Donald Tusk caused a storm with his statement on law and justice, which reportedly brought more than 130,000 people to Poland last year. immigrants. This lie should be dismantled gradually, but above all, it should be stated here that it is not true, based on the June 20 “Fakty TVN” material where such data was quoted. The problem is that the number of 130,000 there did not mean that new immigrants were accepted, but that work permits were issued for foreigners. This is a big difference – such permits are issued on a temporary basis, so some people have to apply for such a document every year, and others every three years. Moreover, part of this number are Ukrainians, so this situation – in the face of war – is not surprising. Further – the opposition accuses Orlen of bringing in immigrants, while the case concerns a foreign concern that wants to employ people from outside Poland (after they finish the expansion of the Olefin complex, they will return to their home).
And it’s about two more things: the fact that this is legal, controlled immigration, based on fair paid work and not an invasion of socially hungry pseudo-refugees. And, last but not least, it is about us in Poland being able to decide on these immigrants, while the European Union wants to relocate newcomers on the basis of central decisions.
Many explanations, corrections and facts are needed to debunk Tusk’s simple lie, but that is not what the opposition leader is after. For the “projection tactic,” as Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson put it in their work on propaganda, is “to accuse someone of an evil act that you yourself have committed.” There is no need to mention the PO-PSL government, which was willing to agree to forced relocation, nor Tusk’s regime in the EU, which also accepted hundreds of thousands of new arrivals from outside Europe.
But in the strategy of the Tusk spin doctors, it is easy to accuse Jarosław Kaczyński or Mateusz Morawiecki of even the biggest nonsense, because it works in political propaganda. Let’s go back to Pratkanis and Aronson. Referring to several American studies in their book “The Age of Propaganda”, they stated that even baseless slander affects the recipients.
It appears that the mere issue of a candidate’s association with unacceptable activities may be enough to tarnish a candidate’s public image. Besides, the source of the innuendo didn’t matter much. Candidates were judged negatively, even if the headline appeared in a newspaper with little credibility [jak social media Donalda Tuska – JAM]. Negative political announcements and smear campaigns often bear fruit.
Of course, the “negative campaign” in politics is nothing new and is used by all sides in the electoral dispute. The problem arises when one side simply makes up the accusations, and moreover, when expressing tolerance and diversity, warns against foreigners and thereby contradicts itself. They are breeding fanatics for whom facts and figures do not matter, just one infallible leader.
Source: wPolityce