not?
It is clear as well as that the conflict for memory after the savagely wounded during the massacre of Volyn Poles is an action against the Polish interest, after all, being an enemy of UPA means being an enemy of Ukraine, while being an enemy of Ukraine is being a friend of Russia, while being a friend of Russia is being an enemy of Poland. Is anything else unclear?
It may be that these “anti-fascist” detectives, these invasive “anti-Semitism” hunters in the Polish nation, these self-proclaimed prosecutors formulating indictments against the Non-violent Soldiers for crimes created in the imagination of the accusers, those replicating in a 1000 different versions Donald Tusk's view that “polsity is abnormality”, these advocates of all treaties recognising the superiority of European law over Polish law began to usage the category of “Polish interest”. The Włodzimierz Lenin classical claimed that “capitalists will produce the strings on which we will hang them”. Is it possible that an immanently polynosceptic environment finds another disguise, this time white and red? It is charming that “Polish business” began to be crucial erstwhile it came to Ukrainian business. Besides, just as patriotism turned out to be crucial erstwhile the right hand had to be reproved that it had to have it.
Ukrainephilia is something completely different from the simple want of Ukrainians to win in the war against Russia. 1 of the most crucial manifestations is the advocacy of Ukraine's accession to the European Union or NATO.
It is simply a symptomatic manifestation of wishful thinking, which is not hindered by either the highly advanced level of corruption in Ukraine, or the conflict of interests of Ukrainian agricultural enterprises with Polish farmers, or, of course, the state worship of the genocidal flagism. The collaboration with the 3rd Reich of Ukrainian national heroes does not disturb Poland, but besides anti-Jewish chauvinism, whose heirs are felt by many Ukrainians. It does not disturb anything that was never there in Poland, and what tiny substitutes were inclined to rise liberal mainstream to the rank of signs of dangerous nationalism, whose spectrum is circulating over our country. It does not disturb what would make the imaginations of various Grosses, Grabowskis and Engelking historical works if it were the subject of their descriptions.
Why doesn't it bother you? And why is the argument of mainstream representatives so infantile, so based on logic and so easy to question for anyone who happens to think even a fewer times a day?
LOGIC ON SERVICES CONDUCTED
A partial explanation was given earlier, writing about “the views to please”. I would like to point out that I reject these usually fastest-to-be-explained explanations: betrayal, be stupid. I am not saying that they are completely false, but the origin of the argument is deeper. Let's effort to make this.
The attitude to Russia and Ukraine, the attitude to nationalism, is only derived from the basic, established especially at the level of the subconscious beliefs of the mainstream representatives. They can be variable, just as the football squad has different teams in different seasons, but inactive representing the same city, the same tradition, the same fans.
Nobel laureate Daniel Kahnemann described in “Thinking Traps” 2 systems behind human reactions and our choices. strategy first make reflexes, intuition. On the strategy second consists of analysis, reflection, longer thought processes. strategy 1 causes us to respond in a repetitive way to certain information, frequently not realizing why we perceive it like this and not otherwise.
Well, I think that the order of 2 types of perception can be reversed – I'm not talking about a simple transformation, alternatively about changing the relation between what is irrational and what is logical (or assuming a logically sounding form).
While in fact we usually respond instinctively, and then we subject the situation or view to analysis (and sometimes we do not quit at all), there is also, as I believe, a mechanics in people that leads to logic-based and seemingly rationality of response, the origin of which is wandering in a space not entirely conscious, but besides powerfully rooted beliefs. specified a key to analyzing the genesis of claims formulated by liberal mainstream seems appropriate to me.
Let us add that my earlier mentioned outside-steerness takes on a different dimension from that described at the outset – the steering wheel is no longer another man or environment, but the subconscious or seldom visited areas of consciousness.
Three Mainstream thought Foundations
What are these subconscious beliefs, beliefs that make the worldview and influence the opinions expressed, even erstwhile a individual seldom articles them expressis verbis?
First of all, it's a belief in your own moral superiority. Mainstream views are not just yet another opinion on a given issue – these are the views of “good people”.
Immanuel Kant distinguished “moral politics” from “political moralist”. The environment I am writing about here seems to confuse the ethical behaviour with the love of instructive “dark people” of morality. The difference between 1 and the another is not cosmetic – while in the first case we are dealing with compliance with the rules, in the second case we can talk about standing above all others and their intrusive reproof.
The aid of the Ukrainians was undoubtedly due to the good hearts of Poles – a simple, but besides a profound consequence to human suffering, the reflex of defence of the attacked. At the same time, the figure of a “good man” is not the same as what good is, as moralizing is not morality. You don't aid to talk about helping, you don't do good to show others are bad. Good is not a heartache.
Importantly, good must be able to go against the current. Is Ukrainephilia in the environments of “good people” opposed or environmental conformism? Is putting the Ukrainian flag on social networks close your photograph not the same as adding a rainbow? This request to epatate always calls for verification of the authenticity of what 1 epatifies.
Secondly, the thought of mainstream is influenced by strong rooting, that is, the external attitude towards its country, its nation.
To explain what I'm going to do with a brief digression. British philosopher Roger Scruton, describing models of adaptation of immigrants to society, distinguished culture and aggregation. The first means to preserve the common culture of the host country, while the second means to add cultures to each other, to make mosaics, to bake cakes to which ketchup is added. Various cultures can besides be described at the same time by an anthropologist of culture – the thing is that a man surviving in society is not an anthropologist and needs 1 cultural code, just as a driver has to comply with any traffic regulations to avoid causing an accident.
Well, mainstream adopts the position of an anthropologist of culture who determines the future of a peculiar society. Demolition is, in fact, a kind of disorder—the inability to belong, the inability to sympathize with one's own people. Let's effort to make a sensitivity to the destiny of thousands of Poles who have died in Volyn. Yes, this sensitivity is on the tracks arranged by ideology.
I spoke to a Ukrainian philosopher who compared Major Joseph Kuras, or “Fire” to Stefan Bandera. The takeover caused me not even symmetrism to compare the man who tried to reconstruct an independent Polish state, creating organization courts, sometimes issuing death sentences with a robber who “fortunate” issued, due to the fact that he had specified a desire. The takeover sparked a deficiency of reflex: “This man fought for me, fought so that I could live in independent Poland.” My interviewer was a historian, in addition to being ill-educated – he did not feel Polishness as something that was in it.
Thirdly, mainstream is guided by the view of “Europe” (councils are due to the fact that it is an imagined Europe), aestheticising it at the same time, as a symbol of class and style. How many times have we heard the argument: “All over Europe they do so” as an exclamation mark and dot, as aspiring to resolve any doubts.
The view of “Europe” seems much more applicable to the mainstream than the notion of “postcolonial mentality”, so frequently utilized by various publicists. Why? Mainstream is looking at “Europe”, but it does not necessarily feel deep in this aversion and jealousy to those who are subject to “post-colonial mentality”.
An crucial consequence of the mainstream worldview is the reluctance to a single national state – it is seen as a origin of nationalism, animosity towards another nations and tries to change in many different ways. Importantly, as mainstream does not necessarily hinder nationalism, unless it is Polish, it does not see the threat of muslim immigration, even though incomparably mild religion, or Catholicism, is inclined to blame for backwardness and hatred.
Mainstream behaves like Jehovah’s Witnesses of political life – it inactive scares “the life of the demons of Polish nationalism”. Of course, it is about patriotic activation of more Poles. It would be a problem so powerful, so fundamental that everyone can be acquitted to prevent it.
Jacek Tomczak
