Jarosław Kaczyński: To sprawa pana Tuska

done, you come up with this sort of a reply. maybe i have to be much
briefer and put my thoughts in a bullet point form so that my idea
is clearer.

1. it is not a definition, it is my view on the nationality. i don't
think anybody can claim to give a proper and uniformly accepted
definition of what nationality is.

2. my view is simple, but you make it too simple, thus going against
the advice of the great man, einstein. my views are about who is
truly polish, and not who is polish per se. therefore,
kaczynskis and tusk are polish, but not truly polish.

3. "blood and geography" as you called it do not lose "wider sense
to do with language, culture and ethical values", because language,
culture, ethical values and all those other things like the ways of
understanding how the world works, behaviour, national complexes
etc, etc are all a function of your blood and birth location.
one quick example on this to illustrate... if you are truly (as per
my opinion) polish, who is born within historically polish territory
and from polish born and bred parents, there is a 90% chance that
you will be of roman catholic faith, will be baptised, get the first
communion, be confirmed and get the church wedding when marrying. a
lot of the above might (sometimes quite heavily) influence you
culture and ethical values and you will speak polish (and understand
it like no other language on earth) by default. 9 out of 10 people
next to you will do and be same or very similar. if however you are
a pole, but not a true pole, you may decide to wed in church 20
years after the event. btw. i do not make any apologies for
questioning this. he was not genuine in that move and has done it to
get wider community acceptance prior to important electoral events,
as the community is mainly of rc faith. it that disappoints you, so
be it, i'm big enough to wear that.

4. why you often refer me to tazbir and davies to get the
understanding of the notion of nationality??? that is their
understanding and obviously mine is different (refer point 1 above
particularly its last sentence). i note your comment about znak's
motto. not bad, particularly given the times in poland, but i know a
better one. it comes from the private school that my son attended...
the school claims in its motto to "teach how to think and not what
to think"... i try to use it as often as i can... both tazbir and
davies would tell me what to think and not how... i actually
remember seeing davies' book "poland" in late 70's in london's
bookshops and thought about buying it... eventually i opted for
forsyth's "the odessa file" and "the devil's alternative"... same
thickness (two against one) but so much more fun and entertainment...

5. i note your texts by lermontov and masaryk, unfortunately my
russian is so rusty that 10 litres of coke would not get it going
and always struggled to understand czech... nevertheless, i can't
comment on masaryk anyway as i don't know too much about him and do
not have the time for any research. however as far as lermontov
goes, from memory part of his family was of scottish origin, but by
the time of his birth they were as truly russian as they
come... he was therefore making comments as a true russian (as per
my understanding) and that's what make them (his comments that is)
of far greater importance than tusk's (being not truly polish in my
book) about polishness... to put it in other words, if i as a not-
truly australian say that australian is shit, people here will
dismiss it and suggest to me to go back to poland if i don't like it
here. if however a shane warne or a steve waugh or a john howard
made the same comment, people would take notice and ask - why is he
saying this??? i hope you see the difference.

not much of bullet points, but i do hope i made myself clearer now.

take care.

rooboy