Podcasts about krzysztof bosak

Moja ocena sprawy mieszkania Karola Nawrockiego jest odrobinę bardziej zniuansowana, niż Sławomira Mentzena - mówi wicemarszałek sejmu Krzysztof Bosak, lider Konfederacji.

Wicemarszałek sejmu Krzysztof Bosak opisuje skutki rządów Koalicji Obywatelskiej dla Polski. Na tym tle nawołuje, by w wyborach głosować na zasadzie "ktokolwiek, byle nie Trzaskowski".

– Wierzymy, że poparcie Konfederacji i Sławomira Mentzena rosło, ale nie ekscytowaliśmy się, gdy osiągnęło ono szczyty. Takie było ustalenie w sztabie, by nie ekscytować się tym. Dwa razy byliśmy w sytuacji, gdy sondaże były dobre, a w dniu wyborów był zimny prysznic. Uważamy, że Mentzen ma szansę na wejście do drugiej tury i pokonanie Trzaskowskiego – mówi wicemarszałek Sejmu Krzysztof Bosak.Gościem programu Jacka Nizinkiewicza #RZECZoPOLITYCE jest Krzysztof Bosak, wicemarszałek Sejmu, poseł Konfederacji, szef Ruchu NarodowegoKup subskrypcję „Rzeczpospolitej” pod adresem: https://czytaj.rp.plWięcej na stronie: https://www.rp.plX: https://x.com/rzeczpospolitaFacebooku: https://www.facebook.com/dziennikrzeczpospolitaLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/rzeczpospolita

"Pycha została ukarana. Wydarzenia po debacie w Końskich pokazują, że Rafał Trzaskowski jest w defensywie, co oznacza, że nie potrafi przewidywać konsekwencji swoich działań, a to oznacza, że nie nadaje się na prezydenta" - podsumował wydarzenia polityczne z ubiegłego tygodnia Krzysztof Bosak w Porannej rozmowie w RMF FM.

Wicemarszałek Sejmu z Konfederacji o piątkowej debacie, zawiadomieniu do prokuratury, farsie i finansowaniu, o działaniach Rosji, reakcji prezydenta Trumpa, składce zdrowotnej i sytuacji na granicy

W Interii dziennikarz napisał, cytuję: Krzysztof Bosak z Konfederacji zgłosił postulat, zgodnie z którym Polakami mogą być tylko te osoby, które będą spełniać, określone przez władze kryteria etniczno-religijne. Koncepcja w zasadzie słuszna, aczkolwiek, tu używam słowa „aczkolwiek”, zamiast chociażby chociaż, bo sprawa poważna, a słowo „aczkolwiek” dzwoni w uszach powagą, kryteria etniczno religijne mogą wzbudzić, może nie w Rosji, ale na świecie, mnóstwo marszczenia brwi. Jak ocenić kto spełnia te wymogi? Czy ateista może zostać Polakiem, albo to muzułmanin, czy niewierzący Żyd islamista? Czy komuś urodzonemu w Polsce, kto przeszedł na islam zostanie zabrane obywatelstwo Polskie i dostanie jakieś inne? Lepszą oceną etniczno religijną byłoby metoda anatomiczna, czyli zbadanie czy dana osoba ma kość krzyżową i stos pacierzowy, czy tam kość pacierzową. Oznaczałoby to, że jest on człowiekiem w dodatku pobożnym. Ale są lepsze kryteria, zamiast etniczno religijnych. Choćby sprawdzić czy dany kandydat na Polaka wymówi Stół z powyłamywanymi nogami...

Wicemarszałek sejmu i poseł Konfederacji Krzysztof Bosak ocenia obecny kierunek rozwoju Unii Europejskiej jako zagrażający polskiej suwerenności. Wyraża nadzieję, że Polacy wreszcie to zrozumieją.

"Nie ekscytujemy się sondażami. Jeśli spojrzymy na wszystkie sondaże, to jest duży rozrzut. Trzeba po prostu ciężko pracować" - w ten sposób Krzysztof Bosak, poseł Konfederacji, skomentował w Porannej rozmowie w RMF FM wyniki sondażu firmy badawczej Opinia24. W badaniu dla RMF FM Sławomir Mentzen uzyskał trzeci wynik, ale przegrywa z Karolem Nawrockim o zaledwie o 0,6 proc. Wicemarszałek powiedział w rozmowie z Tomaszem Terlikowskim, że o zwycięstwie w wyborach prezydenckich zdecydują głosy pokolenia 50+.

Zapraszamy na czwartkowe wydanie "Onet Rano.". Gośćmi Dominiki Długosz będą: Krzysztof Bosak, wicemarszałek Sejmu; Bartłomiej Godusławski, Business Insider Polska; Szymon Piegza, Onet; Natalia Kukulska, wokalistka. Z kolei w części "Onet Rano. WIEM" gośćmi Mikołaja Kunicy będą: Agata Zając i Jaśmina Marczewska, Onet, autorki podcastu "Tu piesek".

Po zakończeniu wojny na Ukrainie Polska wróci do interesów z Rosją jak każde państwo zachodnie – powiedział wicemarszałek Sejmu Krzysztof Bosak w rozmowie z Jackiem Nizinkiewiczem.Gościem programu Jacka Nizinkiewicza #RZECZoPOLITYCE był Krzysztof Bosak, wicemarszałek Sejmu, Konfederacja, prezes Ruchu Narodowego

Wicemarszałek Sejmu o przyjmowaniu migrantów, alkoholu w Sejmie i Senacie oraz o alkomatach, o postawie Polski wobec USA, relacjach z Ukrainą, kampanii wyborczej

W kraju panuje chaos, anarchia i bajzel – mówi Krzysztof Bosak, wicemarszałek Sejmu z Konfederacji. To reakcja na rzekomy „zamach stanu”, którego – według prezesa pseudo-TK – miała dopuścić się Koalicja 15 października. Bardzo ostra wymiana zdań między Kamilą Biedrzycką a politykiem padła w kontekście praw kobiet i aborcji. O co poszło? Posłuchaj całej dyskusji! Oglądaj Express Biedrzyckiej na żywo w serwisie YouTube. Więcej informacji o programie na stronie Super Expressu.

Krzysztof Bosak o próbie doprowadzenia Zbigniewa Ziobry przed komisję ds. Pegasusa, kompromitancji na cały świat, jesli chodzi o systey wywiadowcze, o koalicji z PiS, kampanii prezydenckiej i planach Konfederacji

Krzysztof Bosak uważa Grzegorza Brauna za idealistę. Życzy mu powodzenia w wyborach prezydenckich, ale wspiera Sławomira Mentzena i zapowiada rywalizację z liderem Konfederacji Korony Polskiej.

Czemu Konfederacja znalazła się w tej sytuacji? Czy można było tego uniknąć, gdyby odbyły się prawybory? Dlaczego się nie odbyły? Czemu Braun zdecydował się na start? Podłoże to bardziej różnice ideowe czy rywalizacja o miejsca i zasoby? Konfederacja rzeczywiście stała się mniej prawicowa czy to nieprawda? Braun zostanie wyrzucony z Konfederacji? Jak mocno szkodzi to kandydaturze Sławomira Mentzena? Czy koalicja przetrwa do wyborów parlamentarnych, ważniejszych niż prezydenckie? Jakie byłyby konsekwencje wystawienia kilku list do Sejmu? Ruch Narodowy i Krzysztof Bosak mogą pogodzić Mentzena i Brauna? O tym dyskutowali w Przeglądzie Politycznym Damian Adamus, Rafał Buca i Kacper Kita

– Polscy politycy stroszą piórka w Polsce, natomiast w świecie dobrze wiedzą, gdzie jest ich miejsce. Moim zdaniem wychodzi tu taki półkolonialny status Polski wobec Stanów Zjednoczonych – powiedział wicemarszałek Sejmu Krzysztof Bosak w rozmowie z Jackiem Nizinkiewiczem. Gościem programu Jacka Nizinkiewicza #RZECZoPOLITYCE był Krzysztof Bosak, wicemarszałek Sejmu, Konfederacja, prezes Ruchu Narodowego Więcej na stronie: rp.pl Twitterze: twitter.com/rzeczpospolita Facebooku: facebook.com/dziennikrzeczpospolita Linkedin: linkedin.com/company/rzeczpospolita/

A jego areszt wynika z chęci zemsty. Poseł powinien odpowiadać z wolnej stopy - mówi wicemarszałek Sejmu, komentując udzielenie azylu politycznego Marcinowi Romanowskiemu na Węgrzech.  Krzysztof Bosak relacjonuje swoje spotkania z europejskimi liderami, którzy są zaskoczeni tym, co dzieje się w Polsce, w kontekście różnorodnych nadużyć, które nie są dostatecznie nagłaśniane w mediach. Zdaniem gościa "Poranka Wnet" ujawniają, jak Polska staje się punktem odniesienia w debatach o praworządności w całej Europie, porównywaną do takiego „poligonu doświadczalnego”. Ponadto, rozmówca Krzysztofa Skowrońskiego odnosi się do bieżących prac Sejmu, w tym do zapowiadanych wyborów prezydenckich i pomysłu na „reset konstytucyjny”, który miałby zakończyć trwający spór o praworządność w Polsce.Obóz Donalda Tuska nie ma żadnej czytelnej strategii i nie dąży do kompromisu, dlatego ten spór o praworządność w Polsce będzie trwał i trwał - uważa Krzysztof Bosak. Wicemarszałek Sejmu uważa, że zmiany w konstytucji powinny być zgodne z wolą społeczeństwa, co może zostać potwierdzone w formie referendum.Gość "Poranka Wnet" komentuje obecny kształt  Sądu Najwyższego oraz jego działania, które są postrzegane jako wyniki eksperymentów instytucjonalnych prowadzonych przez PiS. W tym kontekście Krzysztof Bosak podkreśla, że konieczne są zmiany, które będą zgodne z prawem oraz będą miały na celu poprawę sytuacji w wymiarze sprawiedliwości w Polsce, unikając jednocześnie ponownej rewolucji politycznej.

Krzysztof Bosak o resecie konstytucyjnem, łamaniu prawa przez PKW i ministra finansów, o wyborach prezydenckich, cenach masła i ciężkim kryzysie gospodarczym

[AUTOPROMOCJA] Pełnej wersji podcastu posłuchasz w aplikacji Onet Audio  Były szef ABW Piotr Pogonowski został w poniedziałek doprowadzony na posiedzenie komisji śledczej ds. Pegasusa. Wcześniej były szef ABW nie stawił się trzykrotnie na posiedzenie komisji, powołując się na wrześniowy wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego uznający prace komisji za niekonstytucyjne. Po zasięgnięciu opinii ekspertów prawnych, komisja stwierdziła, że sytuacja kwalifikuje się do zastosowania środków przymusu w postaci przymusowego doprowadzenia świadka, z czym zgodził się Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie i do takiego doprowadzenia świadka doszło w poniedziałek.   Bartosz Węglarczyk, mówiąc o posiedzeniu komisji śledczej, zwrócił uwagę na to, że były szef ABW nie wie, co to jest Pegasus, nie wie nawet kiedy dostał stopień oficerski. Naczelnemu bardzo podobało się, kiedy Pogonowski uniósł się i naprawdę zdenerwował, kiedy dostał pytanie o to, kiedy zaczął pracować w służbach. Powiedział wtedy, że to nie jest praca, to jest służba! Niestety zawartość tego przesłuchania była żadna. Piotr Pogonowski ma słabą pamięć i jego zeznania niczego nie wyjaśniają.   Ostatnio dużo mówiło się o wykształceniu Szymona Hołowni. Lider Polski 2050, studiował na Collegium Humanum — napisał w środę "Newsweek". Według ustaleń dziennikarzy, byli pracownicy uczelni mówili, że widzieli nazwisko Marszałka na liście studentów, a jego oceny i dokumenty były wpisane do systemu informatycznego obsługującego dydaktykę na wyższej uczelni, choć — według informatorów tygodnika, Hołownia nigdy tak naprawdę nie studiował i "miał po prostu otrzymać dyplom ukończenia studiów magisterskich" na podstawie zaliczeń i ocen otrzymanych wcześniej podczas studiów na SWPS, a także "życzliwości byłego rektora Pawła Cz.". Szymon Hołownia, dementując te doniesienia oświadczył, że złożył wniosek o przyjęcie na studia, ale ich nie podjął.   Naczelni zwrócili uwagę na to, że Szymon Hołownia szybko zapomniał, że był dziennikarzem i teraz tak szybko biegnie w stronę oskarżania dziennikarzy, że są na usługach służb specjalnych. Osoby na świeczniku powinny się spodziewać, że ich przeszłość budzi zawsze zaciekawienie i nie potrzeba do tego służb specjalnych. Ludzie chętniej rozmawiają z dziennikarzami na temat kandydatów na prezydenta i dzielą się wiedzą na temat ich przeszłości i lider Polski 2050 powinien o tym wiedzieć. Kolejną osobą, która miała związki z Collegium Humanum, jest Krzysztof Bosak, wicemarszałek Sejmu, który w rozmowie z Marcinem Zawadą w Onet Rano przyznał, że przez dwa semestry był studentem tej uczelni, ale jej nie skończył. Co ciekawe jeszcze parę miesięcy temu twierdził, że nie podjął studiów na Collegium Humanum.   Bartosz Węglarczyk i Tomasz Sekielski żartowali, że w kontekście ostatnich wypowiedzi marszałka Hołowni, można stwierdzić, że rewelacje dotyczące związków z Collegium Humanum naszych marszałków Sejmu, to wspólny spisek Jarosława Kaczyńskiego i Donalda Tuska, którzy, aby mieć Polskę tylko dla siebie, próbują zniszczyć Bosaka i Hołownię.   Problemy wizerunkowe w ostatnim czasie miał również Karol Nawrocki. W najnowszym odcinku podcastu Stan Wyjątkowy, Andrzej Stankiewicz i Kamil Dziubka, ujawnili wewnętrzny raport Prawa i Sprawiedliwości, dotyczący osoby Karola Nawrockiego i jego kontrowersyjnych znajomości. Naczelni w związku z tym, mają kilka pytań do kandydata obywatelskiego. Chcieliby wiedzieć, czy utrzymuje on kontakty z tymi osobami, czy podziela ich poglądy i w jakich okolicznościach się z nimi poznał?   Na koniec Naczelni wyrażają ubolewanie, że na prawicy kłócą się o pieniądze i o to, która zbiórka jest ważniejsza, a Szymon Hołownia nie dogadał się z Piotrem Dudą w sprawie wynajęcia historycznej Sali BHP na inaugurację prekampanii prezydenckiej.   Zapraszamy na kolejny odcinek Naczelnych oraz zachęcamy do słuchania podcastu w każdy poniedziałek o godz. 19.00 na stronie Onetu, a także w aplikacji Onet Audio. Zapraszamy również do pisania do Naczelnych na adres naczelni@onet.pl.

W pierwszej części Expressu Biedrzyckiej z 28 listopada gościem jest wicemarszałek Sejmu Krzysztof Bosak z Konfederacji, z którym rozmawia Kamila Biedrzycka. Posłuchaj całej dyskusji!Oglądaj Express Biedrzyckiej na żywo w serwisie YouTube.Więcej informacji o programie na stronie Super Expressu.

Krzysztof Bosak: Konfederacja nie jest od zaspokajania oczekiwań sondażowni

Wicemarszałek sejmu Krzysztof Bosak (Konfederacja) wyraża satysfakcję z przebiegu Marszu Niepodległości. Kieruje również wezwanie pod adresem biorących udział w uroczystości polityków PiS.

Jak podkreśla wicemarszałek Sejmu, zakup nowoczesnego uzbrojenia nie wystarczy - niezbędne jest wyszkolenie wykwalifikowanych kadr do zarządzania tymi zasobami

Rząd Donalda Tuska nie zdaje egzaminu. Widać wyraźnie, że nie ma żadnego programowego ani przywódczego spoiwa poza byciem anty-PiS. Nic dobrego z tego wyniknąć nie mogło - ocenił w rozmowie z Jackiem Nizinkiewiczem wicemarszałek Sejmu Krzysztof Bosak.Gościem porannego programu Jacka Nizinkiewicza był Krzysztof Bosak, poseł Konfederacji, wicemarszałek Sejmu, prezes Ruchu Narodowego. Polityk zapytany został między innymi o bilans zysków i strat rok po wyborach parlamentarnych. - Wydaje mi się, że jest niewesoły – ocenił. - Jest ogromny chaos w rządzeniu państwem – ma to wymiar gospodarczy, sektora prywatnego, inwestycji publicznych, perspektyw energetycznych i gospodarki budżetowej, gdzie w przyszły rok wejdziemy z absolutnie wyjątkowym deficytem w wysokości prawie 300 miliardów. To równowartość tego, jak kiedyś zadłużaliśmy się przez dekadę. Mimo że nie trwa jakiś szczególny kryzys, wojna czy pandemia – powiedział Bosak. - Mamy też ogromny kryzys w tych sprawach, w których rząd zapowiadał, że będzie coś poprawiał – na przykład praworządność, sądownictwo, prokuratura, sektor służb mundurowych. To wszystko leży, co pokazała powódź. Dodatkowo powódź obnażyła niezdolność państwa do zarządzania kryzysowego i niezdolność do udzielania pomocy – dodał. - Wbrew zapowiedziom nie mamy też żadnej poprawy pozycji Polski w UE. Opowiadano, że kiedy do władzy dojdzie rzekomo światła i proeuropejska część polskiej sceny politycznej, to pozycja Polski w UE się poprawi. Nic takiego nie nastąpiło. Silne państwa unijne postępują wobec Polski arogancko i narzucają nam swoje interesy dokładnie tak, jak miało to miejsce wcześniej. Nawet wszystkie pieniądze z KPO nie zostały odblokowane, a te, które zostały, to zostały odblokowane na niekorzystnych dla nas zasadach. Dla mnie bilans tego roku to jest jedno wielkie rozczarowanie i z dużym niepokojem należy patrzeć w przyszłość - zaznaczył Krzysztof Bosak.- Rząd Donalda Tuska nie zdaje egzaminu. Widać wyraźnie, że nie ma żadnego programowego ani przywódczego spoiwa poza byciem anty-PiS. Nic dobrego z tego wyniknąć nie mogło. Tam, gdzie są elementy normalności czy zachowania racji stanu, to są te obszary, gdzie jest jakaś kontynuacja w ramach administracji. Uważam, że ten rząd to jest katastrofa dla Polski i niecierpliwie czekam roku 2027 i wyborów - ocenił Bosak. - W pierwszym roku po wyborach odsłania się swoje plany i strategię rządzenia. Nie da się wszystkiego oczywiście zrealizować, ale zaczyna się pewne rzeczy. Jeżeli popatrzymy, co ten rząd zaczął, jakie plany odsłonił i jaką strategię rządzenia zaprezentował, to jest jedno wielkie nic - podkreślił. - To jest kabaret. Oczywiście, że w rok nie da się zbudować atomu, CPK, uregulować Odry, zmodernizować służb. Ale można zacząć. Ten rząd niczego nie zaczął, a wiele opóźnił, zepsuł i spotęgował chaos wygenerowany przez ostatni rząd - ocenił polityk. Krzysztof Bosak mówił także o polityce migracyjnej. - Strategia rządu nie ma podstawowych elementów strategii – kwantyfikowanych celów do osiągnięcia, ścieżek dojścia do tych celów, zakreślonych terminów, określenia kamieni milowych i instrumentów, które trzeba stworzyć na poziomie legislacyjnym, budżetowym czy nawet kulturowym. Co to w ogóle ma być? – pytał Bosak. - Obecnie premier i minister spraw wewnętrznych na stanowisko wiceministra odpowiedzialnego za kwestie migracyjne powołali naukowca, profesora zajmującego się daną tematyką. Tak to jest, że naukowcy lubią czasem pisać różne materiały, to jest część ich pracy. Profesor Duszczyk, który jest wiceministrem, napisał materiał. Natomiast w tym materiale nie ma elementów, które są elementami strategii - powiedział wicemarszałek Sejmu. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wicemarszałek Sejmu RP Krzysztof Bosak mówi, że od początku roku Niemcy przekazali do Polski ponad 500 nielegalnych migrantów. Polityk przewiduje, że bezpieczeństwo Polaków będzie się zmniejszać.

W pierwszej części Expressu Biedrzyckiej z 1 października gościem jest wicemarszałek Sejmu Krzysztof Bosak, z którym rozmawia Kamila Biedrzycka. Posłuchaj całej dyskusji!Oglądaj Express Biedrzyckiej na żywo w serwisie YouTube.Więcej informacji o programie na stronie Super Expressu.

"Wczorajsza debata trwała 7 godzin. Wszystko po to, by zmęczyć publiczność, żebyśmy nie pytali o kluczowe fakty - powiedział Krzysztof Bosak, poseł Konfederacji, wicemarszałek Sejmu w Porannej rozmowie w RMF FM. Jak dodał, rząd ma sporo do ukrycia, a premier unika wskazania winnych za brak przygotowania do powodzi. "W mojej ocenie sztab był operacją PR-ową, obliczoną na marketingowe efekty" - podsumował gość Roberta Mazurka.

Burmistrz Głuchołaz o najpielniejszych produktach, ogromnych zniszczeniach powodziowych. Krzysztof Bosak o komisji śledczej, która powinna powstać po powodzi

Nieprofesjonalny prokurator, który podjął decyzję o przeszukaniu siedziby Stowarzyszenia Marsz Niepodległości nie pofatygował się nawet na miejsce czynności - mówi wicemarszałek sejmu Krzysztof Bosak w Poranku Radia Wnet.

Kilka dni temu Krzysztof Bosak ogłosił, że poprze Sławomira Mentzena jako kandydata Konfederacji na prezydenta

W rozmowie z Jaśminą Nowak polityk Konfederacji Krzysztof Bosak mówi m.in. o kampanii prezydenckiej, kandydaturze Sławomira Mentzena i propozycji wspólnego kandydata, złożonej Prawu i Sprawiedliwości.

Krzysztof Bosak: Dwa scenariusze na wybory. Wspólny kandydat z PiS?

Krzysztof Bosak nie wyklucza, że Donald Tusk będzie kandydatem Koalicji Obywatelskiej w wyborach prezydenckich, ponieważ może chcieć zrewanżować się za porażkę z Lechem Kaczyńskim. We wtorek Bosak ma ogłosić decyzję w sprawie swojej kandydatury.Krzysztof Bosak zapowiedział, że we wtorek ogłosi swoją decyzję w sprawie możliwości startu w wyborach prezydenckich.Wicemarszałek Sejmu jest przekonany, że nie dojdzie do sytuacji, by dwóch polityków Konfederacji startowało w wyborach prezydenckich. Jak wskazał Jacek Nizinkiewicz, do takiej sytuacji mogłoby dojść, gdyby np. Sławomir Mentzen zdecydował się na prowadzenie kampanii mimo porażki w prawyborach.- Jesteśmy poważnymi i dojrzałymi politykami, którzy rozmawiają ze sobą i ustalają strategię działania. Samo rozważanie takiego scenariusza jest zupełnie niepotrzebne i nikt w Konfederacji tego nie rozważa — odpowiedział Bosak.Pytany o możliwość startu Grzegorza Brauna, poseł Konfederacji odpowiedział, że każdy w partii, kto spełnia kryteria konstytucyjne, ma prawo rozważać swoją kandydaturę. - Pomiędzy rozważaniem a decyzją o wystawieniu kogoś jest bardzo duża różnica. Rozważamy najróżniejsze scenariusze, bo nie wiemy jeszcze, co zrobi konkurencja, kogo wystawi PiS, PSL, Polska 2050, KO i Lewica. Mamy same niewiadome i w tym kontekście musimy podejmować decyzje i będziemy to robić - mówił.Pozostając w temacie wyborów prezydenckich, Bosak został zapytany, kto, w jego ocenie, będzie kandydatem Koalicji Obywatelskiej — Donald Tusk czy Rafał Trzaskowski. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Krzysztof Bosak o złamaniu konstytucji przez Donalda Tuska, "niebezpiecznej dla Polski umowie polsko-ukraińskiej", Konfederacji w PE i część posłów z AfD, planach Konfederacji, szczycie NATO i obronności

[WSPÓŁPRACA REKLAMOWA] Mikołaj Kunica zaprasza na środowe wydanie "Onet Rano.". Jego gośćmi będą: Krzysztof Bosak, wicemarszałek Sejmu, Konfederacja; Marek Józefiak, Greenpeace Polska; Waldemar Siwiński, Prezes - Założyciel Fundacji Edukacyjnej Perspektyw; Piotr Stelmach, dziennikarz muzyczny. W części "Onet Rano. WIEM" gośćmi Odety Moro będą: Michał Mikołajczyk, Członek Zarządu Głównego PCK oraz Małgorzata Mejer, Procter&Gamble. 

Krzysztof Bosak o żołnierzach na ranicy, zaklejanej amunicji, naciskach z góry, wyborach do PE, planach Konfedercji i o sojuszach

Show Notes and Transcript Mike Yardley joins Hearts of Oak to discuss his varied background, including military service and journalism, addressing censorship in contemporary Britain, particularly concerning vaccines and lockdowns. We examine the impact of censorship on free speech, social media algorithms, and the consequences of opposing mainstream narratives.  The conversation delves into declining democracy, globalist agendas, and the suppression of individual liberties.  Mike highlights concerns about powerful entities controlling public discourse and a lack of open debate on critical issues.  We end on political changes in Europe and the necessity of open discussions to tackle societal issues, particularly the significance of critical thinking, diverse perspectives, and unrestricted dialogue to shape a better future. Mike Yardley is well known as a sporting journalist, shooting instructor, and hunter and has written and broadcast extensively on all aspects of guns and their use. His articles (2000+) have appeared in many journals as well as in the national press. He has appeared as an expert witness in cases which relate to firearms and firearms safety. He is a founding fellow of the Association of Professional Shooting Instructors, and has formal instructing qualifications from a variety of other bodies. He is listed one of The Field's ‘Top Shots.' He retired from the press competition at the CLA Game Fair after winning it three times. As well as his shooting activities he has written books on other subjects including an account of the independent Polish trade union Solidarity, a biography of T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), and a history of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst itself. He is a contributing author and ‘Special Researcher' to the Oxford History of the British Army (in which he wrote the concluding chapter and essays on the army in Northern Ireland and the SAS). He is also a frequent broadcaster and has made and presented documentaries for the BBC. Mike has also been involved as a specialist ballistic consultant, and presenter, in many productions for various TV companies including the Discovery and History Channels. He has re-enacted on location worldwide the death of the Red Baron, the Trojan Horse incident from ancient history, and some of the most infamous assassinations, including those of JFK, RFK and Abe Lincoln. Michael has worked a photojournalist and war reporter in Syria, Lebanon, Albania/Kosovo, Africa, and Afghanistan. He was seized off the street in Beirut in 1982 (before Terry Waite and John McCarthy) but released shortly afterwards having befriended one of his captors. In 1986 he made 3 clandestine crossings into Afghanistan with the Mujahedin putting his cameras aside and working as a medic on one mission. In the late 1990s, he ran aid convoys to Kosovan Refugees in Albania and on the Albanian/Kosovo border. The charity he co-founded, ‘Just Help,' was honoured for this work which took 300 tons of relief to desperately needy people. Connect with Mike... X/TWITTER        twitter.com/YardleyShooting WEBSITE            positiveshooting.com Interview recorded 2.5.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                 heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on X/Twitter twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin  (Hearts of Oak) Hello Hearts of Oak, thank you so much for joining us once again and I'm joined by someone who I've been enjoying watching on Twitter for the last couple of years and delighted that he can join us today and that's Mike Yardley. Mike, thank you so much for your time today. (Mike Yardley) Yeah, great to be here and thank you very much for asking me Peter. Not at all, thoroughly enjoyed. I thought I would But let our audience also enjoy your input. And we had a good chat on the phone the other week about all different issues. And people can find you @YardleyShooting, which introduces the question, Yardley Shooting. Maybe you want to give just a one or two minute introduction of your background. I know you've written. You have a deep passion and understanding of history, along with many other things. But maybe give the viewer just a little bit of your background. Well, I've had a wide and varied career. I studied psychology at university. I went to the army. Wasn't really, you know, content in the army. And I resigned my commission in 1980. But I was in the army at a very interesting time. Height of the Cold War. I was on what was then the West German and East German border watching the East Germans and Russians watching us. So an intriguing place. And I really left the army to become a war reporter, a photographer, particularly initially. And also I went to Poland. I was in Poland for the rise of solidarity. I brought an exhibition back to the UK, which opened at the National Theatre. And memorably with Peggy Ashcroft doing the honours at that event, and Sir John Gielgud as patron. And then I've sort of made my way as an author and as a freelance. And I've also had a parallel career as an arms specialist. I've written a, probably millions of words in that area, but I've also written the final chapter of the Oxford History of the British Army, essays within that, books on the history of Sandhurst and co-written with another ex-officer, a book about the army, lots of technical stuff, a number of technical books. And I'm very interested in mass communication. I have made in the deep and distant past, some documentaries for the BBC. I made one on the history of terrorism for the BBC World Service. I made another on the media and the monarchy for the BBC World Service. And I think they actually let me broadcast once on another subject I'm very interested in, which is doubt. So since then, I've made my living with my pen and my camera. I was in Lebanon in the the early 1980s, again, not a good place to be there. And I made several sneaky beaky trips into Afghanistan, not as a soldier, but as a journalist when the Russians were there. And that was a very interesting time too. And, you know, gave me some ideas that perhaps other people didn't have the advantage of that experience. So yeah, quite an interesting career. I'm still a columnist for one well-known field sports magazine, The Field. And I am still at it. I don't know how long I'm going to be at it for. But one of the interesting things, I suppose, for me has been the advent of social media. And I thought social media was going to give me a chance to see what other people were thinking. But as well as what other people were thinking, to give me a chance for unfettered expression. Because I think it would be fair to say that I do feel that you cannot really say what you think in modern Britain. It comes with all sorts of disadvantages. As you get older and maybe you don't need the income as much, then perhaps not as important. You know, you can harder to cancel you as you get older and you don't really care. But I do think that's an issue in modern Britain. I think since the whole advent of lockdown and all the propaganda that was associated with it, and indeed with the Ukraine war, although I'm a supporter of the Ukrainians, I was rather horrified by the extent of the propaganda campaign to get us involved, as I have been rather shocked by all the propaganda surrounding lockdown and COVID, et cetera. And one other key point of my background is that I got very badly injured after I had the vaccine. I collapsed the next day. I had the worst headache of my life. I was in bed for a month or six weeks. I got a thrombosis in my leg, tinnitus, all sorts of other shingles, all sorts of other horrible stuff. I couldn't really walk. And even as I speak to you now, I've got shingles. I've got this blessed tinnitus ringing in my head, which a lot of other people have had post-vaccination and constant headaches. So I just have to live with that now, which means that you're always having to go through that to talk to people and to get your point across. Well, I've got a feeling that we may have you on a number of times, Mike, because there's so much to unpack there. But maybe we can start with a comment you made on censorship. And certainly we've seen this over the last four years. I've noticed in different areas, but specifically since being in the media space, I think since 2020, I've certainly seen it, had seen a little bit back in my days with UKIP during the Brexit campaign also but we have the BBC in the UK I guess they are the gatekeepers of information or have been up until this point and I know they've just the BBC have just done a series on misinformation or extremism and they of someone they employ full-time to actually cover what they see as misinformation and that kind of re-galvanizes their position as gatekeepers. But what are your thoughts on censorship? And I guess where state media fit into that? Yeah, I've been listening to that BBC series, and there's quite a lot of BBC stuff in that area at the moment. I think the first thing I'd say is this. I used to be one of the main voices heard in the media talking about security and terrorism. I hardly ever broadcast now. I don't get the opportunity because I'm not on narrative. And I think that's often because I present a nuanced position. And that doesn't seem to be popular in the modern media. Is censorship a problem now? Yes, it is. It's a problem because I can't easily broadcast anymore, having spent many years broadcasting and making lots of stuff for all sorts of different programs, as well as making a few programs of my own. I can't do that anymore. I think I may have made half a dozen or seven Discovery shows as well, but the phone no longer rings. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't ring particularly because I took up a vaccine sceptical position. And this is where it starts to get, this is the stuff we should unpack because it's really interesting. I was just listening before we started broadcasting to a BBC program that was talking about Russian operations promoting the anti-vaccine position. Well, I get that. I can see that the Russians have been involved in that. And we can come back to my own Twitter account, where I see clearly that if I put up a comment that is in any way critical of the Russians, it gets no support at all. But it might get probably half a dozen or 10 times as much pro-Russian support. And I've been trying to work out what's going on with that. It's almost as if the Russians have some way of manipulating that particular platform. But on the other hand, coming back to this point about vaccine scepticism, it's not just the Russians who are promoting that. Maybe it was in their interest to do that. But there are people in the UK, myself included, who were genuinely injured by the vaccines and who want to talk about it and feel that their point of view has completely been suppressed by these big social media platforms and by the BBC. It is just a non-subject. They don't really talk about excess deaths. They don't talk about widespread vaccine injury. You hear occasionally about VITT thrombosis with young women who've had these terrible thrombosis in their brains, but you do not hear about quite widespread vaccine injury. Now, I put up a comment on Twitter, do you know of anyone who's had a vaccine injury? I had something like, well, I think two, it depends on how you count them, but something like two million views, but 6,000 replies, and listing a lot more than 6,000 injuries. Now, I'm sure you can't necessarily take that as absolute gospel, but it is indicative of the fact that many people think they have been damaged by the vaccines, but also they can't talk about it. Their doctors aren't interested in it. The BBC don't seem to be interested in it. What in a free country are we meant to do? Well, we do this. We try and get our message out by other means, but it shouldn't be like that. And this seems to be a trend, this big state authoritarianism with a much more controlled media, which is facilitated by all the digitization that's going on. That is a real issue in modern Britain? Certainly, we came across that with YouTube putting videos up, and you daren't put a video up on YouTube critiquing the vaccine narrative or the COVID narrative. But recently, there has been some change. I know that there is legal action against AstraZeneca. I think in the last two days, there have been reports of AstraZeneca admitting that it did in in a tiny amount of cases but they haven't mentioned this before there were side effects. It does seem as though either it's the chipping away of those who've been vaccine injured demanding a voice, either it's been MPs becoming a little bit more vocal, obviously Andrew Bridgen, or it's been maybe a change in Twitter and the information out. I mean how do you see that because it does seem as though the message is slowly getting out? Well, Facebook's interesting because they've changed their policy, obviously, because before I couldn't say anything, it had come up with a note. And I have in the past had blocks from both Facebook and from Twitter. And I've also had apologies from both. I've done my best, because I don't think I ever say anything that is inappropriate or improper. That still doesn't prevent you being censored today. But twice, once with Facebook and once with Twitter, I've managed to get an apology out of them and been reinstated. So this is very disturbing stuff. And we're talking about this small number of injuries that are being acknowledged are about these brain thrombosis, the VITT thrombosis, which is an extremely rare condition, to quote an Oxford medic friend of mine. You know, rare as hen's teeth, hardly affects anyone. But it seems that thrombosis more generally, DVT and pulmonary embolism, and other things like myocarditis are comparatively common, and the re-ignition of possibly dormant cancers, which Professor Angus Dalgleish has been talking about at great length. And these are subjects which should be debated freely. I mean, when you see Andrew Bridgen in the House of Commons talking about excess deaths and he's almost talking to an empty Commons chamber. Albeit you can hear some fairly vociferous shouting coming from or cheering coming from the gallery, which the Speaker or the Assistant Speaker tried to close down, but that is a bit worrying. What has happened to British democracy? What has happened to our birth right of free speech? I mean, it isn't what it used to be. In fact, not only is it not what it used to be, on many subjects, we are not free to speak anymore. Not just the ones I discussed, there are all sorts of other things which might fall within the boundaries of PC and woke, which you simply can't talk about. You might even get prosecuted in some circumstances. I mean, we're living in some sort of mad upside down world at the moment. We've watched in Scotland the SNP collapsing, not least because of some of their very wacky legislation, which has also been enormously expensive. Meantime, I'm of the opinion, and I'm not particularly right wing, but I am of the opinion that ordinary people, sometimes they just want to see the potholes mended. You know, they don't want this sort of bit of PC legislation or another. There are far greater national priorities. And I'm not saying that there aren't small groups in society that haven't been badly treated in the past. They have. I can see that. and there has been real prejudice. But I think we have very immediate problems now. And they were all exacerbated by the COVID calamity and the government's reaction to it. I mean, I'm not afraid to say, did we really do the right thing? Should we have locked down? Should we have gone ahead with the vaccines? Or would it have made more sense to have given everybody in Britain a supply of vitamin C and vitamin D and maybe just vaccinated some people? But we don't talk about these things openly. It's a very controlled environment. And I was talking to a close friend of mine who's across the water in Northern Ireland and who's a very wise and sensible guy and involved in quite a lot of official stuff there. And I said to him, what is it? What is going on now? And he said, well, if I was to sum it up simply, Michael, I'd say that I don't feel free anymore. Well, I don't feel particularly free anymore. Peter, do you feel particularly free anymore? Have you sensed a change in the last 25 years, 20 years? Certainly in the last 10 years, I have. Well, I've certainly sensed a change, and I think that some of us actually want to speak what we believe is true, in spite of what happens, and other people cower away. And I always wonder why some of us accepted the COVID narrative and some didn't. And I mean, in the UK, I've been intrigued with the, I guess, few high profile people who are willing to talk. So you've got Andrew Bridgen in politics, but in the U.S. you've got many politicians. Or in the U.K. you've got Professor Dalgleish, on with us a few weeks ago. In the U.S. you've got much higher profile people like Dr. McCullough or Dr. Malone. And even with the statisticians, you've got Professor Norman Fenton doing the stats. But in the U.S. you've got people like Steve Kirsch who are very high profile. And I'm kind of intrigued at why in the US, those who are opposing the narrative maybe get more free reign, but are lauded more, I think. And those in the UK seem to be really pushing up a brick wall every time. I don't know if you've seen that as well. Of course I have seen that, yes. And in some senses, the US is freer than the UK, and they do have a First Amendment, which means a bit. There is a lot of, America's a strange society and I went to school there so I know it quite well and although America is free on paper and although they do have a first amendment traditionally there has been something of a tyranny of public opinion, but the people that have spoken out, as far as the vaccine is concerned, and indeed about the war in Ukraine. And I think often they're saying the wrong thing on that, but we can come on to that later. But those people have been speaking out in a way that we haven't really seen in the UK, sadly. And you have to ask, what is going on? Why is that? I heard a comment by Ahmed Malik the other day. Do you know how many doctors there are in the UK, qualified medical doctors? I was stunned when I discovered how many, but I believe it's about 300,000. And I think it's something like 75,000 GPs, which is quite a lot. But do you know how many doctors have spoken up and gone counter-narrative? I believe the correct number is 10. I mean, that is extraordinary, isn't it? 10. And I mean, just from our own experience of social media. It's very, very few. And those doctors who risk it, risk everything. They risk being cancelled. They're on comfortable livings. They're on £100,000 a year plus in most cases, sometimes quite a lot more than that. If they speak out, they risk being struck off. They risk losing a comfortable lifestyle, the mortgage, possibly the family and whatever. And the result that hardly any at all have spoken out. But what we can assume is that there are many, like one particular friend I'm thinking of, who are very sceptical of what's been happening, very sceptical of the way the vaccine was launched, the lack of testing, all this stuff that we might draw attention to. And they're not necessarily anti-vaxxers. They're just people that are normally sceptical. But it seems that we're not allowed to be normally sceptical anymore. You have to follow this big state, Big Brother, 1984 line or watch out. And that really does disturb me. And I was listening, as I said, just before we came on with this program to a BBC thing on censorship, where the BBC is chastising the Russians and the Iranians, and, all sorts, the Chinese and talking about the billions that the Russians and the Chinese spread on info spend on information now, which they do. And much of it is mis and disinformation, but they do not talk about their own authoritarianism. And how they limited discussion on anything to do with COVID and indeed on the Ukraine war. And my own position, I'll just interject very briefly. I mean, I think that, Putin has to be stopped and I'm fully with the Ukraine people in what they're doing. But it's also a fact that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, arguably more corrupt than Russia. And if we're giving them billions and billions and lots of military materiel, some of that is going to go missing. Some of that's going to go to the wrong places. And we never really discuss that. And it's not a particularly democratic place. And it's also the case that we probably pushed it politically in a particular direction because it was to our strategic interest, which is probably the right thing to do. But we can't discuss any of this anymore. And that does disturb me. Open discussion, open intellectual discussion on military matters, on health matters is becoming more and more difficult. And that's not a healthy sign, Peter. It certainly is. And actually, it's intriguing because my line would be, actually, these are, when I was younger, it would be interventionist. No, actually, it's, well, it's a separate country. They can do what they want. And if they want to have a war, they can have a war. But talking to people who have been very supportive, maybe more of the Ukraine side, talking to Krzysztof Bosak, MP in Poland yesterday. Yesterday and he was saying that Poland have given so much actually now Poland have very little to defend themselves and you look at the UK military, we didn't have much before and now it seems that we're short of munitions, short of many items and it seems that the west have poured so much into this without thinking of how to defend themselves. I mean, you understand the military side. What are your thoughts on that? Well, my thoughts at the moment, and it's been something I've been thinking about a lot recently, is that Britain is hopelessly under-defended. Our army is probably half the size it needs to be. Our navy is incapable of undertaking independent operations. It's probably just generally incapable. I think we're down to tiny numbers of jet fighters, tiny numbers of main asset ships. And we're saying, we're being told the army's around 72,000, something like that now. I think in real terms, it's actually smaller than that. And it's not big enough to meet the threat. And what's quite clear from what's going on in Ukraine is that you have to have a supply of ammunition, of missiles, of men. And this is worrying because if they came to a global conflict, it would go nuclear very quickly now, if it did go nuclear, because would our politicians actually ultimately press the button or not? I don't know. But it would have to go nuclear or something because we don't have the conventional resources. You know, they're just not there anymore. And most people have no idea of this. They have no experience of the military. But I would say that, they're talking about increasing defence spending to, you know, something under 3%. I would say that our defence spending at the moment should be probably at least 5% and maybe quite a lot more than that. This is a very, very unstable period in the history of the world. And we are not ready to meet the threat that exists. And of course, the Russians, I mean, they're routinely saying on their media that they're going to sink, you know, they'd sink Britain. They talk about sinking Britain specifically. And I don't think that they could do that. I don't think they would act on that. But we are incredibly vulnerable. We are essentially one big, you know, landing strip and It's not a good situation at all. And most people just block it. It's not that they're not worried about it, but they don't want to be worried about it. It's just one thing more and too much to think about. And they don't have any experience of the military anyway. But we're now looking to Ukraine and we're wondering, will the Ukrainians manage to hold off the Russians before the increased aid reaches them? I don't know. I don't know. No, I think the situation is not as positive for the Russians as some people might think. They do have problems. They can act at a small level. They can act operationally, but they can't necessarily act strategically. They don't have the resources to that, but they are building up resources. And I think something like, is it 30 or 40% of their available national resources are now going into defence, which is a remarkable figure. Now, they've lost a lot of men. we don't know really how many people have died in the Ukraine. It's certainly tens of thousands and maybe into the hundreds of thousands. It's a meat grinder. And the Russians, of course, just threw all their troops into this sort of first world war-like encounter. And they didn't really care about losses initially. It's not the Russian style, but also they were throwing people who'd been recruited from prisons, Pezhorin, the Wagner group, you know, many of those people were sacrificed, and I don't think anyone really cared about them in Russia very much. A dreadful situation. We won't go into the ethics and morality of that. Pretty scary, though. They will want to try and overwhelm those Ukrainian lines, and it's a huge front line. I mean, we're talking a front line, I think it's extending over a thousand kilometres or something. It's massive. They will try and overwhelm that line, and probably with the help of US and our own intelligence and a few other things, they'll probably stem the tide. But it's a 50-50. It's by no means a given. And that is worrying, because what would happen then? What would happen to the Poles? What indeed would happen to us? So yeah, good question. I was, it was fun watching the response from NATO members to Trump's call for them to actually pay the bills. Because I think it was, I remember watching Desert Storm and being just, consumed by it I guess as a young teenager and you've got the cameras following it all, now we come to whenever Britain sent tornadoes supposedly to help Israel and we were just told that's what happened, there was very little independent reporting, who knows if it happened or not. I think it was probably, it hit me, the reduction size of our military, whenever we bought, it was 67 apache attack helicopters, I think 67, wow, what are we going to do with those, I mean, half of them won't work half the time if they're in the desert with sand in their engines. But you realize that if the West do not have a strong military, then that deterrent basically is removed. And it means that other countries like Russia, who will spend more in defence, actually think, well, we can do what we like. They can do what they like because the West just aren't, one, aren't able to intervene, I guess, because of weakness in leadership, which we see in the EU, the US, Europe and in the UK, but also because of lack of military firepower. And I guess that's just a changing of the guard from the power of the West over to other centres of power. Well, I think the strategic implications of the weakness and the perceived weakness of our leadership are big. And, you know, that is in looking from Moscow. I mean, the farce we've seen in Westminster in recent years must be very encouraging to you where, you know, they have the strong, the classic Soviet era and now Russian era strongman. Putin is developing this aura as the strong man, which is a popular one in Russia. He has complete dominance of his home media, so he manages to mislead people as to what's actually going on elsewhere as well. He's looking for an external foe, an external threat, a long-time ploy of any authoritarian leader trying to make sure he stays in power. And of course, Putin doesn't have much choice, does he? If he doesn't succeed in staying in power, he's got a very scary future ahead of him. So that's another intriguing issue. The only good thing I would say, and this is, I don't think I'd like to fight the Poles or indeed the Ukrainians. They're both very, very tough nations. But where this now leads, and this is another critical question, we don't really know what's going on. When this conflict started, and I was a reporter in Lebanon, for Time, I was a photojournalist for Time in the Lebanon and we were sending stuff back that was really from the front line and it was really interesting and people, what I noticed when I went there, intriguingly to Lebanon in the 80s, was I was familiar with it all because i'd seen it all on the evening news. But I wasn't familiar with the feeling and the smell. Now, I can't say that with Ukraine, because for most of this conflict, I didn't know, and most people didn't know what the hell was going on. The quality of the reporting, I thought, was very, very poor. I've seen some better reporting since, but generally, I thought the reporting initially was awful. And there was also a tremendous amount of pro-war propaganda. I know somebody who went to the theatre in London and apparently, you know, when it came to the intermission or something, a huge Ukrainian flag came down and the whole audience were expected to cheer as we're all expected to cheer for the NHS or for all the vaccine stuff. I'm just temperamentally opposed to that sort of control, that sort of psychological manipulation. It concerns me that people should be made to support anything unthinkingly and that seems to be what's happening now and you've got Facebook for example, I mean they were at one stage I think advertising how they could turn opinion to potential advertisers and we've seen all the Cambridge Analytica stuff, we're incredibly vulnerable now to all this online stuff and the thing that bothers me if I go back to Twitter where I have something of a presence, is I can't really tell my stuff now because nobody sees it, there is some sort of censorship algorithm or something in place. I've got 77 000 followers there allegedly, I don't know how many of them are bots but sometimes it's clear that hardly anybody sees something that I put out particularly if it concerns the vaccines or if I'm making critical comment about Mr Putin. I think I blocked 2000 odd, what I thought were probably Russian accounts. But ironically, I'm actually getting taken down myself sometimes by the Twitter algorithms. I don't know who's controlling them. I don't know if they're controlled by Twitter Central or they're controlled somewhere else. But hey, I hope so. I think I'm one of the good guys. But you're not allowed to be a good guy. You've got to be a black and white guy now. That's the thing I think you see on social media, which is also meantime, in a very unhealthy way, polarizing people. It encourages the extremes. You can't be a traditional conservative very easily. You can't be a moderate very easily or a classical liberal very easily. You've got to go to one pole or the other pole. I think that's just very unhealthy. It's unhealthy apart from anything else as far as intellectual debate's concerned. Let me pick up on that with where we fit in and the ability to, I guess, speak your mind and have a position where you put your country first, which I thought was always a normal position, but now supposedly is an extremist position. But how, I mean, I'm curious watching what's happening in Europe which is me slightly separate, the European parliamentary elections and the wave of putting nations first and it's called nationalism. I think it's putting your country first which actually should be what a nation is about and the second thing is your neighbour and those around you, but we haven't really seen that in the UK. I mean do you think that will be a change of how your because Europe is really a declining force in the world, not only economically, but militarily. And of course, we haven't made the best of leaving the EU at all. We've cocked up big time on that. But then you look across to Europe and it is a declining power. And I'm wondering whether this new change, this opposition to unfair immigration. Opposition to control, central control from Brussels, wanting to put the nations first, whether that actually will be a change in Europe's fortunes. Bring me back to central control. But before we say anything else, just look at Norway. They had the wonderful resource of their oil reserves, and they spent it well. They created a sovereign national fund. And I think it means that everyone in Norway's got half a million quid or something like that. We, on the other hand, have squandered our national resources. And the country appears to be in tatters at the moment, and they can't even mend the potholes. Going to this business of Europe and the decline, yes, it's worrying that, Europe almost is losing the will to defend itself, or it seems to. But beyond that, if you look at Brexit, I mean, I was a Brexiteer, and I was a Brexiteer who could see some of the economic arguments for Remain. So again, I had a nuanced position on it. But overall, I wanted to preserve British sovereignty and democracy, and I thought it was disgraceful that we should be turning over that to some body in Brussels. But what we didn't realize, those of us who were pushing for Brexit, that the real threat wasn't Brussels, but the real threat probably was some globalist entity that we didn't even understand. And nobody was really much talking about globalism at that point. They weren't talking about Davos and all that sort of stuff. They were talking about the threat from Brussels but what we've seen since Brexit I think is an even greater threat from, I think what that Greek ex-foreign minister calls techno feudalism and the sort of, the onward march of somewhat Marxist influenced, capitalism facilitated by the whole digital deal, And you have WEF stuff where, you'll own nothing and you'll be happy, although they're withdrawing from that comment now. But who are these people? Did we elect them? We had a sort of interest in the people in Brussels, sort of, but as far as these globalist characters are concerned, they have no democratic mandate whatsoever. And that is pretty scary. Their only mandate is enormous wealth and a sort of arrogance that they know best for us, the peons, what our future should be. I do find that a bit terrifying, but I also, this is where it gets interesting, Peter, because I see where it came from. If you look at the era after the Second World War, the Americans and us, we were very worried about Soviet influencing operations. So we started to do stuff. And one of the things, the European community was perhaps one of those things, NATO was the most obvious, but there were also all sorts of influencing operations to counter the then very common, prolific, and increasingly dangerous Soviet influencing operations directed at Europe, directed at Latin America. So, for example, at Harvard, and I found this out from reading a biography of Henry Kissinger recently. At Harvard in the early 50s, they were running young leaders courses for foreign influencers. And it looked very much like the same sort of deal that the WEF was doing with everyone's Trudeau et al. They've all been a WEF young leader. Now, I would guess that that comes, that WEF stuff probably comes from Harvard or something like that via the State Department pushing into academia and then creating the WEF, maybe or having a hand in it as an influencing op. But this is where it gets really interesting. Has somebody penetrated that influencing op? Has it been turned? Whose interests does it actually operate in now? We know big money. Yeah, big money. But is it really in our individual interest as citizens of these countries and as customers of these massive corporations that seek to influence so much now and trespass onto the realm of politics and social engineering? By what right? You know, what happened to democracy? Aren't we meant to be deciding what's going on in our country, what our values are? It seems not. Democracy seems less important, I mean you look at Andrew Bridgen lecturing to an almost empty House of Commons on excess deaths and you think what on earth is going on there, what is this? I don't get it and I don't get why there is not free discussion on many other subjects in parliament now and it disturbs me. We developed this system, it's a pretty good system with faults as Churchill said, the problem with it is more the case that all the other systems are worse. And I think that's probably true. I mean, I'm a believer in democracy, but our democracy is in a pretty bad way. And it's not just our democracy, all over the Western world. We seem to have rolled over. And I do wonder to what extent the Russians, the Chinese and others have deliberately undermined us, captured our institutions, maybe captured our media. You know, these are things that one isn't allowed to say normally, but I'm saying them now. I mean, to what extent have we been captured and who by? If you saw the Yuri Bezmenov film from the 70s and 80s, have you seen that? Oh, you must, Yuri Bezmenov, about subversion and the long-term KGB operations to subvert the West. Very interesting, and it all seems to have come true. Yuri Bezmenov, you'll find it on YouTube. Yeah. What has happened to us? Our society is almost unrecognizable. Go back 20 years. I mean, think of the restrictions on driving in London, on smoking, let alone lockdown and vaccines, and thou shalt do this, and you must do that, and if you don't, we'll fine you, and you've got no power at all, and we've got complete control over your life, and it's a 200-pound fine for this and for whatever. We are so controlled and put down now. And again, I have an interesting theory and I don't get the chance to talk about it much, but I wonder if when you see a lot of crime and you see a lot of crime, particularly amongst young people, and you see a lot of strange, violent crime, I wonder if that is a consequence of too much central control. I wonder if that's a psychological and sociological consequence of a society which is becoming too controlled. And that's a subject I never hear discussed, but it's a very interesting one because I think a lot of us are concerned about crime, street crime, you know, mad people on the roads, which you see, I noticed personally, a lot more crazy driving than I was aware of maybe five or 10 years ago. But we don't discuss this stuff. We don't discuss the fact that the average person isn't really very happy now, that the average kid, this does get discussed a bit, is very anxious, maybe having treatment for this or that sort of psychological problem, that what used to be the normal tribulations of life now become things that you need to seek out treatment for. Well, maybe what you really need to do is seek out treatment for your society because your society is creating people that just aren't happy. And we should explore that. But again, that's another big subject. Well, I've been intrigued talking to friends growing up behind the Iron Curtain and talking about the Stasi or the state police reporting on people, turning everyone into informers, and then having Xi Van Fleet on the other day. And she was talking about the Red Guards, who were Mao's army, in effect, in communist China. And you realize that control whenever individuals are called out by the media because they go against the narrative. We've seen that under the COVID tyranny or seen that when Andrew Bridgen spoke the last time, the leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, warned him to be very careful of the dangerous language he is using on social media. She meant that he is saying something which is different than government, and that's not accepted. And in effect, it's the same, I guess, control as you saw under communism that we are now seeing here, where people are called out for having a different opinion and being threatened that if they continue, there will be consequences. Would you have seen that sort of control 50 years ago or before the Second World War? I mean, you know, I'm no communist, but there used to be communist members of parliament. There used to be an extremely wide range of opinion represented in parliament. Now it seems we're entering the age of the monoculture and the mono-party, and alternative opinions just aren't acceptable anymore. There is one canonized text, and you've got to repeat that mantra, and if not, you're a non-person. I mean, where did that come from? That isn't our tradition. But is that the push of the woke agenda, is it the decline of Christianity, is it weak leadership, I mean you kind of look and I want to understand where this is coming from, because if you understand where it's coming from then you can begin to tackle it. But it does seem to be many different facets of it from different angles. I think, was it GK Chesterton 'once we stop believing in anything, we'll start believing in everything' I think that is part of it, I think people don't believe in very much so they just believe in their own selfish bubble and materialism and I think this actually goes back to Oxford, I think there is actually some school of philosophy that encouraged this idea that as the old authorities declined, whether that was the the monarchy or whatever it might be, a faith in authority that you would have to find a new way of controlling the public and that the simplest way to do that was by their material self-interest and this is what Thatcher and Reagan essentially appeared to do, well actually looking back at Reagan now I actually think he said some very sensible stuff, but it appears that we were manipulated by our material desires. That replaced the old world. But it's meant that we're living in a rather scary, chaotic, morally upside down and confused world now. And it's certainly not the world that you and I remember. And it must be very scary for kids. I mean, I was speaking to a young person the other day, and I was really surprised because they told me that they didn't watch the news and they were a bright kid. And they said, well, why? They said, well, I don't want to. I don't want to have anything to do with it. And I don't want to have anything to do with history either. And I thought to myself, my God, if you have a young person who was soon to be a voting age, who's not watching any news, who doesn't want to have anything to do with history, how are they going to be able to make the right decisions for our future? And what sort of world are they living in? You know, where's their thought space now? Yeah, I thought that was very worrying. But that's, I mean, to finish on that, that's really just part of the information war because now young people get, I don't know how to define young people, but they get their information, their worldview from TikTok. So you've got the Chinese government actually pushing that and forcing that. And it is concerning whenever, from a 60 second video someone can decide what the world is and how they fit into it and that's the depth of knowledge they're going to find and I think that shallowness is where we are with the next generation coming. Yeah I mean I've got to hope that there's some young people that aren't as shallow as that and I certainly do talk to to some who aren't, I mean I've got kids of my own, four kids, and generally speaking, they're pretty switched on. We don't have the same views, generally speaking, but they're pretty switched on. But it is scary that there's a whole generation of young people that, I mean, you see them, you wander down the street, you see every kid has got, there they are, they've got the mobile phone and they're like zombies looking at the mobile phone. And it's not just kids for that matter. It's, you see middle-aged people doing the same thing. You see them sitting at tables in a restaurant and they're still tapping at the screen. Whoever controls this controls you, controls your mind, controls what you think are your opinions, because many of your opinions are not really your opinions. They're things that have been implanted in you by these massively influential modern means. Now, television always did that to a degree. The newspapers always did it to a degree. But this seems to be a more direct route into people's heads, particularly young people's heads. And that is genuinely disturbing. Now, if you look to Europe, you mentioned Europe earlier. If you look at Europe, it seems to be swaying to the right. My guess is that, Britain will probably sway to the left until maybe there's a failure of the Starmer dream after probably, they might run for two terms. And then our future is very uncertain and again, rather scary. But what I don't see is enough discussion, enough activity. I don't see a dynamic middle. Hopefully, I mean, very intriguing, isn't it? Who is Starmer? What does he represent? Is he a Blairite? So is that some sort of globalist, centrist, capitalized position? I don't know. I tend to think it is. I tend to think that's where it's coming from. It's not the traditional left. But of course, Starmer has some history of being on the left, not to a great extreme. But it is worrying that the left could still creep into power via Starmer's government. It's also a bit frightening, and am I saying this, that what happens if Starmer's government fails? I mean, as it probably will. The economics are against it. Britain is not looking in a good place at all. But what I think we need, the one thing that will save us is open discussion, proper, unfettered, open discussion about politics, about health, about philosophy, about everything else. And I try in my life in a small way to start those conversations with people. And I do it across politics. I do it across religion. I talk to almost everyone I meet, if I can, and I think I get away with it, and start bringing up some of these difficult subjects. Mike, I really do appreciate coming on. As I said at the beginning, I've really enjoyed your Twitter handle. And I know we've touched on many things on censorship, military and politics. And I'm sure we will have you back on again soon. So thank you so much for your time today. Well, I've really enjoyed the opportunity. And I'll just say this in conclusion. I've actually managed this. I've had the tinnitus and this terrible migraine all through the interview, but we got through it, which is great. I do say to people out there, do take seriously the people who tell you they've been vaccine injured because it's a big deal if you have. God bless you Peter.

Wicemarszałek Sejmu o decyzji Rafała Trzaskowskiego, ateizacji pańśtwa, o urzędach, wyborach do PE, polaryzacji w Polsce, wydaleniu ambasadora Izraela i o planach Konfederacji

Krzysztof Bozak, a Polish Member of Parliament and Deputy Speaker of the Sejm joins Hearts of Oak to outline his political journey, beginning with his participation in a youth movement and the founding of the Confederation of Freedom and Independence Party.  Krzysztof lifts the veil on the Law and Justice Party's EU stance, economic policies, and immigration management.  He tells us of the significance of upholding conservative and nationalist values amidst mainstream narratives.  Krzysztof highlights his role in the Polish Parliament and his openness to collaborating with like-minded international entities. This interview offers deep insights into Polish politics, party distinctions, and the importance of ideological integrity in a changing political landscape. Krzysztof Bosak began his political career as an activist and spokesman for the organisation All-Polish Youth. In 2005, he became one of the youngest Polish MPs in history, elected as a candidate of the League of Polish Families, a conservative party, at the age of 23.  Krzysztof is now the leader of Confederation of Freedom and Independence Party, Member of Parliament and Deputy Speaker of the Sejm. Connect with Krzysztof... X/TWITTER               twitter.com/BosakKrzysztof    (English account)                                    twitter.com/krzysztofbosak Confederation of Freedom and Independence Party         WEBSITE                    konfederacja.pl X/TWITTER                https://konfederacja.pl/ Interview recorded  30.4.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER                twitter.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE                    heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS                heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA          heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                          heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) And I'm delighted to be joined by a member of the Polish Parliament, that is Krzysztof Bozak. Krzysztof, thank you for your time today. (Krzysztof Bosak) Thank you for the invitation and welcome everybody. Great to speak with you. I had the privilege of meeting you back, goodness, 18 months ago, I think, with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff , a good friend of both of ours. And you are a member of the Polish parliament and I'm looking forward to understanding a little bit about the Polish parliament setup. Each country is different but you are the president of the national movement and you're the leader of the confederation or confederation of Freedom and Independence Party, and you're the Deputy Speaker of the House, which is called the Sejm. And your a husband, father, you're a Christian, and I want to delve into all of those. But Krzysztof, you became a member of the Parliament back in 2005. You were very young back then. Tell me why you got involved in politics. How did that happen and how did you end up standing as a member of parliament and being elected? It's a long story. In fact, this time I was the youngest MP in this term and I started being involved in politics by a youth movement, a Catholic Eurosceptic and Catholic Nationalist youth movement. Since I was in high school. I was 17 or 18 years old when I joined. It was the time of the debate about joining the EU. All mainstream parties, mainstream medias, mainstream bishops, mainstream everything was in favour of joining EU. And a small minority of speakers and social leaders were against defending principles of independence, sovereignty, traditional values, and so on. And I was sure that they are right and I joined this movement, being against joining European Union at that time. I joined a youth movement, then in 2001 a conservative pro-family, pro-life Eurosceptic party was created. It was League of Polish Families. It was kind of coalition of very different right-wing conservative or Eurosceptic or nationalist groups. And four years later I became the youngest MP being elected from my home town and constituency. From the 10th place on the list. So I was not a leader of the list, I was on the 10th place and people elected me from this list as the only MP in this constituency. So it was a very big success and a very big surprise for many people. And it was short term, only two years, because this was a time of big political instability. We had two government changes. It was, let's say, right-wing government, many scandals, and after two years, earlier elections, and my political party didn't succeed. League of Polish Families disappeared from Polish politics. Law and Justice political party took everything, every right-wing voters. We were against, we were competitors of law and justice, competitors from the right. They were centre-right from our perspective. and after that for 12 years I was outside the Parliament involved in social movement and working in right-wing NGOs, in think tanks like Republican Foundation, defending the same values on the social level with my colleagues and people who didn't lose faith in being active and trying to create truly right-wing political movement. We tried many times different attempts to get into the Parliament we have 5% threshold and proportional system so it's quite hard if you do not have support from big business big media or big money and we succeed in 2019 I went back to Parliament this time as a co-leader of of Confederation, Freedom and Independence. It is a coalition now, coalition of three political parties, three political movements. My movement, national movement, still the same values, still the same political tradition. So national conservative Catholic tradition, national democratic tradition of Polish political independence movement, and we created this national movement as a new political party ten years before, in 2013. So for six years we were outside the parliament, and after that we made a coalition with conservative libertarians and traditionalists. So conservative libertarians were created by long-term defender of economic freedom and civil liberties. Janusz Korwin-Mikke, now he's not in his political party, he's pleaded, but he created this political party and now they have a younger leader, Sławomir Manczan from Next Generation, very popular young businessman and tax advisor and also a big defender of economic freedom and conservative values. So this is the second pillar first is national conservative Catholic second is let's say conservative libertarian and the third is citizens movement traditionalist movement of Jagger Brown is a quite popular right-wing movie a documentary movies director an artist and intellectual who who were involved in politics also a few years before, first being on anti-communist and right-wing position, and then shifting more to the right and building the coalition with us. So now we have Confederation as a coalition, or let's say umbrella party, coalition party, for these three different movements and many smaller groups who joined us. And we work collectively, we have collective leadership and we challenge law and justice from the right. We were in opposition during eight years of law and justice government. From our perspective they are not very conservative and they are, I know that sometimes media call them nationalists, but from our perspective they were a typical centre-right political party. And we made an alternative right party for Polish voters and now we even extended the number of voters who support us. So now we have 18 MPs and more than 7% in polls and now we fight to get into the European Parliament. Because for now there are only people from Law and Justice and their allies parties. And we believe that Polish voters deserve to have better representation in European Parliament. Built by truly critical to European Union politicians, not supporters of EU who change only some narrative, but they always vote in favour of you. Well, tell us about the... Because when I, as a Brit, maybe read the newspapers here in the UK, it would have talked to the Law and Justice Party as being an extreme right party. In a similar way, they mock Orbán in Hungary. But I'm curious to see where you fit in, Because when I went over and met with you, I begun to understand the Law and Justice Party were maybe not as wonderful as the West may think. So what makes the Confederation different than the Law and Justice Party? Yeah. It's a very complicated topic, but I think that it's easier to propose some metaphor or some example. So it's quite similar in my opinion like in the United States where you have mainstream Republicans and you have Trump supporters and for example Rand Paul or some people who are more nationalist-oriented. So, in Polish politics, law and justice is like mainstream republicans. They use some words, some phrases, some ideas of conservative or even pro-national right, but they use it intentionally rather for propaganda and they act like centre-right politicians. When they were in government in Poland, they even introduced many policies. We can say that these policies that they developed on social level or in economic policy, these are rather social democratic policy, not conservative or right-wing or not nationalist in any way. So, to go into the details, we criticise them because they supported European integration on the new level. First, many years ago, they supported Lisbon Treaty. They negotiated Lisbon Treaty being in government. Then their president signed the Lisbon Treaty. They made a propaganda with mainstream and center-left and leftists that the Lisbon Treaty is good for Poland. And we believe the opposite, that it was a disaster. Our situation is much worse in the EU under the Lisbon Treaty than before. Then, during the last eight years, they supported the European Green Deal and their Prime Minister accepted the European Green Deal in the European Council. Now farmers oppose, they even criticise in the current electoral campaign. They made a pledge that they will stop the European Green Deal, but they do not say that their prime minister accepted it on the European Council in 2019 then in 2020 their prime minister Morawiecki accepted fit for 55. So they increased the goal of reducing these emissions 15 percent percent more and they introduced many new policies in European union and it is all possible because they are accepted in European council on a 2020 meeting in fact prime minister Morawiecki also proposed us as a polish prime minister in Brazos creating new pan-European taxes it's completely It's completely against our Constitution, it's completely against our values. We believe that our phrase is that we need small taxes and only paid in Poland and they three or five new pan-European taxes and they accepted it and we paid this to Brussels, not to Warsaw and we have no influence on how this will be used, this money. Then they accepted European debt, we strongly opposed any idea of giving this right to Eurocrats in Brussels to introducing their own debt and building their own sources of income by that. And they, of course, accepted. Then they accepted also in 2020 a special pan-European COVID fund called Next Generation EU, even this phrase, next generation EU is evil and of course they accepted it and they made a campaign in Poland that it's a big success of Poland and that we will have billions of euros because of this success of Prime Minister Morawiecki and law and justice. And there was a small minority of their MPs who criticised this but they were silenced in the party and in the media and in fact from the perspective of Polish voters we were the only one independent voice in Parliament. I took part in this debate in Parliament and criticised this next, please check this by some search engines, what is this, next generation EU. This is not only a European debt program. It is paid by European taxes and by European debt for many years, but it's also a new attitude towards European funds. They accepted that we will have funds only under many new political conditions. So now we got some milestones, they call these milestones, and this is the list of tasks, of political tasks, and they program Polish policy by Polish so-called democratic government from Brussels without any base in constitution. We have more than 100 milestones and these are the conditions to get this money. So, we made a new debt. This is not our debt, this is the European debt. And to use this debt, we have conflict with EU for almost 3 or 4 years. And they now lecture us on every issue from this list of 100 milestones. And Prime Minister Morawiecki from the Law and Justice Party in the Polish parliament said that he is not ashamed of this deal because, for example, Italians have more than 400 milestones, tasks. So it's a nightmare from the perspective of somebody who is in favour of Polish independence and sovereign policy and democracy and even democracy in Poland. They made a secret agreement in Polish parliament with leftists to support this, because even in their own political camp, they call it United Right, which is false, because the right in Poland is not united. But they use this phrase united right and theywere afraid that not every MP will support this but because it was so controversial so they made a secret agreement with leftists. They took some leftist agenda in this deal and they made majority with leftists to push it through the parliament. Then they never discussed all this deal and this 100 milestones in parliament. We had never any debate on this issue. In fact, this negotiations were secret also against people in government. Not every member of government knew what they discussed in Brussels. Now we know this only from media. They never introduced this deal in parliament and explained what's going on. Then they accepted very, in my opinion, bad new rule called rule of law conditionality. So now without base in European treaties, Eurocrats in Brussels can lecture us what is rule of law. They can stop money for us. So these were some examples of their EU policy. There are many more, for example, their member of European Committee was in favour of European Green Deal. He even said that it's in line with political agenda on agriculture of law and justice. So they had a big conflict, of course, with EU on this rule of law. And in this conflict they it was completely complete disaster for Polish state because they started this conflict and then they missed everything because they never finished any reform of courts in Poland and they made even leftists stronger in Poland because they tried to make some compromise with Brussels. This compromise was never accepted by Brussels because it was not, let's say, 100% what Brussels wanted. But in fact we have a very big mess in courts and in law about courts and about independence of judiciary. And now after this conflict and these reforms never finished as I said the situation is worse than when it started worse on the sovereignty worse on the justice and the time that you need to wait in the court for the justice. And worse, from the perspective of the power of liberal lobby in judiciary and right-wing people who, trusted law and justice government are in a very bad situation now because they took some positions or some propositions, and now they are nowhere, in the middle of nowhere. It's a very sad story. Then we have economic policy. Their economic policy was, in fact, social democratic. So they raised taxes, they raised debts, they extended public spending. They tried to centralize every policy. They took money from local governments. they put this money to their national budget and they try to influence every policy by their political nominees and they work like, let's say, Maybe not autocratic, but it was a typical one-party government which tried to centralize and control everything. It's the opposite that I understand the pro-national policy or conservative policy. It was, in my opinion, it was elitist and even social democratic when you analyse. For example, they were strongly against home-schooling and against independent schools. They proposed some legislation to ban homes chooling. After some protests of conservatives and leftists united, they stepped back. But after protests in their party and outside and from many directions. But their first goal was to centralize everything under the government rule. And we said that it's stupid because they will not rule for forever and after them the left will come to the government and exactly this is what we have in Poland. Now we have center-left government, liberal and leftists, and the left took Ministry of Education, everything was centralized. And now they try to switch, oppose every institution and every policy that law and justice created. And we said that it will be so. And now we see the consequences of their stupid policy, which was not conservative, not Christian, not supporting any citizens' movement. They believed only in their political party and that's all. This is their philosophy. Then we have a very important issue for us in Poland, let's say, immigration. Law and Justice government was introduced in Poland, open borders policy. They were against illegal immigration and at the same time they opened borders. For biggest immigration, legal immigration in Poland since maybe 300 years. Last time that we have so big immigration was maybe in 16th or 17th century. Now we have millions of legal immigrants in Poland, the majority of them are Ukrainians, but there are also people from different Asian and especially Asian countries. They didn't want immigrants from Africa, but they invited people from Asia. They made, being anti-Russian party, they made a special easier way for Russian citizens to come to Poland, to be a part of our labor market. They opened our market for people from Belarus, from Central Asia, from Caucasus. Now Georgian immigrants are the biggest group when you analyze crimes in Poland, they are in the first place. When you analyse people who smuggle illegal immigrants, Ukrainians are in the first place. We have, it's strange, but there is no official statistics how many immigrants do we have in Poland. Nobody can count them, because these are millions and they opened borders for legal immigration, but they didn't build any administration to control the immigration. So, in fact, the best data that we have is not from the government, but from telecom operators, from big telecom business who can say how many people use different languages on their phones. So this is how we know. Or from banks, because these people from abroad open bank accounts. But it's not all. It's not started with the war in Ukraine. This is what I would like to underline. We had much more than a million Ukrainian people in Poland before the war. They were intentionally invited and government worked also on some agreements with some Asian countries to increase legal immigration to Poland. These were also Muslim countries. During the law and justice government, Muslim population in Poland increased, in my opinion, more than ten times. In fact, to be honest, it is still small, but they started this. So now we have information that a third mosque will be built in Warsaw, and the biggest one, of course, with the money from abroad, because they never, they always criticized any foreign influence, and they never proposed any legislation to stop the influence by money from abroad, for the politics, or for example, to found Islam, or Muslim movement in Poland. Then, when the war in Ukraine started, they opened borders for refugees and in fact not only for refugees but for everybody with Ukrainian passport because they made some legislation. Giving every privilege that Polish citizens have for everybody with Ukrainian passport, even for people who came here from Western Europe. It's strange, but it's true. They made a special amendment, because their first goal was always to encourage as many foreigners to live and work in Poland as it is possible. It has two reasons. First is that they believe in multicultural society. It is a part of, this is some branch of Polish pre-modern tradition, that we had a commonwealth with different nations and some of them are from this tradition and they believe that they can rebuild this commonwealth with different nations in encouraging these nations to build some community, not let's say Polish community, but they call it a Republican community, a new commonwealth of nations. From our perspective, it sounds very similar to globalist agenda, but they say, no, no, no, it's not a multiculturalism by globalists, This is our tradition of Polish multiculturalism. We as a national movement completely do not believe in this concept. We believe it's anachronic, pre-modern, and it didn't work. In fact, we had a commonwealth with different nations, but these nations don't want commonwealth with us. These nations like Belarusians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, all of them wanted independent states. And it's normal, it's normal that every nation want to have their own independent states. So, some of law and justice politicians are people older age with their heads in the clouds, reading historical books and believing in some ideas, for example, from 17th, 16th or 18th century. And in my opinion they don't understand nothing from our times and especially they don't understand that mass immigration is a big threat for the society. In Poland this process started, especially in bigger cities. Warsaw under the Law and Justice government became much closer to London when we analysed the population. There are not many African people, but many people from Asia, as I said, and especially from Russia and Ukraine. The situation is changing very fast. They made a legislation and as I said, they gave every privilege, every policy for Polish citizens. They gave it also to the people with Ukrainian passports. And these are many millions of people who would like to live abroad. We are the only European nation that pays for everything. And, of course, we have nothing in exchange. We have some agenda towards Ukraine, but they did nothing from our agenda, and we gave everything. And this is what we're against because we believe that it's impossible for one country to have two nations on the payroll, and this is how it works now. Then you have also Ukraine and supporting Ukraine agenda. At the beginning of the war we were not against, because we believed that this horrible Russian attack, is a crime and is a threat, but after two years we see that their government gave all that we have to Ukraine and the result is still not clear and other European nations do not act this way. They negotiate some things for them. Americans are also not very fast to give everything what they have. And now, for example, our army do not have enough weapons because they gave new weapons from Polish army to Ukraine. And at the beginning they said that Americans or Germans will give us in change new equipment, all the equipment and the thing, but they didn't. So it's very hard being a Pole and seeing all of that. It's very hard not to be critical to law and justice and their government. In fact, we are not surprised. We know these people for many years. We know that during the debate about joining EU they were in the same camp as leftists, as centrists, progressives and all of them. In fact, they were never national or truly traditionalist or truly conservative right. They are a mix of people of different ideas and their leader of law and justice. It's not easy to understand this, being a foreigner, but to understand the situation you should know that the leader of law and justice Jaroslaw Kaczynski. He always were against Polish nationalist tradition. He is rather from the tradition of Polish patriotic socialism. We had some pre-war tradition from interwar period of Polish, let's say, Polish patriotic socialists and this is their first choice. They do not talk about this last decades because they know that people would like to vote right-wing party, not patriotic left-wing party. But the leader is rather from, let's say, centrist or centre-left patriotic republican tradition, the leader of law and justice. The members of the party are very mixed and very different. I would not say that every MP is bad. There are many probably MPs with good views but they vote bad or act bad being in government. I will give you one more or two more examples. For example, we had a very big debate in Poland about pro-life. Law and justice was always pro-life in declaration but when they got majority they did everything thing not to vote on pro-life bill so two times polish pro-life movement collected more than hundreds of thousands of signatures having majority so-called pro-life majority people had to collect hundreds of thousands of signatures to put citizens bill to parliament and they voted against. They voted against for two times, then we as right-wing MPs, some of their MPs and every MP from Confederation made written request to Constitutional Court and Constitutional Court with some nominees, right-wing nominees from Law and Justice waited few years to analyse this request, but after they analysed this, they made a judgement that it is against Polish constitution to kill unborn babies with some disabilities or health problems. And this is how the situation changed, not by the voting in parliament, And of course, people who are in favour of law and justice say that this was their secret plan to organise this this way. But I do not believe. In my opinion, it was rather by accident. They never wanted. And now their former prime minister Morawiecki said that he is against this sentence of the court, of constitutional court. That they should defend this. Yes. But they said that they are against because they are afraid of public opinion, people who like abortion, they want centrist voters and so on. So they do not defend, they controlled every media in Poland and they didn't defend this issue. Another example, their prime minister supported long-term EU LGBT strategy. Being prime minister voted in favour. Another example, their minister who was responsible for European funds sent a secret letter to local governments that if they want European funds they should cancel Anti-LGBT and pro-family statements. Many local councils made some statements that they are against LGBT propaganda in schools and they support normal family policy. It was then criticized by, of course, progressive media and some LGBT organizations, but there was nothing against citizens' rights. It was nothing against civil liberties or something. It was a declaration that we don't want propaganda in schools or something like that. And we know that they made this letter to local governments. We know that only from LGBT organizations because they published this, being proud that the so-called right-wing government is pushing the pressure with the EU to local governments to be not too much conservative. Yes, so it shows how they work and they say one thing and they do the opposite and it was always like that. We know we know these people for four decades So we are not surprised about normal polish voter don't know all of these facts because you need, hundreds of hours to follow every information and analyse everything to to gather these details and to understand what's going on and if you follow only mainstream media, even mainstream Catholic media in Poland. In progressive mainstream media, you had an attack on law and justice, that these are nationalists, they are xenophobic, they are anti-European, they want to go back to the Middle Ages or something like that. So people said, okay, these are good people, yes, they are very conservative. And if you listen to some right-wing media or Catholic media, They are true conservatives. They fight very hard, tough fights in the EU and so on. And you had nowhere to have the truth about how they rule, how they govern the country. Everybody analyzed only what they said. And their speeches were quite good. I can agree. For example, two days ago, I listened to the speech of their leader and to their convention about EU policy and I could take this and it could be my speech, yes, but it has nothing to do with their government, what they did in Brussels. This is the problem and I think it's a problem in many countries. It's a problem also in Hungary. Orban is also very pragmatic, yes, he's not a nationalist. And there's a problem in Italy with the Meloni government. It's not an independent agenda of independence. And in many other countries. So this is how it works. And this is why we believe that Polish politics deserve a truly right-wing party with truly conservative and truly pro-national and sovereign agenda and people who are against political correctness. This is what gathers us in Confederation. We are against political correctness. We don't want to be influenced in any way by anybody from mainstream. And we are proud that we are anti-mainstream. Of course, I had many debates in mainstream media, so I always go when they ask me and I always discuss. And I believe that my views are not radical or far-right or anything like that. But I don't want to give up my principles and my beliefs. I don't want, I would rather, I would like to be rather outside politics, like being 12 years outside the parliament, than joining this, let's say, fake right political parties and saying good speeches and voting bad things. I don't want that. Well, Krzysztof, thank you for giving us such an overview of Polish politics. And I wish that we had politicians like yourself in the UK with conviction, with beliefs that actually stood on a biblical principle on a lot of these issues. And I just the final thought is as deputy speaker, I mean, that is a that is a prestigious, important position. You must be Donald Tusk's kind of worst nightmare, that you stand for everything he is against. I'm sure it was difficult to actually get in that position, was it? I'm sure there was opposition. I know we only have a few minutes, but I'm just curious to know the opposition from people like Tusk to actually having you, a nationalist, a Christian, in that position. It's a little bit different, in my opinion. To understand the situation, you should know that the main line of political difference, is in Poland between Civic Platform and Donald Tusk as a leader, and Law and Justice and Jarosław Kaczyński as a leader. It's not, on some level of course it's a, let's say, ideological and political different, but they have many things in common. This is our, let's say, talking point, yes, that they are not so different on the level of agenda of political program. When you analyze their EU policy, they could exchange their ministers, and in fact, they're exchanged in these two political parties many members of cabinets. In fact, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki before was an advisor to Donald Tusk. And there are many examples, I will not go into the detail because it's not so important. It is important to understand that it's a, let's say, ambition conflict between Kaczynski and Tusk. It's obvious that they hate each other. It started in 80s in the opposition movement. They have very bad opinion about each other, very bad. This is a true conflict, a true personal conflict. Both of them try to be pragmatic and in fact they are very pragmatic, very. But not on this one issue, not all about them themselves. This is their weak point that they become very emotional. So going back to the situation in the chamber and me as a deputy speaker Donald Tusk and don't care he don't care he hate yaroslav kaczynski and me I'm the guy from the different generation, in my opinion he do not believe in anything he is a pragmatic politician after so many years in politics. He was a liberal, he was a classic liberal in 80s, maybe early 90s. So on the level of defending economic freedom, I think he understands everything what we say. And he's a former classic liberal. Maybe he started on the same positions as Viktor Orban, but during years in politics, he lost belief probably in any principle. And now probably the only thing that he believes is pragmatism and power. Being in power and being pragmatic. This is how I understand him. So, in my opinion, he used left-wing politicians as tools. He gave them the platform, as you say in English, he gave them the platform, he gave them the space, even in government, he gave them a very important part of administration because he doesn't care. Not because he supports these ideas, he doesn't care. In my opinion, he personally believes that these are stupid people with stupid program but he didn't care. So he also didn't care about my views, in my opinion. Of course, some of his members in his political party care a lot and hate very conservative people. This is, let's say, a pro-abortion lobby in his party, very strong now, because his party started as centre-right party. It is interesting that Civic Platform, the party of Donald Tusk, started in 2001, all these three parties that I talked about, so League of Polish Families, Law and Justice and Civic Platform, all these political parties started in 2001 and entered the parliament. League of Polish Families after seven years was kicked out from parliament by voters unfortunately, but Law and Justice and Civic Platform stayed there and both Law and Justice Party and Civic Platform started as centre-right political parties very similar to each other, so similar that some politicians in 2001 didn't know which one to join so it was like a lottery or you had colleagues here so you go there you have colleagues here you go there it was a time of big changes in Polish politics so a civic platform the party of Donald Tusk started as a platform with principles of defending western civilization defending Christian values defending economic freedom defending some some conservative values maybe not everything but some and being pro-EU this was the starting point and after 20 years, they are centre-left political parties with very big pro-abortion, progressive lobby inside, former post-communist politicians, former leftist politicians inside, Green Party inside, because they built a civic coalition, they extended civic platform into civic coalition. And in this coalition, you have people who split it from the post-communist left, you have Green Party, you have some citizens' movement, and It's a central left spectrum. And Donald Tusk is a leader for everybody because now he tried to be pragmatic, not to be too close to any special views, yes? So for me it's completely not a problem. It's a problem with some MPs who are trying to be a little bit offensive or sometimes aggressive but I have my attitude which is always being very calm and polite to everybody no matter what are his views. I try to be polite and with respect to everybody this is I believe that how we should act in democratic politics and in Parliament and it works, because in fact even left-wing MPs or pro-abortion MPs have a good opinion about me as a deputy speaker, because I do not interrupt their speeches, I'm not nasty, counting their time. They could cooperate on this normal level with me, in my opinion, much better than, for example, with deputy speakers from law and justice, they were horrible, they were nasty, they were aggressive. They used their seat to, not to push their agenda, but to push their emotions against other people. So they were, there were attempts to push me from the seat, to kick me from the seat, the left put this request, but nobody voted in favor of this request, because nobody believed that it's a good decision to take this position from me and give it to anybody else. I think it's a result of maybe 20 years of my work in public debate and people know who I am, people know that I have my views, but people even who do not believe in my views, they respect that I didn't change them for many years, that I, in fact, in my opinion, many people from centre-left also respect me, that I didn't join law and justice. Because they have very bad opinion about law and justice, also about how they ruled when you analyse what they did with public money. Yes, this is another story, what they did with public money, how they used this for themselves. Their interests. Not very many bad stories. And we were not involved in all of that. So in my opinion, I have, I am lucky because I have a big respect. Of course, not everybody like me and especially not everybody like my views. But I have no reasons, I have no reason to say that I'm in a bad situation. Well, Krzysztof, I do appreciate your time. I'm so thankful to have you on. I know you've got great demands on your time being in that high profile position and being a high profile figure in the country. So thank you so much for giving us your time to explain to our UK and US audience a little bit about Polish politics. So thank you. Thank you very much for this invitation and this conversation and to finish this conversation with some good accent I would like to invite everybody who are true conservative people to come to Poland to meet us. We are very open to extend our international contacts. What I would like to say is that on the level of personal contacts. If some of you have some contacts with people from law and justice, it's not bad for us. As a normal people, we talk with each other normally in Parliament and outside Parliament. So we are critical to their leadership and to their prime minister, but taking normal MPs, we talk like normal people. And it is possible to have contacts with law and justice, for example, in European Parliament and with us in Poland or when we enter the European Parliament. So I would like to encourage everybody from truly right-wing movement to build contacts with Polish people, with Polish conservative organisations, political parties, editorial houses, NGOs, social movements. We have a big social movement, very many organizations and many good people. And please, come to Poland, have this contact, maybe also some people from the States. I believe that we should support each other. I always put some time and my energy to build this contact, so maybe some of my colleagues from abroad will watch this interview. I hope so. And me personally and our colleagues from Confederation, we are always very open to support every good people with good ideas to defend the principles that we believe, also conservative, traditional, Christian, Pro-freedom, pro-independence, and other good principles. So, this is my word and I believe that despite all these bad tendencies that we see in Western world, in Europe, we should have hope and we should defend good principles and good values, because this is our duty and this is how I believe, this is what we should do. So I have very big respect for every people who work in politics and on social level in countries that are less conservative than Poland, because I know how it feels when your country is going in the wrong direction. I talked with people from different countries and I know how it feels and I have big respect if you do a good job and give hope to your people, to your nations. Exactly. Well, thank you, Krzysztof, for your time. Greatly appreciate it. And I'm sure we will speak soon. Thank you very much.

"My nie prowadzimy w tej chwili żadnych rozmów z PiS-em" - powiedział w Porannej rozmowie w RMF FM Krzysztof Bosak, odnosząc się do ewentualnych koalicji w sejmikach wojewódzkich. "Konfederacja nie będzie żadną przystawką ani dla PiS-u, ani dla PO" - dodał lider tego ugrupowania.

Kiedyś poległ na sambie, ale czy teraz śledzi “Taniec z Gwiazdami”? A może po prostu uważa z kim tańczy w polityce? Dlaczego posłowie zarabiają jednocześnie: za mało i za dużo? Naszym gościem jest Krzysztof Bosak, lider Konfederacji i wicemarszałek Sejmu. W dawnych czasach: instruktor windsurfingu, student architektury i uczestnik telewizyjnego show. Rozmawiamy spokojnie, ale atmosfera w studiu i tak jest gorąca. Czy sukces Kanału Zero to też sukces Konfederacji? Dlaczego Krzysztof Bosak nie ufa Rafałowi Trzaskowskiemu? Jaki problem ma Konfederacja z homoseksualistami, bo może… żadnego? Rozmawiamy też o tym, czy Bosak uważa się za dobrego przyjaciela, jaką książkę poleca Kubie Wojewódzkiemu i po czym rozpoznaje wyborców Konfederacji. To też rozmowa o światopoglądzie, bo nie mogło zabraknąć pytań o kwestie dostępu do aborcji, in vitro i na temat związków partnerskich. Dużo mówimy też o polityce. Czy w niej są tylko najzdolniejsi? Jak mówi Krzysztof Bosak, prawdziwi liderzy zasłaniają się ludźmi z wadami. Dobrze się więc składa, że sam nie ma nawet złych nawyków. “Wyborcy muszą mieć mój wyidealizowany obraz” - dodaje. Zapraszamy na spotkanie z Krzysztofem Bosakiem. Podcast WojewódzkiKędzierski ma partnerów komercyjnych. Zapraszamy do słuchania w Onet Audio oraz na Spotify i YouTube. #płatnawspółpraca 

Wicemarszałek Sejmu o sytuacji obronnej Polski, systemie przeciwrakietowym w budowie, o tym, by nie słuchać oficjalnych wypowiedzi polityków, o rolnikach i rządzie, który "trochę podpisuje porozumienie sam ze sobą", o sondażach i wyborach samorządowych

​Nie mam wielkiej sympatii do Lewicy, dokonała wczoraj samozaorania i jesteśmy z tego w pewnym stopniu zadowoleni - tak Krzysztof Bosak w Porannej rozmowie w RMF FM skomentował upadek wniosku Lewicy o odwołanie go z funkcji wicemarszałka Sejmu. Jak mówił, Konfederacja zagłosuje przeciwko projektowi budżetu na 2024 rok.

"Myślę, że jeżeli jutro mielibyśmy posiedzenie Sejmu, to doszłoby do bijatyki, dlatego to poparłem. Uważam, że dość mamy gorszących scen, które obywatele oglądają. Uważam, że poziom emocji jest taki, że doszłoby do bijatyki pomiędzy posłami PiS-u a strażą marszałkowską i próby wprowadzenia siłowo posłów Kamińskiego i Wąsika na salę. Natomiast straż marszałkowska miałaby polecenia od marszałka Sejmu, aby ich nie wpuścić" – mówił w Popołudniowej rozmowie w RMF FM wicemarszałek Sejmu, Krzysztof Bosak z Konfederacji.

Gościem Anny Dryjańskiej w rozmowie dnia był Jacek Nizinkiewicz, dziennikarz "Rzeczpospolitej", z którym rozmawialiśmy m.in. o dzisiejszym zaprzysiężeniu rządu Donalda Tuska w Pałacu Prezydenckim.– Zaskoczony byłem tym, jak Andrzej Duda pozytywnie, radośnie wręcz czasami przyjął rząd Donalda Tuska, powierzył nominacje. Było tam dużo uśmiechu. Nie sądzę, żeby to z jednej strony spodobało się Jarosławowi Kaczyńskiemu, z drugiej strony widać było, że sam prezydent Duda próbuje przejąć inicjatywę zapraszając na Radę Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego, a pamiętamy, ze kiedy Prawo i Sprawiedliwość rządziło, a Koalicja Obywatelska, Lewica i Trzecia Droga były opozycją, to nie mogli doprosić się prezydenta o zwołanie RBN, a niejednokrotnie ona powinna być zwołana – mówi Nizinkiewicz.Czy zgodnie z własnymi zapowiedziami premier i prezydent będą razem współpracować dla dobra Polski?– Kurtuazja. Nic innego nie wypada powiedzieć w tak ważnym momencie, kiedy oczy całego świata są zwrócone na Pałac Prezydencki. I nie byłoby dobrze, gdyby te komunikaty z Pałacu Prezydenckiego dzisiaj wybrzmiały jako zapowiedź nowej wojny, sporu, tudzież kolejny odcinek "wojny o krzesło" – mówi dziennikarz.Poruszyliśmy również temat wczorajszego skandalu z udziałem Grzegorza Brauna, który gaśnicą zgasił w sejmie świece chanukowe i tego jak powinna zachować się sama Konfederacja w stosunku do swojego posła.– Konfederacja to jest zbiór trzech formacji: Ruchu Narodowego Krzysztofa Bosaka, Nowej Nadziei Sławomira Mentzena i Konfederacji Korony Polskiej Grzegorza Brauna, który jest bardzo popularny wśród wyborców Konfederacji. Umowa między tymi trzema podmiotami jest taka, że jedna trzecia środków z subwencji, a to jest ponad 8 milionów złotych, przechodzi na Konfederację Korony Polskiej Grzegorza Brauna i to jest jeden problem dlaczego oni nie mogą się go pozbyć. Drugi problem jest taki, ze jeżeliby wyrzucili Brauna, to wtedy on prawdopodobnie pociągnąłby za sobą trzech innych posłów. Konfederacja przestałaby być klubem. Stałaby się kołem, a co za tym idzie Krzysztof Bosak przestałby być wicemarszałkiem sejmu. Zostałaby zmarginalizowana, również medialnie – mówi Nizinkiewicz.Więcej w "Rozmowie dnia".

Wybory 2023: kto wygra i czy o wyniku przesądzi debata wyborcza, która odbyła się w ten poniedziałek w TVP info? Czy Szymon łownia rzeczywiście wygrał w telewizyjnym starciu? Dlaczego Jarosław Kaczyński nie stawił się na debacie? Czy Donald Tusk przekonał widzów TVP? Jak wypadł Krzysztof Bosak i Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus? W dzisiejszym odcinku omawiamy najciekawsze momenty i najlepsze wystąpienia, oceniamy też którzy kandydaci mogli na debacie zyskać, a którzy stracić. Z naszym gościem, Adamem Traczykiem – dyrektorem polskiego oddziału More in Common rozmawiamy także o politycznych podziałach między Polakami, które ujawnia najnowsze przeprowadzone przez niego badanie. Zaprasza Jakub Bodziony, Kultura Liberalna. Zachęcamy do zapoznania się z badaniami More in Common "Zmęczona wspólnota": https://www.moreincommon.pl/co-robimy...

Całość TYLKO w aplikacji Onet Audio. Subskrybuj pakiet Onet Premium i słuchaj bez limitu.   Raport międzynarodowy znajdziesz tutaj: https://onetaudio.app.link/RaportMiedzynarodowy   Krzysztof Bosak, jeden z liderów Konfederacji, jako ostatni mierzy się z przedwyborczymi pytaniami Witolda Jurasza o politykę zagraniczną. Zapytany o relacje z Izraelem stwierdza, że Polska powinna być przeproszona przez Izrael. Na pytanie o obecność posłów Konfederacji na tle transparentu z napisem „Szczepienie czyni wolnym”, które nie tylko treścią, ale również formą nawiązywało do hasła umieszczonego przez Niemców na bramie wejściowej do obozu koncentracyjnego w Auschwitz stwierdza, że jest to zaledwie „publicystyka manifestacyjna”. Na pytanie, czy można żartować z Auschwitz, odpowiada: „Jest to niesmaczne, ale można”.   Pytany o przyczyny wojny w Ukrainie Bosak stwierdza, że co prawda Rosja napadła na Ukrainę, ale zarazem, powołując się na założony przez Jacka Bartosiaka ośrodek analityczny, stwierdza, że „w interesie USA” było najpierw „rozegrać konflikt” z Rosją, a potem Chinami. Krzysztof Bosak nie zgadza się z opinią Witolda Jurasza, że takie stwierdzenia to tyle, co sugerowanie iż Zachód i USA są współodpowiedzialne za wojnę.    Padają też pytania o wojnę, która wybuchła w Izraelu. Krzysztof Bosak ocenia, że Hamas można nazwać tyleż organizacją terrorystyczną, co i ruchem narodowo-wyzwoleńczym.   Zapytany, przy okazji rozmowy o polityce zagranicznej o stosunek do demokracji, Krzysztof Bosak stwierdza, że demokracja ma swoje plusy i ma swoje minusy. 

Krzysztof Bosak

Współprzewodniczący Konfederacji o planach powyborczych, kampanii, finansowaniu, "prostytucji politycznej" i premierze Morawieckim

Krzysztof Bosak