What is Antisystem
In his 2 erstwhile articles published on the portal Conservatives.pl, the author described what the global Demoliberal strategy is.[1]. Now he will effort to answer the question of what the Antisystem should be and how it should operate in the current political situation in Poland. The author recalls that under the word "System", he understands all elements consisting of demoliberism and relations between these elements. The antisystem, on the another hand, is simply a widely understood conglomerate of various political forces questioning the democratic order. The Anti-system includes all these currents that reject the liberal political system, the liberal economy, the liberal global policy and the liberal model of social relations. It should be made clear that the Anti-system consists of only those forces that question all liberal solutions in these areas, not only any of them.
For example, Adrian Zandberg's "Together" organization is not, certainly, an anti-systemic force in the field of the economy. The other of liberalism in the economy is classical socialism, which advocates a shared ownership of means of production. On the another hand, the “Together” organization accepts the main principles of the liberal economy. It is not in favour of nationalisation of means of production but of redistribution of national income and subsidising less-consumption layers (although not necessarily handicapped). Zandberg's organization is only demanding any correction of the liberal economical order, not its complete overthrow. It should be classified not as an Anti-system but as a typical Western European social democracy.
besides Law and Justice (PiS) led by Jarosław Kaczyński is not an Antisystem, despite rejecting certain elements of the liberal political system. It must be made clear that not all political force that advocates limiting the function of parliament and political parties is anti-liberal. Many polytologists (including those related to the Antisystem) stand out on the right-hand side of the line known as “bonapartism” (or “plebiscitarism”). Bonapartism accepts the main assumptions of the demoliberal system. He demands only to redesign this strategy from parliamentary-party to chief. The chief strategy does not mean abandoning democracy. It is that the sovereign legitimizes his power by referring straight to the people (through referendums, plebiscites, mass rallies, etc.) with the omission of parliament and political parties. Napoleon Bonaparte himself considered to be the father of this stream enrolled in history, among others, due to the fact that he was the first to apply the referendum.
The most crucial representatives of Bonapartism are specified politicians as Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles de Gaulle in France and Józef Piłsudski in Poland. Today, the French National Unity (Rassemblemet national) led by Marine Le Pen or Law and Justice (PiS) in Poland should be included in the Bonapartyist trend. It should be noted that PiS politicians respect themselves as continuing the political way of Marshal Piłsudski.
On the another hand, the anti-systemic character of the populist right, which is now beginning to gain expanding support in Western Europe, is being questioned. Right-Popular movements are frequently considered a threat to the liberal system. In fact, it is hard to find whether they are inactive in the bonaparty or already the Antisystem. The author believes that each of these movements should be considered separately.
Some right- populist movements express acceptance for the strategy of liberal democracy. The mentioned Marine Le Pen National Unity can be a good example. This organization does not search to change the strategy from liberal to nonliberal. He's just demanding his correction. Within the framework defined by demoliberalism, it wants to decision from parliamentary and organization democracy to more chiefly (bonapartism, plebiscitarism, caesarism).
But the populist right besides includes more anti-liberal movements, which can be described as anti-systemic. Although the leaders of these movements do not proclaim anti-liberal views directly, they are common and clearly expressed among its private members and sympathizers. This is most evident in alternate für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany, AfD). Although AfD's leadership does not call for the overthrow of liberal democracy in Germany, many members and sympathizers of this organization and related net bloggers reject liberalism entirely. To find out, just look at the content expressed on the AfD's manifestations or read the portals conducted by right-wing bloggers. They frequently refer, for example, to Julius Evola or the revolutionary right from the interwar period.
The author believes that anti-system movements should be considered primarily those that reject the liberal political strategy (parlamentarism, 3 divisions of authorities, legitimacy of power coming from the cyclically repeated democratic elections, organization system, etc.). It is the systemic issues that are decisive for the Anti-system. The adoption of a non-liberal political strategy affects the non-liberal economical system, abroad policy, social relations, etc. The anti-system consists of many conflicting currents with different views on the economy (e.g. Communist and libertarian mainstreams), abroad policy (e.g. Russia-oriented environments and supporters of extremist Islam) or social life (radical nationalists and anarchists opposed to the state institution itself). The common denominator of all these currents is opposition to the de-liberal political strategy of the state.
Liberalism Without Democracy
It should be noted that the genesis of liberalism itself is undemocratic. It involves the regulation of enlightened absolute monarchies in the 18th century. Even before the wave of democratic revolutions started in 1789, rulers specified as Frederick II in Prussia, Peter I and Catherine II in Russia and Joseph II in Austria carried out a number of liberal reforms in their countries. These monarchs utilized absolute power to spread the liberal worldview, to make liberal economical reforms, and to fight the ignorance and spiritual superstition of the people.
Liberalism can connect not only to monarchy but besides to dictatorship. An example of this second phenomenon is Chile during the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet. Another (less known) example is Peru. In 1990, Alberto Fujimori became president there. In 1994, he committed a coup (so-called autogolpe), suspended constitutional freedoms and attributed himself to dictatorial powers. He then conducted extremist marketplace reforms in the spirit of liberalism. In fact, the dictator Fujimori did not have full authority in Peru but peculiar services led by Vladimir Montesinos. Already in the late 1980s, they developed a violent Verde Plan (Green Plan) aimed at depopulation of the poorest layers. Forced sterilization of indigenous peoples of Peru, criminals and the population sympathetic to the left-wing communist partisans was carried out. Fujimori remained in power until 2000. This period in practice was a hidden dictatorship of peculiar services and a large financier.
There are besides liberal states in which democratic mechanisms do not full function. For example, in Japan, for 70 years, 1 Liberal-Democratic organization has ruled.
Also in Poland there are representatives of liberalism who are not supporters of democracy. For example Janusz Korwin-Mikke is besides a monarch and advocate of extremist liberal reforms in the economy. He argues that specified reforms can most effectively be carried out in a monarchy or dictatorial strategy alternatively than a democratic one.
In the late 1980s and 1990s there was a letter in Poland entitled “Stańczyk” referring, among others, to the concept of Mirosław Dzielski, who believed that Gen.Wojciech Jaruzelski should, acting as a dictator in Poland, make akin economical reforms to Pinochet in Chile. It was a completely real concept. A trailer of liberal changes in the economy was carried out on top of the reforms of Mieczysław Wilczek supported by Jaruzelski and then Mieczysław Rakowski. Now we besides know that Jaruzelski met with the financial elite of the Western planet (including the Rockefeller family) in fresh York City and took instructions on the introduction of the liberal economy in Poland.
The above example of Peru during the period of Fujimori's regulation shows that the liberal government is based not so much on the regulation of the democratic majority as on the governments of the financial elite. The richest layers inhabiting the large cities are the most detached from the community from which they originate and are most inclined to support liberalism. Liberalism is simply a worldview of people educated in the city and working mostly in global corporations. specified people most frequently support parliamentary democracy, the organization system, the 3 adjective elections, the rotation within the ruling elite, humanitarian morality, etc. They are mostly much more wealthy than most of the population.
Democratic elections, parliament, political parties are to safe the power of the large city's rich. At a time erstwhile a strong economical crisis occurs, which is felt by the majority of the population, the people begin to rebel against the elite, the peripheries emergence against the centre. The frightened liberal elite then demands a temporary suspension of democratic mechanisms, as it fears that any grassroots movement can channel social discontent and a democratic way to remove this elite from power. The centre then introduces a dictatorship that protects liberalism and begins persecution of the periphery movement and the elimination of its leaders.
An example of specified suppression of the revolt against the elite in Poland was the elimination of the self-defense of Andrzej Lepper by the service of the then ruling organization (now opposition party). As an excuse to strike self-defense, the services then directed by Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik utilized the alleged "ground affair". Liberal media then launched an angry hatred run against Lepper's party. Andrzej Lepper himself suffered death in mysterious circumstances in 2011. According to the authoritative version, it was suicide. Even if it is true, Lepper's hatred run against him by the strategy led to this suicide.
In Slovakia, the strategy led a akin media run against Prime Minister Robert Fico, which led to an effort to assassinate his life. A akin hatred run in the US led to an effort to assassinate Donald Trump. As with Lepper's death, we don't have adequate reason to believe that the system's permanent services were behind the assassinations of Fico and Trump. However, both of these attacks are the consequence of a media attack launched by the strategy against these politicians.
Liberalism had its best era in the first half of the 19th century, erstwhile there was not yet a universal electoral law. Most countries began introducing organization systems and universal electoral law in the second half of the 19th century. The exception is Britain, where the organization strategy has existed since the mid-17th century. Women, on the another hand, only began to gain voting rights at the end of the 19th century. In any liberal countries this happened only in the second half of the 20th century. Interestingly, at the latest, women's electoral rights are given by Switzerland, now considered a model democratic and liberal country.
The spread of democracy in the first half of the 20th century is linked to the crisis of liberalism. It happened due to the fact that electoral rights received social strata, which out of attitudes are non-liberal.
As shown in the above examples, undemocratic liberalism may exist. However, liberalism most frequently occurs in conjunction with the democratic strategy (division of authorities, parliamentaryism, cyclically repeated elections, the anticipation of exchanging the ruling party, etc.) creating a strategy of liberal democracy (demoliberalism).
In the assumptions of liberal political philosophy, liberal dictatorships are to be only temporary. In the classical ancient sense, dictatorship is an institution appointed for a limited period of time to address the political crisis in the state.
Liberals likewise treat liberal absolute monarchs. In their opinion, liberal reforms are justified only in non-liberal societies specified as Russia and Prussia. Liberal absolutisms are considered to be an first phase to prepare a given society for the adoption of full demoleberism. King Frederick II himself spoke of himself as “the first servant of his nation.”
Xi Jinping is likewise referred to as the president of the Chinese Communist People's Party. It proclaims that the authoritarian strategy in China will proceed until there is simply a strong mediate class there. erstwhile the mediate class dominates the majority of the population, the Communist People's organization will make reforms that will lead to the gradual introduction of liberal democracy.
Another undemocratic origin operating in liberal regimes is behind the scenes of forces specified as masonry. This applies to France and the UK to the top extent, as the Masonic lodges are the strongest there. Political pluralism is apparent in these countries. Politicians of different options meet in the same lodges where the most crucial decisions are made. Debates in the parliament are only a parson behind which behind the backroom policy is hidden.
Kaleki Antisystem Grzegorz Braun
Grzegorz Braun surely has many flaws and weaknesses. However, he should be considered an Antisystem candidate, although he represents the Antisystem of weak and crippled. First of all, there is no real political force behind him, which causes that, probably, he will not play a greater function in Polish politics. According to the polls, he can number on about 1.5% of support (within the limits of statistical error). Braun does not have a coherent political doctrine, his worldview is simply a collection of content taken from different environments.
In addition, Grzegorz Braun does not have the capacity to make a lasting political movement around him and all indicates that he will be touched by the "Korwin-Mikke syndrome". The mentioned Janusz Korwin-Mikke competed repeatedly in the presidential election. He always collected a certain electorate around him, mostly young people, who immediately left him and spread around the political scene after the election. The sustained movement of the Corvinists never arose and played no function in politics. There are many indications that it will be akin to Braun's electorate.
Despite these shortcomings, it is worth voting for Grzegorz Braun, due to the fact that thanks to him the Polish Antisystem can become a stand-alone political force. The individual of Braun unites various anti-system currents. His camp includes both Russian-oriented communists (epigons of the Polish People's Republic) and extremist nationalists, as well as cash defenders, opponents of fresh technologies, vaccine opponents, opponents of peculiar treatment of a known cultural number and known spiritual symbols, etc. Even the movement that advocates independent food production (supported by the author) expresses support for Braun on its portals.
The expulsion of Braun from the Confederacy should be assessed positively. Thanks to this, the Antisystem separated from the System. So far, any anti-systemists have voted for the Confederacy, justifying that Braun and Korwin-Mikke can gain any influence in politics. The author always powerfully rejected this tactic. He was aware that Korwin and Braun were marginalized in the Confederation and had no influence on the activities of that group. all vote given to the Confederate was a voice strengthening the strategy and liberal careerists in the kind Przemysław Wipler, Sławomir Mentzen and Krzysztof Bosak. Now that both Korwin and Braun are outside the Confederacy, there is no reasonable reason to vote for it. We can see in the Confederacy what it truly is, 1 of the many appetizers to the System.
It doesn't truly substance if Braun gets 5%, 1.5% or 0.75%. In the current situation, the intent of the Antisystem is not to win elections but to exist.
The large weakness of Braun's camp, which can find its decay, is the deficiency of intellectual background. The author-rated political scientist Prof. Jarosław Tomasiewicz, who analysed the causes of self-defence decay, concluded that the weak ideological formation of members contributed to this. The Lepper movement lacked intellectuals, there were no ideological-analytical centres supporting it that could form the perfect face of this movement.
There are many indications that specified a mistake will contribute to Braun's defeat. It is besides without intellectual environments, serious analytical and ideological centres. No movement can last long without its political doctrine and ideology. Only intellectuals can make this doctrine.
In general, the weakness of Polish politics is precisely the deficiency of intellectual background. In this respect, we should draw patterns from the United States. There the individual branches of power are closely separated from each other. Members of legislature may not service in the presidential administration. Therefore, each fresh president elects members of the administration from experts and intellectuals from the organization supporting the ideological-analytical centres. Related Republicans or Democrats, intellectual, ideological and analytical centres (think-thanki) give organization elites the chance to wait out the period during which their organization is in opposition. They are engaged in formulating a doctrine that a organization will carry out erstwhile it is in power. Giving key positions to people from expert and intellectual circles contributes to a advanced level of policy. The advanced importance of think-thanks in US politics is simply a phenomenon that should be assessed positively.
Such centres have absolutely no influence on politics in Poland. There is no strict separation of different branches of power. Key political positions include not people from expert and intellectual circles but mainly members of parliament. This opens the way for organization careers whose only business is organization activity and importantly lowers the level of politics.
Although many ideological and analytical centres (mainly related to the national environment) have been established in Poland since 2000, they are inactive besides weak to influence politics. There is simply a deficiency of ideological press, online portals and ideological and analytical channels.
According to the author, in this direction should make the Antisite. It should be based on intellectual and expert environments. It should make analytical, ideological and intellectual centers that will make doctrine, ideology and political doctrine of the Antisystem. This ideology and doctrine created by anti-systemic centres can form any permanent anti-systemic political movement in the future.
Individualism or Communityism
Many people dislike the individualism of Grzegorz Braun on economical issues. It is indeed a libertarian, which all another economical models mention to as "socialism". It should be stressed that Braun himself defines himself as a Catholic traditionalist, which means that he must besides be acquainted with the Community doctrine of the economy preached by the Catholic Church.
According to the author, Braun's libertarianism cannot be completely rejected. It should be remembered that libertarians are besides the current of the Antisystem. They separated from neoliberalism during the 2008 economical crisis.
The governments of the European states then provided aid to the large corporations affected by the crisis. The Neoliberals felt that the mechanisms of the welfare state were needed in times of crisis. On the another hand, the libertarians sided with a tiny business (manufacturers and traders) which began to fall, while global corporations proved to be “too large to fall.”
The author looks at even more hopeful anti-systemic libertarian environments seeking to destruct the welfare state than the environment that wants to keep it (e.g. at national level). The Community economical theory, both in the Catholic and socialist variants, rejects the natural mechanics of marketplace competition.
In the Catholic model, all economical operators do not compete with each other, but work together to make 1 organism. besides in the socialist economy, the component of competition has been excluded. Here, in turn, economical operators operate according to a single plan imposed top-down by the State. Meanwhile, biology teaches us that each species develops through competition and inheritance law (Darwin theory).
On the another hand, individualism in the economy includes free competition but excludes inheritance. Only the individual is the subject. True, there are large capitalist families (e.g. Wallenbergs or Kennedys), but this is simply a phenomenon created despite capitalist individualism.
According to the Protestant imagination of the economy that laid the groundwork for the emergence of the United States, and the most popular was in the 1st half of the 20th century, the capitalist should before his death dispose of all the property, and his children should start all over again, due to the fact that Protestantism says inheritance is wrong.
As you can see, both the Libertarian and Community models have bad and good sides. The author believes that the best solution would be to combine both models.
The main actors of economical and social life should not be individuals, but clans, or most natural communities of people connected by bonds of loyalty and kinship. For a crucial part of the past of humanity (including the ancestors and relatives of man) lived in specified numbering respective twelve (max. 100) clan members.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to return to the clan strategy in Europe. The clans were broken here early in history. Only families remain. This clan differs from the lineage that it has to do with the territory where all its members live. In the case of the household after the death of the patriarch, the eldest boy inherits most of the estate, and the younger brothers must arrange for the received parts themselves.
Clearly, the bonds of trust and loyalty can only function in a community of people who know 1 another and are related. We always trust those who are like us and feel xenophobia towards strangers. Therefore, the family-clan community is simply a natural thing for man. The bonds of loyalty and trust cannot function in a multi-million-pound community of strangers (e.g. a nation or all mankind).
Strengthening executive power as a road to anti-liberalism
Law and Justice is frequently considered to be a organization that strives to top-down strengthen executive power and reduce the function of parliament acting subconsciously in favour of the Anti-system. The author does not share this opinion, he believes that the PiS operates as part of a liberal paradigm, i.e. it belongs to a current called Bonapartism alternatively than Antistem. Earlier, differences were described between the another form of bonapartism and the Antisystem.
If a organization reforms the state based on paradigms of liberal Western civilization (parlamentism, regularly repeated elections, 3 divisions of authorities, government control by opposition, etc.) belongs to the System. If, on the another hand, its actions lead to a break from demoliberalism and consequently to a break from Western civilization, it is the Antisystem.
There are presently no political forces in Poland to break with demoliberalism and go beyond Western civilization. Even Grzegorz Braun refers to the concept of "Latin civilization", which was only an early phase of improvement of Western civilization.
The top-down strengthening of the executive authority in any cases actually leads to the exit of demoliberism and construction in the country of Antisystem. The Republic of Belarus is the best example. In 1994, Alexander Lukashenko won democratic elections there and immediately changed the constitution and made reforms strengthening the office of President. Lukashenko's reforms have gone so far that they have led to a break with the demoliberal strategy and break with the West. The present Belarus is simply a non-liberal and anti-Western state, part of the Antisystem.
Another example is the countries bordering the strategy and Antisystem as Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Hungary Victor Orbán. Erdoğan and Orbán are politicians belonging to the anti-liberal stream, but they did not decide to completely break with Western structures.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, like Aleksandr Lukashenko, won the 2014 presidential election in Turkey and, like him, changed the constitution by strengthening the President's position.
On the another hand, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán is frequently accused of practicing alleged “putinism”. He put all power in his hand, subjugated all media, and deprived liberal opposition of his ability to influence society, although he did not completely ban it. It is not yet known whether Turkey and Hungary will decide to full exit the strategy structures and become the Antisystem. specified a paradigm shift would be possible in these countries if the war in Ukraine ended with Russia's victory.
If Turkey could master the vast majority of the Levant and Maghreb with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ottoman Empire would be rebuilt and the transition to the anti-liberal side would be possible. Hungary could besides make specified a transition if the Russian troops alternatively of being stuck over Don reached Zakarpacia. In this case, Hungary would border straight with the rebuilt Russian Empire (including Russia, Ukraine and Belarus), which would let them to reorient most of their trade into Russia and regulate the Hungarian number in Zakarpacie.
Unfortunately, we see that the situation in Ukraine is constantly developing in a way that is detrimental to Russia. Turkey, on the another hand, controls only Western Libya, Iraqi Kurdistan, Syria and Gaza Strip. It's not adequate to rebuild the Ottoman Empire.
On the another hand, the spectacular success of the Muslim Brotherhood (formerly Al Qaeda) in Syria strengthened Turkey's position. The leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood even issued a ban on Israeli aircraft flying over Syria and installed Turkish anti-aircraft defence systems there, which it is determined to use. This gives hope that rebuilding the Ottoman Empire through Turkey and its passage into an anti-liberal camp is inactive possible.
The author besides points out that he does not reject the anticipation of utilizing force in the fight against the System. This Victor Orbán came to power as a consequence of the 2006 street revolution. The Polish right besides erstwhile proclaimed the slogan “Let us make another Budapest in Warsaw”.
Even if the Anti-system comes to power peacefully, it must have the essential forces behind it to safe it. The confrontation with the strategy will happen whether we want to or not, and we request to be prepared for this confrontation.
Also anti-system movements that won democratic elections at any point had to usage force. In Turkey in 2016, an effort was made by Western-supported military circles. Erdoğan then had to mobilize his supporters and servants to fight his opponents.
In turn, in Belarus in 2020, a "colour revolution" inspired by the West broke out. Alexander Lukashenko was besides forced to suppress her forcefully.
It should be remembered that there are no moral and immoral methods in politics. Policies are the art of achieving objectives utilizing the most effective methods in a given situation.
Furthermore, it is simply a question of whether the Law and Justice truly search to strengthen the executive authority, as it declares. During the regulation of the Law and Justice, the most crucial individual in the state was the president of the organization Jarosław Kaczyński, who had a decisive influence on the actions of both president Andrzej Duda and erstwhile Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. Duda and Morawiecki had any autonomy, but Kaczyński could at any time paralyze their steps. specified a maneuver of "governments from the rear seat" is frequently found on the Polish right. It originates from the Pilsudczyk period, and in the 3rd Poland it was utilized (completely forgotten) by Marian Krzaklewski.
Co-aptation or alternate building
Some anti-system movements search to co-apply to the strategy and seemingly accept the main paradigms of demoliberism. An example of this phenomenon is Marine Le Pen in France, and in Poland Roman Giertych and his successor Krzysztof Bosak. Supporters of this road hope that, by concealing their actual identity and pretending to be liberals, they will be allowed to mainstream demoliberal politics and will at least implement those demands that can be realised in the demoliberal system. Marine Le Pen is improbable to be able to change France's strategy to nonliberal. It can, on the another hand, refocus its abroad policy from the Atlantic to a more pro-Russian 1 and tighten the admission criteria.
The author is an opponent of a political course aimed at co-aptation to the System. Firstly, this leads to the resignation of about 99% of its own non-liberal demands. The only advantage that can be applied by joining the strategy is the implementation of about 1% of the third-rate demands. Secondly, this road assumes naive belief that the decision-making body of the strategy will not realize that the change of a given organization is apparent. Meanwhile, the decision-makers of the strategy are prepared that movements having an anti-liberal past will effort under the changed name to enter the strategy and effort to blow it from the inside. The strategy is sealed and its decision-making bodies are aware and will not let any parties or movements to participate in politics that endanger the democratic nature of the state. Cosmetic treatments specified as changing the name of a organization or throwing out activists burdened with an antiliberal past do nothing. Preventing Marine Le Pen from taking off in elections is the best example of how the way of joining the strategy ends in failure and embarrassment.
The other of co-aptation to the strategy is building an alternate for it. This was the way chosen by Roman Dmowski, acting under unfavorable conditions of partitions and later the Pilsudczyk regime. Endecja then created a network of independent organizations, publishing houses, cooperatives, and banks covering the full country. This was essential to the movement in the fight for political power. All these elements of the endec movement operated independently of each other, the elimination of 1 of the links in this grid did not endanger the others. erstwhile the Czarski authorities crashed the independency demonstration organized by Dmowski in Warsaw, another elements of the endecque mesh (e.g. in Lviv or Poznań) could proceed to operate without hindrance.
According to the author of the Antisystem, in seeking public support, it should adopt the proven tactics of national democracy. As has already been mentioned, the weakest side of Grzegorz Braun is the deficiency of a political background specified as Dmowski had.
It should be noted that Braun is no longer a political novice and could make specified facilities. It peaked at a time erstwhile its environment opposed another covid lockdown. Braun was then alongside Sebastian Pitonia a flagship character of anti-covid protests. Unfortunately, the environment of the Polish Crown then failed to analyse social discontent and to build permanent support for itself.
Grzegorz Braun can mobilise his supporters at certain peculiar times, while building permanent political structures is hard for him. This is simply a typical Polish national trait. We are able to mobilise ourselves temporarily at peculiar times, but we cannot carry out systematic long-term activities.
How the Anti-system should work
As indicated above, the Antisystem should follow the way indicated by Roman Dmowski, i.e. make its own centres, which will supply a lasting place for him in political and social life. They may be net portals, releases or ideological-analytical centres.
In modern conditions, rigid and hierarchical structures that had fascist movements in interwar times do not work. Any specified structure would be easy infiltrated and broken by the System. Therefore, the Anti-system should take a decentralised form and be based on tiny groups acting independently.
Previously, the author showed that the primary individuals in society should be natural social groups specified as families and clans. Similarly, the Antistem should be composed of tiny groups connected by individual ties. These groups should be composed of people who know each another well, who have chosen a common way and a common goal. specified a group may consist of persons writing on 1 portal, moving a sports club or an analytical centre.
Grzegorz Braun's favourite method of action is spectacular political happenings. His best-known actions include extinguishing Khanuk candles in the parliament and preventing abortion surgery in the infirmary in Oleśnica. Many reject specified a kind by claiming that any violation of the law is incorrect and alternatively of helping exposure to repression by law enforcement.
On the another hand, the author supports methods specified as illegal happenings and political hooliganism erstwhile a given movement gains popularity and sympathy of society. Actions specified as the demolition of symbols of known minorities in public space are supported by a large part of society, so it is worth taking them.
Of course, those utilizing specified methods must face legal repression. All movements operating in the 1980s and 1990s organizing illegal happenings (e.g. the "Majora" dwarfs of Fydrych, Republican League, etc.) were pursued by the service. However, if a given action has public support and is repeated cyclically, power must bend. An example is the celebrated case of arson of a rainbow symbol standing in the Savior's Square in Warsaw. erstwhile the rainbow was first burned, the perpetrators were detected and punished, and the rainbow was rebuilt. Shortly afterwards, it was burned again and rebuilt again. erstwhile the situation was repeated respective times, Warsaw authorities had already resigned from rebuilding the rainbow.
Of course, specified political hooliganism should have its limits. They should be utilized erstwhile this brings public support. The line we should not now cross is force against people. Any force movement in modern liberal society will face social condemnation and will be rapidly eradicated by the service. It is absurd to usage force erstwhile there are no conditions for revolution. All right-wing and left-wing organizations utilizing force and terrorism in post-war Western Europe have been socially marginalized and broken down.
It may seem that the only example in which terrorists gained public support and yet succeeded was the end of the Tsar's Russia. However, this is an example not so much of the effectiveness of terrorism as the inability of the tsarist services to fight the revolutionary threat.
It is widely accepted that Tsarska Russia was a country of bloody despotism that brutally persecuted its opponents. specified descriptions can be found in both russian historians and contemporary Polish historians.
In fact, however, the Tsarist apparatus treated its opponents in a very mild manner compared to what later took place in the russian Union. frequently even dangerous terrorists were not sentenced to death penalty. They were sent only to a city in Siberia, where they could establish families and make their works (many works of celebrated revolutionaries were created on exile).
With akin indulgence they treated revolutionaries falling monarchs in Western Europe. Often, the only punishment was forced emigration or incarceration in any fortress from which the convict left after respective years.
The Bolsheviks in Russia were successful mainly due to the fact that they were supported by Germany (Lenin was brought to Moscow by train by Germans). During the October Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent civilian War, they obtained public support mainly due to the fact that the White defender officers were burdened with a harsh defeat in the war with Germany.
Carska Russia fell not due to the Bolshevik force but due to the defeat in the war against Germany and due to the fact that its apparatus treated revolutionaries in a much more gentle way than in the russian Union.
“March through the institution” or street revolution
One possible way of getting the Anti-system to power is to “walk through institutions”. This concept arose at the time erstwhile the right began to read Antonio Gramsci's works. It is about the Anti-system's mastering of state institutions, bringing its people into them, and doing so by redesigning the state.
This is the way Bolesław Piasecki chose in the interwar period and after the war. Before the war, acting under the conditions of the hostile Pilsudczyk government Piasecki introduced his people into the state institutions, and utilizing thus mastered state structures he attempted to carry out a coup in 1937.
After the war, acting under the conditions of the communist regime, he attempted to build public support utilizing his publications and thus redesign the character of the communist state.
Unfortunately, in both cases, the "March by institutions" proved to be unsuccessful. On the first attempt, the Postplyudczyk authorities realized in time that Piasecki was planning a coup and effectively cleared all his institutions from supporters of Falanga. After the war, the ruling communists effectively blocked Piasecki's actions.
Turkey is simply a successful example of a “marsque by institutions”. Since 1923, it was ruled by Kemalists. In their assumptions, Turkey was to be a liberal and secular state. Kemalists changed the alphabet and banned women from blocking their faces. The army was guarding this order. In this situation, supporters of conservative Islam had to act as Antisystem. They created their own independent centres, built public support and filled institutions with their own people. In a situation where conservative Islam has already achieved adequate influence Recep Tayyip Erdogan won the 2014 presidential election and changed the state's character from secular to muslim (formerly muslim president Turkey was Ishan Sabri Cağnayangil overthrown by the army in 1980).
The author is skeptical of the effectiveness of the “March by the institutions”. Practice shows that in most cases this method ends in failure. The only known example of her success was that of Turkey.
It is more likely that the Antisystem will come to power as a consequence of a street revolution specified as took place in Hungary in 2006. Social discontent will be so advanced in the country that people will go out on the street to protest against the elite. From these protests, any anti-system movement will appear that will channel discontent and overthrow the ruling elites. The breakthrough will take place on the street, while the triumph of the Antisystem in democratic elections will only confirm it.
This was the course of the Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014. The transformations carried out there were, of course, demliberal, but according to the same scenario, anti-liberal changes in Poland can be carried out.
Does the Confederacy represent the voice of the people
The Confederacy is simply a group that can draw the right conclusions from public opinion polls and tries to preach what is most supportive of it. For a long time she was the only Polish political organization opposed to beginning borders to immigrants. In this way, she expressed views of a large part of Poles.
Polish society is rather reluctant to liberal ideas of openness to immigrants. True, there is considerable interest in young white women in black men. This is due, however, not to the adoption of a liberal worldview but to the fascination of the West. A akin origin is the fraternization of Polish soldiers with black colleagues from the US Army.
As a nation, we inactive experience a inferiority complex towards the West. Nevertheless, the majority of the population is inactive non-liberal and has a negative attitude towards immigration.
On the another hand, liberal elites support the "open door" policy for immigrants in the West. The liberal political cartel ruling Poland is based on the principles of not opposing any trends in the West. All parties of the ruling cartel strive to introduce full demoleberism in Poland and to realise all ideas that prevail in the Western world. The conservative part of the political elite supports Anglo-Saxon patterns, and the liberal part of Western Europe with peculiar emphasis on liberal France (e.g. the deceased in 2008 Bronisław Geremek was a hot Francophile, besides Rafał Trzaskowski is considered a pro-French policy).
1 of the ideas between the various factions of the political elite was the strong support for the "open door" policy. The Confederacy was the first to break the taboo surrounding the phenomenon of immigration. She opposed the "open door" policy mainly due to the fact that it brought her public support.
The reasons for Sławomir Mentzen's scepticism towards Ukraine are similar. In Poland the memory of crimes committed by UPA is inactive alive. The Confederacy is not a pro-Russian group (Slawomir Mentzen himself emphasizes that he does not like the current political strategy in Russia, and Krzysztof Bosak has always despised Russian civilization). However, Mentzen realizes that a skeptical attitude to cooperation with Ukraine can be an attitude that pays off at a given moment.
Sławomir Mentzen only erstwhile in his conversation with Krzysztof Stanowski preached views that the majority did not support. He then advocated for paid studies and abortion bans. The postulates of paid studies stem from his liberal worldview, which is why Mentzen reported him despite the fact that most of the society is opposed to specified a solution.
He may have besides spoken sincerely about abortion. Mentzen is defined as an “unpractical Catholic” so, perhaps, in this matter, he is faithful to the teaching of the Church with which he identifies himself. It can be believed that as president, he would not sign any law liberalising access to abortion no substance what polls show about it.
It might seem that the Confederacy preaches what average people think and what liberal elites do not want to accomplish. However, it should be noted that the Confederacy only proclaims popular views in society if it does not exposure it to attacks from a ruling political cartel. For example, there is no anti-Semitic content in its program, although anti-Semitism inactive persists in Polish society. The only openly anti-Semitic politician in Poland is Grzegorz Braun, who is now outside the Confederation.
The Confederacy does not preach anti-Semitic content mainly due to the fact that it would lead to its exclusion from political debate. For the same reason, this group does not address the death punishment issue, although the majority of the population supports this.
If the death punishment were to be reinstated by a referendum, its result would should be positive. Despite this, no demoliberist organization with the Confederacy including demands the reintroduction of the main penalty. It is precisely the Confederacy's silence on the death punishment that best shows that this organization does not represent the voice of the public but is determined to do only what does not exposure it to conflict with the liberal elite.
Antisystem and Presidential Elections
In the first circular of elections, the full Antisystem should support Grzegorz Braun. We shouldn't worry about his mediocre score. As it was written earlier, our goal is not to gain immediate support, but to build permanent structures around Grzegorz Braun on which the Antisystem could be based.
Classical political discipline assumes that the political movement should gain about 20% of support in order to influence the form of a democratic state. However, this explanation does not work in any situations. An example is the current political scene in Italy. In the 1990s, a coalition of socialists and communists ruled there. It fell in 2001 due to corruption scandals. Following the fall of the disgraced coalition from political non-existence, fresh political parties emerged, which present form the Italian political system. The only previously known typical was Silvio Berlusconi, who served as more a media mogul than an active politician.
Another example is neighbouring Ukraine. Revolutionary nationalists have never succeeded in democratic elections there. There are only a fewer members of the Right Sector in the current Faithful Council, most of whom are Dmytro Jarosz. Despite this, extremist nationalism has gained considerable political influence in the current situation and is 1 of the foundations on which the "swingenna" Ukraine is supported.
The second circular will most likely include Liberal Camp candidate Rafał Trzaskowski and Conservative Right candidate Karol Nawrocki (possibly Sławomir Mentzen). The Polish electoral strategy resembles the 1 that operates in France. Many different candidates compete there in the first round. However, only a Liberal candidate and a Conservative Right candidate enter the second round. Regardless of who the voters vote for, they always choose the System.
In specified a situation, we should not vote. In Poland there is no electoral work as in any Western European countries (e.g. the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg). Liberal rituals of democratic voting should be attended only if the Antisystem candidate participates. Voting for Nawrocki or Mentzen would be strengthening the System.
In countries where the strategy is strong adequate to force a vote on 1 of its candidates Antsite must apply a more sophisticated strategy. If there were an electoral work in Poland in the second circular it would be best to vote for Rafał Trzaskowski. It seems paradoxical. However, taking over all power by the PO will origin the public to rage. Then possibly there would be mass protests and a convenient revolutionary situation. This social discontent could channel the Antisystem. Remember, anti-system revolutions always detonate erstwhile people live badly.
Who wins the 2025 election?
It is highly hard to foretell who will win the upcoming elections. In his political forecast published on the Nationalista.pl portal, the author wrote that everything points to the triumph of right-wing candidate Karol Nawrocki[2]. It seemed at the time that the 2015 situation would be repeated erstwhile Bronisław Komorowski and Andrzej Duda fought for the presidency.
In 2015, supported by conservative right-wing Andrzej Duda was a candidate completely unknown and it seemed that there was no chance of Bronisław Komorowski, who deserved the strategy to operate in the liberal opposition of the PRL period, and later led the Ministry of National Defence for a long time. At the time, however, there was an irreconcilable hostility in society towards the ruling PO, especially Komorowski, which was visible especially on the Internet. Duda managed to channel social aversion to the PO and thus won the election.
There is now a akin hostility of society to the liberal government of the PO, as in the days of Komorowski. This is visible both online and on the street. Let us not forget that the last parliamentary elections, in fact, won the Law and Justice. Liberals from the PO came to power only due to the fact that PiS did not find a suitable coalition.
Karol Nawrocki was initially, like Duda in 2015, a completely unknown person. It originates from outside the strict political elite and has no political experience. Rafał Trzaskowski, on the another hand, is simply a very media candidate and is present in political salons. However, the author predicted that the majority of the society dissatisfied with the regulation of the PO would not want to give this organization full power and support Nawrocki, just to prevent the election of Trzaskovsky being only a "long-script" by Donald Tusk.
At present, however, the author is no longer certain that the situation will make in this direction. All major polls show a decline in support for Nawrocki. At the same time, the chances of Trzaskowski and Mentzen are expanding recently. The increase in support for Mentzen was noted by both liberal opinion investigation centres and those linked to the conservative right.
You can't foretell who can win the upcoming election. The situation in the run is very dynamic and anything can happen.
James Ignaczak
[1] See Ignaczak J., Global strategy and Antisystem Combat at Metapolitics level, https://conservativeism.pl/jakub-ignaczak-global-fight-system-and-antistemu-on-level-metapolitics/, and Ignaczak J., Global Combat of the strategy and Antistem in Political Practice, https://conservatives.pl/global-fight-system-and-antisystem-in-practice-political-transaction-system/, date of access: 29.04.201025
[2] Ignaczak J., geopolitical and political forecast for 2025, https://www.nationalista.pl/2025/01/24/jakub-ignaczak-geopolitan-and-political-on-2025-years/, date of access: 26.04.201025
