Almost no longer a nation, there is simply a population. We're where we are. It is simply a dark and deep place. But... the historian never says, never says: always, everyone, everyone. The future is variable. Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Since past does not supply guidance on what awaits us in the future, we are left to wander in the dark," says Prof. Tomasz Panfil in a conversation with PCh24.pl.
Dear Professor, why do you request Poles?
The concept that the state is the highest form of social organization is recognised. There were hordes, tribes, and another larger or smaller communities on the way to the state. At the end of this social improvement is the state.
Of course, I can already hear voices outraged that transnational communities are a higher stage. Yes, there was a multi-national Habsburg monarchy, the Transnational 3rd Reich, then the Multi-Republic russian Union, now there is the European Union. But not by accident all these supra-state or supra-national organizations like the Habsburg monarchies, Mitteleuropa, ZSRS have not stood. And you're inactive here.
Perhaps this is an empirical confirmation of the validity of this definition, this definition of the state, that it is the highest and most perfect form of social organization.
At this point, it is crucial to consider whether the State itself is specified a form or whether it may be appropriate to add a national word to the word and talk about a national state. due to the fact that again erstwhile we look at multinational countries, we see that their immanent feature is instability.
Belgium, where the Flemish and Walloons live, is unstable. For many years it has been said that this country is 1 step distant from disintegration. We see the instability of multinational Spain. We see the instability of Britain over decades. And in the case of the United Kingdom and Spain, the state's instability has taken on a form of armed force in the past.
Perhaps we should say that the state is the most perfect form of national organisation. The nation that forms the state, the national state, thus finds its space not only geographical but besides cultural, historical, linguistic, identity, etc., and the state is an institution that ensures the nation's safety of existence as a nation.
Security here is the key word. And what if the state does not want to supply citizens, the nation, the safety society, just wants others to take care of security?
There's no way...
What do you mean, no, Professor? After all, for many years we have heard from our rulings that Poland is in NATO and the EU and so was never safer, due to the fact that these 2 organizations will defend us if...
NATO is simply a community of states. It is an organization created by the state. There can't be a nation in NATO that doesn't have a state. There are no Catalans, Basques or Asturians in NATO – there is Spain. There is no state of Maine, the Land of Bavaria – there are US and RFN. So first the state, and then forms of global cooperation – bilateral or multilateral safety pacts. The parties to specified pacts, alliances are always states.
Let us scope to Adam Smith, the beginning of the philosophical states of modern times. Adam Smith said that “the state should be like a night watchman.” What does the night defender do? It's safe. Adam Smith denied you any another function, he didn't even want the state to teach its citizens; he didn't want it to regulate their economical activity in any way; he didn't want it to interfere with the upbringing of children and private life. He claimed that the state was to be like a “night watchman”, i.e. to carry out 3 functions: to conduct abroad policy; to keep an army, precisely as an component of abroad policy, as an component of another form of diplomacy; to guarantee interior security, that is, to finance police. To talk the language of the modern administration Smith claimed that in the state only 3 ministries were sufficient: the Ministry of abroad Affairs, MON and the Ministry of abroad Affairs.
Milton Friedman then added the infrastructure...
Friedman added infrastructure, and successive philosophers, economists etc. another branches. It turned out, for example, that there would be no good army if the soldiers did not first educate themselves. The point was, it's not crucial for a soldier to be able to shoot, it's to know who and why to shoot. So it turned out that the state had to teach history. As Chesterton said, “a good soldier is not 1 who hates those who stand before him, but 1 who loves those who stand behind him.” We love our loved ones, we love our community, and so we are liable for them, we must defend them against the aggressor, not kill them solely out of hate.
Thus, the first functions of the state presented by Adam Smith have generated, entailed functions subsequent, specified as universal education, but at the beginning of the modern state concept there is simply a state-watchman function. If the State resigns from its first function, it de facto means that it resigns from being a State.
Why, Mr. Professor, it is possible to get the impression that Poland does not want to be a state. I will repeat any of the most popular slogans that prove this: "NATO and the EU will defend us", "Our abroad policy must be in line with EU abroad policy. We better not do anything ourselves, “Why do we request a CPK erstwhile there is an airport in Berlin?”, “We gotta ban fur animals due to the fact that Brussels expects us to do so”, “We gotta close coal mines due to the fact that Brussels wants to” ... You can exchange and exchange... We can't do anything ourselves. The state seems to be only by name, and all decisions are made somewhere in abroad salons...
You went a small besides far, Mr. Editor. I will not agree with what you said in the beginning – it is not Poland that wants to quit its own security, its own army, its own decision making, but the current ruling Polish defendants.
Let me remind you: a man who renounces nationality, rejects his work to service his country and nation, goes to abroad service for private gain.
But individual chose these bastards and gave them power...
The electorate did it... The electorate dominated the nation... The population won with the community.
Unfortunately, present we see the cost of superliberal democracy. erstwhile the password is spoken, everything is allowed, I don't request anything. 1 must number on the fact that at any point there will be egoists, ignorant people, and all kinds of evil will. Unfortunately, that is the democratic consequences. The illusion is the belief that democracy is superior to another forms of the system. Democracy does not warrant us that all time the best wins, the good ones win, the ones who want to work for the community will win. Democracy only assures us that those who have more followers will win. Like Barabbas. It may be that there are more egotists, people who are ethnic, people who think only of their own interests. Well... We chose this system, we gotta take it with all the consequences.
Where does specified a submissive attitude come from? Where does this fascination with pronunciation come from and the designation that it is the best option for the electorate, the state, etc.?
This is the consequence of decades of education reforms. erstwhile modern states discovered that if they want to have a good army, they must have soldiers learned to love their homeland, learned what homeland is, what patriotism is, what good is and what evil is. Everything actually comes down to that.
It turned out that it was impossible to make a national army without education, and that's why Adam Smith's thought was corrected so quickly, which is why past was introduced into schools. In the 19th century, it seemed adequate for the school to teach reading, writing and counting. Well, no! If the school is to execute its functions, namely to educate conscious citizens of the states, it must teach history.
Why did the Germans destruct all objects in the business but language and bills? They did it to have a population. To not deal with a conscious nation, but to deal with an involuntary, controllable population. If we look at the problem that we are talking about in this way, we will begin to realize the real objectives of subsequent education reforms.
Are you suggesting that Barbara Nowacka, who, for reasons unknown to me, identifies herself not as a minister, but as an education minister, follows what Germany did during the war?
I'm not suggesting anything. I just say that this individual fulfills the goal of the ruling – it is easier to regulation the population than a conscious nation's rights and obligations.
I agree, but what about the same nation? You said that “the electorate has voted over the nation”, that is, there is inactive a nation...
It exists in an island way like sparrows that utilized to be everywhere and now are an island species. Modernity is killing them. The same is actual with Poles, with the Polish people – we be in dispersal, here a group, there a local community, here reconstructors, there fans...
Since 1939, or 85 years as a nation, we have not been educated but are indoctrinate. And let's number to 120 years of captivity. After all, it must have had any effect. I just want we hadn't. On the another hand, I admire the Polish opposition to indoctrination.
Does anyone of the ruling and electorate consider that there may be a smaller or larger global shuffle at any time, Poland will again be thrown into another sphere of influence and everything will go to hell?
I don't know, Mr. Editor. There are most likely those who take this into account, but they have a deep respect for it, due to the fact that they will be found in all system, in all country, in all system. They will service simply another, home or abroad PPAN. They will do so with a grin on their lips and without any objection, as long as they are promised to be patted on the shoulder someday. That's quite a few people. They don't care who they serve, as long as they have hot water in the tap. Piłsudski already said that the biggest obstacle in the fight for Poland's independency was the slave soul of Poles. People are afraid of freedom, due to the fact that freedom is simply a work for their own decisions, a necessity to bear the consequences of their own actions. Let individual else decide... Do you know the difference between a politician and a statesman?
The politician is reasoning of the next election or the next election.
Yes, sir! And the statesman thinks about the future in 15, 25, 50. The statesman does not request to devote time, energy, all his thoughts to the next election campaign. Politicians deficiency time to think about the future of a nation, about goals. At best, they focus on measures leading to the goal. present we experience this very painfully. There is no reasoning about the future due to the fact that there are no statesmen. Democracy in most politicians killed reasoning in terms of statesmen. Political thinking, or the next election, is involved, and after us, even a deluge. If we're not in charge, then fuck off.
And now it's going down...
Unfortunately...
What? And there's inactive no reflection, no thought but for the empty passwords and the organization wall...
I disagree with your editor again. You talk xenophobic.
Why xenophobic?
Because this is not just a Polish problem. It's everywhere. Liberal democracy has led to this. They're getting hammered due to the fact that there's gonna be another election coming up.
And here I disagree with you. In Germany, she'd be an idiot if it wasn't for AfD. A fresh Front of National Unity could be established in France if it were not for the Marine Le Pen National Assembly. There wouldn't be any problem in Spain if it wasn't for the Vox party. In the UK, there's an authoritative rampage between the Conservative organization and the labour Party, but erstwhile it comes down to it, they all rise their hand identically and push the button...
You usage the editor of the a-historical phrase, or "GDYBY NO". What does “ON NO” mean? There's no specified thing. In France we have National Unity, in Germany we have AfD etc.
So let's remember what happened before the "AfD era" – in Germany Angela Merkel ruled, we faced the culmination of post-politics, differences between parties were at most cosmetic – everyone wanted the same thing, and the only controversy active how far 1 could go...
Because then democracy destroying education did not lead nations to states of the population, and now it has. past is simply a dynamic process. Just due to the fact that something wasn't 20 years ago doesn't mean that present it's not right and it can't exist.
The educational level of all societies is decreasing. The level of understanding, logical reasoning is decreasing. We go back to the symbolic wall: our totem, our winter is better than yours. And that's due to lower levels. Nobody listens to anyone, everybody's an expert on everything, everybody knows best. All this will reflect the functioning of liberal democracy, in which people were told that they "know best".
There's no dialogue. The dialog involves listening to arguments from the another side and formulating their own arguments. It's over. Nobody listens to another man anymore. There are no real experts anymore, no real authority. The biggest “authorities” and “experts” are actors. Others in order who talk on all subject are athletes. The fact that individual appears on the TV's screen makes him an “authority”. Known for being celebrated for saying what individual (read: payer) wants to hear and what will surely upset the another side.
The authorities are down. The expert present is almost equivalent to a cabaret. The youth stopped listening to the elders, listening to youtubers, patostreamers, tic-tokers or another whatsupists. The old man utilized to mean smarter, and now? On the contrary! The elder, meaning he knows nothing, knows no real life (i.e. virtual life, about paradox!), follows anachronistic principles, etc.
This is the consequence of the collapse of education in democratic systems. In democratic systems, education is equal to down. present it is said that education is inclusive, that is, it turns everyone on. Everyone has to graduate! Never head that not everyone should... Everybody has to graduate! It doesn't substance that 80 percent should never be admitted to college... We're turning everyone on! We have an inclusive education, which is equal to down. The level of education, the level of knowledge, and the level of reasoning skills are so decreasing. Therefore, it is much easier to say to the opponent "you are stupid and you have lice" than to say "I apologize to the Lord, but your argument is contrary to the rule of the excluded measure". Have you always heard specified an answer?
Nope. Instead, I hear a password hidden behind 8 stars, 5 stars the Church and another invectors...
Exactly! It's a modern totem that can be punched in the enemy's head with a machuza. If the opponent is disproved, he won't answer, which means we were right. Social Darwinism in practice.
I'd like to ask you about any punch line...
There can only be 1 punch: let's prepare for worse. There are no signs of inhibition of this trend. Unfortunately, people are getting dumber – usually not due to their fault. They are treated by the rulers as voting machines. The word is "electorate that votes", "population that consumes". We are not talking about a society that decides, about a nation that expresses in an article, logically, thoughtfully and argumentated its needs and expectations. No! No! 8 stars! This is simply a postulate that can spell out a large condition of the population inhabiting the territory between Orda and Bug. That's all they got.
Let me just remind you that the authors of this "social postulate" were not the bums under the beer stand, they were not drug addicts, they were university professors. So what do you anticipate from “average Kowalski”?
In the past, Poles have very frequently looked at another countries...
Good global alliances are not bad.
It's true. In the late 18th century, any Poles looked at Russia to bring order to Poland, others to Prussia. After the partitions we looked at the French and Napoleon. In the 20th interwar anniversary to Britain etc. Only that then alliances were needed to strengthen Poland, reconstruct what was, regain independency etc. Poland always came first. Today, allies are needed to come to Warsaw erstwhile in a while, to “take the rulers for a mouth” and to tell them what to do with and who to do with...
In the 18th century it was said that Poland must be weak, due to the fact that if it is weak no 1 will contact us, due to the fact that why bother the weak? How did it end? The strong said: “Look how weak this Poland is. Let us take it.”
For this to not happen again, there must be individual who can think logically, who can construct causal chains, who knows the communicative and learns from it. There are less and less specified people! Not much – specified people are increasingly despised! Most want to be kept for their mouths, that's all. They think it's better than Poland. For Poland 1 must make sacrifices. There's no request to do that for Brussels. At the time of rehearsal, you can pack your bags and just emigrate. The crucial thing is to find individual to pat on the shoulder and hope it's not a Pole, it's individual from abroad.
You asked for the punch line. It is as follows: we have lost. Almost no longer a nation, there is simply a population. We're where we are. It is simply a dark and deep place. But... the historian never says, never says: always, everyone, everyone. The future is variable. Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Since past does not supply guidance on what awaits us in the future, we are left to wander in the dark." So let's learn history. Ours, Polish, hard and wonderful. Let us search guidance, let us search light in darkness, road, and truth. Sound familiar? Good, that means there is hope. And with her – after all – I leave you and PCh24 readers.
God bless the conversation.
Tomasz D. Kolanek
Can Poland be a tool of salvation?