Stankiewicz from Onet is tracking the “genetic purity” of Karol Nawrocki’s son. The German managers of Onet should think twice about whether this is a good topic for them. History teaches that when representatives of that culture become overly preoccupied with policing anyone’s genetic purity, it ends very badly, writes editor Katarzyna Gójska in a commentary for the Niezalezna.pl portal.
An employee of a German-owned portal published in Poland, named Stankiewicz, decided to analyze the behavior of the First Lady, Mrs. Marta Nawrocka. But to arrive at the present, he began by recounting history. It turns out that for a decade he was filled with respect for President Duda’s wife. He imagined her as a quiet opponent of her husband’s policies, constantly sending signals of dissent toward the head of state’s agenda—covertly, so as not to harm him, yet openly enough for Stankiewicz to read them properly. And there would have been nothing to write about had the author confined himself to externalizing his projections about the former First Lady.
But when he moved on to the present day, he decided to hunt for the “genetic purity” of the current head of state’s child. For how else can one interpret the phrase: “raising someone else’s child”? Someone else’s? You cultural troglodyte?! He loves and raises HIS OWN child, and Polish law protects that love and that relationship from degenerates such as this media herder.
Over the past year, the Nawrocki family has experienced many gutter-level attacks. But it seems that this performance has already broken the bank and can calmly await the awarding of the “Hyena of the Year 2026.” There is no socially meaningful content here—only an outgrowth of hatred and crudeness. The history of the presidential couple’s family is publicly known. Even the son—whom Stankiewicz chose to call “someone else’s”—has spoken about it. Thus, Onet’s publication contributes nothing new to the public debate beyond contempt aimed at the sensitivity and feelings of a young person.
Stankiewicz feeds on the lowest instincts—counting on stirring aversion among part of the audience toward the president’s family. He uses stigmatizing terms—completely contrary to the facts, yet offering him hope of humiliating those closest to the head of state and hurting them.