Good morning, good evening. Hello and welcome . Welcome to another program. Well, today there is scandal, scandal, scandal. Well, what's happening is everywhere. People talk about it, but on the other hand you didn't know it, just like in the Banderz in Ukraine you saw it was there, everyone would have seen it and pretended it was there. Well, we'll talk about that today with a man who tells it like it is. I'm not really wondering why it only occurred to me now to invite the professor here. It just kind of happened that way, but I'm so glad we can talk today, at least remotely. My guest is Professor Mariusz Miąsko, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw. Lawyer, entrepreneur, academic teacher. This can be enumerated, but above all I call you, Professor, a man who says what. Welcome. Good morning. Hello Mr. Editor, hello ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to be able to talk to Mr. Editor and address the noble and respectable audience of Mr. Editor. Thank you very much for these kind words. Before we get into specifics, I would just like to ask you, my dears, to subscribe, like, share, and comment on what you, Professor, and I will be talking about. I also encourage you to support. You can buy us coffee, you can support us in other ways, and I would like you, my dears, to support us, because July is coming and 10/11 are very important events in the history of Poland and very important events in the history of the fight for truth. So first the silk one, and then, of course, the home delivery, because as you know what's happening on the Warsaw line, I'm going to ask you to support the collection. In the description of the material there is a link to how you can support yourself. We will go with the camera to Jedwabne and to Domstawa. I want to show everything, record everything, and of course then present it to you, so I encourage you to do so. In the description of the material there is a link to the screenshot from above. Thank you. Professor, you are surprised by this scandal, are n't you? And I don't think I know if anyone in Poland is surprised by this scandal. Can anyone in Poland still be surprised by a scandal after all that has been happening since 1989? Can anyone be surprised by anything? No, I don't think so. You would probably have to have just been born, woken up or come to Poland and be deprived of all this reflection and this package of experiences from 1989 to be surprised at all. However, it seems to me that we really need this scandal. We needed her very much as a society. Just like this KSE was very necessary for us as entrepreneurs. Ksew has incredibly motivated entrepreneurs to take grassroots direct democracy actions. And this scandal seems to me to be incredibly necessary for the rest of society, because it seems to me that entrepreneurs have already come to their senses, because they have been pressured over the last few years by successive governments, to be clear. Not only this government, but successive governments are being squeezed in unimaginable ways , they are being treated like a resource, like a quasi-colony to be completely explored, but entrepreneurs have also sobered up. Entrepreneurs already know what is happening and how governments treat them. That is why they are currently mobilizing on a gigantic scale. We will perhaps talk about this when the editor would like to expand on this topic, or allow me to expand on it, but I think that this scandal is very much needed for the rest of society to see how we are treated. Well, what is it, what is it, what is this scandal about? This scandal is essentially, in my opinion, about the lack of any values. This means that after 1989, attempts were made to erase from our society all reflexes of decency based on the Ten Commandments. This is both on and on spirituality. I'm not talking about religion as such , because that's a very individual and very personal and very intimate matter, I would say, but the point is that the elements of spirituality and religiosity as such have been wiped from us. And there is no emptiness, there is no void. Where there is no religion, where there are no values, anti-values ​​enter. And that's what this scandal is about. It is essentially about something very fundamental, namely about depriving us of the elementary values ​​contained in our particular religion in the Ten Commandments, but on the basis of human rights contained in the right to dignity, because if not everyone is religious, then it is on the basis of human rights . 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 did not perform, work they did not do, they are the ones who deprive themselves of dignity , not us. They deprive themselves in the name of money, in the name of some temporary good. they trade in values, their values, they trade in these values, they get rid of these values in the name of momentary convenience. This is what this scandal is really about. Of course, in political terms it has its own level, its own dimension, but it is about the basic lack of values ​​in a certain part of society. This is a process that is ongoing. He is so 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 from time to time to regain our balance. It's like this, you see, often the body is overwhelmed, it falls into a state of illness and then gets sick, the person feels bad, but then recovers from this illness and we almost always feel so much stronger, more refreshed after this, after this illness. And what's more, the disease very often immunizes against another, bigger disease. And in connection with the above, of course, there is some kind of parallel, but we understand that, 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 detached themselves from reality for a moment. I do n't want to offend anyone here, because it would be very bad if we treated everyone, for example doctors, like emblok. It would be disastrous if we did it that way. This would be, first of all , unfair and unjust, but certain tendencies are all too clear. Certain tendencies and directions are all too clear. And this scandal had to happen sooner or later. She had to come forward because we all use the health service, we all use state institutions, because it is not the only, it is not a scandal that defines the state of the health service. It defines the state of the state as such. It defines what kind of anti-state we have. We have an anti-state because for this scandal to happen, the so-called political circles had to refuse to notice it and accept it. That means the services must not have wanted to see or notice her. The police must not have seen it, the prosecutor's office must not have wanted to see it, the directors of state institutions must not have wanted to see it. This is a scandal about the state of the country as a whole. That's what this scandal is about. But what else is this scandal about? This is a scandal about a lack of reflection on who owns this money and who appropriates it. For example, politicians with mileage allowances. Who is taking it from whom? Who are some doctors taking from? It is very important to say that some doctors receive outrageous salaries without doing their job . By not doing the work, because we do not regret the work well done, but only the work not done . So who are they taking from? Well, they do n't take money from the budget. Well, they don't take anything from the minister. Well, they don't take it from the hospital, nor do they take it from the National Health Fund. They are taking it from us. And who are we? they take away from us entrepreneurs and employees of companies that generate this money, because there is no such thing as money in the budget coming from the ministry or from the National Health Fund. There is no such thing. There are basically only two boxes, two sources of funding for the budget. the first one at the level of 85%, and I say that even 90-something percent and I have good arguments for this, then these are the 90% of the budget, these are the money earned by companies and company employees. Not only private companies, but also state-owned companies, but also companies and company employees. We still have about, say, 10, maybe 15%. These are funds actually developed from customs duties, for example from the customs duties on goods that flow into or enter the Polish economic system. from other smaller sources, but all this money in the sense that this is hyperbole, all that, let 's say, between 85 and 90 percent is generated by us, entrepreneurs and employees working in enterprises, i.e. 10 million people. So what is this scandal about? The scandal is about the fact that we as a society, as entrepreneurs, as employees of entrepreneurs, we worked out a budget and from this budget came a number of people who were not clever, not even cunning, but rather a number of unworthy people, deprived of those who, who deprived themselves of dignity and took the money that we invested. for utilitarian purposes into a box called the state budget. And such people are, for example, politicians who came for the mileage allowance, because they did not steal any of the Sejm's budget. They took money that belongs to us and was earned by us . And so too, those unworthy ones, possibly doctors or politicians, who knew, if they knew, that some doctors were receiving unjustified remuneration, allowed this money to be taken from the budget that we had worked for, employers and employees of companies . And now we're saying that someone charged too much mileage. Someone downloaded too much, Professor, Professor. Okay, so I'm going to ask you a question that will put you in a difficult situation. Do you think they knew? I'm talking about Trzaskowski here, I'm talking here because what Mr. Arukowicz did, I think on Channel Zero, was beyond anyone's imagination, and I have a question: do people see it, because you and I see it, but is there really a chance that they will finally see it? Well, Barałkowicz says that with the woman he worked closely with, when he was responsible for health issues, with people he worked with in the field of, let's call it, health services, he says: "I don't know these people." Do people see this hypocrisy? They see with their very eyes that they are lying, that they are simply, well, excuse me for saying this, maybe it's too strong, but they are spitting in our faces. Do people see your opinion? And did they know about it? And why so strong that they spit in our faces? I mean, the mayor of Warsaw comes out today at the city council and says that he didn't know, and he didn't take the content of the notification that he received seriously only because it wasn't signed. Even if it wasn't signed, and there were so many details, it would probably be more than enough to verify its credibility. If the mayor of one of the largest cities in the world comes out and says that he did not know after receiving information and does not react just because there was no signature, it is no less of an offense on his part than if he knew and did not react. is exactly more or less the same, not suitable for management. If, in the formal and actual sense, he manages the city of Warsaw, if he received a signal, he received a signal personally, and he said so today, this is not an assumption, he said it himself at the council, but he did not react because the content he received was not signed, but he received the content itself, he received the information itself and did not react, which means that he is not suitable for management. should resign. Why is the opposition calling or anyone, because it's not about the opposition at all, whoever is calling for the resignation of the vice president, the vice president and the vice president. After all, the president should resign. In my opinion, if the situation is as dramatic as it is, and I don't mean just this hospital, because this hospital is just an element that completes the picture of a bankrupt anti-state, one that takes out 1 billion in loans a day, that pays 100 billion in interest annually, while we only have a 500 billion budget, that is racking up massive debt and has incurred further debt, we have incurred further liabilities. This is just an image of the lack of competence to manage 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, 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 I certainly will not say who I am in politics and I generally believe in the action of the project and political ecumenism and uniting people in projects, not dividing them with some kind of politics. So I confess it. So this is not a political accusation, it is a purely substantive accusation, purely, purely mathematical, I would say. If someone is unable to manage a company or an organization entrusted to him by, for example, society, he must resign, because in a normal company, if he were unable to manage, it would go bankrupt and he would be the only person or the main person harmed at his own risk. But if someone manages a state or a city, he must face the consequences and have honor, because it is a matter of honor. Well, I couldn't manage it. I saw that this information was there, I did not react with agreement, I am not hiding, I am just giving way, because after all, Mr. President Trzaskowski, who as a person, I think is probably a very decent person as a person. If we were to sit down for a coffee, we would probably find out that he's a very nice person, from a human perspective, but he could be the greatest person in the world, but if he holds a public office, then we have to judge him not by how nice, friendly, and pleasant a person he is, not even by how good a person he is, but by how effective he is. Pure pragmatism. he was unable to supervise or exercise control over property, and there is a risk, and perhaps even over the health of patients. And I'm leaving aside this thread related to decency and better treatment of some over others and in, because this too has been de facto decided today at the Warsaw City Council, because the mayor himself said today that of course there was a salon. The only thing is 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. Well, I ca n't believe it. And ladies and gentlemen, I have been running a business for 26 years. I was an employee, an employer, I worked in various institutions. Well, I can't believe that the management didn't know that the hospital had a separate room for special, specific treatment of some patients. Well, I will never believe it. I would 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 this: "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 will not lack bread. I think he could even get a better-paid job. But such a signal would be appropriate for, say, someone like a statesman, someone who understands what respect for others and personal dignity is. After all, when he came out today and said those words , what did the president look like, what was his body language like? He looked, excuse me, like a beaten dog. It was obvious that 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 am also a human being, like everyone else.' Well, we are humans. Well, there is n't. Let he who is without error take the first stone and throw it. Let him who has not done something, who has not made a mistake, pick up the first stone and throw it. So whoever has not done something wrong, and sometimes perhaps unworthy, should also pick up a stone and throw it: Well, that's how we are, that's how people are, that's how 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'm sorry. First of all, where is the excuse? I'm sorry. In general, the speech of the President and the ladies who spoke, Madam Vice President, should have started with this. I'm sorry, I 'm sorry, I didn't know, maybe I didn't know, maybe I did know, but I didn't appreciate the information. Maybe I was afraid, maybe I was stressed, I didn't know how to solve it, maybe I didn't believe it, but I'm sorry. I'm starting with sorry. The same with those MPs with mileage allowances , from left to right. Not all of them, because some didn't take a single zloty. 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 is n't mine, that doesn't belong to me, then it's theft. Well, maybe they are thieves. Why are you offended? What's the point? Take offense? There's nothing to take offense about. If you took money, you took resources that don't belong to you, then you have no reason to take offense at the word " thief." Well, it's a word from the Polish dictionary that defines a strictly defined range of behavior. So what's there to be offended about? How many of these MPs, sir, professor? There 's one more thing here, very much so, because, because you 're a professional lawyer, and I'd like to ask about it. I'm not, I'm a journalist, but I 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, Mr. Donald Tusk and the prosecutor himself, the spokesman for the prosecutor's office, did something shocking for me. Because the man who went on TV had a few hours to find his legal representative, a lawyer, an advocate, and he failed to do so and refused, because he has the right to refuse to testify, meaning not to refuse a subpoena, but to say that he's... When I have a lawyer, then I will be happy to answer questions, and precisely in the company of my legal representative. He has the right to ask for a hearing to be postponed, and so on. And here, he was perceived as 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 when the doctor entered the prosecutor's office building. First, excuse the expression, but I have the right to my opinion. He was attacked by some of the media. Aggressively attacked. Do you have evidence? Do you really have evidence? Will you show it? Or was it a suggestion? 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 here and now he didn't present evidence, so there is none. And how was he supposed to behave when he entered the de facto secretariat at the prosecutor's office, suddenly pulling out, I do n't know, recordings, pieces of paper? Documents, etc., etc., and showing this media outlet. But what kind, please, what kind? There was a tone. I mean that tone. That matters. I was looking closely at the microphone cubes, right, and I encourage everyone to look at what those cubes are like, because perhaps it's worth drawing conclusions from this. There wasn't, there wasn't the attitude that, in my opinion, should be there. A person comes along and discovers a certain situation that the entire country knows about. Because let's not pretend, 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 do n'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 president politically, because that's not political at all. After all, it's pretense. After all, how long can we pretend that we don't see what we're talking about? How is the health service working today? This isn't exceptional. 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. After that post, the Prime Minister, that's exactly what I was getting at, that he should resign. Say this: "Dear Poles, I can't manage the state." I have a record increase in unemployment for 24 years . For 24 years, there has not been such a sequence of months in which unemployment only increased. During the year, 134,000 people lost their jobs officially, and unofficially, I think they lost twice as many. went bankrupt for one year and one quarter went bankrupt 267 thousand companies went bankrupt or were suspended so to be absolutely precise 267 thousand companies in one year and one quarter last went bankrupt or were suspended. Now take a map of Poland and stick 267,000 pins with these pins. And imagine that in each of these high heels there were, for example, 10 employees working. I am taking out a loan, I am putting the state in debt, just like the previous prime minister. This is not political either. We state the facts. I am putting the state in record debt. However, now we must admit that this debt is drastically greater, because we must also give the previous government credit for this, purely mathematically, again not politically, that there was a period in which the internal debt of the state was falling, but now it has increased at a record level. Well, then I can't run the country. I wanted to do well, I had 100 specific things, 100 ideas for 100 specific things. I can't manage it. Perhaps I am tired, perhaps I am no longer fit for this, perhaps I was once more fit for this, but I give it up because I am a statesman. It shows that I am a statesman. I can afford to say, "I'm sorry, citizens." I keep coming back to this: "I'm sorry, citizens," because, you see, you asked me about the behavior of the prosecutor's office. Well, what if the prosecutor thought he should have said and started the interview like this: "Thank you, doctor, for coming, because we should have received this information earlier. And we should have been doing some work together with the police and other law enforcement agencies in this central anti-corruption office, and we should have... at most, we apologize for summoning you at such an extraordinary pace, 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 wrongly appropriates, the more of what 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 have started. We sincerely thank you, doctor. Of course, we will verify whether the doctor really told the truth, whether everything is correct, but we sincerely thank you and apologize for the extraordinary pace. What? Why so? Isn't it? Why do n'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 he apologize, why don't he thank the prosecutor, the man, the citizen who came and, on behalf of us, the Lord, each of our viewers who are alive and listening? After all, this doctor took on a burden, took on responsibility, a burden, stress. It's certainly enormous stress on his part. He took it so that we, ordinary people, every commoner like us, such plankton in the best sense of the word, like us, down here in the dumps, in the countryside, in this village of mine, consisting of a dozen or so houses, could have a better life for people like us, a better life for our loved ones, a better future for our children. He took it upon himself and didn't get thanks. Why? Because there's a breakdown on a spiritual level. This is a real problem. That's really what this is all about. There's a breakdown on a level of understanding. The Ten Commandments, so profound. At the level of religion, we don't say which one, we don't divide, we connect ecumenically also to religion, but there's a breakdown. That's the point. That's why they don't apologize when an apology should have been made, and that's why they don't say thank you when they should have been made. This is the foundation of this problem. And whether the prosecutor had this procedure, or whether the procedure is this or that, you know, is completely different. That they can't treat me as a witness. Well, I've appeared as a witness many times . Well, I've appeared as a witness many times in various cases. I don't recall anyone treating me this way during an interrogation or judging my interrogations. I come as a witness and in best faith I testify 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 went there alone. We'll put 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, by the way. How is it, how entrepreneurs were, excuse me, commuted, and that I hope they woke up. We take your word for it, because I thought they would 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 topic. 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. In general, there are many more descriptions on your website about what you do. I call it "Man of the Orchestra." Thank you very much, Professor, for the conversation. Thank you. I encourage you to support us, to subscribe, like, share, comment, and share this, this conversation. I also encourage you to subscribe to the channel. I encourage you to support us. You can buy us coffee, you can support us in other ways, but I encourage you to support the fundraiser, because we want to report from Jedwne and, of course, from the domostawa, because those who fought against it there This year, they want to come and savour the political glory of the monument, because the tide has changed when it comes to Ukraine, because they've finally opened their eyes to Banderism. I'm asking for your support. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Professor. See you soon. Goodbye.