All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
50:22
Monarchists in the Polish Parliament ｜ Janusz Korwin-Mikke Interview
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, I'm in Poland for the Independence Day celebrations and I'll be interviewing Mr. John Kohnicki.
How are you doing?
Thank you.
Very well.
Very nice to meet you again.
So let's start.
I hear that after 27 years you're back in the Polish Parliament.
Would you like to tell me about the story?
Yes, I left European Parliament and changed to the Polish Parliament.
I am more influential here than in the Brussels of course.
So what is it you're looking to achieve?
To achieve?
To achieve?
Well, my principal aim is to destroy socialism.
It is possible.
Of course, it is hopeless because Charles Marx had said that if you want to introduce socialism, it is enough to introduce democracy and stupid majority will build socialism because it is an idea absolutely good for idiots.
So this majority of idiots in the society is.
Right.
And so how would you consider the state of socialism in Poland at the moment?
Well, I feel like in 1956 perhaps when we have big socialism in Moscow and our small poor socialism in Poland and the same is now we have a big European socialist in Brussels and our poor variation of socialism in Poland.
And I have a very limited choice.
Right.
How do socialist parties fare in Polish politics?
Well there are two openly socialist parties.
It is RASM it's together and so-called Spring.
It is such a modern left, homosexuals and so on and so on.
There is Peace which is called by rightist parties more to the left than the old communists because the old communists already know that socialism doesn't work and peace doesn't know it.
So they are more to the left then.
And there is Peasant Party which is well every elections if you ask somebody from the Peasants' Party who will win, our ally.
Our alliance winners.
They are pivot party.
And for the first time the right is in the Polish parliament.
The deputy president of this ruling party, Peace, Law and Justice is called.
They have nothing to do with law and justice of course.
But he openly acknowledged, I'm telling you, was 30 years, nobody believed me, that there was determined in the roundtable talks that the right will never be allowed to rule, will be not allowed to be in Polish politics.
There was so-called, well I don't think there was roundtable talks in Poland.
It's a so called transition from communism to Eurosocialism, in fact.
And it was General Kiszczak who invited the opposition to the roundtable talks.
And of course, all or almost all of them, with Mr. Wawenza as the head of that, were they just agents of secret police.
Of course, If the Minister of Interior of Communist Party is obliged to pass power to somebody, he will pass back to his own agents, of course.
It's irrational.
So how do right-wing politics in Poland look from say a British perspective, where we're a lot more left-wing?
How would you define the differences?
Well, the difference is that we have Polish socialism is a bit nationalist.
Mr. Kaczynski is not nationalist.
Nationalists are our ally now.
He's not a nationalist.
He's statist.
He's status.
And it is perhaps even worse than European Union.
Because, well, the statism European Union is inefficient.
And Mr. Kaczynski is very efficient.
So, well, I am perhaps more effective.
But he will not kill people.
He is a conservative still.
But if Mr. Kaczynski will die and some of his acolytes will go to power, well, I think I would flee from Poland.
Really?
Yeah.
Okay, so on the subject of giant inefficient bureaucracies, what's your opinion of the direction of the European Union at the moment?
European Union is dying.
Twenty years ago I thought that will die, of course.
It will die because of the economic reasons, because you cannot live in a socialist state.
Every socialist which tries to impose a socialism changes changes the view after achieving power with two exceptions, Mr. Hollande in France and Paul Pot in Cambodia.
They were trying to the last moment to build socialism.
And they basically ended up the same.
But all the rest, even Hitler, even Piusutski, were socialists.
But if they got to power, they such a socialist.
Yeah, yeah.
So what's your thoughts on Brexit at the moment?
Well, I was as a Pole, I'm not interested in Brexit because we are losing an ally for this sum of independence inside the European Union.
But as a Britain, I would be for Brexit.
But I am shocked because a year ago or so there was a case of this four years events, Alfie events, and I heard Mrs. Teresa May who said that the parents must understand that the child doesn't belong to parents, it belongs to the state.
So why you are leaving European Union?
I don't see any difference.
This is a common opinion in the United Kingdom at the moment that the parents do not own the children.
So you have also a British socialism in fact.
And now when His Excellence Macron and others are trying to make an union with Russia, so the Orwellian vision that is Anglo-Sots Anglo-Sots in the and Eurosots and China and Japan is becoming a reality from 1984.
I'm shocked.
I'm not surprised that Britain wanted to leave because of it, to be honest.
But how do you think it's going to end though?
I mean, like, what do you think do you think Britain will actually end up leaving the European Union?
Because we haven't.
Well, I am for the open market.
You know, in my opinion, our party, I mean, Corvin, is the strongest party, strongest rightist party, in Free Market Party in all Europe.
We have circa 4 or 5% with our allies 7.
It's 7, but we have 4 or 5%.
But the strongest there is no.
I don't know any European party which says we must demolish rental system, the system of pensions.
Pension system.
It is necessary.
If Europe is to survive, we must destroy the system of pensions.
Because it's killing Europe.
Yeah, tell me why the pension system is killing Europe.
Because in normal country, when there was no pension system, people wanted to have children because they wanted to have somebody who takes care of them on the old and give them money and give them money when they will be old and so on.
And nobody was killing all children because the Pilgrims were precious.
The people have to have plenty of children.
The more children you have, the more of the stability your seniority and so on, on the old age.
But now, why am I to have children when there is a pension and I am old?
That's also a really short-sighted view, isn't it?
Because if you don't have children, who's paying for the pension?
Everybody thinks that the children of my neighbor will work for my.
But you know, our great poet, Adam Mitkevich, has said that people think let's.
It's gonna be translated into English, but but?
But it is a problem of prisoners' dilemma.
Everyone, everyone thinks things as that the neighbour's children will work for him and they will not, so we will die.
We will die.
The Muslims and anybody will, will win, because they don't have pension systems.
They, they are dependent on their old children.
Yeah, so it's.
It's actually the.
The problem with pensions is not just the financial burden on the state, but also the damage it does to the social structure of society.
Yeah, when I was 12 years old or 13, I was discussing with my father and I said he was what is the definition of socialism?
And I said that the country is socialist when there is a pension system, obligatory pension system, and and then now every country is socialist and everybody must die, exactly as Soviet Union does.
That because I mean it's, it's in my country.
It's looking more and more like a pyramid scheme the, the pension scheme, because people are living longer and having fewer children, so it requires us to bring in immigrants to pay for the pensions of people who have had children and those people whose children decide not to have children or what have few children.
Yes, and it's a system that simply can't go on forever.
This can't go on, so so we shall die.
Yeah, plenty of civilization.
The the thing about it is I always say well it's, it's our own fault, you know.
I mean, it could have been a system we had if we'd had children and maintainers.
It is problem of democracy.
The great, great writer, Isaac Asimov, who has written a very not famous, it is highbrow book, a book, The End Of Eternity.
And there is a very great citation which goes, Any system that allows people to choose their own future will end in the mediocrity and safety.
And in such a reality, the stars are out of reach.
And he's right.
He was absolutely right.
The majority want safety.
They want safety.
The problem is that the nations were usually ruled by the elites.
This elite was 15% or so.
And now the elites are men who want risk.
Because all the prosperity from risk, not from safety.
Safety.
And this is 15%.
Now, in the United States, such a man is 25%.
It is half of Republican Party, half of the Deputy Party.
And in Europe, it is 5%, in Poland, maximum.
Why?
Because 10% has emigrated to the United States.
So what do you think it is that we're doing wrong, promoting free market principles?
Because I noticed that you've got Hayek, Friedman, and Mises on the walls there.
So I mean, that's the gold standard for free market capitalism.
But why is this not more popular these days?
Because the people are not interested in free market.
They want safety.
They want less, even less, but safe.
In capitalism, you know, you have 100%, and now there is a crisis.
And in socialism, you have slow sadness.
And it's always very, very low.
Perhaps even there is some progress, but very, very, very slow.
But safe.
See, to me, that sounds terrible.
Like, I mean, I run a YouTube channel, you know, it's not a safe job that I do.
I like the risk.
Of course.
I like seeing what happens.
But there is a problem why socialists are promoting women.
Because women are voting for safety.
It's natural.
It's natural.
In the archetypes, the men had to take spear and hunt for mammoths.
And women were to be safe.
And that's why socialists want women to vote.
They have the maximum to vote for women.
Because women are for welfare state.
Women are for socialism.
Women, no, no, safety.
Men, not.
Only 60% of men is for safety and 90% of women.
So, I mean, the thing that the the problem is that I think the public are not interested in hearing this kind of talk and these kind of proposals.
Because I agree that we should probably reduce the size of the state, reduce the amount of dependence on welfare.
I haven't got a well-thought out position on the pension system, but I can see the fact that it's not going to last forever.
I think that it would be better to kind of promote a drive towards a more capitalist worldview rather than waiting for its collapse.
Well well the the solution is perhaps in army.
Army is the men, and men are the men in the army are usually ready for risk because that's why they inscribed to the army.
So perhaps like Pinochet in Chile or something, they can take power, take power and introduce some freedom.
So we need a military dictatorship to take power.
Yes, yes, because it it gives us freedom.
For example, Pinochet abolished the obligatory pensions scheme, for example.
And in the very moment, the price for it goes down three times, something like that.
See, I can't see you selling a military dictatorship to people.
Well, I think if now, in Poland the military would take the power and put to prison all the politicians, the people would satisfy.
Well, I mean, honestly, in Britain, that would probably go down quite well, too.
No, you have a chance.
I don't believe in His Highness Charles, but His Highness William perhaps can change something.
I'll tell you what, that would be very entertaining to watch at the very least.
But yeah, I'm genuinely concerned, though, because it does seem like socialism is on the march everywhere.
Yes, because there is a democracy, they told.
You must destroy democracy.
But, well, the people want to vote.
They don't understand why, because I say, well, you vote, but your two neighbors too.
Look at your neighbors.
Do you want them to rule over you?
And say, to women, to women, your two neighbors will vote how you are to build your own children.
Can you allow this?
I suppose I can.
But I mean, okay, so I agree that there are problems with liberal democracy and universal suffrage.
But the question on the other side of the argument would be, well, how do we hold the people who rule over us accountable?
But the problem is that you cannot have a liberal democracy, because you have democracy, and then majority will change this liberal into less liberal arrangements than to the socialists.
You cannot do it.
You must have, I am, I would say, monarchical capitalists.
Not monarchical capitalists.
There must be somebody who will take power and introduce freedom.
To impose freedom on the people, to forbid, to forbid.
But the problem that the natural objection that's going to be raised is how would you keep an absolute monarch in control?
Because you might have an enlightened monarch who does institute a radical free market system.
But then what if the next one happens to be a massive social system?
But absolute monarchy doesn't control the life in such an extent that it is a democracy.
In democracy, the government regulates everything.
In monarchy, the king has no time to do this.
He wants money to have mistresses and hunting and so on.
But what if he likes socialism and implements a giant bureaucracy to create socialism?
Because the people are stupid.
They don't understand.
Now in Poland, we have a huge, huge scheme.
It is 500 Zlotis.
It is 500 Zlotis.
It is 100 pounds for every child.
It is very much in Poland.
And the people take this money and vote for the party who introduced this scheme.
Now, they are very good in the imposing democracy because uh, somebody said perhaps it was Alexei Det D'ete Queville uh that uh, the republic will last until the ruling PAR party discovers that they can bribe people out with their own money.
Uh and, and that's exactly what the pieces is openly doing.
Yeah, they're counting.
Uh, we can give uh, five hundred to thousand.
It gives us thirty percent of the vote.
Now you have something for the um, for the pensioners, it gives us twenty percent.
And now we have, and they, they just bribe the people.
It is enough to bribe fifty one percent, in fact, in fact, in the electoral system, it is enough to have twenty fourteen, forty two, forty three percent, and so, when you and you have more power than the king yeah yeah, but the the, the problem we have in uh western Europe at least, is the breakdown of the family and the kind of social structures that would keep people um bound to society.
I think is the best way to put it.
Uh, for example now um, people are choosing not to marry, not having children, they're becoming essentially dependent on the state and they don't seem to see that as a problem.
So yeah, I think we're excluded.
Yeah, they don't think it is a problem because because in I am I, I am 77 now and I am taught in in my childhood that a man cannot accept money from anybody.
It is dishonor if, if a man accepted money from somebody else, he was excluded from the society.
Nobody would talk to such a man who gives money from women for for, for state and so on.
And now now, if somebody gets money from the government well, he is a kind of non-national hero.
You know.
You know, when mr mr Tusk was the candidate for the police presidency, he said that he will get uh 300 billion in American billions, billions euro from network states.
And Kacrinski said, no, you must get 500 billion from European Union.
It is a well, it's a beggar's, beggar state.
You know this this, I think.
Um, so the the sort of young people would push back on this and say, well, given the way that uh, open borders, capitalism has operated uh, we find ourselves in a market that's dominated by giant multinational corporations uh, and so less room for entrepreneurship.
So what choice do you have?
It is very very, very important, perhaps even, I think, but very interesting.
But perhaps very important because multinational big corporations doesn't want capitalism?
No no, because because they are afraid of the small capitalists which are winning the competition with them.
They want the government because they can bribe the state officials, and so on.
I I am always saying that why there is so plenty of golf fields in in United States and so on?
Why because you cannot bribe somebody playing bridge, because then maybe, if it drops and so on, you you cannot do it in boxing, you cannot do it in in football, but in golf you can walk for the field, you can, you can talk to each other and then in the restroom you can only change, change your, your bugs with the golf keys and there is something in that and and that's all so.
So that's why the the golf is, because the the high officials and big big, I mean they they might agree that that this is essentially kind of a post-capitalist order, the sort of neoliberal order of the world.
But the importance of that, what they said, is that the young people think that this multinational are for capitalism.
Yeah, yeah, I agree.
I agree completely.
They are fighting against them, thinking they are fighting against capitalism.
Yeah, yeah, and they're not.
They're fighting.
They're not, of course, they're not.
Yeah, I completely agree.
But they might say something like, well, we find ourselves in this position anyway.
These giant corporations dominate everything.
They've got their hands in the government.
What can we do?
What could be done?
The late Joseph Stalin said, how many divisions have Pope?
You can ask how many divisions have Walmart, they don't have any divisions.
They are very weak, of course.
But the objection there will be: well, we live in a rules-based system where we can't just have mobs storming giants.
But if you demolish by taxes and by national rules 90% of the capitalists, the rest will come to Poland because the capitalists are not the friends of another capitalist.
Multinational operations are against each other.
So you should be not afraid of attacking one or two of something great, great companies.
Because the other will come.
The other will come.
So I can see it from the position of a young person who's looking at the way that things are structured and saying, I don't see any opportunity for myself here.
How do we get past that?
Well, now, in Poland at least, a majority of young people are thinking about the governmental post.
Because if you are in the government, you are influential, you can do anything, and you can make some business from the governmental money for your family and your friends and so on.
They are afraid of being private entrepreneurs because the private entrepreneurs are destroyed by the Polish tax systems.
But the Polish bureaucracy, they hate them.
And especially if such entrepreneurs earn more money than him, then the state official is against him in the natural way.
So if you don't destroy bureaucracy, Poland is being a kingdom, the great pink kingdom, from Varka to Smolensk, a great kingdom.
And do you know how many clerks had kings?
No, no.
500.
Really?
500.
Now we have 600,000.
For anyone who is not aware, in the 17th century, Poland essentially owned Eastern Europe and was larger than France.
It was a huge kingdom.
The problem is French Revolution.
French Revolution, the greatest difference between France after the revolution is because before the revolution, the state clerk official was paying from the own money if he makes some mistake.
After the revolution, the state doesn't pay.
And that is the greatest achievement of the revolution.
See, I find it interesting that you say the bureaucrats, the state itself, is the enemy of the entrepreneur in Poland.
Because in Western Europe and Britain and America, I would say it's actually giant corporations, because essentially what they can do is control the market through supply and demand.
So it's very difficult for an entrepreneur.
For example, you can't really set up a competitor to Amazon.
You'll never be able to out-compete Amazon.
Well, I mean, as far as I can...
But it takes time.
Yeah, and these things get favourable tax breaks from the government and things like this.
But there's no problem with Amazon IBM or something like this.
It's no problem.
The problem is that if Amazon has influence over the state officials, they can arrange something for them.
Which they probably do.
But the point I'm making, though, is that there's a part of me that doesn't blame young people for looking at socialism and saying, well, of course.
Among the young people, we have now 20-28% of support because they are not listening to the TV.
By the way, in Europe, majority of people believe in the anthropogenic global warming.
In the United States, no.
Majority of people doesn't believe in global warming.
Why?
What is the difference?
In the United States, there is no state television.
It's a very interesting point.
But what can we say to them?
What can we offer them?
Because the thing is, they're looking at a future where they are being promoted to have...
At the moment, there's the tiny houses, they're called.
Very, very small, single-person dwellings.
And they're, you know, being gonna, they're being propagandized to eat cockroaches and bugs and live on their own, and that's wonderful.
I mean, that's a terrible future.
And to them, socialism seems like a revolutionary change.
I mean, I think it would be a change for the worse, but they're looking for something.
Yes, you are right.
Socialism has won, not in fact, but in words.
A hundred years ago, where two men met on the society, you were not allowed to talk where do you work, how much do you earn?
It was not allowed.
You are talking about money, about girls, about the journalists, about the collecting stamps, something like that.
Now, where do you work?
Who are you?
How much do you earn?
Because there was homo-ludens, now the men are homo fabr.
Now we are we are working working class.
We are all a working class.
We are looking for us.
Because in the normal society, you must work to have money.
But the important thing is what is after the work.
The money are necessary to do something after work.
Now, the principal aim, principal field of interest is work, work, work.
The socialists won.
We all look at that because, no, from eight to sixteen, I am working men.
But after 16 to the next 8 a.m., I am leisure man.
I am not working men.
So two-thirds of my time, also when I am young, old, I am not a working man.
So in fact, in me, only 10% is working men.
And 90% are not working men.
And this 10% rule over those 90%.
And that's the basis, intellectual basis of socialism.
People regard themselves as working men, not as lovers of girls, of family, or something.
No, they are thinking about work.
The problem is, like you said, socialism won in rhetoric rather than in fact.
And this now is everywhere.
It's absolutely everywhere.
And no one is actually.
Because I mean, one of the things that you see in America, for example, if you ask somebody, a worker, is he for equality?
He would say yes.
But if I say, how much do you earn monthly, say 5,000 slottis?
Okay, now your child is born and you are working very hard, you went not 5,000, but 6,000.
Do you agree that another worker will get also 6,000?
This is not well.
Oh, he will not agree for that.
He's not for equality.
It's only in the words.
But notice that that example is contingent on the fact that the guys had a child.
Whereas a lot of young people today are not having children.
So for them, they're the people at the bottom who just would rather collapse the whole thing down.
But they don't have children.
But they are children.
You know, it is welfare states.
In welfare states, it's a non-ni-state and it is treating us as slaves, animals, as like children.
It takes care of us.
And people treated as children are becoming to be children.
And what is the children?
The child wants to give me the bomb, give me sweet, give me something.
The child doesn't want to pay for anything.
You must give him gratis for nothing.
And that's like the ordinary people think this: that I should get it for nothing.
They are reasoning like children because they will be treated like children by the state.
I agree.
But I don't see how we can persuade them at the moment that there is a balance between democracy in Europe.
I was only thinking poor democracy.
It is Athens, where the powerful, rich Athens has lost to poor Macedonia, but there was democracy in Athens, and leaders of all the political parties in Athens have been in the pocket of King Philip Macedonia.
And another example of democracy was Poland.
There were two kingdoms, kingdom and duchedom of Poland and Bituenia.
And those two monarchies joined into a republic of both nations.
It was republic.
The king was elected, it was not a kingdom at all, it was just like the first secretary elected for life.
And those kingdoms, ex-kingdom, perished in corruption, in stupidity, in dirty...
It was a tragic example of introducing democracy into a normal, powerful country.
Of course, it is partake by the neighbors with the monarchies.
Now every country is democratic, so it cannot be destroyed by the NATO country.
By the way, there is a Helsinki agreement when all the rulers of the European Council agreed that you cannot change the borders by force.
In the Helsinki agreement.
Of course, in normal country, when the uh king was a bad king, then another king was a good king, his his uh country was prosperous, he got overtaken this this poor king, it was a national selection of kings.
Now you you cannot have it.
You can exploit your your uh your subjects uh at your will, at your will, and the neighbor cannot do uh do anything.
Yeah, there's no end to it, is that yeah.
That's a very interesting point.
If I don't bring up the fact that you have a Confederate flag here, I think I'm gonna get in trouble.
So would you like to explain this?
It's a kind of joke.
Our name of of our federation of parties is it's called Confederation.
Someone uses this flag.
But, well, oh yeah, I remember five years ago in the Georgia slag in the United States, an Australian confederate flag.
It's a normal flag.
Now the socialism, it's such a great progress.
Yeah, absolutely.
This is the thing.
The socialists have basically turned it into the Nazi flag now.
Nazi?
Well, essentially, that's how they view it.
That's genuinely how they do it.
This is terrible.
Sometimes we are always called a Hickorite party.
They say, well, no, I am for obligatory pensions.
You are?
Yes.
Hitler was for, I am against.
Are you for compulsory education of children?
Yes.
Hitler was I am against.
The European Union.
It is a third right, in fact.
We are against.
But still we are called fascists.
Fascist is a kind of socialism.
I prefer fascist to socialist because fascists are socialists who are wise enough not to fight against family.
Socialism fights against family and socialists.
And fascism is exactly the same as socialists, but not fighting against family.
So I prefer fascists to socialists.
I always viewed the fascists as honest socialists.
Honestly, honestly, because the socialists have got this dream that they can take over everything and then the state will wither away and everything will be perfect.
Whereas the fascists just accept that they're going to be tyrannical.
Well, but I held all states.
Fascist, socialists, communists.
You know, there was a different tribes, Comanches, Apaches, Dino and so on.
But good red is dead red, you know.
You're trying to get me in trouble.
Well, it was nice having a YouTube channel while I had it.
Right, so how long do you think we have with the current way that Western Europe is operating?
Fifteen, twenty years.
Yeah.
And what do you think will happen?
And then then the Arabs will come.
Not those Arabs on the streets.
Yeah.
The two Arabs from such a state, as Turkey perhaps.
The Turks are not Arabs, but actually Muslims.
Muslims and well, the Turkish army is now stronger than German.
Of course it is much stronger.
So you think the Turk will invade Europe?
Something other people don't know.
No, there is no anthropogenic global warming, but there is global warming.
And there was global warming in the 8th, 9th century, and there was the people from the south were invading Europe.
They conquered Spain, south of the France.
So the history repeats itself.
We we have, I think, two hundred years of global warming that will become global global uh freezing.
But but we have two hundred years and we must survive.
The Poland has a great chance because uh they are those Muslims on the west of the Europe.
Yeah.
They are not in the East Europe, so we can survive perhaps.
Is Eastern Europe not worried about Western Europe falling to Islam?
I think the West Europe is lost, the Muslims will overtake it.
It's not because they will get the majority, they will not wait for the majority.
They just stamp the feast.
I've seen on the TV when one, I say one Muslim with a knife on the street of London and seven or eight policemen are waning about it, they don't know what to do with him.
We are suffering from a kind of weakening.
Because there is one very important theory that we have only one life.
The people don't believe in God.
So they are afraid to lose his wife.
Because why civilization is being built by the people believing in God, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and so on.
That way we believe that if we lose our life, then we have something in the life after death.
Now, if you are afraid of losing your life, so you will not risk your life on behalf of others.
So that's why the people believing in God, like Muslims, because they really believe in God.
I really believe in God, and we don't believe in God anymore.
So they must win.
This is quite depressing to talk about, really, because I'm sat here thinking, well...
Well, I am a realist.
Yeah, I'm trying to think of ways of pushing back on this, but there really is the giant question overhanging Western Europe about the Muslim population there, and nobody wants to talk about it or even think about the implications of the changes in Muslims.
But you know, I have a discussion with a woman who was a deputy member of parliament, I think, from the peace.
And I said, do you understand what would be the results of this bill you just introduced after 30 years?
And she said, I am not interested what you'll be after 30 years.
And such a people are ruling our country and ruling in all the democracy.
You are thinking only about the next elections.
That's all.
Geniuses.
Things by next but one elections.
But nobody thinks any further.
I'm thinking for 30, 50 years.
Because I have children, grandchildren.
I must think about their future.
And I am afraid.
So am I, actually, I have to say.
And I agree with you.
It's all short-term thinking, especially in Britain.
I mean, you familiar with Tony Blair and the Labour Party.
The more time goes on, the more it becomes evident that the changes that the Labour Party made to my country have been catastrophic and they have real victims and no one can even talk about it.
So just try to convince some generals.
So just try to convince some generals.
I will when I next meet one.
But it's the thing is, people in Western Europe are too genteel to talk about these sort of things.
Yes, they are soft mixed.
They are soft.
It's just the introduction of women.
You know, the very, very dangerous is co-education.
Because I don't know how to translate into English a Polish proverb, with whom you live like him you become.
And with young men are every day with young women, they are making more and more feminists.
Yeah, they're being taught by women in schools, they're being raised by some mothers.
They don't have men in their house.
That is a genuine concern.
So we have no masculine men.
And women now are complaining, where are the men?
You want to be young men?
They cannot be because in the schools they are with women.
So we must destroy also co-education.
Well, the feminists are openly opposed to masculinity, aren't they?
They're trying to destroy it.
It's not the problem of even the feminists, because the feminists are rather aggressive women.
The problem is the influence of this soft, meek women on men.
Here is the problem.
Here is the problem.
And well, such now the men are becoming perhaps more women-like, more like than women, than women.
So women aren't attracted to that, they're not being competitive in their lives.
So it translates to more socialism, doesn't it?
Yes, because here is the real problem.
So our allies emigrated to the United States and they're very, very small.
The only chance is military, who has military has their own aim.
They want to have money for arms, armaments, money for them.
They want to have country must be rich enough to support the army.
So they can impose the free market if they are convinced, like Pinocchio.
You know, General Jarusewski, who was a leader of Poland?
I'm not familiar, no, it's not.
General Jaruselski, who made an martial law in Poland in 1982 and destroyed this solidarity movement.
And then General Kiszzzak was determined to power.
Mr. Jaruselski, General Jarusevski, on his deathbed said that he is sorry.
His greatest thought was that it didn't help him to call the Mik Kiszelevsky and the other free marketers who halted him to introduce such a method into Pinocchio in Chile.
Because he made the martial law and he didn't achieve anything.
Pinocchiett also made a martial law, but he achieved something.
But you must understand.
Look at General who saves power in Poland.
And he listened to me, to Mr. Kiszewski, because we are supporting our literature to the military.
And he should introduce something against Soviets, against Western Europe who is socialists, against the solidarity movement, against the church, and against the majority of the people.
And he should believe such a small handful of five people, of ten people, who wanted him to want him to introduce capitalism.
And against his own military, who also are accustomed that every officer has gratis, he's he's super every day.
So so it was hero heroic effort from him to introduce but but he he should do that.
If if he would would do that, he would be a n national hero.
And now he's, well, he's not a hero, just the opposite.
So, the Polish Independence Day celebrations in March will be on today.
Are you attending?
It depends.
If I have a sweater, sweater is sickened because I am now a bit ill and I cannot risk my health.
If I have my sweater here, I will go.
Yes, exactly.
So, how many people are expecting to attend today?
I don't know, 200,000.
So, it's quite a large quite large, yes.
I noticed that it's been attracting some negative press in Western media.
Oh, yes, because it is Marsh of the nationalists.
Yes.
It is not our march, it is Marshall of nationalists who are by the way.
The nationalists who are our allies are not exactly like by those who are coordinating Mars of independence.
There are the big clashes between nationalists in Poland.
There's another nationalist, but he invited me, they invite them.
But there is some documentation there.
So, well, well, well, well, I am not sure whether they asked me to speak to make the speech something on this March.
But it is a demonstration, anti-government.
The strange thing is that before the war, before the war, Poland was ruled by the Colston Asia.
It was a kind of socialist who turned fascists.
Joseph Piłsutski was in British press, in British papers, he is called fascist openly.
In Poland, it is impossible because he was a national hero.
But he was a fascist.
It's a socialist who turns more normal.
You can have fascists.
And Mr. Kaczynski is trying to introduce the same system in Poland now.
It was a Telib system, Telib system, inefficient and so on.
But he's imitating almost everything was done then.
He's imitating now.
But this date, 11th November, is not the date of freedom of Poland.
The independence of Poland was declared on the 7th of October.
And 11th of November is the date when this ruling regents council gives power to the socialists, to the Piłsutski.
So for me, it is not the anniversary of the independence.
It is the anniversary of passing power to the Reds.
So it's not something to celebrate.
Yeah, celebrate at all.
Well, I suppose the date's been fixed now then.
But paradox is that the Piłsutski was enemy of nationalists.
And now nationalists are having demonstrations.
Well, it's nice to see the subversion go the other way for once, to be honest.
Usually it's the socialists stealing other people's things, isn't it?
Yeah, yeah.
But right, okay, well, John, thank you very much.
I really appreciate your time.
Thank you very much.
So it's a real pleasure being here.
Okay.
▲
Export Selection