What happened in Poland on the night of October 30-31 represents an eloquent case study for both facets of the intractable conflict—a concept theorised by political psychologists such as Daniel Bar-Tal since the late 1990s—confronting postmodern society.
On one hand, it is a perfect example of the modus operandi of the wolves in sheep’s clothing who (still) make up the current political establishment in most states of the Western world. A textbook attempt at a coup d’état, executed perfectly up to a certain point.
Once in positions of power, this is what all these individuals with dictatorial and even sociopathic tendencies and ambitions do. With pathological hypocrisy, they attempt to overturn the constitutional order and alter the entire legislative framework to consolidate and perpetuate their power. Far removed from the power of the people, which is the only power that should matter in a democracy.
Why speak of hypocrisy? Because while meticulously pursuing their anti-democratic agenda, they pose as “defenders of the rule of law”—whatever that may mean, since a concrete, precise and universally accepted definition of this concept does not yet exist. It is considered an “essentially contested concept”, a term coined by British philosopher WB Gallie in 1956. This is precisely why everyone uses it as they see fit.
In our case, Prime Minister Donald Tusk attempted to forcefully impose a favourable majority within the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, aiming to ease his path ahead of the 2027 parliamentary elections. Defying the law, defying the Constitution, defying the President—the exact same sins he so serenely imputes to his conservative political adversaries.
These are the exact “arguments” weaponised by the European Commission, which applied a blatant double standard to the previous Polish government, as a pretext to cut off Poland’s access to European funds. Except that the bureaucrats in Brussels were wrong in the case of the Law and Justice (PiS) administration. Refusing to accept hordes of illegal migrants into your country is neither unconstitutional nor against the “rule of law”. Nor is protecting your own economy, your own citizens and your own professional sectors instead of those imposed by Brussels. In February 2024, barely two months after Tusk took office, the Commission announced it would unblock up to €137 billion in EU funds for Poland.
Now, though, we are genuinely dealing with a subversion of the Polish State by its own government. Through an “occupy-style” action, taking advantage of President Karol Nawrocki’s brief window away from Poland, Prime Minister Tusk sent his self-proclaimed “constitutional judges” to basically break into the Constitutional Tribunal. Following a meticulously premeditated plan, they attempted to unlawfully depose the rightful judges of this institution who are not to the liking of the current power in Warsaw. On the evening of October 30, the Tribunal’s longest-serving judge, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, announced she had suspended its president, Bogdan Święczkowski, and taken charge of the court.
On the other hand, the course of events proved that Poland has a true president, devoted to the nation: Karol Nawrocki. Midway through his flight to Senegal, the President turned his plane around and marched straight to the steps of the Constitutional Tribunal. Despite initial opposition from the police forces deployed there in an underworld fashion, the President entered the Tribunal and “turned on the lights”, as we like to say. Thus, the tension was defused for the moment.
By refusing to swear in the disputed judges, the Polish President did not overstep his bounds; rather, he exercised a vital constitutional veto, utilising the presidency as an indispensable mechanism of checks and balances to prevent the packing of the highest court.
Meeting the moment, hundreds of Varsovians took to the streets to defend their Constitutional Tribunal and their President. Once again, Poland resisted.
The conflict, though, remains. For the “Long March Through the Institutions” will never stop, will it? This is the core tenet woven into the globalist, neo-Marxist worldview. Their underlying gospel. Everything old is bad, obsolete, must be deconstructed, broken into tiny pieces, and rearranged, because only what is new is good. Perennial, millennial values must be transformed into mere ephemeral social constructs.
Yet, in practical terms, the Long March (a slogan popularised by German student leader Rudi Dutschke in the late 1960s) and the cultural hegemony imagined by all neo-Marxist ideologues, starting with Antonio Gramsci, will only succeed if they meet no resistance. Only if the majority remains silent. Indeed, a lack of reaction, passivity and the ignorance of the many are assiduously promoted in the public arena throughout the Western world, rising to the rank of a social—societal—norm.
In countries like Romania, this phenomenon has already reached its peak, starting with the lack of public reaction towards the cancellation of the 2024 presidential elections and continuing with the election, in 2025, of a coat-hanger president, unfit from every point of view for the role of “head of state”. Countries like Bulgaria, for instance, which for decades sat somewhat in Romania’s shadow, have gained at least a moral ascendancy of honour by changing their political establishment.
To reiterate: Poland continues to resist, as it has throughout history. It is no wonder its President was once a champion.
At the same time, by persisting in this reckless and desperate endeavour, Donald Tusk will lose the elections long before the ballot boxes even open.
It is not only the Poles who will vote in 2027. The French will choose their president. Argentina will hold concurrent parliamentary and presidential elections. The Italians will elect a new parliament, as will the Greeks, Slovaks, Finns, Swiss and Estonians, among others. In many of these nations, conservatives and patriots are leading the opinion polls.
In his work Intractable Conflicts: Socio-Psychological Foundations and Dynamics (2013), Bar-Tal structured the stages of the full cycle of an intractable conflict as follows:
Outbreak—basically, an older misunderstanding emerges from latency and transforms into an open conflict between two camps.
Escalation—this is the longest and most destructive stage, where confrontation becomes central and hatred takes hold of societal life.
De-escalation—tired and exhausted, the factions become less aggressive and more open to dialogue and reconciliation.
Reconciliation—the final, most profound and lasting stage. The parties gradually abandon the ethos of conflict and, over time, learn to trust one another again and cooperate for a shared future.
After entire decades of being stuck in the second stage (roughly, since the 1960s), perhaps we are finally ready to enter the third stage. Perhaps the era of fools is waning, unelected bureaucrats will no longer rule, people will freely vote for their elected officials, and our societies will reconcile. Socio-psychologically speaking, this is the hardest part. But we must hope. On the night of October 30, Poland resisted. Perhaps European civilisation will resist too. And with it, the entire West as we know it.