Wojciech Cejrowski's Confession – who is he really?

Cejrowski presents this as standard Catholic teaching, not his personal opinion. He argues that if someone believes another religion is better, they should logically convert to it. Since practicing Catholics believe their religion is the best, there is no need to investigate others. The Church, he says, warns against studying other faiths because it is 'spiritually dangerous' — the same way a nuclear reactor in a briefcase would be dangerous to experiment with. He applies this to himself: he does not know what 4,000 other denominations teach, and he does not need to know, because 'salvation is exclusively in the Catholic Church.' He frames this not as closed-mindedness but as logical consistency — if you believe your religion is the true one, investigating others is a waste of time at best and spiritually hazardous at worst.

Cejrowski distinguishes between male and female sensitivity. He acknowledges that men have sensitivity and can be moved — he himself is moved by the film 'Gone with the Wind,' specifically by the degradation of the beautiful world of great estates and latifundia. But male sensitivity is different from female sensitivity. Tears are a tool women use more frequently to cope with problems; men should use them sparingly. The male role is to be a 'rock' — when a woman is 'falling apart,' the man must hold her together. If both partners are crying over the same 'constitution,' nothing will be accomplished. He insists this is not about suppressing all emotion but about choosing the right moment — when everyone else is taken care of, a man may allow himself to cry.

Cejrowski argues that the modern practice of laypeople giving 'testimonies' in church is corrupting. He invokes the traditional architecture of the church — the presbytery separated by railings (tralki) — as a physical manifestation of the principle that only the ordained should teach from the pulpit. He identifies several risks: the layperson might say something heretical, or might turn out to be possessed and suddenly speak about demonic experiences. The church is not a place for sharing feelings about a pilgrimage or an aunt's name day — those belong in domestic settings. He says he is 'disgusted' (brzydzę się) by the concept of lay testimony in church and considers it damaging to the Church.

Cejrowski approaches this topic from both scriptural and experiential angles. He cites the Old Testament's repeated prohibitions and the New Testament's warnings. He analogizes witchcraft to receiving a nuclear reactor in a briefcase — you don't experiment with it because you fear it will kill you. The danger is not illusion but real, physical, inexplicable phenomena driven by demonic forces. He says contact with the supernatural always produces a visceral reaction — goosebumps, like seeing a child with six toes (a sign of inbreeding). He acknowledges that shamans in the jungle can effectively treat bites and ailments because they know the local flora and fauna, but he sharply distinguishes between medical knowledge (znachor) and magical practice (szaman). Only the former is acceptable.

Cejrowski distinguishes between shamans (who practice magic — forbidden) and znachors or knowledgeable villagers (who practice herbal medicine — acceptable). He argues that in the jungle, a local healer will always outperform a visiting doctor for common ailments because they have vastly more experience with local conditions and access to local pharmacopeia. He gives the example of a tooth infection: a white doctor searches his bag for paracetamol, while an Indian picks a leaf unknown to Western medicine and applies it to the tooth with the same effect. This is not mysticism but practical epistemology — the villager has seen 400 snakebites, the doctor has seen four.

Cejrowski presents this as practical advice from his own life. He contrasts citizenship with nationality — you can have multiple citizenships (and thus multiple passports and driver's licenses) without changing your nationality. He recommends this as a 'very handy solution' (bardzo poręczne rozwiązanie). He applies the same logic to passports: multiple citizenships provide backup documentation.

Cejrowski builds his argument on two pillars. First, he invokes the American free-speech tradition where offensive speech is the very thing requiring protection — pleasant speech needs no defense. Second, he introduces a pragmatic security rationale: if hate speech is suppressed, authorities cannot monitor brewing hostility. He gives the example of football hooligans — knowing Legia fans hate a specific group allows police to deploy extra forces and prevent riots. Conversely, when hate speech is criminalized, it goes underground, and a 'Brown' (a hypothetical extremist) is sharpening his knife while authorities remain ignorant. He frames this as a matter of public safety, not just principle.

Cejrowski constructs a sweeping defense of conspiracy theories across multiple domains. He points to the COVID-19 pandemic as a watershed moment: theories that masks were ineffective, that one-third of vaccine doses were saline, and that pharmaceutical companies profited corruptly are now — in his view — confirmed. He references the Pfizer corruption case involving Ursula von der Leyen's husband allegedly receiving lucrative contracts. He also claims that a US general at the UN admitted to chemtrail programs for climate control. His broader epistemological claim is that conspiracy theories have a lower error rate than scientific hypotheses in fields like chemistry or astrophysics. He encourages people to engage with conspiracy theories as mental exercise that develops logical thinking skills, even if the theories are about aliens.

Cejrowski develops a strict ecclesiology: the pope is not an autonomous ruler but the steward of Jesus Christ's kingdom on earth. The papacy's mandate is to preserve the 'deposit of faith' — like a safe containing gold coins — without removing anything. He acknowledges that councils can add to the deposit but never subtract. He claims Pope Francis, by expressing personal opinions on capital punishment or other matters, caused confusion and damaged the papacy. He attributes Francis's errors to his Argentine origin, arguing Argentina has a lower average IQ than the United States — a claim he extends to the entire population, citing historical migration patterns where the 'best' went to North America and the 'worse' settled in Argentina. He hopes the new pope will repair the damage.

Cejrowski argues that certain crimes proliferate when punishments are absent or lenient. He points to San Francisco, where organized shoplifting is rampant because authorities do nothing to punish petty thieves. His solution: return to the Swedish practice of amputating thieves' hands, which he claims eliminated pickpocketing entirely. He also describes 'szelmowanie' — a medieval practice of notching or cutting a piece of a criminal's ear, creating a visible mark that identified the person as a pickpocket. The criminal remained fully functional (no loss of hearing, no missing fingers, able to work) but was permanently marked. He adds that hats were forbidden to ensure ears were visible. He calls this 'very beautiful methods' and says he would apply them today.

Cejrowski develops this argument in response to a question about Marcin Gortat's comment that rural, less-educated people should not vote. He partially agrees but proposes different criteria. He recalls the historical property census (cenzus majątkowy) in Britain, where only property-holders could vote because they had a stake in the state's well-being. He rejects education-based criteria because formal credentials are unreliable — he himself was a skilled anthropologist with only a high school diploma for 30 years. His alternative: only those who currently pay taxes should vote. If someone pays even 50 groszy in tax, they will feel the burden and vote for lower taxes. Non-taxpayers have no 'moral right' to decide who governs. He argues this corrects a feedback loop where the non-taxpaying 'lumps' grow in number and elect politicians who redistribute more from taxpayers to themselves.

Cejrowski elaborates a detailed comparison between American and Polish freedoms. In America, police cannot conduct preventive stops — they need probable cause that a law has been broken. In Poland, routine traffic stops are conducted without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply for statistical purposes (e.g., checking every third car on Monday after a long weekend). He also highlights gun ownership as a right equivalent to owning a hammer or drill — a personal decision about which tool one needs for self-defense. He contrasts this with the EU's centralized control, which he calls a 'sore on Western civilization' (wrzód na cywilizacji Zachodu). He describes his own experience living in Arizona during COVID-19, where freedoms were preserved at the county level, and contrasts his first flight back to Europe — where passengers were relaxed and joyful until encountering terrified, masked flight attendants at the plane door.