Looking at the vast resources of the net in vain to look for the text “Water is Wet” or the dissertation entitled “Leaven trees exist”. Of course you don't gotta announce it, it's just. What is different is that we want to convince the reader, or even ourselves, to any neckline thesis. past gives us thousands here, if not millions of examples of specified actions.
My favourite is 1 of the more curiosist. In October 1938, Polish Ambassador to France Juliusz Łukasiewicz published a paper entitled "Poland is simply a power". By combining in its simple kind patetics and graffiti, the author commanded the title power of Poland and demanded for it a place among the large world. It's like a reality spell. And although Ronald Lasecki's colleague, who is an interesting intellectual and erudite, with a not very volatile sanatorium apparatus, combines almost nothing, it is hard to read the text "Antisystem exists" of a conceptual analogy, but to find out.
Besides, Lasecki is rather unnecessarily convincing himself and us to the title thesis. The anti-sytem does exist, and I did not question its existence in the text entitled “On the Roads of the Anti-system”. I questioned the meaning of his existence. The reading of the latest article by the Lasecki College only confirms my conviction.
The author defines for discussion the content of the anti-system as anti-liberalism across its spectrum relating to the regulation of public life, so: 1) political system; 2) economical policy; 3) abroad policy; 4) social relations entities. This definition, even with a glance, clearly does not mention to the reality around us. A full bunch of environments that specify themselves as antisytem identify themselves simultaneously as liberal. There we have libertarians, anarchocaptists and another even more exotic currents, where the nobly Janusz Korwin-Mikke may appear to be socialist politics.
Furthermore, the impression that Ronald Lasecki made of the anti-sysysset description, from its actual state, is delved as he delves into the article. For example, in economical policy the author of the thought of an anti-system identifies with the request of emancipation of Poland from centres of Western capitalism. Yes, there are anti-sythem environments that are pervading specified a demand, not a dominant view. This involves the self-determining by the environment as anti-systemic of highly different economical and geopolitical concepts. For example, it is impossible to reconcile communist views with libertarian ones and to extract a common denominator for them. Even if this were the case, it is surely not the request of “the emancipation of Poland from the centres of Western capitalism”.
Similarly, the geopolitical dimension of Lasecki's anti-system. In the field of global policy, it is intended to express the request that Poland exits the geopolitical structures of the West. Indeed? I've got a good track evidence in anti-system environments, so I can confirm that the anti-Western attitude is comparatively popular there. In general, negativity-based attitudes are more popular than affirmative attitudes. If I were to order them from the most popular to the most exotic, losing that I am based solely on my own discernment, not even on the circumstantial research, I would rank them in the following order: the 1st anticurain attitude, the 2nd anti-Jewish attitude, the 3rd anaerobic attitude, the 4th anti-Zionist attitude (this is simply a different anti-Jewish attitude), the 5th anti-American or anti-Western attitude, the 6th pro-Chinese attitude, the 7th pro-Chinese attitude, the 8th pro-Hungarian attitude, the 9th anti-Russian attitude, the 10th pro-American or pro-Western attitude. Given the completely subjective nature of the ranking, it is not possible to neglect to announcement that specified a broad spectrum of attitudes, which clearly happen among the environments identified as anti-systemic, puts a lie thesis on the existence of 1 common geopolitical postulate.
In this way, I could mention to almost all 1 of Ronald’s fellow proclaimers. So let's ask the question: how could this insightful intellectual in his article characterize an antisitism so far distant from reality? The image of the title current of the text “Antisystem exists” is simply a reflection of reality, but a certain postulate. So Ronald Lasecki presents the antisytm not as it is, but as he thinks it should be. The views and attitudes attributed to the anti-system here are not so much viewed here and the attitudes of the real anti-sytem, but the views and attitudes of Ronald Lasecki himself. That explains the article. In fact, the antisystem described in it does not happen in nature outside the individual example of the author. In the context of this, the title’s postulateness becomes completely rational.
Paradoxically, however, fellow Ronald touched on the essence of an incriminated issue, in the name of an imaginary anti-system to reject the strategy of liberal democracy. If we reject anachronistic ideas specified as sovereign monarchy or compromised in the last century as fascism, we have a grim alternative. It is to undermine the very thought of a state organization, or anarchy. If you were to tread on the antistate seriously, it leads to this. Replace the political debate with a Molotov cocktail. Do we want specified a future for ourselves and for our country? I don't. And you?
Przemysław Piasta
