Good morning, good evening. Hello everyone. Welcome to another program. Well, today, scandal, scandal, scandal. Well, what's happening is everywhere. People are talking about it, but on the other hand, you didn't know, just like in the banderz in Ukraine, you saw it was there; everyone saw it, pretending it was there. But we'll talk about that today, with a man who tells it like it is. I'm not wondering why it took me so long to invite you, Professor. It just happened that way, but I'm very glad that we can talk at least remotely today. My guest is Professor Mariusz Miąsko, from the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw. A lawyer, entrepreneur, and academic. There are so many others, but above all, I call you, Professor, a man who tells it like it is. Welcome. Good morning. Hello, Mr. Editor, hello, ladies and gentlemen, and it's a great honor to be able to talk with you, Mr. Editor, and address your distinguished and distinguished audience. Thank you very much for your kind words. Before we get into specifics, I'd just like to ask you, dear friends, to subscribe, like, share, and comment on what you're talking about, Professor, and what we'll be talking about. I also encourage you to support us. You can buy us coffee, you can support us in other ways, and I'd love for you, dear friends, to support us, because July is approaching, and 10/11 are very important events in Polish history and very important events in the history of the fight for truth. So first, Jedwabne , and then, of course, Domstawa, because as you know what's happening on the Warsaw line, I'd like to ask you to donate. In the description of the video , there's a link to how you can support us. We'll go with a camera to Jedwabne and Domstawa. I want to show everything , record everything, and of course, then present you to you, so I encourage you to do so. In the description of the video, there's a link to the fundraiser . Thank you. Professor, you're surprised by this scandal, aren't you? And I don't think anyone in Poland is surprised by this scandal. Can anyone in Poland still be surprised by a scandal after everything that's been happening since 1989? Can anyone be surprised by anything? No, I don't think so. You'd have to be born, woken up, or come to Poland and be deprived of all this reflection, this whole package of experiences from 1989, to be surprised at all. However, I think we desperately need this scandal. We desperately needed it as a society. Just as we desperately needed this National Energy System (KSE) as entrepreneurs. KSE has incredibly motivated entrepreneurs to take grassroots, direct democracy initiatives. And I think this scandal is incredibly necessary for the rest of society, because I think entrepreneurs have finally come to their senses, having been squeezed by successive governments in recent years, to be clear. Not only this government, but successive governments have been incredibly pressured, treated like a resource, like a quasi-colony to be completely exploited. But entrepreneurs have also sobered up. Entrepreneurs now know what's happening, how governments are treating them. That's why they're currently mobilizing on a gigantic scale. We'll perhaps discuss this when the editor wants to expand on this topic, or if you'd allow me to expand, but I think this scandal is very necessary for the rest of society to see how we are treated. Because what is this scandal about? This scandal, in my opinion, is essentially about a lack of values. That is, after 1989, efforts were made to wipe out all reflexes of decency based on the Ten Commandments from our society. This is based on both spirituality and decency. I'm not talking about religion per se, because that's a very individual, very personal , and very intimate matter, I would say . But the point is that elements of spirituality and religiosity as such have been erased from us. And there's no void, no vacuum. Where there's no religion, where there are no values, anti-values enter. And that's what this scandal is about. It's essentially about something very fundamental, namely, the deprivation of the elementary values contained in our particular religion, in the Ten Commandments, but on the basis of human rights, as enshrined in the right to dignity. After all, these people who behave this way, like politicians who misappropriate money from mileage allowances, like some doctors who misappropriate money from services they didn't perform, work they didn't do, are depriving themselves of dignity, not us. They're depriving themselves in the name of money, in the name of some temporary good. They trade in values, their own values, they trade in these values, they get rid of these values in the name of momentary convenience. That's what this scandal is really about. Of course, politically speaking, it has its own level, its own dimension , but it's about the fundamental lack of values in a certain segment of society. This is a process that's ongoing. It's unimaginably dangerous that this hasn't been happening for a year, or two, or three. It's good that it happened. We need such shocks every now and then to regain balance. It's like this, you see, the body is often overwhelmed, it slips into a state of illness and then falls ill, the person feels bad, but then recovers from the illness, and we almost always feel stronger, fresher after this illness, after this illness. And what's more, illness very often immunizes against another, more serious illness. And in light of the above, of course, there's a parallel, but—but we understand that, well, we have to talk on an everyday level, so it's good that it happened, because it will have very positive, cleansing effects on many levels, many environments that may have briefly detached themselves from reality. I don't want to offend anyone here, because it would be very bad if we treated everyone, for example, doctors, as a disgrace. It would be disastrous if we did it that way. It would be, above all, unfair, unjust, but certain trends are all too clear. Certain tendencies and directions are all too clear, and this scandal was bound to occur sooner or later. It had to occur because we all use the healthcare system, we all use state institutions, because it's not just— it's not a scandal that defines the state of the healthcare system. It defines the state of the state itself. It defines what kind of anti-state we have. We have an anti-state agenda because for this scandal to exist, so-called political circles must have refused to acknowledge and accept it. That is, the services must have refused to acknowledge and recognize it. The police must have refused to acknowledge it, the prosecutor's office must have refused to acknowledge it, and the directors of state institutions must have refused to acknowledge it. This is a scandal about the state of the state as a whole. That's what this scandal is about. But what else is this scandal about? It's a scandal about a lack of reflection on who receives this money, the people who appropriate it. For example, politicians with mileage allowances. Who are they taking it from ? Who are some doctors taking it from? It's very important to note that some doctors, who, without doing their job, are collecting exorbitant salaries. Without doing their job. We don't begrudge excellent work, only work undone. So who are they taking it from? They're not taking it from the budget. They're not taking it from the minister . They're not taking it from the hospital, and they're not taking it from the National Health Fund. They're taking it from us. And who are these " we"? They're taking money from us, entrepreneurs and employees, from the companies that generate this money, because there's no such thing as budget money coming from the ministry or the National Health Fund (NFZ). There's no such thing. There are essentially only two boxes, two sources that feed the budget. The first, at 85%, and I'd argue even 90-something percent, and I have good arguments for this. This 90% of the budget is money generated by companies and their employees. Not just private companies, but also, of course, state-owned companies, but also companies and their employees. We still have, say, 10, perhaps 15%. These are funds actually generated from customs duties, for example, from the customs duties on goods that flow into or enter the Polish economic system, and from other smaller sources. But all of this money—in the sense that "all" is hyperbole, let's say between 85 and 90- something percent—is generated by us, the entrepreneurs and employees working in these companies, meaning 10 million people. So what's this scandal about? The scandal is that we, as a society, as entrepreneurs, as employees of entrepreneurs, developed a budget, and from that budget came some—not clever people, not even sly ones, but some unworthy, deprived people, who stripped themselves of their dignity and took the money we had put into the box called the state budget for utilitarian purposes. And such people include, for example, politicians who came for mileage allowances, because they hadn't stolen any parliamentary budget. They took money that belongs to us and was earned by us. And similarly, these unworthy people, possibly doctors or politicians, who knew, if they knew, that some doctors were receiving unjustified remuneration, allowed employers and employees of companies to take that money from the budget we had created. And now we're saying, someone collected too much mileage allowance. Someone collected too much, Professor, Professor. Okay, so I'll ask a question, and I'll put you in a difficult position. Do you think they knew? I'm talking about Trzaskowski, I'm talking about what Mr. Arukowicz did, I think, on Channel Zero, he outdid everyone else, and I have a question: do people see it, because you and I see it, but is there really a chance they'll finally see it? Well, Barałkowicz says that when he worked closely with a woman he was responsible for health issues, with people he worked with in the context of, let's call it, the health service, he says, " I don't know these people." Do people see this hypocrisy? They see that they're lying openly, that, well, excuse my word, maybe that's too strong , but they're spitting in our faces. Do people see your opinion? And did they know about it? And why is it so strong that they're spitting in our faces? I mean, the mayor of Warsaw comes out today at the city council and says he didn't know, and he didn't take the content of the notification he received seriously only because it wasn't signed. Even if it weren't signed, and there were so many details, it would probably be more than enough to verify credibility. If the mayor of one of the world's largest cities comes forward and says he didn't know after receiving the information and doesn't react simply because there was no signature, it's no lesser, no lesser, misconduct on his part than if he knew and didn't react. It's exactly, more or less, the same; he's unfit to govern. If, in a formal and de facto sense, he's managing the city of Warsaw , if he received the signal, if he received the signal personally—and he said so today, it's not an assumption, he said it himself at the council—but he didn't react because the content he received wasn't signed, but he received the content itself, the information itself, and didn't react, then he's unfit to govern. He should resign. Why is the opposition calling for this, or anyone else? Because this isn't about the opposition at all. Whoever is calling for the resignation of the vice president, the vice president, and the vice president, to resign? The president should resign. In my opinion, if the situation is as dramatic as it is—and I'm not just referring to this hospital, because this hospital is just a complementary element to the image of a bankrupt anti-state, taking out 1 billion in loans daily, paying 100 billion in interest annually, while we have a mere 500 million in total budget —which is racking up massive debt and has incurred further debt, incurred liabilities. This is simply a picture of incompetence in governing the state. This is a reason for the resignation not only of the mayor of Krakow, the city of Warsaw—because with Krakow, the matter has already been resolved— of the city of Warsaw, but also of the prime minister. Because this is not, this is not, this is not a political accusation, because I, ladies and gentlemen, am as far from politics as possible and certainly won't say who I am closer to in politics. I believe in the project's work and political ecumenism, in uniting people on projects, not in dividing them by some kind of politics. So I confess. So this isn't a political accusation; it's a purely substantive one, purely mathematical, I would say. If someone can't manage a company or an organization entrusted to them by, say, society, they must resign, because in a normal company, if they couldn't manage it, it would go bankrupt, and they would be the only person, or the main person, harmed at their own risk. But if someone manages a state or a city, they must face the consequences and have honor, because it's a matter of honor. Well, I couldn't manage it. I saw that information was out there, I didn't react with agreement, I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm just resigning, because after all, Mr. Mayor Trzaskowski, who I think is probably a very decent person, as a human being. I'm sure if we sat down for coffee, we would probably discover that he's a very nice person, just in a human sense . He may be the most wonderful man in the world, but if he holds a public office, then we judge him not by how pleasant, likeable, and pleasant he is, even how good a person he is, but by how effective he is. Pure pragmatism. He was unable to supervise or oversee property, and there is a risk, and there is a risk, perhaps even the health of patients. And I'll leave aside the issue of decency and better treatment of some over others, because that too has been de facto resolved at the Warsaw City Council today, because the mayor himself said today that, of course, there was a salon. It's just that this salon was created by the doctor himself, without knowing how he wanted to approach the hospital authorities. No, I don't believe it. I can't believe it. And ladies and gentlemen, I've been running a business for 26 years. I've been an employee, an employer. I've worked in various institutions. I can't believe the board didn't know that a separate room had been set aside in the hospital for special, specific treatment of some patients. I'll never believe that. I'd have to be extremely naive. Therefore, if the president, with his greater or lesser involvement, was unable to control this situation, he should have come out and said: "Dear Poles, out of respect for you, for your efforts, your money, your trust in me, and even in my party, which I represent, I am resigning, because President Trzaskowski certainly possesses so many professional, hard-core skills that he will have a place to work." No, he won't be short of bread. I think he might even be able to get a better-paying job. But such a signal would be appropriate for, say, a statesman, a man who understands the meaning of respect for others, the meaning of personal dignity. After all, when he came out today and said those words, what did he look like, what was the president's body language like? He looked, excuse me, like a beaten dog. It was clear he didn't believe what he was reading, but he was reading it because that was the narrative he had adopted. But if he came out and said: " People are fallible, I'm a human being like everyone else. Well, we are human beings. Well, there isn't. Let him who isn't fallible pick up the first stone and cast it. Let him who hasn't done something, who hasn't made a mistake, pick up the first stone and cast it. Then let him who hasn't done something wrong, and sometimes perhaps unworthy, pick up the first stone and cast it: Well, that's who we are, that's who people are, that's who we are." But he should have come out and said: "I take it on the chin because I'm a man. I take it on the chin. I apologize. I apologize. First of all, where is he? I apologize. In general, the speeches of the president and the women who spoke, Madam Vice President, should have started with that. I apologize, I apologize. No, I didn't know." Perhaps I didn't know, perhaps I did, but I underestimated the information. Perhaps I was afraid, perhaps I was stressed, didn't know how to solve it, perhaps I didn't believe it. But I'm sorry, I'll start with sorry. The same with those MPs dealing with mileage allowances, from left to right. Not all of them, because several didn't take a single złoty. Where was the word "sorry"? Who came out and said sorry, sorry, because we, ladies and gentlemen, say "he took mileage allowances." What does "he took mileage allowances" mean? Well, if you took mileage allowances that aren't yours, then you have to say it's theft. After all, if I take something that isn't mine, that doesn't belong to me, then it's theft. Well, maybe they're thieves. What are you getting offended about? What's there to be offended about? There's nothing to be offended about. If you took money, you took resources that don't belong to you, then you have no reason to be offended by the word "thief." It's a word from the Polish dictionary that defines a strictly defined range of behaviors. So what's there to be offended about? How many of these MPs, Professor? There's one more thing here, because you're a professional lawyer, and I'd like to ask about it. I'm not, I'm a journalist . But I do have some legal basis. Since when does a prosecutor decide whether a witness is bad or good, and the Prime Minister does the same? Well, in my opinion, that was a scandalous statement. Unless, correct me if I'm wrong, it's Mr. Donald Tusk. And in general, the prosecutor himself, the spokesman for the prosecutor's office, did something shocking to me. Because the man who went on TV had several hours to find his legal representative, a lawyer, an advocate. He failed to do so and refused, because he has the right to refuse to testify. I mean, not to refuse to testify, but to say that until I have a lawyer, then I'll be happy to answer questions, and precisely in the company of my legal representative. He has the right to ask for a postponement of the hearing, and so on. And here, they took him for a gangster. Yes, that's how I perceived it. How did you see it? Oh, it started even earlier. I don't know if you noticed, doctor, when you entered the prosecutor's office building. First, excuse my phrasing, but I have the right to my opinion, some of the media attacked him. They attacked him aggressively. Do you have evidence? Do you really have evidence? Will you show it? Or was the suggestion made this way? That's how I perceive it , and I have the right to my own opinion that the suggestion was to perhaps discredit this man and expose him in the wider media space, that he hadn't presented evidence here and now, therefore there is none. And how was he supposed to behave when he entered the prosecutor's office, de facto, secretariat, suddenly pulling out—I don't know—recordings, sheets of paper? Documents, etc., etc., and showing it to the media. But what kind of tone was there, please? I mean that tone. That matters. I was carefully observing the microphone cubes, right? And I encourage everyone to look at those cubes, because it might be worth drawing conclusions from them. There wasn't, there wasn't the attitude that, in my opinion, there should be. A person comes along and discovers a certain situation that the entire country knows about. Because let's not pretend—well, what the doctor said isn't something the average person on the street wouldn't know. Because that's the starting point, because suddenly we're making a big fuss because the doctor came and said what, I don't know, several dozen percent, I won't say 100%, but maybe 70%of the Polish population says at the family table. What 70%of the Polish population knows, they don't know. The authorities don't know, the mayor of Warsaw doesn't know. And I emphasize this again: I don't mean to attack the mayor politically, because that's not political at all. After all, that's pretense. After all, how long can we pretend we don't see what we talk about every day, how the health service works ? It's not unique. I guarantee it will happen again. I'm not even commenting on the prosecutor's office's behavior, because, you know, why comment on what everyone has already assessed? It was, to put it mildly, disgraceful and unprofessional. It's like saying nothing. I'm at a loss for words because of what I saw there. The Prime Minister's post. The second one, because the first one was an hour earlier, he was very cautious. Only with the second one, some advisors, false advisors to the Prime Minister, suggested that we might be going on the offensive after all, that it's better to attack, that you defend yourself by attacking. Well, after that post, the Prime Minister, that's exactly what I was getting at, that he should take a stand and resign. To say this: "Dear Poles, I can't manage the country. I have a record increase in unemployment for 24 years. For 24 years, there hasn't been such a series of months in which unemployment has only increased. Within a year, 134,000 people lost their jobs officially, and unofficially , I believe twice as many lost their jobs. 267,000 companies went bankrupt or were suspended, so to be completely precise, 267,000 companies went bankrupt or were suspended in one year and one quarter. Now take a map of Poland and fill it with 267,000 pins. And imagine that each pin had, for example, 10 employees. I'm taking out a loan, I'm putting the state in debt, just like the previous prime minister. This is not political either. We're stating the facts. I'm putting the state in debt at a record level. However, Now, it must be admitted that this debt is drastically greater, because we also have to give the previous government credit for this, purely mathematically, again not politically, that there was a period when the state's internal debt was falling, but now it has risen to record levels. Well, I can't manage the state. I wanted to do it well, I had 100 specifics, 100 ideas for 100 specifics. I can't manage this. Perhaps I'm tired, perhaps I'm no longer suited for this, perhaps I used to be more suited, but I'm giving it up because I'm a statesman. It shows that I'm a statesman. I can afford to say," I apologize, citizens. "I keep coming back to this:" I apologize, citizens, " because, you see, you asked me about the prosecutor's office's behavior. Well, if the prosecutor had thought he should have said," Thank you, doctor, for coming, because we should have received this information earlier, and we should have been doing certain work together with the police and other law enforcement agencies, In this Central Anticorruption Bureau, and we should— at most here—we apologize for summoning you, doctor, at such extraordinary speed, but in reality, we thank you because you have accomplished something unimaginably important for society. You were willing to share the problems that concern us all, because the more money an individual misappropriates, the more of the money we earn disappears, the less we have for sidewalks, the less we have for treatment, the less we have for all the goods we need as a society. Thank you for coming. That's where we should start. We sincerely thank you, doctor. Of course, we will verify whether you really told the truth, whether everything is correct, but we sincerely thank you and apologize for the extraordinary speed. What? Why isn't this happening? Why don't MPs apologize for misappropriating our mileage allowance money? Why not misappropriate it without apologizing for flying recklessly from, for example, Krakow to Warsaw? Why doesn't the prosecutor apologize, doesn't he thank the man, the citizen, who came and, in the name of us, the Lord, each of our viewers who are alive, is listening? After all, this doctor took on a burden, a responsibility, a burden, an enormous stress—it's certainly stress on his part. He took it so that we, the people , us ordinary people, every commoner like us, a plankton in the best sense of the word like us, here in the ditches, in the village—in my village , right, consisting of a dozen or so houses—would be better off, so that our loved ones would be better off, so that our children would be better off in the future. He took it upon himself and received no thanks. Why? Because there is a breakdown on a spiritual level. This is the real problem. That's really what this is about. There is a breakdown in understanding the Ten Commandments, a breakdown that runs deep within us. On the level of religion, we don't say which one, we don't divide, we connect ecumenically, even to religion, but there is a breakdown. That's the point. That's why they don't apologize when they should apologize, and that's why they don't say thank you when they should. That's the foundation of this problem. And whether the prosecutor had this procedure, or says it is this way or that, you know, that's an entirely different matter. The fact that they can't treat me like a witness. Well, I've appeared as a witness many times. Well, I've appeared as a witness in various cases many times. I don't recall anyone treating me this way during an interview or judging my interviews. I come as a witness and in the best of faith I testify to what I know, as much as I know, and that's it. And no one has the right to judge the source of my motivations, especially since the doctor himself went through a full stop there. Um, Professor, we'll put a full stop there. And as for the program, if you'd like, we'll devote a separate program to entrepreneurs, how it is, how entrepreneurs were—excuse me, commuted—and that I hope they've woken up. We'll take your word for it, because I thought they'd wake up after the first year of the so-called most common disease in the world, but they didn't. So I'd like to return to this thread. And thank you very much for today's conversation, because you simply put it all very nicely. Professor Mariusz Miąsko, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw, lawyer , entrepreneur, and academic teacher. There are many more terms on your website describing what you do. I call it "Man of the Band." Thank you very much, Professor, for the conversation. Thank you all. I encourage you to support me, to subscribe, like, share, comment, and share this conversation. I also encourage you to subscribe to the channel. I encourage you to support me. You can buy us coffee, you can support us in other ways, but I encourage you to support us with a fundraiser, because we want to report on Jedwne and , of course, Domostawa, because those who fought against the monument want to come this year and enjoy the political benefits. After all, the tide has turned when it comes to Ukraine, because they've finally opened their eyes to its Banderite ideology. I'm asking for your support. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Professor. See you soon. Goodbye.