Recently, the planet was informed about the event that took place in the Polish parliament. With the aid of a fire extinguisher, Mr Grzegorz Braun put out Khanu candles. A small later, the MP came to the plenary area and said that in the Polish parliament “there could be no place for racist, tribal, wild, Talmudic worship.” It is not amazing that these words and Braun’s circumstantial action caused controversy. To say that she caused controversy about how to say nothing. Gregory Braun caused outrage. possibly rightly, possibly not, but, by the way, the planet would be beautiful if information about crimes against humanity were received with the same outrage. It turns out that the associate has gathered a truly large number of critics and apologists, so I do not gotta defend or attack the behaviour of the Member. However, it seems extraordinary, that Braun has gained so many sympathizers with his actions, but I would like to draw attention to a rhetoric of the Polish right hand, which has been cultivated for years, and which has now peculiarly resounded.
.
A fewer days later, the photograph became popular on the network. Minister Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk, who is dressed in the photograph in the coat under which he has a t-shirt. Photography has provoked any outrage, of course not for fashion-related reasons, and due to the character's image placed on the shirt (probably women, but you never know) which with an umbrella protects itself from falling crosses. Symbolism openly anti-Christian. On the right-hand side, the first thing to say was the words, “Imagine now that alternatively of crosses, there are crescents or stars of David.” That's the problem with rhetoric. It is suggested that if the minister had worn an anti-Islamic shirt, for example, they would have had consequences. Of course, this is true, but it is besides actual that the household minister would not simply wear specified clothes. In Poland, Muslims are not majority, so the left will not be against them. Here comes another crucial element. The left-wing argument in this case is clear and understandable. The minister performs symbolically against the Catholic Church, who persecutes women in Poland. However, without divorcing this argument, we see a causal link. If the Left sees the Church as evil, it will attack it. This is surely a sensible position. The problem of the right hand in this case is to pretend to be neutral, trying to construct an argument on the question “What if the minister...?” without going with any affirmative message. Why does no 1 say “The church is good, and we will defend it”? The right tries to come out with a message that is neutral for everyone, afraid to talk its actual opinion. Juan Donoso Cortes during his celebrated speech of January 4, 1849 in the Spanish Parliament was not afraid to say the word “dictature” which he thought was terrible.[1]. The Polish right hand must not be afraid.
.
It is besides clear, and it should be mentioned, that the right defines a very broad spectrum on and outside the political stage. I am not saying that Grzegorz Braun or Janusz Korwin-Mikke are not afraid due to the fact that they are not afraid of anything anymore, as Braun proved by threatening the death of the Minister of Health. The point is that everyone who is afraid to talk outside the framework of liberal standards should stop.
Here you should return to “fire action” by Grzegorz Braun. After the situation and attacks on the MP, any of his defenders accepted a affirmative rhetoric, utilizing neologism. In many responses, whether average people on social media or politicians on the media, there was no affirmative message. Even Przemysław Wipler, who spoke in a very critical way and was a supporter of broad political action against Mr Braun, asked Minister Joanna Scheering-Wielgus why Vladimir Czarzasty did not renounce his function as Deputy talker of the Sejm erstwhile she, among another things, disrupted the Holy Mass. The question was answered in consequence to the message that Krzysztof Bosak should quit his function, due to the incidental associated with the fire extinguisher. It's actually fascinating how Wipler, I think, got out of balance and equalized the behaviour of both people.[2]. Of course, in both cases there is simply a distortion of spiritual rites, to the detriment of Braun, the fact that he utilized much more violent measures, but that is not the point. The thing is that Braun disrupted the rites which according to the right hand should not have a place in the Polish parliament, which means that it is, of course, possible to disagree with the measures and to consider them to be proportionate, but attempts to cut off from Grzegorz Braun are simply a cynical political act to service the people and another clubs. If Przemysław Wipler truly wanted this kind of situation not to happen again, wouldn't it be better to talk to the perpetrator and, in the event of ineffectiveness, remove him from the club as Wipler originally wanted? I think he alone knows the answer to that question, but I think he preferred the option of “politically safe”, although he himself stated that sympathizers and voters could not think that they were a organization that “to save his seat, to save his position is ready to throw his friend out of the club under pressure.” If you have your own sympathizers not adequate intelligent, possibly he was right.
.
However, Mr Wipler's message was not as tragic as the “voice of the people” on social media. There it was not inhibited, it was possible to read the slogans “They were the first to attack the Church”. This rhetoric is frightening, it is shallow, and expresses expression at the level of a kindergarten teacher who complains that his first friend hit him. This is anti-left rhetoric, it doesn't dispute its effectiveness due to the fact that I'm not a public relations specialist, but should we consider whether we request pro-right rhetoric? 1 that will not hotel to comparisons within a kind of liberal mentality and 1 that will be able to stand its own stand. This liberal mentality could be presented as a collection of certain views and values, but should we truly hotel to the standards placed in this collection erstwhile we are ourselves outside it? I uncertainty it.
.
It is clear, therefore, that rhetoric based on questions beginning with “what if...” or “Imagine that...” does not carry any affirmative message, but only the author of the statement, whether out of fear or out of powerlessness, or out of a deficiency of desire to make a message worthy of a constructive term, does not convey his opinion, which would not be based on comparisons. Of course, this does not mean that it should not be noted that if Minister Dziemianowicz-Bąk wore an anti-Semitic shirt, it would most likely make much more controversy and a kind of lynching. This should be said, but I believe that building all rhetoric based on this is simply a mistake. The right hand cannot be afraid, for example, to talk about Christian religion and to feel remorse for the liberal world. The right hand must have its own identity which is not comparative to another sides. The right has to talk about its imagination of the world. Finally, I will quote Grzegorz Braun from his 2015 election spot: “If you are afraid, you are already a slave”[3].
Jakub Frąckiewicz
[1] J. Donoso Cortes, About Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism. Selection of Writings, by Marta Wójtowicz-Wcisło, Kraków 2017, Centre of Political Thought, p. 297
[2]https://www.youtube.com/embed/q2pYPdIHzYQ
[3] https://www.youtube.com/embed/t5b1dAbS9is
