Dawid Wildstein do zachodnich polityków: Kim jest Martin Schulz? - tekst również po angielsku
W tekście "Schulz – faszysta czy agent Putina?" Dawid Wildstein napisał:
"Ostatnio Paweł Kukiz, w reakcji na kolejną, kuriozalną, atakującą i grożącą Polsce wypowiedź Martina Schulza, niemieckiego polityka, przewodniczącego Parlamentu Europejskiego, stwierdził: „Wnuki faszystów nie będą mnie uczyły demokracji”. Jednak ta wypowiedź wydaje się zbyt łagodna (co jak na Kukiza dziwne). Stwierdzenie powinno być ostrzejsze: to Martin Schulz jest dzisiaj faszystą, który usiłuje nas uczyć demokracji"
TUTAJ CAŁY TEKST: Schulz – faszysta czy agent Putina?
Z tą publikacją powinni zapoznać się politycy i dziennikarze z Europy Zachodniej. Dlatego przygotowaliśmy - wzorem NASZEJ AKCJI - wersję angielską. Zachęcamy naszych Czytelników, aby przesyłali pod znane już adresy mailowe treść artykułu.
CZYTAJ WIĘCEJ: NASZA AKCJA! Wyślij list do eurodeputowanych - adresy KILKUSET polityków całej Europy
TEKST DAWIDA WILDSTEINA W JĘZYKU ANGIELSKI - SKOPIUJ I WYŚLIJ
14 January Wildstein
Analysis\ Who is a true fascist today?
Schulz – fascist or Putin's agent
Quite recently Paweł Kukiz, in response to one of the serial odd, aggressive and threatening Poland statements delivered by Martin Schultz's, German politician and President of the European Parliament, declared: “The grandchildren of the fascists shall not be teaching me democracy”. But this statement seems to be too mild, which is, by the way, rather strange for Kukiz. The statement should be sharper: today this Martin Schulz himself is a fascist who attempts to teach us democracy.
Of course such a sharp title is, to some extent, a provocation. It may also suggest that the language is being used here in a way typical for Gazeta Wyborcza – as means for describing any political opponent with the term “fascist”, and swilling out the real meaning of the word. So, let me explain it.
Well,[ sir,] what is this fascism, then?
Fascism is a term from the domain of political history and the history of ideas. It is one of the most semantically abused notions, mainly due to the communist propaganda machine which used to tag any of its enemies - whoever the person might have been - by this word. This rhetoric has been eagerly seized by the European left, who keep entangling and blurring the meanings long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Should one wish to outline a definition of fascism taking into account the mode of use of this term, such definition would have simply read: “any phenomenon which is not to the left's taste”. This approach is additionally supported by the fact that already at its source fascism was an exceptionally polymorphic and incoherent movement which kept changing depending on the environment it was developing in. However, it is possible to try describing some of its characteristics. First, which is commonly forgotten nowadays, fascism was an ultrarevolutionary, anti-conservative, progressive and modernistic movement. It resulted from contempt for the existing civilization's standards and values, it was driven by the belief in possibility to achieve progress and implementation of a new utopia through adequate control and streamlining of the human masses by the state institutions. The fascists' attitude towards religion was negative; they perceived it as a progress hampering factor and as a competition for the state's monopoly of control over the society. If occasionally some covenant was ever possible, the alliance was of purely tactical and not of ideological nature. Secondly, fascism defined the attitude to the state: the state was perceived by the fascists as the sole necessary element of development; its growth, idolatry covering its institutions, endowing those with the broadest prerogatives, possibility of flexible shaping the humans - was the only way to changing this world for the better. Necessarily, such concept excludes democracy and parliamentarism where – at least theoretically – the citizens shape the politics. State is the ultimate result of the human progress, so it deserves the utmost respect, while the extreme contempt should be directed against the primitive, the barbarian, the “not progressive enough”. The anthropology of fascism puts the emphasis on plasticity of human nature in relation to political instiitutions. For the reasons of this state oriented idolatry fascism at its source was neither rascist nor nationalistic. Benito Mussolini expressed his negative approach to racism; he allegedly said that it was a theory suitable for dogs and not for humans. Nationalism is secondary in relation to state. If it does foster strengthening the human being's loyalty and readiness to serve the state, it is acceptable – and only then. Based on that, acceptance of eugenics – even in its most radical form – is possible as of a tool for creating a nation which could be more useful in the service of state. Such approach to fascism enabled establishment of the Fascist International.
So, as we see, in its roots fascism is an ideologically soft movement, laying emphasis mainly on process, practice and mechanism, which allowed, depending on current needs, unconstrained juggling with ideas in order to attain the goal.
One may say that in case of fascism, many ideas did not stem from its specific features, but were seized from outside, from the political and cultural eco-system in which it had emerged. Therefore the German Nazism is a very particular tyoe of fascism. Its racism and quite qrotesque fixation on the German tribalism and paganism resulted from the intellectual climate which had ruled there many years ago. Not to say, centuries ago. From the common opinion dictated by the German culture on inferiority of the East, from the historically rooted conviction, that anythinhg east of Germany is a pack of barbarians to whom Berlin should bring the torch of progress, whom it should educate and extract from the mud and chaos in which they have been plunged.
From the belief in one's own civilisational mission which, combined with revolutionary fascism and scientistic rasism of the elites, got transformed into genocide.
Being fully aware of the change of the historical and geopolitical context, it is worth considering however, to what extent the aforementioned elements of the fascist doctrine mark the mode of operation of the Brussels' and Berlin's elites whose perfect representation is found in Martin Schulz. Eruption of stark fury presented by this politician in response to the change of the ruling power in Poland should not veil the simple fact that he is a sober politician consistently representing today the most influential circles in the European Union. A litmus test of something a lot more serious than he himself. So, he is a politician consistently promoting the primacy of bureaucratic Union's institutions over the internal decisions of the member countries' parliaments, moreover, over the will of the nations. Striving – through adequate setting of the relationship between the EU institutions and the member countries – at possibly the strongest depreciation of the value of parliamentarism and democracy of the latter. Simultaneously, cunningly combining this with the very careful safeguarding of the German interest whenever it comes to really radical decisions. These features were most paramounly visible in the situation of the Greek crisis as well as of the crisis concerning the emigrants/refugees. In the latter case there was an attempt to create a filtration system for Berlin made of the states in our region, the system sieving the emigrants/refugees and sifting out for the further passage only the ones meeting the German criteria, and to introduce – through the quotas' system - regulations that in the future could contribute to significant interferences in the souvereign decisions of the member countries. And, when listening carefully to the arguments used at that time by Shulz and his alike – it is clear that they were ostentatiously colonizational: listen, you yokels, to those who bring civilisation to you, your barbarism is well known to everybody, you do not fit in our world, it is the time for you to change. Again, Schulz is such a perfect child of today's left. With its demand to constrain the freedom of speech for the sake of political correctness, with possibly strongest interference of the state institutions in the society's tissue and with acceptance of eugenics.
Today, when it has been proved that the will of the Polish nation resulted in the election of the politicians who are ready to oppose Berlin and Brussels, Martin Schulz does not hesitate to challenge these decisions, to threaten Poland, to use again the set of stereotypes suggesting that the Poles taking such decisions are not mature enough for the tasks EU is faced with, and to claim that one should educate them as soon as possible, even against their will, exercising the pressure and using the forms of sovereignty constraints available in the arsenal of the European Union's institutions.
All these measures and statements reveal, if looked at carefully, the aforementioned components of fascism: state idolatry, primacy of institutions over an individual, distaste for democracy and parliamentarism, and, last but not least, disdain - if not hatred - for the backward, primitive locals living behind the eastern border of Germany who do not appreciate the historic role of Berlin, do not want to receive the European torch of learning and continue to exist within their reactionary cliches.
All these components make us conclude that if we were to search anywhere for the heirs of fascism, it would not be in Warsaw, at Nowogrodzka street, but in the salons of the European Union.
True EU enemies
We consider the European Union a real treasure and the fact that we joined it – gave us a hiistoric chance. This sentence may sound strange for the readers of our newspaper, but, Ladies and Gentlemen, please do reflect on it yourselves – it is not only about the stream of grants, alleviations for trade or a much smoother transfer of technologies, which has been gained by becoming a member. The most essential issue is our new geopolitical position in relation to Russia. At the end of the day, the European Union proved to be the necessary stage for us to radically break the ties with Moscow and to get out from its influence, to a large extent. Especially in the most important segment of today, in the energy sector. It also rendered it possible (and Lech Kaczyński tried to have it accomplished, but it was totally destroyed by the pro-Berlin blatant opportunism of the Civic Platform) to take advantage of the chance of building the alliance with the states of our region we might be a leader for. It is also worth remembering that the Union many times protected us against pathologies of our own governments. The best example here is the gas contract, signed with Gasprom in 2012 by Waldemar Pawlak with acceptance of Donald Tusk, leading to many years of extreme dependance of Poland on the Russian gas. Fortunately, the contract was blocked by the European Union whose officials were of the opinion that the contract gave Gasprom too strong position. By doing that, the EU saved us from pro-Russian activities of our ruling leaders. Let us remember this fact should we wish to grumble against the European Union next time.
The Union - not so bad whatsoever
Obviously it does not mean that there are no pathologies of the worst kind lasting and growing within the Union, which constitute a jeopardy for our state and its sovereignty. Nevertheless, it's worth noticing that within such a being like the EU, they may become really dangerous only and solely when combined with a sufficiently affable, or, as it was the case with the Civic Platform, outrightly treacherous government. If the Polish politicians are strong enough to resist any attempt to get corrupted in the salons of Berlin and Brussels, the mechanism of the EU itself will give them adequate tools for defence.
Therefore a conceivable collapse of the Europpean Union constitutes a jeopardy for us, because many points of defence against the Russian influence might be taken away from us in such case. We need to take into account activities of the most eurosceptic European parties, whose possible rule might put an end to this structure. Without any special embarrassement majority of them openly admire Putin, and some even take money from him. This is the case of, for example, the National Front headed by Marine Le Pen, which the strongest of the anti-Union parties. It is not only the matter of the openly expressed raptures over Putin, over his “masculinity” - it involves concrete demands (concerning, for example, the European energy sector), geopolitical situation and economy. Marine Le Pen openly declares that our region should be covered with Moscow's patronage. And, which is even worse, the National Front operates based on the giant loans granted to it by the Russian banks. It is important for those Poles who are so much impressed by, among other things, the anti-immigrational attitude of the National Front, to be aware of who Le Pen really is.
But Le Pen and the stronger and stronger anti-Union trends constitute a result, not the root cause, which is the arogance and insolence of the Eu decision makers of Schulz's type. The superciliousness that leads to negation of the existence of obvious threats and pathologies connected with emigration and political correctness. The aggression that makes the EU istitutions more and more openly interfere in the prerogatives of the national states, and imposing censorship on any attempted objection. Impudence of the rhetoric and open disregard of sovereign decisions of the EU states and nations constitute a real jeopardy for the Union. Because it will not be destroyed – in spite of the angry mainstream's jabber – by Jarosław Kaczyński, who has been representing a reasonable and moderate pro-union's policy for so many years, who understands both the chances and the threats connected with our membership in this structure. It will not be destroyed by Victor Orban. It will not even be destroyed by Vladimir Putin. The Union may destroy itself by its own action. The aggressive, conflict-oriented, greedy, anti-democratic policy, the disrespectful attitude towards the will of the citizens of the member states manifested by such individuals like Schulz – that's the real danger. And it fosters Putin's interest, aggreviating intensity of disputes and quarrels between the member countries, causing distrust and abandonment of the EU ideas by the people who slowly keep loosing their European identity. Therefore the second part of the question contained in the title is the question of Martin Schulz'z role.
Translated by Aleksandra Niemirycz
It does not mean that there are no pathologies of the worst kind lasting and growing within the Union, which constitute a jeopardy for our state and its sovereignty. Nevertheless, it's worth noticing that within such a being like the EU, they may become really dangerous only and solely if combined with a sufficiently affable, or, as it was the case with the Civic Platform, outrightly treacherous government. If the Polish politicians are strong enough to resist any attempt to get corrupted in the salons of Berlin and Brussels, the mechanism of the EU itself will give them adequate tools for defence.