Grzegorz Braun brutally talks about secret tapes, hacks on Polish elites and the betrayal of the ...

Braun argues that the EU's migration pact has already been adopted and only temporarily suspended for Poland; there is no legal way to permanently opt out while inside. The EU structure, according to him, also mandates energy poverty through green policies and enforces recognition of same-sex marriage via ECJ rulings executed by compliant domestic judges. He cites Brexit as proof that leaving does not destroy GDP (UK's is growing) and insists that the real catastrophe is staying. He frames Polexit as an existential necessity to avoid 'exchanging the nation' and to restore a normal civilisational order based on the Latin tradition.

Braun details how all major parties have supported the 'Ukraine Plus' agenda, stripping the Polish army of tanks, planes, and even rifles. He points to the opening of a Stepan Bandera school in Lviv as proof that Ukraine embraces anti-Polish nationalism. He says the policy is not about 'victory' over Russia but about money laundering and kompromat. He also suggests that the same forces want Poland to be a launchpad for a war against Russia, which would expose Poles to retaliation, possibly under a false flag. His party, Konfederacja Korony Polskiej, is the only formation to advocate for full normalization, including with Russia, and to reject the mantra that 'everything for the Ukrainian front.'

Braun invokes history: Poland's 100-year-old treaty of friendship with Iran; the memory of Polish refugees passing through Iran during WWII; well-maintained Polish military cemeteries there. He argues that joining an aggressive coalition against Iran is not only unethical but dangerous, because it invites either real retaliation or a false-flag attack to justify bringing Jewish refugees into Poland. He sees the current war on Iran as a 'crusade' driven by American Christian Zionism and Israeli expansionism, not Polish security. He contrasts this with the NATO treaty's territorial limits (North Atlantic and Mediterranean, not the Middle East), so there is no legal obligation to join.

Braun's position is absolute: from the moment of conception, there is a person, and no crime suffered by the mother grants the right to kill that person. He extends the argument to self-interest: any of us could one day be the 'unwanted' one, euthanized by a cost-benefit analysis. He draws a direct line from legalized abortion to organ harvesting and the mindset that 'the weak don't deserve to live.' He uses the Jagielska case to claim that the current system already protects killers and that a just state would lock them up for life.

Braun paints a picture where the Polish state has been systematically disarmed, debt-ridden, and its military stripped to arm Ukraine. He claims that the president in 2022 expressed hope that there would be 'no border between us and Ukraine,' which he interprets as a desire to dissolve the Polish state. The tapes, he says, are the leash holding politicians like Morawiecki and Duda, and the only way to break free is to take power and launch real investigations. He argues that the current political monolith – where nearly all support the 'Ukraine Plus' policy – cannot be explained by rational interest alone; only kompromat, or an internal censor, can explain such uniform betrayal of Polish sovereignty.

He argues that the pandemic was used to bankrupt small businesses, destroy social bonds, and push a totalitarian agenda. With the benefit of hindsight, he points to US and Western European court cases that have recognized vaccine harms, as well to 'excess deaths' in Poland (a quarter of a million, he says). He links the pandemic to the Epstein scandal, asserting that the same circles – described as sex offenders with Talmudic ideology – orchestrated both the health crisis and the Ukraine war as part of a larger project to reshape global order. This is not, for him, a conspiracy theory but 'conspiracy practice' now evidenced by leaked emails and official records.

Braun insists that the Sejm should not host celebrations that assert the superiority of any nation over Poles. He states that the celebration (Hanukkah) commemorates a military victory and is inherently triumphalist, highlighting Jewish chosenness. He draws a distinction between religious worship and political/ethnic supremacy displays, and he claims that witnesses in his trial – including the accusers themselves – described the event in historical or political terms, thereby undermining the charge of disrupting a religious act. For him, the state's heavy-handed prosecution (adding a second prosecutor to a trivial case) exposes the system's desperation to silence him.

He explains that the Babylonian Talmud was compiled in the 6th century AD, centuries after Christ, explicitly in reaction to Christianity. Therefore, the Judaism of the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph was not Talmudic; they never taught the young Jesus Talmud. Braun alleges that contemporary rabbinic Judaism dehumanizes non-Jews (calling them 'goyim' as animals), citing rabbis who said Palestinians are 'not human' or should be 'mowed down like grass.' He argues that equating this with the faith of Christ's family is a grave error that leads logically to the erosion of Catholicism. He says the bishops are either morally deficient (wilfully evil) or intellectually deficient (ignorant), and that both are tragic.

Braun explains that during the hectic presidential campaign, content from his party's accounts was often reposted to his profile without his review. He admits that even if he had seen it, he would not have written those words, because he had already reached his current position. This statement allows him to both deny the standard Holocaust narrative without directly calling it a lie, while also blaming a staff error for a public statement that conflicts with his revisionist views. He then pivots to recommend his debate with historian Jan Żaryn, where he claims to deconstruct the museum's evidence.

Braun says the doctor, Gizela Jagielska, openly stated that she could and even eagerly ended the lives of 'little people' with a potassium chloride injection to the heart – a method banned even for animals. He highlights that only at the Oleśnica hospital, over 500 children were killed this way. He reframes the legal action against him as evidence that the system protects murderers and that his 'parliamentary intervention' was the only just response. He appeals to self-interest: any person may one day be helpless before medical staff who might decide to dispose of them, not heal. He notes that the doctor no longer works in Oleśnica, which he sees as a victory, but she still receives honors from left-wing circles, deepening the moral inversion.