YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Pierwsza Przepowiednia Kudłatego Jasnowidza! To Straszne Że Nikt Tego Nie Widzi! - Analiza Ator

Pierwsza Przepowiednia Kudłatego Jasnowidza! To Straszne Że Nikt Tego Nie Widzi! - Analiza Ator — Transcript

by wideoprezentacje · 7,076 words · 1,052 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Good morning, everyone. A warm welcome
0:02to you. Today's material will be
0:03presented in the parodic style of "
0:05Kudłaty Jasnowidz"(The Shaggy
0:07Clairvoyant). There have been a few
0:17such segments in my other commentary
0:19videos, and you seem to enjoy them very
0:21much, judging by your comments—taking
0:23publicly available information and,
0:24through deduction and logical thinking,
0:26predicting what will happen, all while
0:28parodying clairvoyants. I’ve also
0:39spoken about this with Krzysiek
0:41Jackowski, the best and, in my opinion,
0:43the only real clairvoyant in Poland.
0:47Krzysiek has watched them too; he says
0:49he likes it a lot, and he perfectly
0:51understands that parody and imitation
0:53are the highest forms of flattery.
0:58Moreover, I hope it won't even cross
1:00anyone’s mind that I have anything
1:01other than strictly positive feelings
1:03toward Krzysiek Jackowski. He is a very
1:08good man, one of the few positive
1:10figures in the Polish internet,
1:11especially since Waldemar Krysiak
1:13passed away. May God rest his soul; the
1:17funeral is on Thursday. So, dear
1:20viewers, let's begin. This prophecy I
1:25am about to deliver might seem
1:27completely absurd to you. You might
1:31want to dismiss it as something that
1:33couldn't possibly happen, because after
1:35all, Donald Tusk and President Nawrocki
1:37have told you together and in agreement
1:39that everything will be fine. But dear
1:44friends, if both PiS and the Platform
1:46after rebranding—the former into the
1:48so-called presidential camp, the latter
1:50into the Civic Coalition—if the two
1:52largest political forces in Poland tell
1:54you it will be fine, it certainly
1:56won’t be fine, and you can be sure of
1:58that. And here, let me remind you, dear
2:03friends, of the year 2022, when Mateusz
2:11Morawiecki came up with an idea that,
2:13as both political forces—then PiS and
2:15the Civic Platform, before the
2:17rebranding—agreed at the time......
2:19was a fantastic idea. Listen,
2:24Morawiecki had the idea that, damn it,
2:26they had ordered so many unnecessary
2:31doses of the life-saving preparation
2:35from Pfizer. And damn it, it’s going
2:37to waste because nobody wants it. Well,
2:39damn it, who could have predicted that?
2:41For example, damn it, I could, because
2:43if you order six or eight doses of a
2:45two-dose preparation, then it’s going
2:47to go to waste. Especially since, when
2:52you order for every single person,
2:54studies showed that roughly 50%of
2:55people wouldn't want to take this slop,
2:57so in practice, they ordered 16 doses
3:00of a two-dose preparation for every
3:01willing person, which is eight times
3:03too much. Who the hell could have
3:08predicted that it would go to waste? So
3:10, what fantastic idea did Morawiecki
3:13come up with in 2022? That he wouldn't
3:16accept those ordered preparations
3:17because Poland is supporting Ukraine. A
3:21baseless argument. Yeah, but back in
3:242022, as I said, that would never pass;
3:31why would a major international
3:33corporation with American capital—a
3:35giant American concern—care that
3:37Poland is pretending to be, wait for it
3:39, a humanitarian superpower? That’s
3:43what the PiS folks, led by Elżbieta
3:45Witek, kept telling us back then. And
3:49why should Pfizer care that, since
3:51we’re playing at being a humanitarian
3:52superpower, we don’t want to take and
3:54pay for their salvation-in-a-bottle?
4:02That they didn’t trick politicians
4:03into buying way too many of these
4:05preparations and slide extremely
4:07unfavorable contracts across the table
4:09just to forgive these many billions—
4:11no, that just wouldn't fly. And you
4:17know what? Damn, I remember saying back
4:23then that it wouldn’t fly, that I was
4:25saying exactly what I am now—that it
4:26couldn’t work, that Pfizer would go
4:28to international arbitration and win
4:30like hell. Because, well, it’s just
4:34obvious. It’s like a bank lending
4:37someone money, and then that someone
4:39saying they won't pay it back because
4:40they donated it to a charity fundraiser
4:42. Yeah. It’s nice that they donated,
4:44but a shame it was with someone
4:46else’s money, right? Meaning, the
4:47bank's money. It’s the same here;
4:49Pfizer will say: "It’s great you’re
4:51playing humanitarian superpower, but
4:53don't try to skimp on the cash at our
4:55expense.""We didn’t trick you into
4:57signing such unfavorable contracts just
4:59to not milk you for everything now." I
5:04remember that when I said this in 2022,
5:07I was attacked in unison and agreement
5:09by both today's "smiling" ones, then
5:11known as the camp of the Civic Platform
5:17, and the PiS members, and they all
5:19said it would go through, that everyone
5:21would accept it. You know what, damn it
5:23, it didn't go through. Pfizer has
5:31already won in the International
5:33Tribunal. Although it’s still in the
5:36first instance, there is still the
5:37so-called appeals process, but because
5:39of this, for example, this past summer,
5:41we were threatened with having trouble
5:43returning from our vacations because
5:45Pfizer blocked the accounts of the
5:51so-called PANSA, that is, the Polish
5:53Air Navigation Services Agency, which
5:55handles air traffic over Poland. So we
5:59were threatened with, well, sorry, but
6:01we wouldn't be coming back. So, ladies
6:04and gentlemen, to all those who will
6:06now tell me that all those who will now
6:12tell me that what I’m saying now is
6:17absurd, because the President, with his
6:20PiS authority, said it would pass, and
6:22Donald Tusk, with his Platform
6:23authority, that is, as a civic
6:25coalition member, said it would pass.
6:30Therefore, you fool, you nobody, what,
6:32do you think you’re smarter than
6:34those people? They, the two biggest
6:37political forces in Poland, say it will
6:39pass. And what do you know, saying that
6:42it won’t pass? Well, I know that
6:44I’ve said things like this many times
6:46before, and I was always right, damn it
6:48, and the politicians were always wrong
6:50. So I invite you to listen to the
6:53prophecies of Kudła, this prophet of
6:58doom. Ladies and gentlemen, I see a
7:01reef. I see a reef. I see a reef,
7:06ladies and gentlemen. In just a few
7:10years, I see a reef. The reef, it
7:19reminds me of some scandal in
7:21international arbitration and Poland
7:22will have to pay gigantic amounts of
7:28money. Those billions that Pfizer is
7:32demanding now, they are peanuts
7:33compared to the money that that comes
7:40to my mind. What comes to mind are
7:47foreign shareholders. I am not sure
7:55what these shareholders will be from,
8:00or whose. But that word comes to my
8:02mind. Foreign shareholders, and they
8:08will go to those arbitrations and win
8:10gigantic money. It won't be billions,
8:14it will be tens of billions. The number
8:21100 comes to mind, that either they
8:26will win 100%or or it will be over 100
8:28billion zlotys. Listen. It reminds me
8:34of a fuel crisis. It reminds me of a
8:42situation where some politician cheated
8:44people. He cheated people and set a
8:51trap for another politician. There is
8:57some law. Now people are happy, because
9:01, because thanks to this law they think
9:03they have cheaper fuel. It is not true
9:10that they have cheaper fuel, because
9:11fuel costs the same, only the VAT on
9:13that fuel was lowered, which makes
9:15ordinary people think they have cheaper
9:17fuel. Or on those totems at gas
9:24stations there are lower numbers, so
9:26they think that fuel is cheaper, but
9:28it's not true. I associate it with
9:33words like lie, deception, a ginger
9:38descendant of a Wehrmacht soldier, I
9:40don't know why. And I associate it with
9:46some brute who was beating people up in
9:48the forest and claimed that it was,
9:50that it was a sport. I don't know, I
9:53don't know who it is, but they come to
9:55my mind. And that guy, the word Fuehrer
10:08comes to my mind, I don't know why. I
10:11don't know, maybe, maybe he, maybe he
10:13likes Germany. Maybe he watched Mr.
10:16Hans Kloss often. I don't know, but the
10:22word Fuehrer comes to my mind. The
10:24ginger Fuehrer. The ginger Fuehrer.
10:26That's what comes to mind. Listen. Well
10:30, and the ginger Fuehrer came up with
10:32it, and that brute got caught in such a
10:34trap. The point is that there were very
10:39high fuel prices and because of that
10:41people couldn't afford to fill up, but
10:43above all companies. Companies had a
10:47problem, because companies had to
10:49refuel to bring products to stores, so
10:54that businesses could function normally
10:56and and there was a problem because
11:00people couldn't afford to drive to work
11:02. But above all, companies had to buy
11:06that very expensive fuel and because of
11:08that they passed the costs of that fuel
11:14on to their customers, and because of
11:15that it really, really sent inflation
11:19through the roof. Inflation increased a
11:22lot, it increased a lot. The number
11:24four comes to mind, that 4%perhaps of
11:30that inflation, or possibly 44. What?
11:36What? Or 4 and 4, something like that.
11:39The number four comes to mind. Listen,
11:41and this Fyrrer, with whom I associate,
11:47I don't know why, the word lie—this
11:51Fyrrer figured out how to trick people.
11:55Trick people in such a way that he
11:57won't lower fuel prices, but people
12:04will think he lowered fuel prices,
12:06because the signs will show lower
12:08prices and people will say: "Bravo,
12:10bravo, bravo, bravo Fyrrer, for
12:12lowering fuel prices." We thank you,
12:18because they don't know economics, they
12:20don't know business and they think that
12:21if there is a lower price on the sign,
12:23then it is a lower price. That’s not
12:26true. Fuel prices will still be just as
12:28gigantically high, and he will lower
12:33the VAT tax, which will be in that, in
12:38that price. Do you understand? So the
12:42price will be the same, just the VAT
12:44will be lower. What is the difference?
12:50The difference is that if he lowered
12:51the price of the product, and the VAT
12:53remained the same, it would truly be a
12:55cut for the entrepreneur, because the
12:57entrepreneur can write off VAT as a
12:58cost, meaning VAT is neutral for the
13:00entrepreneur. So if he really lowered
13:07fuel prices, then business costs would
13:09fall, and consequently—companies
13:11could lower the costs of their products
13:13. But since he lowered the VAT, de
13:17facto nothing has changed for
13:19entrepreneurs, so they still have very
13:21expensive fuel, and therefore very
13:22expensive transport. Farmers have very
13:28expensive fuel for production for those
13:30for agricultural machinery, so
13:32entrepreneurs raise product prices,
13:33farmers raise food prices. Everything
13:37is as it was. Everything is as it was.
13:39Everything is as it was. Well, but this
13:42, because he onl, because he didn't
13:43lower fuel prices. He cheated, he
13:45cheated that he lowered fuel prices,
13:47but in reality he lowered VAT. But that
13:51is that is only half the problem,
13:54because because through this, this
13:59inflation will simply keep on raging,
14:01right? Products in stores will be more
14:04and more expensive, services will be
14:06more and more expensive, but it will
14:08take some time before people realize it
14:10. And he is counting on that. He is
14:12counting on that, because this Fyrrer,
14:14he knows that he will soon stop being
14:16the leader. He knows that in a year
14:18something will happen, that he will no
14:20longer be the leader. The letter W
14:22comes to mind, liver, cancer or
14:26elections, I’m not sure. In any case,
14:28something will happen that will
14:30eliminate him from being the fyrer. And
14:33he’s even happy that those who come
14:34after him will have it totally screwed
14:36up, because the more they have it
14:37screwed up, those after him, the better
14:42it is for him. Well, because it’s
14:44those after him, and he will be
14:45laughing. Either from the grave, if
14:49it’s this liver cancer, or at the
14:51opposition, if it turns out to be
14:53elections. We'll see, he'll show
14:56something. he convinced the public that
15:07in order to be able to lower the VAT,
15:13thanks to which people think that fuel
15:15is cheaper, but in reality it's a lower
15:17VAT, which entrepreneurs deduct for
15:19themselves, but people don't, so for
15:21regular people it is a bit cheaper
15:22after all. He convinced people that
15:31that to do this he must push through
15:41another law, which is completely
15:48unlawful, just like that idea not to
15:50pay Pfizer for ordered products because
15:52of supporting Ukraine, which is totally
15:54absurd. He came up with the idea that
16:02he would make a law that would take
16:03money from fuel companies from profits
16:11that they had already generated before
16:13the passing of this law, which is the
16:15classic principle of law not acting
16:17retroactively. Classic, but so classic
16:22that there are no doubts. And every
16:26court, every court will swallow it,
16:28every arbitration will swallow it. This
16:32law will not stand up in any court,
16:38because he was so brazen that they even
16:40communicated it directly in the media
16:41that that it is about taking money from
16:49some, from those companies, to cover
16:50losses for the state budget. due to the
16:55fact that this VAT is lowered. And you
16:59know what comes to mind? It reminds me
17:03of some kind of cordiality. Cordiality
17:08comes to mind. Cordial. The word
17:15cordial comes to mind. Ring finger, no,
17:19a cordial lawsuit comes to mind.
17:24Shareholders of those companies will
17:37put pressure on the management of those
17:39companies, or maybe they will get
17:40together themselves, or the
17:42shareholders will get together and file
17:44a case against Poland, meaning all of
17:46us, the state budget, for compensation,
17:48that this tax on those, the word comes
17:49to mind opulence, wealth, excess.
18:00Excess. This tax on excess capital
18:04gains is illegal because it breaks the
18:06obvious rule that the law does not work
18:09retroactively and imposes taxes
18:10retroactively on profits generated
18:17before the passing of this law. It
18:25occurs to me, that they are happy right
18:29now. And I am reminded of a meeting of
18:34such such people, who live off the fact
18:44that they have. They have money and
18:49thanks to the fact that they have money
18:51, they make money. I am reminded of the
19:01color black comes to mind, black black
19:06stone. No, not in Polish. Schwarzone.
19:14Schwarz. Schwarz. Schwarz, no Black
19:22Rock. That would be Black Rock in
19:24English. I am reminded of a company
19:34called Black Rock and that company
19:35Black Rock is very happy right now,
19:37because it has a lot of shares in those
19:39fuel companies that will now pay those
19:41taxes on those excess profits, and they
19:43know perfectly well that all the money
19:45that is being taken from them now, they
19:47will get back, and with a gigantic
19:48penalty and very high interest, that
19:50for every zloty they pay now, they will
19:52get several back later. They are very
20:03happy and they will do this, they will
20:15wait over a year, they will wait almost
20:232 years. They will wait almost 2 years,
20:25because they have a deal with him. They
20:29have a deal. Listen, who did they make
20:31a deal with? Rust comes to mind. Rust
20:40or redhead. They have a deal with some
20:45redhead, and this redhead reminds me of
20:47World War II. But it's not the "Rudy
20:50102" tank. It is someone whose
20:54ancestors fought in World War II. And
20:58certainly not on the side that won.
21:02Some redhead. They have a deal with
21:05some redhead. They are in a deal with
21:11some redhead and when this redhead
21:15stops ruling, because this redhead is
21:17in power, then they will file a lawsuit
21:27against Poland for the money from this
21:29windfall tax and they will win, and
21:30they will recover all that money with a
21:40surplus, with a surplus they will gain
21:47it all, but only after the elections.
21:54And they will say that they will say
22:00that, that this tax was illegal,
22:04because it was a classic violation of
22:09the principle that law does not work
22:10retroactively and they will win a tax
22:17refund, compensation, and interest. And
22:21they know, they they know, they have a
22:23deal, they themselves suggested this
22:25act to this ginger. Yes, yes, that's
22:30what comes to mind. I remind you that I
22:32am only a clairvoyant. I am the Shaggy
22:34Clairvoyant. Such visions come to me
22:40and and Ginger goes for it, because
22:46well, because it won't be his problem
22:47anymore, because he won't be in power
22:49then. So Ginger is happy, that that it
22:58will then be the problem of someone
23:04else. Well that's what comes to mind. I
23:13cannot sense one thing. My connection
23:17to the bipolar field of earthly
23:21existence cannot tell me one thing.
23:26Does this brute, who fought in the
23:28woods, does he know about it, that it
23:32will be this way, and he is also part
23:34of the betrayal? Was he deceived? The
23:40stars do not tell me that. I am staring
23:44now at a crystal glass after coffee. I
23:51am trying to read from instant coffee
23:52grounds, but but I see nothing. This is
23:56for me, dear ladies and gentlemen, an
23:58impenetrable riddle of the immaterium
24:00of the space-time fabric. Did did the
24:12ginger deceive the brute? Is the Ginger
24:17in cahoots with the brute? Or perhaps
24:26the word betrayal comes to mind now,
24:27because the brute is not too
24:29intelligent, but the brute considers
24:30himself very intelligent and because of
24:32that the brute is very susceptible to
24:39fraud, to manipulation, because the
24:41brute has a lot of con artists around
24:43him, who are using him. A little Nazi
24:50comes to mind, who is now pretending to
24:52be a patriot. He has some nickname,
24:57Silesian dumplings or something like
24:59that. Flufin or something similar and
25:08he is this small small one next to this
25:09big brute and this small one is
25:11intelligent and this small one is doing
25:13business. Could it have been like that?
25:24I need to focus. Could it be, ladies
25:35and gentlemen, that a little guy like
25:37Fliflan made a deal with the Ginger and
25:48convinced the Brute that signing this
25:52bill is a good idea, that it’s a good
25:58thing, that people will be happy, that
26:00fuel will be cheaper and that he should
26:08sign it, because he was looking for him
26:09, because he knew that the Ginger is in
26:11league with that Black Stone? But it's
26:17not about that stone. The stone in
26:20Mecca. It’s not the one that Muslims
26:23run around, but some symbolic black
26:25stone. Like some corporate logo, and
26:35not in German, not Schwarzstein, but
26:37more like Black Rock or maybe something
26:39French. In any case, not Schwarzstein,
26:42more like Black Rock. Black Rock,
26:44rather, because they have shares in
26:51those companies that will lose out on
26:52this tax now, but will gain even more
26:54later, and the Ginger knows this. The
27:00Brute probably doesn't. Someone
27:03deceived the Brute. Someone convinced
27:05the Brute that it’s a good thing to
27:07sign it. Or they ordered him to. I’m
27:17reminded of an event. The word 'pack'
27:23comes to mind. Pack or pak. Some letter
27:28. Apak, Bpak, Cpak, Dpak, Vpak,
27:33something like that. And the people who
27:38organized it, they come to this brute
27:44and say: "Sign it, it's a good thing."
27:48Not signing it is not a good thing,
27:50better to sign it. And so he signed it.
27:57He signed it, and the people were happy
27:59. Because they have lower prices, lower
28:01numbers on the signs, so they think
28:03they are paying less. They don't
28:07understand that what they pay for gas
28:08there is of little importance; what
28:10matters is how much entrepreneurs pay
28:12for gas, because they pass those costs
28:14on. Aha. And I recall that maybe the
28:27Brute was asked by someone who
28:29previously did him a favor at some
28:30convention. The word pack, pak,
28:38something like that comes to mind. Some
28:41letter, Apak, Bpak, Cpak, Dpak, Vpak,
28:45Vpak, Gpak, something like that.
28:48That’s what comes to mind. Some
28:50letter, I don't know which one. I know
28:53a letter comes to mind, but I don't
28:54know which one. Or maybe someone from
29:00his circle, some advisor who sold out,
29:02who is a traitor, who betrayed the
29:04Brute and is advising him wrongly
29:05because they have dirt on him. They
29:10have dirt on him. That Ginger has dirt
29:15on him, and the Ginger’s people told
29:17such a traitor, a small one, "You, you,
29:19you tell the Brute what we order you to
29:21, because if not, we will reveal this
29:23dirt." These are the two things I
29:28associate. Yeah. And when the Ginger
29:35stops ruling, there will be a lawsuit,
29:37and the state treasury will pay. all
29:44that money he gained from that tax on
29:46those energy companies. the word "
29:51excess" comes to mind, windfall profit
29:53tax, something like that. We will pay
29:59it all back with interest, because a
30:01penalty will be added too, and besides
30:08that penalty, interest will be added,
30:10very high interest, because inflation
30:12will really take off, so there will be
30:14high interest, that's what I think. And
30:34now, ladies and gentlemen, all joking
30:36aside, because I remind you that was
30:38just a vision, a prophecy, it was meant
30:40as a mockery, in a parody style, so
30:42please don't believe what I was saying
30:44there, because it was a vision, you
30:45know. Shaggy, shaggy, shaggy
30:51clairvoyant. You know, from rubbing the
30:53hair, right? It was from rubbing the
30:55hair. There wasn't a word of truth
30:57there, ladies and gentlemen. But in all
30:59honesty, I want you to pay attention to
31:06one thing. Who controls Orlen? The
31:10government. The government holds a
31:13controlling stake in Orlen. Not exactly
31:16a majority stake, but it does hold a
31:21controlling stake. Yes, almost all the
31:30fuel sold at gas stations in Poland
31:32comes from Orlen's refineries, because
31:34thanks to the PiS party's, thanks to
31:40the PiS party's PiS party's decision to
31:49agree to the merger of Orlen and Lotos,
31:52the Płock refinery and the Lotos
31:54refinery now belong to Orlen, right?
31:58Therefore, practically the entire fuel
32:03production in Poland is controlled by
32:07Orlen. And Orlen is controlled by a
32:15board, a CEO, who is a party appointee,
32:17so Mr. Tusk could simply call the
32:19minister responsible for state assets
32:21and tell him: "Hey buddy, whatever your
32:24name is? Mr. Tusk will know." I can't
32:29keep track of all these politicians '
32:31names. You have to forgive me. There
32:33are just so many of them. But he could
32:36call him and say: "Hey buddy, whatever
32:38your name is? Lower the wholesale price
32:43of fuel." Could Orlen do that? Of
32:46course they could. I remind you, the
32:50whole idea of the windfall tax act for
32:52fuel companies is that they have excess
32:54profits, so they could use that excess
33:02profit to finance lowering wholesale
33:07fuel prices. Then pass a second,
33:12perfectly legal law on maximum margins
33:14at gas stations. Meaning, for example,
33:22a maximum margin of say 2-3%on fuel.
33:26It's possible, it is. I will remind you
33:28, ladies and gentlemen, that the margin
33:30is quite large. It's a myth that the
33:32margin is so terribly small. You know,
33:34there is this man called Mr. Skolim. I
33:36send him my warmest regards. I have
33:38never met him, but I've come to like
33:40him. Ever since a few years ago when I
33:43got a financial offer to smear him on
33:45the internet. I concluded that if
33:52someone wants to pay money to slander
33:53another person, then the person meant
33:55to be slandered must be a very good
33:57human being. Of course, I didn't agree,
34:00I didn't take the money, I never
34:02slandered Mr. Skolim, I just formed an
34:04opinion about him, well, based on the
34:06same principle, right? If someone hates
34:10a guy so much that they try to buy
34:12negative PR against him, then he must
34:14be a good man. Mr. Skolim, greetings.
34:21So, I remind you that Mr. Skolim has a
34:24gas station where he sells fuel from
34:26the Orlen refinery much cheaper than at
34:28Orlen's own gas stations, so damn it,
34:30it is possible. I remind you that
34:36dumping is illegal in Poland, so if Mr.
34:38Skolim were selling fuel at a loss, he
34:40would already be in jail. But Mr.
34:43Skolim is sitting, but only at concerts
34:45, or possibly on the roof of his own
34:47gas station. Why does he have the right
34:51? Because it's his roof, on his station
34:53. So those are the two things. Mr. Tusk
35:01could call, he could call Orlen and say
35:03: "Orlen, start selling fuel cheaper
35:05wholesale, but not to Ukraine, as you
35:07do now, but to Poles." Start selling
35:14fuel cheaper wholesale and
35:15simultaneously pass a law that there is
35:18a maximum, let's say, 5%margin on fuel
35:20at gas stations. Would that be legal?
35:33As for the second part? Certainly yes.
35:37The government has the right to
35:38interfere in the market by setting
35:40maximum margins. It might be
35:45inconsistent with the principles of
35:47freedom of economic activity and so on,
35:49but I remind you, crazier things have
35:51happened and passed in Poland; since
35:53the government could—and no one
35:54legally challenged it—forbid people
35:56from running their businesses. Right
36:02now, the government sets maximum prices
36:04at gas stations. So why couldn't it set
36:11a maximum margin? Currently, it sets
36:15maximum prices. Well, a margin is
36:19something smaller than a price. Because
36:23a margin is only a component of the
36:25price, and currently the government
36:26sets the maximum total price, while
36:28here it would only set one component of
36:30the price, which is the margin. So, in
36:33my opinion, that is definitely legal.
36:37Is issuing an order legal? Yes. Yes. In
36:43my opinion, yes. I am less certain
36:45about this, but I still think so. Well,
36:47ladies and gentlemen, the Prime
36:49Minister can issue an order to a
36:55subordinate, and since the subordinate
36:57controls the controlling stake of the
36:59company, they have the right to manage
37:01the company because, after all, they
37:02hold the controlling stake. Right? Well
37:08, the State Treasury holds the
37:10controlling stake in Orlen, right? The
37:13State Treasury has the controlling
37:15stake. Well, that's what you have a
37:18controlling stake for, to control
37:20whether using your whether using your
37:26powers is legal? In my opinion, yes.
37:32The effect, well the effect would be
37:33that in Poland there would truly be
37:35lower fuel prices, cheaper fuel. Not
37:40about VAT, but about a genuinely lower
37:42price. Therefore, it would be genuinely
37:47cheaper for everyone, not just for
37:48ordinary people, but also for
37:50entrepreneurs. So it would essentially
37:55lead to a reduction in inflation in
37:56Poland, because it would essentially
37:58lead to a reduction in the costs of a
38:04reduction in the costs of doing
38:05business. It would be legal, and the
38:18effect would be, in my opinion, that it
38:20would be legal, and the result would be
38:22that fuel would genuinely be cheaper.
38:25It would certainly be much more legal
38:27than introducing, by statute, a seizure
38:36of property just because the government
38:38, after you legally earned money,
38:39decided you earned too much, so they
38:41have to take it from you, because what
38:43they've done now is illegal as hell. It
38:50is totally illegal. I remind you, the
38:54act on those those surplus excess
38:56profits and so on, and so on, is
38:58retroactive. The principle that the law
39:03is not retroactive is a fundamental
39:04principle of a state of law. And yes, I
39:09know they often do it in practice—
39:11laws that act retroactively—but at
39:13least they somehow, damn it, mask it,
39:15and now they didn't even bother to mask
39:17it. They wrote directly in the
39:24justification for the act that it acts
39:26retroactively, that these energy
39:27companies obtained excess profits in
39:29the past and because they are excess,
39:31it follows from the principles of
39:33social coexistence and so on that they
39:35should be taxed in order to finance the
39:37CPN program. They, damn it, wrote in
39:43the justification that this act is
39:45retroactive, so it is, for crying out
39:50loud, inconsistent with the law. It
39:53will lose in any tribunal. And now, so
40:09if there was an easy solution to
40:10actually lower fuel prices in Poland,
40:12why the hell go through all these
40:14shenanigans? Seriously, because the
40:20fact that this will end up in a
40:22tribunal, will end in compensation, and
40:24we will pay that compensation. This,
40:26ladies and gentlemen, is as certain as
40:28the fact that people have had enough of
40:30RCB alerts. It was mentioned in this
40:32morning's vlog. I invite you to check
40:35it out. So why did they do it? Well,
40:41the answers can be different. They
40:43might, for example, be that,
40:45unfortunately, the majority of the
40:47electorate is stupid. I apologize for
40:50using such a blunt word, but it is
40:52accurate, and people love to have
40:54things taken from them and then, in
40:56quotation marks, be given them back.
40:59Well, for some reason people like it.
41:03This is incomprehensible to me. But it
41:05is indeed, ladies and gentlemen, the
41:07case. It is indeed the case. And now,
41:19but there could also be, ladies and
41:21gentlemen, various other reasons, such
41:23as someone wanting to set a trap for
41:25someone else, because it is known that
41:26these lawsuits take time to prepare, so
41:28that likely won't happen before the
41:30elections, ladies and gentlemen. And
41:34among politicians, there is a principle
41:36that the worse things are, the better.
41:38I mean, the worse things are in Poland
41:40when they are in the opposition, the
41:41better it is for them. So, setting a
41:44trap like that, where someone does
41:46something and the consequences come
41:47when they are already in the opposition
41:49, so their competition has to worry
41:51about it. Well, that is standard.
41:54That's what Morawiecki did to Tusk with
41:56Pfizer. So do you think Tusk is stupid?
41:59He is not stupid. They pulled a stunt
42:01like that on him, so he learned how
42:03such stunts are pulled. So the reasons
42:05could be various. But why is this, dear
42:08friends, dangerous for us, the ordinary
42:10Poles? Besides the fact that we will
42:13soon be paying a gigantic compensation.
42:16Because when the state treasury is sued
42:18, it is paid from taxpayer money. It is
42:21not Tusk who will spend this money from
42:23his own pocket. It is not Nawrocki who
42:25will spend this money from his own
42:27pocket. It will just go straight from
42:29the state treasury. Uh, which means we
42:33will all pay for it from the budget.
42:37They could have done it right from the
42:38start. So that is one thing, yes, quite
42:45obvious, but there is also a second one
42:47. Dear friends, the point is that once
42:54you let this pass, dear friends, a
42:59trick where politicians say outright: "
43:05Someone has too much, in our opinion
43:07they don't deserve it, so we will take
43:09it away," because that is what the
43:10windfall tax act boils down to. Then
43:20they will keep doing it, dear friends.
43:21And so now they hit fuel corporations
43:27with it, which nobody likes, so there
43:29is social consent for it. Let me remind
43:35you that they hit them ineptly, so
43:36these corporations will even gain from
43:38it. And the owners of these
43:41corporations will gain the most, right?
43:43Vanguard. And that other firm, which is
43:48a fund that that, well, has very large
43:55shares in in global corporations.
43:59BlackRock and Vanguard, there are two
44:01of them, right? They are the ones that
44:03will gain the most de facto. But they
44:06will gain indirectly, and these fuel
44:07corporations will gain directly. So I
44:12remind you that if they really wanted
44:14to harm these corporations, and not
44:16actually give them a gift, they would
44:17have created legislation that was legal
44:19, rather than ending up with an obvious
44:21challenge to that legislation in court
44:23and returning to those corporations
44:24what was taken from them, with interest
44:26, right? So, but you know, I know this.
44:34If you understood the prediction well,
44:36then you know it too, but most people
44:38do not know this. I mean, how many
44:40people will watch this podcast? 100,000
44:42. At most 150,000, if you help me a lot
44:48and send it around to your friends. And
44:51if you don't feel like it, then maybe,
44:53I don't know, 50,000 people will watch
44:55it. That is not much. Will others talk
44:59about this? No. Because making content
45:02like this means crossing big
45:04corporations that commission ads, so
45:11it's a hit to one's own income. Yes. I
45:14have just significantly lowered my
45:16earnings right now. So no, it probably
45:28won't spread. Yes. Unless you help me,
45:32unless you send the link to this
45:34material to your friends. And if not,
45:37then not. We'll see how it goes. No, it
45:41depends on you. Uh, however, uh m Well,
46:00generally people don't like such such
46:02such people don't like such
46:03corporations. I don't like them either,
46:06so but I am aware that the government
46:10didn't actually punish them, but rather
46:12gave them a gift. And most people
46:14aren't aware. Most people will think
46:17they punished them, not that they gave
46:19them a gift. No. And now, what other
46:32risk is there? The risk is that the
46:34government will see, oh, it worked once
46:36, I can keep doing it. There is social
46:39consent for this. Now then. And what if
46:45the government decides that anyone who
46:47bought an apartment—no need to look
46:48far, before covid, when they were
46:50two-thirds cheaper—that everyone who
46:58bought an apartment back then now has
47:00excess profits because they bought an
47:02apartment for, say, a million zlotys,
47:04and now it's worth 3 million zlotys and
47:09they decide that someone has to pay tax
47:11on that heavily, do you understand?
47:20Because while international
47:21corporations will easily take the
47:23Polish government to international
47:25arbitration and recover all that money
47:26with interest, that's quite obvious.
47:31However, you, as an ordinary person, if
47:33they impose a tax on you, forget about
47:35any arbitration. No, arbitration is for
47:38corporations. For you, the Pole, there
47:43are common courts, let me remind you,
47:45de facto controlled by politicians, so
47:47you don't go to arbitration for justice
47:50like a corporation, you, Pole, go to
47:52court for a verdict. I hope you
47:57understand the difference. And you will
48:01lose 100%. The corporation will win,
48:04you will lose. What do you know? The
48:16point is that you can expect, for
48:17example, the government to say you made
48:19excess money because your apartment has
48:21gone up in value and you have to pay.
48:27And you say, Krzysiek, but how? After
48:35all, even if I bought an apartment for
48:37half a million zlotys and it is now
48:38worth one and a half, we are still not
48:40talking about profits, because for me
48:42to have a profit, I would have to sell
48:44the apartment. Have you heard of the
48:50concept of unrealized gains? Someone
48:54will say, Krzysiek, but unrealized
48:56gains are not gains. Yeah, but you know
49:01that in some countries this is
49:02happening, that in some countries
49:04they're already scheming to introduce
49:06taxes on unrealized gains. Such a
49:10concept. Unrealized gains. And yes, I
49:14realize that unrealized gains are,
49:16ladies and gentlemen, like a phantom
49:18pregnancy. It’s not a pregnancy
49:21because it’s phantom. And unrealized
49:24gains are exactly the same; they exist
49:26only in someone's mind. Because what
49:29does it matter, I don’t know, the
49:31apartment I live in, what does it
49:33matter if it’s worth 500 zlotys,
49:36500,000, or 1.5 million? It still has
49:38the same square footage, the same
49:40location, the same condition. It’s no
49:42different at all. It’s only a matter
49:44on paper, and until I sell it, it makes
49:46absolutely no difference to me how much
49:48it’s worth, and in fact, even less.
49:52I’d prefer it to be worth less,
49:53because if it’s worth less, I’ll
49:55pay lower taxes on it and a lower
49:56insurance rate for the apartment. Yes.
50:11But as I said, in some places the
50:12concept of unrealized gains is getting
50:14through, meaning you have something
50:18that has increased in value and
50:21although you don’t intend to sell it,
50:26you still have to pay tax on it.
50:28Interestingly, the system does not
50:32provide for a tax refund on excess
50:38gains if a loss occurs. So, for example
50:43, I’ll use simple numbers so it’s
50:45easier for me to calculate and I
50:46won’t make a mistake. Okay, for
50:48example, I bought an apartment for a
50:50million zlotys. It rose in market value
50:54to 3 million, so the government
50:56collected tax from me on 2 million
50:58zlotys of unrealized gains. And then
51:02the apartment went down in value, but
51:04it’s a matter of time before
51:05apartments start to get cheaper. I
51:08still hold the apartment; I haven’t
51:10sold it and I bought it for a million.
51:13It rose to 3 million, so the government
51:15collected tax on 2 million in
51:17unrealized gains, and then it went back
51:19down to a million. And I still have the
51:23apartment. So if I had unrealized gains
51:26earlier and there were taxes on them,
51:28now I have an unrealized loss and I
51:30should get a refund due to that
51:32unrealized loss. No, Mr. Mark, it
51:36doesn’t work like that. There is a
51:38tax on unrealized gains. There are no
51:40refunds for an unrealized loss. Well,
51:44in a few places in the West, these
51:46types of regulations are coming into
51:48play. I’m not saying they are already
51:51in effect, but they are being heavily
51:53processed amidst very serious social
51:55protests. And what will happen when
51:57Tusk does it soon? But what is
51:59currently happening with Tusk is
52:04obviously a completely different action
52:06in terms of the idea. Because here,
52:10these gains were actually realized, but
52:12it’s about the principle that the law
52:14does not work retroactively, meaning,
52:20meaning that the unrealized gains tax
52:22act would apply to unrealized profits
52:24that accrued over a period of, for
52:26example, 10 years. Because, you know,
52:30right now apartments, in my opinion—
52:32this isn't business advice, just my
52:34private opinion—In my view,
52:35apartments are now likely to start
52:37getting cheaper, not more expensive.
52:40That’s what I think, that they will
52:42likely get cheaper, not more expensive.
52:44So the point here is to cover them from
52:47, say, years ahead, three years back, I
52:53mean 5 years back, 10 years back, right
52:55? Something like that. And the second
52:58thing is motivation. Why, in my opinion
53:02, did they state so explicitly in the
53:04justification that it's about someone
53:06earning money that, in their view,
53:08shouldn't have been earned, and
53:09therefore they are taking that money as
53:11a tax? Well, in my opinion, it's so
53:16they can later say: "Someone made money
53:18here, but they didn't earn it honestly.
53:20" Meaning not that they cheated someone
53:25, but that they shouldn't have earned
53:27it, because, well, did the person do
53:32anything to make real estate prices go
53:34up? Well, no, it just happened that way
53:36. They bought it, the prices went up,
53:39so they have to pay a tax. Because we
53:43believe it shouldn't be that way, that
53:44they made that profit. Because it
53:47didn't come from their own work, you
53:50understand? And remember that on this
53:52principle, it could apply to anything.
53:54You bought, I don't know, bullion, the
53:56bullion went up in value. Hence the
53:59question, isn't it a smart idea, for
54:01example, to buy bullion anonymously?
54:06It's dangerous that once they start
54:08introducing tax laws with retroactive
54:10effect, you never know the day or the
54:14hour. I don't know. I remind you that
54:18throughout the centuries there have
54:20been some truly strange tax laws and
54:22taxes on very strange things. For
54:26example, do you know, ladies and
54:28gentlemen, do you know, ladies and
54:36gentlemen, why in certain places in
54:43Europe, at some point, tenements had so
54:46few windows? You can even see sometimes
55:02that there used to be windows in these
55:04tenements and they were bricked up, and
55:06no, not bricked up recently or even 100
55:08years ago. No, you can see they bricked
55:13them up like 500 years ago. Why? Well,
55:17because they introduced a window tax.
55:20They decided that if someone has many
55:22windows, it means they have a lot of
55:24money, so let them pay. Now imagine if
55:28they introduced it now, for example,
55:30and of course retroactively, meaning if
55:34you have an apartment, house, or
55:36tenement with many windows, then pay up
55:38. But the townspeople had to pay it
55:41retroactively. And to avoid paying for
55:45subsequent years, they just bricked
55:46those windows up, right? And what will
55:53happen, damn it, if they introduce, for
55:55example, a retroactive property tax and
55:58make you pay a cadastral tax of 3%of
56:00the property value, sorry, 3%of the
56:02property's value annually, counting
56:04retroactively for 30 years, so 30 times
56:133 is 90%, for a round number for 33
56:15years and 3 months, which is de facto
56:17forcing you to give up the value of the
56:20property, because it will come out to
56:22almost 100%. Absurd. Truly absurd. And
56:30that is why this act that is coming in
56:32now, this fuel act, is dangerous,
56:34because it normalizes absurdity. It
56:37normalizes the absurdity of tax
56:39legislation operating retroactively.
56:41That is the first thing. And the second
56:43, it normalizes the absurdity. of a tax
56:48justification that works on the
56:50principle of that works on the
56:58principle of we think you shouldn't
57:03have this, so we are going to take it
57:04away from you. I will emphasize once
57:09again, I am in favor of Poland having
57:11the cheapest fuel possible, but Tusk
57:16and Nawrocki did not lower fuel prices
57:18in Poland. Tusk and Nawrocki lowered
57:22the VAT on fuel, and that is something
57:24completely different. For companies, it
57:28makes no difference, because companies
57:30include VAT in their costs anyway and
57:32deduct the VAT. Therefore, um, the
57:36price of transport for, um, the price
57:42of transport for companies remains the
57:44same all the time, so inflation will
57:46continue to rise in Poland. And they
57:49could have lowered it. I said how they
57:51could have lowered it. And you will see
57:54that we will lose in arbitration. We
57:56will have to pay for it. And the second
57:59very important thing is precisely this,
58:02how should I put it, this preparation
58:08of us for this absurdity, right? for
58:10this absurdity, meaning that from now
58:13on, since this will pass, and it has
58:15already passed, people are thrilled,
58:19that these types of taxes, tax laws
58:21acting retroactively, which can now
58:23directly affect each and every one of
58:25us, will be passed and will be passed,
58:27ladies and gentlemen quite regularly.
58:34So well, ladies and gentlemen, that's
58:37all. I send you my very, very warmest
58:39regards. Take care. See you later, bye.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Pierwsza Przepowiednia Kudłatego Jasnowidza! To Straszne Że Nikt Tego Nie Widzi! - Analiza Ator by wideoprezentacje, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 7,076 words across 1,052 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.