u2
2016-01-16 15:10:55 UTC
http://niezalezna.pl/75049-dawid-wildstein-do-zachodnich-politykow-kim-jest-martin-schulz-tekst-rowniez-po-angielsku
[...]
14 January Wildstein
Analysis\ Who is a true fascist today?
David Wildstein
Schulz – fascist or Putin's agent
Quite recently Paweł Kukiz, in response to one of the serial odd,
aggressive and threatening Poland statements delivered by Martin
Schultz's, German politician and President of the European Parliament,
declared: “The grandchildren of the fascists shall not be teaching me
democracy”. But this statement seems to be too mild, which is, by the
way, rather strange for Kukiz. The statement should be sharper: today
this Martin Schulz himself is a fascist who attempts to teach us democracy.
Of course such a sharp title is, to some extent, a provocation. It may
also suggest that the language is being used here in a way typical for
Gazeta Wyborcza – as means for describing any political opponent with
the term “fascist”, and swilling out the real meaning of the word. So,
let me explain it.
Well,[ sir,] what is this fascism, then?
Fascism is a term from the domain of political history and the history
of ideas. It is one of the most semantically abused notions, mainly due
to the communist propaganda machine which used to tag any of its enemies
- whoever the person might have been - by this word. This rhetoric has
been eagerly seized by the European left, who keep entangling and
blurring the meanings long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Should one wish to outline a definition of fascism taking into account
the mode of use of this term, such definition would have simply read:
“any phenomenon which is not to the left's taste”. This approach is
additionally supported by the fact that already at its source fascism
was an exceptionally polymorphic and incoherent movement which kept
changing depending on the environment it was developing in. However, it
is possible to try describing some of its characteristics. First, which
is commonly forgotten nowadays, fascism was an ultrarevolutionary,
anti-conservative, progressive and modernistic movement. It resulted
from contempt for the existing civilization's standards and values, it
was driven by the belief in possibility to achieve progress and
implementation of a new utopia through adequate control and streamlining
of the human masses by the state institutions. The fascists' attitude
towards religion was negative; they perceived it as a progress hampering
factor and as a competition for the state's monopoly of control over the
society. If occasionally some covenant was ever possible, the alliance
was of purely tactical and not of ideological nature. Secondly, fascism
defined the attitude to the state: the state was perceived by the
fascists as the sole necessary element of development; its growth,
idolatry covering its institutions, endowing those with the broadest
prerogatives, possibility of flexible shaping the humans - was the only
way to changing this world for the better. Necessarily, such concept
excludes democracy and parliamentarism where – at least theoretically –
the citizens shape the politics. State is the ultimate result of the
human progress, so it deserves the utmost respect, while the extreme
contempt should be directed against the primitive, the barbarian, the
“not progressive enough”. The anthropology of fascism puts the emphasis
on plasticity of human nature in relation to political instiitutions.
For the reasons of this state oriented idolatry fascism at its source
was neither rascist nor nationalistic. Benito Mussolini expressed his
negative approach to racism; he allegedly said that it was a theory
suitable for dogs and not for humans. Nationalism is secondary in
relation to state. If it does foster strengthening the human being's
loyalty and readiness to serve the state, it is acceptable – and only
then. Based on that, acceptance of eugenics – even in its most radical
form – is possible as of a tool for creating a nation which could be
more useful in the service of state. Such approach to fascism enabled
establishment of the Fascist International.
So, as we see, in its roots fascism is an ideologically soft movement,
laying emphasis mainly on process, practice and mechanism, which
allowed, depending on current needs, unconstrained juggling with ideas
in order to attain the goal.
One may say that in case of fascism, many ideas did not stem from its
specific features, but were seized from outside, from the political and
cultural eco-system in which it had emerged. Therefore the German Nazism
is a very particular tyoe of fascism. Its racism and quite qrotesque
fixation on the German tribalism and paganism resulted from the
intellectual climate which had ruled there many years ago. Not to say,
centuries ago. From the common opinion dictated by the German culture on
inferiority of the East, from the historically rooted conviction, that
anythinhg east of Germany is a pack of barbarians to whom Berlin should
bring the torch of progress, whom it should educate and extract from the
mud and chaos in which they have been plunged.
From the belief in one's own civilisational mission which, combined
with revolutionary fascism and scientistic rasism of the elites, got
transformed into genocide.
True fascists?
Being fully aware of the change of the historical and geopolitical
context, it is worth considering however, to what extent the
aforementioned elements of the fascist doctrine mark the mode of
operation of the Brussels' and Berlin's elites whose perfect
representation is found in Martin Schulz. Eruption of stark fury
presented by this politician in response to the change of the ruling
power in Poland should not veil the simple fact that he is a sober
politician consistently representing today the most influential circles
in the European Union. A litmus test of something a lot more serious
than he himself. So, he is a politician consistently promoting the
primacy of bureaucratic Union's institutions over the internal decisions
of the member countries' parliaments, moreover, over the will of the
nations. Striving – through adequate setting of the relationship between
the EU institutions and the member countries – at possibly the strongest
depreciation of the value of parliamentarism and democracy of the
latter. Simultaneously, cunningly combining this with the very careful
safeguarding of the German interest whenever it comes to really radical
decisions. These features were most paramounly visible in the situation
of the Greek crisis as well as of the crisis concerning the
emigrants/refugees. In the latter case there was an attempt to create a
filtration system for Berlin made of the states in our region, the
system sieving the emigrants/refugees and sifting out for the further
passage only the ones meeting the German criteria, and to introduce –
through the quotas' system - regulations that in the future could
contribute to significant interferences in the souvereign decisions of
the member countries. And, when listening carefully to the arguments
used at that time by Shulz and his alike – it is clear that they were
ostentatiously colonizational: listen, you yokels, to those who bring
civilisation to you, your barbarism is well known to everybody, you do
not fit in our world, it is the time for you to change. Again, Schulz is
such a perfect child of today's left. With its demand to constrain the
freedom of speech for the sake of political correctness, with possibly
strongest interference of the state institutions in the society's tissue
and with acceptance of eugenics.
Today, when it has been proved that the will of the Polish nation
resulted in the election of the politicians who are ready to oppose
Berlin and Brussels, Martin Schulz does not hesitate to challenge these
decisions, to threaten Poland, to use again the set of stereotypes
suggesting that the Poles taking such decisions are not mature enough
for the tasks EU is faced with, and to claim that one should educate
them as soon as possible, even against their will, exercising the
pressure and using the forms of sovereignty constraints available in the
arsenal of the European Union's institutions.
All these measures and statements reveal, if looked at carefully, the
aforementioned components of fascism: state idolatry, primacy of
institutions over an individual, distaste for democracy and
parliamentarism, and, last but not least, disdain - if not hatred - for
the backward, primitive locals living behind the eastern border of
Germany who do not appreciate the historic role of Berlin, do not want
to receive the European torch of learning and continue to exist within
their reactionary cliches.
All these components make us conclude that if we were to search anywhere
for the heirs of fascism, it would not be in Warsaw, at Nowogrodzka
street, but in the salons of the European Union.
True EU enemies
We consider the European Union a real treasure and the fact that we
joined it – gave us a hiistoric chance. This sentence may sound strange
for the readers of our newspaper, but, Ladies and Gentlemen, please do
reflect on it yourselves – it is not only about the stream of grants,
alleviations for trade or a much smoother transfer of technologies,
which has been gained by becoming a member. The most essential issue is
our new geopolitical position in relation to Russia. At the end of the
day, the European Union proved to be the necessary stage for us to
radically break the ties with Moscow and to get out from its influence,
to a large extent. Especially in the most important segment of today, in
the energy sector. It also rendered it possible (and Lech Kaczyński
tried to have it accomplished, but it was totally destroyed by the
pro-Berlin blatant opportunism of the Civic Platform) to take advantage
of the chance of building the alliance with the states of our region we
might be a leader for. It is also worth remembering that the Union many
times protected us against pathologies of our own governments. The best
example here is the gas contract, signed with Gasprom in 2012 by
Waldemar Pawlak with acceptance of Donald Tusk, leading to many years of
extreme dependance of Poland on the Russian gas. Fortunately, the
contract was blocked by the European Union whose officials were of the
opinion that the contract gave Gasprom too strong position. By doing
that, the EU saved us from pro-Russian activities of our ruling leaders.
Let us remember this fact should we wish to grumble against the European
Union next time.
The Union - not so bad whatsoever
Obviously it does not mean that there are no pathologies of the worst
kind lasting and growing within the Union, which constitute a jeopardy
for our state and its sovereignty. Nevertheless, it's worth noticing
that within such a being like the EU, they may become really dangerous
only and solely when combined with a sufficiently affable, or, as it was
the case with the Civic Platform, outrightly treacherous government. If
the Polish politicians are strong enough to resist any attempt to get
corrupted in the salons of Berlin and Brussels, the mechanism of the EU
itself will give them adequate tools for defence.
Therefore a conceivable collapse of the Europpean Union constitutes a
jeopardy for us, because many points of defence against the Russian
influence might be taken away from us in such case. We need to take into
account activities of the most eurosceptic European parties, whose
possible rule might put an end to this structure. Without any special
embarrassement majority of them openly admire Putin, and some even take
money from him. This is the case of, for example, the National Front
headed by Marine Le Pen, which the strongest of the anti-Union parties.
It is not only the matter of the openly expressed raptures over Putin,
over his “masculinity” - it involves concrete demands (concerning, for
example, the European energy sector), geopolitical situation and
economy. Marine Le Pen openly declares that our region should be covered
with Moscow's patronage. And, which is even worse, the National Front
operates based on the giant loans granted to it by the Russian banks.
It is important for those Poles who are so much impressed by, among
other things, the anti-immigrational attitude of the National Front, to
be aware of who Le Pen really is.
But Le Pen and the stronger and stronger anti-Union trends constitute a
result, not the root cause, which is the arogance and insolence of the
Eu decision makers of Schulz's type. The superciliousness that leads to
negation of the existence of obvious threats and pathologies connected
with emigration and political correctness. The aggression that makes the
EU istitutions more and more openly interfere in the prerogatives of the
national states, and imposing censorship on any attempted objection.
Impudence of the rhetoric and open disregard of sovereign decisions of
the EU states and nations constitute a real jeopardy for the Union.
Because it will not be destroyed – in spite of the angry mainstream's
jabber – by Jarosław Kaczyński, who has been representing a reasonable
and moderate pro-union's policy for so many years, who understands both
the chances and the threats connected with our membership in this
structure. It will not be destroyed by Victor Orban. It will not even
be destroyed by Vladimir Putin. The Union may destroy itself by its own
action. The aggressive, conflict-oriented, greedy, anti-democratic
policy, the disrespectful attitude towards the will of the citizens of
the member states manifested by such individuals like Schulz – that's
the real danger. And it fosters Putin's interest, aggreviating
intensity of disputes and quarrels between the member countries, causing
distrust and abandonment of the EU ideas by the people who slowly keep
loosing their European identity. Therefore the second part of the
question contained in the title is the question of Martin Schulz'z role.
Translated by Aleksandra Niemirycz
-----------------
Excerpt
It does not mean that there are no pathologies of the worst kind
lasting and growing within the Union, which constitute a jeopardy for
our state and its sovereignty. Nevertheless, it's worth noticing that
within such a being like the EU, they may become really dangerous only
and solely if combined with a sufficiently affable, or, as it was the
case with the Civic Platform, outrightly treacherous government. If the
Polish politicians are strong enough to resist any attempt to get
corrupted in the salons of Berlin and Brussels, the mechanism of the EU
itself will give them adequate tools for defence.
--
General Skalski o zydach w UB :
"Rozanski, Zyd, kanalia najgorszego gatunku, razem z Brystigerowa,
Fejginami, to wszystko (...) nie byli ludzie."
prof. PAN Krzysztof Jasiewicz o zydach :
"Zydow gubi brak umiaru we wszystkim i przekonanie, ze sa narodem
wybranym. Czuja sie oni upowaznieni do interpretowania wszystkiego,
takze doktryny katolickiej. Cokolwiek bysmy zrobili, i tak bedzie
poddane ich krytyce - za malo, ze zle, ze zbyt malo ofiarnie. W moim
najglebszym przekonaniu szkoda czasu na dialog z Zydami, bo on do
niczego nie prowadzi... Ludzi, ktorzy uzywają slow 'antysemita',
'antysemicki', nalezy traktowac jak ludzi niegodnych debaty, ktorzy
usiluja niszczyc innych, gdy brakuje argumentow merytorycznych. To oni
tworza mowe nienawisci".
[...]
14 January Wildstein
Analysis\ Who is a true fascist today?
David Wildstein
Schulz – fascist or Putin's agent
Quite recently Paweł Kukiz, in response to one of the serial odd,
aggressive and threatening Poland statements delivered by Martin
Schultz's, German politician and President of the European Parliament,
declared: “The grandchildren of the fascists shall not be teaching me
democracy”. But this statement seems to be too mild, which is, by the
way, rather strange for Kukiz. The statement should be sharper: today
this Martin Schulz himself is a fascist who attempts to teach us democracy.
Of course such a sharp title is, to some extent, a provocation. It may
also suggest that the language is being used here in a way typical for
Gazeta Wyborcza – as means for describing any political opponent with
the term “fascist”, and swilling out the real meaning of the word. So,
let me explain it.
Well,[ sir,] what is this fascism, then?
Fascism is a term from the domain of political history and the history
of ideas. It is one of the most semantically abused notions, mainly due
to the communist propaganda machine which used to tag any of its enemies
- whoever the person might have been - by this word. This rhetoric has
been eagerly seized by the European left, who keep entangling and
blurring the meanings long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Should one wish to outline a definition of fascism taking into account
the mode of use of this term, such definition would have simply read:
“any phenomenon which is not to the left's taste”. This approach is
additionally supported by the fact that already at its source fascism
was an exceptionally polymorphic and incoherent movement which kept
changing depending on the environment it was developing in. However, it
is possible to try describing some of its characteristics. First, which
is commonly forgotten nowadays, fascism was an ultrarevolutionary,
anti-conservative, progressive and modernistic movement. It resulted
from contempt for the existing civilization's standards and values, it
was driven by the belief in possibility to achieve progress and
implementation of a new utopia through adequate control and streamlining
of the human masses by the state institutions. The fascists' attitude
towards religion was negative; they perceived it as a progress hampering
factor and as a competition for the state's monopoly of control over the
society. If occasionally some covenant was ever possible, the alliance
was of purely tactical and not of ideological nature. Secondly, fascism
defined the attitude to the state: the state was perceived by the
fascists as the sole necessary element of development; its growth,
idolatry covering its institutions, endowing those with the broadest
prerogatives, possibility of flexible shaping the humans - was the only
way to changing this world for the better. Necessarily, such concept
excludes democracy and parliamentarism where – at least theoretically –
the citizens shape the politics. State is the ultimate result of the
human progress, so it deserves the utmost respect, while the extreme
contempt should be directed against the primitive, the barbarian, the
“not progressive enough”. The anthropology of fascism puts the emphasis
on plasticity of human nature in relation to political instiitutions.
For the reasons of this state oriented idolatry fascism at its source
was neither rascist nor nationalistic. Benito Mussolini expressed his
negative approach to racism; he allegedly said that it was a theory
suitable for dogs and not for humans. Nationalism is secondary in
relation to state. If it does foster strengthening the human being's
loyalty and readiness to serve the state, it is acceptable – and only
then. Based on that, acceptance of eugenics – even in its most radical
form – is possible as of a tool for creating a nation which could be
more useful in the service of state. Such approach to fascism enabled
establishment of the Fascist International.
So, as we see, in its roots fascism is an ideologically soft movement,
laying emphasis mainly on process, practice and mechanism, which
allowed, depending on current needs, unconstrained juggling with ideas
in order to attain the goal.
One may say that in case of fascism, many ideas did not stem from its
specific features, but were seized from outside, from the political and
cultural eco-system in which it had emerged. Therefore the German Nazism
is a very particular tyoe of fascism. Its racism and quite qrotesque
fixation on the German tribalism and paganism resulted from the
intellectual climate which had ruled there many years ago. Not to say,
centuries ago. From the common opinion dictated by the German culture on
inferiority of the East, from the historically rooted conviction, that
anythinhg east of Germany is a pack of barbarians to whom Berlin should
bring the torch of progress, whom it should educate and extract from the
mud and chaos in which they have been plunged.
From the belief in one's own civilisational mission which, combined
with revolutionary fascism and scientistic rasism of the elites, got
transformed into genocide.
True fascists?
Being fully aware of the change of the historical and geopolitical
context, it is worth considering however, to what extent the
aforementioned elements of the fascist doctrine mark the mode of
operation of the Brussels' and Berlin's elites whose perfect
representation is found in Martin Schulz. Eruption of stark fury
presented by this politician in response to the change of the ruling
power in Poland should not veil the simple fact that he is a sober
politician consistently representing today the most influential circles
in the European Union. A litmus test of something a lot more serious
than he himself. So, he is a politician consistently promoting the
primacy of bureaucratic Union's institutions over the internal decisions
of the member countries' parliaments, moreover, over the will of the
nations. Striving – through adequate setting of the relationship between
the EU institutions and the member countries – at possibly the strongest
depreciation of the value of parliamentarism and democracy of the
latter. Simultaneously, cunningly combining this with the very careful
safeguarding of the German interest whenever it comes to really radical
decisions. These features were most paramounly visible in the situation
of the Greek crisis as well as of the crisis concerning the
emigrants/refugees. In the latter case there was an attempt to create a
filtration system for Berlin made of the states in our region, the
system sieving the emigrants/refugees and sifting out for the further
passage only the ones meeting the German criteria, and to introduce –
through the quotas' system - regulations that in the future could
contribute to significant interferences in the souvereign decisions of
the member countries. And, when listening carefully to the arguments
used at that time by Shulz and his alike – it is clear that they were
ostentatiously colonizational: listen, you yokels, to those who bring
civilisation to you, your barbarism is well known to everybody, you do
not fit in our world, it is the time for you to change. Again, Schulz is
such a perfect child of today's left. With its demand to constrain the
freedom of speech for the sake of political correctness, with possibly
strongest interference of the state institutions in the society's tissue
and with acceptance of eugenics.
Today, when it has been proved that the will of the Polish nation
resulted in the election of the politicians who are ready to oppose
Berlin and Brussels, Martin Schulz does not hesitate to challenge these
decisions, to threaten Poland, to use again the set of stereotypes
suggesting that the Poles taking such decisions are not mature enough
for the tasks EU is faced with, and to claim that one should educate
them as soon as possible, even against their will, exercising the
pressure and using the forms of sovereignty constraints available in the
arsenal of the European Union's institutions.
All these measures and statements reveal, if looked at carefully, the
aforementioned components of fascism: state idolatry, primacy of
institutions over an individual, distaste for democracy and
parliamentarism, and, last but not least, disdain - if not hatred - for
the backward, primitive locals living behind the eastern border of
Germany who do not appreciate the historic role of Berlin, do not want
to receive the European torch of learning and continue to exist within
their reactionary cliches.
All these components make us conclude that if we were to search anywhere
for the heirs of fascism, it would not be in Warsaw, at Nowogrodzka
street, but in the salons of the European Union.
True EU enemies
We consider the European Union a real treasure and the fact that we
joined it – gave us a hiistoric chance. This sentence may sound strange
for the readers of our newspaper, but, Ladies and Gentlemen, please do
reflect on it yourselves – it is not only about the stream of grants,
alleviations for trade or a much smoother transfer of technologies,
which has been gained by becoming a member. The most essential issue is
our new geopolitical position in relation to Russia. At the end of the
day, the European Union proved to be the necessary stage for us to
radically break the ties with Moscow and to get out from its influence,
to a large extent. Especially in the most important segment of today, in
the energy sector. It also rendered it possible (and Lech Kaczyński
tried to have it accomplished, but it was totally destroyed by the
pro-Berlin blatant opportunism of the Civic Platform) to take advantage
of the chance of building the alliance with the states of our region we
might be a leader for. It is also worth remembering that the Union many
times protected us against pathologies of our own governments. The best
example here is the gas contract, signed with Gasprom in 2012 by
Waldemar Pawlak with acceptance of Donald Tusk, leading to many years of
extreme dependance of Poland on the Russian gas. Fortunately, the
contract was blocked by the European Union whose officials were of the
opinion that the contract gave Gasprom too strong position. By doing
that, the EU saved us from pro-Russian activities of our ruling leaders.
Let us remember this fact should we wish to grumble against the European
Union next time.
The Union - not so bad whatsoever
Obviously it does not mean that there are no pathologies of the worst
kind lasting and growing within the Union, which constitute a jeopardy
for our state and its sovereignty. Nevertheless, it's worth noticing
that within such a being like the EU, they may become really dangerous
only and solely when combined with a sufficiently affable, or, as it was
the case with the Civic Platform, outrightly treacherous government. If
the Polish politicians are strong enough to resist any attempt to get
corrupted in the salons of Berlin and Brussels, the mechanism of the EU
itself will give them adequate tools for defence.
Therefore a conceivable collapse of the Europpean Union constitutes a
jeopardy for us, because many points of defence against the Russian
influence might be taken away from us in such case. We need to take into
account activities of the most eurosceptic European parties, whose
possible rule might put an end to this structure. Without any special
embarrassement majority of them openly admire Putin, and some even take
money from him. This is the case of, for example, the National Front
headed by Marine Le Pen, which the strongest of the anti-Union parties.
It is not only the matter of the openly expressed raptures over Putin,
over his “masculinity” - it involves concrete demands (concerning, for
example, the European energy sector), geopolitical situation and
economy. Marine Le Pen openly declares that our region should be covered
with Moscow's patronage. And, which is even worse, the National Front
operates based on the giant loans granted to it by the Russian banks.
It is important for those Poles who are so much impressed by, among
other things, the anti-immigrational attitude of the National Front, to
be aware of who Le Pen really is.
But Le Pen and the stronger and stronger anti-Union trends constitute a
result, not the root cause, which is the arogance and insolence of the
Eu decision makers of Schulz's type. The superciliousness that leads to
negation of the existence of obvious threats and pathologies connected
with emigration and political correctness. The aggression that makes the
EU istitutions more and more openly interfere in the prerogatives of the
national states, and imposing censorship on any attempted objection.
Impudence of the rhetoric and open disregard of sovereign decisions of
the EU states and nations constitute a real jeopardy for the Union.
Because it will not be destroyed – in spite of the angry mainstream's
jabber – by Jarosław Kaczyński, who has been representing a reasonable
and moderate pro-union's policy for so many years, who understands both
the chances and the threats connected with our membership in this
structure. It will not be destroyed by Victor Orban. It will not even
be destroyed by Vladimir Putin. The Union may destroy itself by its own
action. The aggressive, conflict-oriented, greedy, anti-democratic
policy, the disrespectful attitude towards the will of the citizens of
the member states manifested by such individuals like Schulz – that's
the real danger. And it fosters Putin's interest, aggreviating
intensity of disputes and quarrels between the member countries, causing
distrust and abandonment of the EU ideas by the people who slowly keep
loosing their European identity. Therefore the second part of the
question contained in the title is the question of Martin Schulz'z role.
Translated by Aleksandra Niemirycz
-----------------
Excerpt
It does not mean that there are no pathologies of the worst kind
lasting and growing within the Union, which constitute a jeopardy for
our state and its sovereignty. Nevertheless, it's worth noticing that
within such a being like the EU, they may become really dangerous only
and solely if combined with a sufficiently affable, or, as it was the
case with the Civic Platform, outrightly treacherous government. If the
Polish politicians are strong enough to resist any attempt to get
corrupted in the salons of Berlin and Brussels, the mechanism of the EU
itself will give them adequate tools for defence.
--
General Skalski o zydach w UB :
"Rozanski, Zyd, kanalia najgorszego gatunku, razem z Brystigerowa,
Fejginami, to wszystko (...) nie byli ludzie."
prof. PAN Krzysztof Jasiewicz o zydach :
"Zydow gubi brak umiaru we wszystkim i przekonanie, ze sa narodem
wybranym. Czuja sie oni upowaznieni do interpretowania wszystkiego,
takze doktryny katolickiej. Cokolwiek bysmy zrobili, i tak bedzie
poddane ich krytyce - za malo, ze zle, ze zbyt malo ofiarnie. W moim
najglebszym przekonaniu szkoda czasu na dialog z Zydami, bo on do
niczego nie prowadzi... Ludzi, ktorzy uzywają slow 'antysemita',
'antysemicki', nalezy traktowac jak ludzi niegodnych debaty, ktorzy
usiluja niszczyc innych, gdy brakuje argumentow merytorycznych. To oni
tworza mowe nienawisci".