It is uncommon that the most crucial question and the most crucial answer contained in a recording are between words and words of completely unaware authors. Authors of the sub-cast “Politics Insight”, journalists associated with the weekly “Politics” Wojciech Szacki and Michał Piedziuk wanted to do a bit – I will shortly show that this colloquialism is appropriate here – make a mistake about Grzegorz Braun and who is behind him. So – a small detectivery, a small conspiracy theory, and a small darkness you want to shine on. It wants to shine – due to the fact that you can't forget that as you don't know what akin recordings are about them. And they're actually the podcast. They themselves as an answer to the question of the origin of Braun's advanced ratings, as well as the good result of his own presidential election – about the lenient and contemptible "Warsaw-centrism".
‘SEAM-WISH-Who’ AND ‘WARSZAWKO’-CENTRIZM
In the approach of the authors of the podcast to Braun, 2 of the most fast streams of “warszawkowa” of contempt and permissiveness accumulate – the first flows towards “dark garden” and “antisemites”, while the second towards the people and its most celebrated goal was Andrzej Lepper, and besides Karol Nawrocki.
Braun is portrayed in the mask of “you-know-who”, the subject of sentences specified as: “I don’t want to talk about this man.” He is not so much the subject of analysis – the "educated" "European" even shakes (and feels the environmental force to flinch until he is convulsed) at the thought that the reasons for his success could search anywhere another than the vulnerability of manipulation or the bad character of people surviving in the country where he lives.
The paradox, 1 of many, is that the “warszawka” depicts Braun in the same aura as the 1 in which anti-Semites depict Jews. In the "Insight Policy" podcast itself, it is vain to look for anything that we would not find after a short exploration of the Intentet. The authors most likely believe in the large and spelled power of understatement – this casting of grain of unknown origin, due to the fact that possibly something will grow out of it. All suggestions, specified as the fact that Grzegorz Braun is financed by a more utmost part of the MAGA movement, the conventional presumption of cooperation with Russia (because, as is known, the primary intent of each agent's operation is auto-deconspiracy) – after all, the same people could be assured about calculating how many Jews did not come to work on September 11, 2001.
The full image is complemented by this mediocre projection mechanism, which commands to cover with a sinister curtain of the enemy, erstwhile man himself drifts in the clouds of ambiguity, irrationality, words-keys that are signposts for not reaching the truth, but for safe movement on roads reserved for his own world.
Braun's misunderstanding of success stems, among another things, from the adoption of “anti-Semitism” as the origin of his popularity. In the meantime – so to put it – even this “anti-Semitism” feeds on social aversion not to Jews, but to what we call the system. Crossing taboos has its finale not only in courtrooms – it besides has, or above all, the effect in the form of a common one: “Somebody said it.” I do not know whether the indictment should cover Grzegorz Braun – the social act of the accusation should undoubtedly concern people who, in their proudness, felt that they would always teach and never understand. Brauns do not let "good company", but to halt him they would gotta environment the ostracism of election urns. Their problem is that “good company” has besides prevented millions of those who are Braun’s possible electorate.
This may be entertaining: “The president is just a kibol”, confirmed by the clicks of the “bloody and friends of the rabbit” under the same profiles, it is an environmental extermination of repetition for a 1000 times the same, as if each next time would be smarter. If we are to talk about politics, society in specified categories, it would be appropriate to answer: the average boy from the blockage, which in Poland quite a few people do not dislike “kiboli”, but “fades”. This may not be written, it may not be understood, it can be outraged again with the "simpleness" – but for the improvement of well-being due to ritual patting on the back you will see the effect of subsequent polling percentages of Braun.
The symposium of what young people call “detachment” and the defeat of our “political class” were ritual and poignant races after Braun put out Khanuk candles. Braun won not only on this action – Braun learned “service” from the modern planet better than those who sing this modern world.
The authors of Insight Policy are not a coincidence but a sign. A sign of dominance of akin thinking. They compose about the people cooperating with Braun as “whores”. No, gentlemen – not infected with “warszawko”-centralism Poles see weirdness in theories about the existence of respective twelve sexes, weirdness (or, as 1 of the authors of the podcast said – “dangerous weirdness”) sees in men dressed as women and beating women in sports competitions. Your measurement of quirk ends where your planet ends.
They should feel the dissonance of podcast authors if they perceive to what they say, not just their own vanity. Well, according to them, Braun says "yet more foolish things" from Corvin—and at the same time Braun's motto according to them takes over the Law and Justice. It's like saying stupid things is simply a patent to win in elections? Or is the measurement of stupidity utilized by humans not your measurement of stupidity?
Grzegorz Braun in almost all poll before the presidential election had the consequence he would have had if he had precisely as many people voted for him as he had voted in 1 constituency in the elections to the European Parliament. People were ashamed to say they'd vote for him? I think quite a few people would admit that. What I think doesn't substance – the fact is that Braun got an excellent score (I don't write, "despite a common media boycott" – due to the fact that I don't know if it's due to him). Now Braun's organization is present in the polls – the scare tactics have replaced the silence tactics. Anyway, possibly it's not a tactic. possibly it's completely spontaneous and sincere opposition to Braun. The effect is similar.
THE full planet IS NOT A ‘WARSZAWKA’
The "educated" "European" believes that the full planet looks like its environment – and even erstwhile it sometimes sees that it looks different, the intellectual blockade does not let reflection on individual as "disgusting" as Braun does. Conformism, on the another hand, does not let to go beyond a set of repeated situations-reactions of stigmatizing and depreciating terms. The authors of the podcast, but besides a full bunch of akin publicists, are characterized by dogmatism – dogmatism containing its 2 most crucial properties, namely opposition to reasonal arguments and invariability over time.
That is, until the end of the planet and 1 day longer we will say that the biggest problem is “anti-Semitism”, even erstwhile Jews commit genocide. That is, without appeal and to the very end, we will be tracking “racism” erstwhile in Europe, the murders and rapes committed by immigrants are ongoing. That is, we will tell the children at dinner how crucial it is to care about "those mediocre people who escaped from Ukraine before the war", even if they truly consider our good as a weakness, due to the fact that they are incapable to even apologize to us for the slaughter done on our ancestors. Unfortunately, reality has its own autonomy – even if it is “not appropriate” to see it.
"APROPAKIZM" CONTENT
No, the interior void is not going to scream. The most commonly utilized patent on its cover is precisely the other – it is the usage of intelligent language, the appearance of nuances, announcements (not having cover) of analysis and English-speaking verbal scraps. So, the authors of Insight Policy outlined the "bigger picture" to hide that for respective minutes they had nothing interesting to say. It was a speech of bad-face powder, a ‘general picture’ alternatively of a ‘bigger picture’, that hazard would have led to a look at it. A akin charge was made to philosopher Martin Heidegger – utilizing a language that no 1 understands to avoid a polemic with the content of what he wrote. The creators of “Insight Politics” may have had a somewhat different intention: “What will you do to me here, pariah, has questioned what people like us say?”
Before the light-blowed moral reason, the authors went on a hunt – to be honest, to be honest – they did not go besides far. I am the last to think that the number of clicks reflects the value of the 1 for which 1 clicks – but the consensus on the deficiency of peculiar popularity of Grzegorz Braun in social media prompted me to devote a fewer minutes to my own "risercz". I found that while the authors of "Insight Politics" had 500 recordings (later this number increased to little than 2 thousand), Braun had 500,000 followers on Facebook. If Braun has little, then 2 "Insight Policy" journalists are in the online Marian ditch. Well, possibly underground journalism makes listening easier.
OWN CONSEQUENCE
It is no place to dwell on what anyone thinks of Braun, to mention all the statements and scandalous actions with him himself in the lead role. Of course, there is no place to curse that "I do not vote for Braun" – although I was already starting to explain myself. Why should we explain ourselves to anyone we support or not support? Why should we aspire to engage in a debate aimed at making organization qualifications alternatively than proceeding views on circumstantial subjects whose vote in elections is simply a result? Why should we be clapping in the “Warsaw” orchestra of pompous moralists, trying to convince us that politics is simply a substance of shame and taste, not fact and logic? For why should we aspire to “good company” from our own devotion and look into dogmatism from the sign “it is not appropriate” to drift to the bottom, euphoricly intoxicated by our own superficiality or fatally offended by reality, and in addition, erstwhile and for all by doing what is truly inappropriate? As a man acknowledging Bronisław Wildstein as 1 of his authorities, I have never felt the peculiar request to get into this hypocritical: “I am not an anti-Semite, but...”. At the same time, it seems to me even curiosity.
Why should we do this erstwhile the Jews destruct another nation, sometimes wandering around in the fumes of sadistic hedonism, following this "talmudical racism" which Braun spoke of, just out of the rabbis' speeches proving that Palestinians are not people? Why should we – if no 1 asks about it, possibly past will do it – consider the shooting of thousands of Palestinian children to be morally no more burdensome than expected or even actual “anti-Semitism”?
Why should we recognise the advantage of the mindset over reasoning – even if universalism "don't kill" would give way to universalism "no or anti-Semitic"? Why should we plunge into a swamp filled with propaganda cripples, accept the religion of the dogmas of the people most outraged by logical arguments that undermine the “warszawkow” order of the world? Why should we respect ourselves as our own, having not received an explanation of the dogma of secular religion, which are undisputed only due to the fact that they would not defend themselves in any discussion?
CRITICALS BUILD UPULARITY
Assuming that people specified as the authors of the Insight Policy – and yet akin messages in relation to the president of the Confederation of the Polish Crown dominate – are not hidden allies of Braun, they could even approach the analysis of the social causes of the success of the latter. They could effort to point out the points where Braun was wrong, since there is simply a clear suspicion that he was just right about many things. A man who is incorrect suffers harm to his reputation and popularity – the enemy of the system, the “non-community man” appointed for this function all akin subcast becomes for those whom he has so far attracted with an even stronger magnet. This charming faithfulness to dogmas, which even self-destruction in the accompaniment of parsing and outrage is unspeakable.
The fact that Grzegorz Braun is not invited to any bigger television, although he received over a million votes in the election, and his organization in the polls each time exceeds the electoral threshold is typical of limited democracy. I do not want to repeat the arguments that are emerging in the increasing public debate – about the deficiency of openness of these "officially open" ones, about how to complain about the actual democratization of its declarative bread. 1 of the authors of Insight Policy complained that "every view is now being proclaimed through social media", and that "there are no taboo themes". He and his likes have always thought so – democratic centralism has survived the change of system. It's beautiful that Braun's success was diagnosed by the authors of the podcast completely unconsciously.
Jacek Tomczak
![A gdyby śmierci nie było? [o „Trzecim królestwie” Knausgårda]](https://krytykapolityczna.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Szablon-rozmiaru-obrazkow-na-strone-2.png)
