Normality has become forbidden. Wojciech Cejrowski mercilessly on contemporary madness.

Cejrowski, speaking of his 'dictatorship', postulates that the fast should be respected in public space on Friday. This does not mean a ban on other religions but would make life easier for believers and have a positive impact on non-believers. He points to restaurants in Ethiopia that have separate menus for fasting days – and on fasting days they serve only fasting dishes. The lack of meat choice has an educational and disciplinary character.

The mechanism of action here is socio-psychological – imposing an external norm is meant to force the individual out of their comfort zone and try something they would normally not do. In Cejrowski's case, it is fish, which he does not like, but eats it for religious reasons. It is meant to toughen him and teach obedience to higher principles, which is a value in itself for him.

It is a comprehensive vision of a state in which the state does not deal with treatment (that is the role of private insurers), education (that is the decision of parents and teachers), sport, or climate. Instead of labor law, there would be voluntary agreements between the employee and the employer, without a minimum wage. Cejrowski argues that the minimum wage blocks the possibility of legally employing people with partial disabilities who would like to work for a lower rate, which reflects their actual productivity. Law and regulations, in his opinion, are the main barrier to development and prosperity.

Cejrowski describes a specific, almost military operation under the leadership of the president, who would use his address to mobilize 'hooligans and citizens' and favorable generals to block the borders. At the city level, the police together with an armed 'citizen militia' would catch people of 'Hindu-Pakistani appearance', who at 10 a.m. are taking pictures like tourists. There would be a presumption of guilt – suspects would have to prove the legality of their stay.

The method of deportation is deliberately brutal and described as a certain performance – the ship would be wrecked on a sandbank, and the immigrants left to fend for themselves. This is a vivid emphasis of the plan's ruthlessness. The whole thing is based on the assumption that the president can do more than he thinks, because he has authority – just as 'National Reading' is organized, so can 'National Border Blocking' be organized.

Cejrowski explains that his views (understood as internal 'convictions') are constant, but new matters, such as taxes, require him to form an opinion from scratch. He uses the metaphor of a 'suit' – the title 'Chief Cowboy of the Republic of Poland' suited the format of the WC Kwadrans broadcast, but does not define his person. His core has remained unchanged for 30 years.

The process of 'natural radicalization' is justified by age. He claims that as a younger man he had more to lose and 'bit his tongue'. Currently, being older, he has nothing left to lose, which makes him a 'full-time fighter'. It is therefore not a conscious change of communication strategy, but an internal consequence of aging.

The key argument is the distinction between changing one's mind about an object (e.g., a restaurant that has deteriorated in quality) and changing one's own fundamental convictions. Cejrowski claims he does not recall a situation of changing the latter, he only formed opinions on matters new to him.

Cejrowski explains his stance metaphorically: it is not he who changed his mind about Trump, but Trump 'has a very poor season now'. He compares it to evaluating a sports team – last year it was excellent, this year it plays badly, so the assessment is adequate to the current form, and not a change of the general stance.

He points out two key 'dissonances'. The first is the matter of the Epstein list. Cejrowski and his interlocutor, Lisicki, theorize that Trump may have seen the scale of entanglement of American elites and deliberately blocks the publication, afraid of the 'implosion' of the state. The second dissonance is the war in Iran. Cejrowski argues that MAGA voters would be able to forgive him if it were a quick, victorious campaign, but Trump is stuck in a conflict that is inherently impossible to win because the enemies are not afraid of death.

Cejrowski also criticizes dressing Trump in the symbolism of Jesus on the official channel. In his opinion, the old Trump would have covered it up with a joke, the current one 'keeps insisting', claiming he looks 'like a doctor', which according to Cejrowski is a sign of weakness and stupidity.

Cejrowski develops his concept of radically limiting the role of the state. As a dictator with a pre-planned abdication, he sees his mission in dismantling structures he considers unnecessary or harmful.

He lists in order: the Ministry of Health ('absolutely to be liquidated'), justifying that it leads to coercion (like during covid), and treatment is an individual citizen's matter. The health care system would operate on the basis of private insurance, similar to car third-party liability insurance. The Ministry of Education is 'unnecessary', because school is to teach reading and counting, not to shape the citizen. Schools would be completely free and subject to market verification by parents. The Ministry of Sport and the Ministry of Climate are freeloaders – the climate minister cannot 'manage the climate', so his department is a fiction generating costs. The whole plan is based on the assumption that 'the less government, the fewer bandits who ruin your life'.

Cejrowski argues that divorces, initiated mostly by men looking for a 'younger model', led to a situation where boys are raised only by mothers. The absence of a father in the upbringing process deprives them of the opportunity to learn male patterns of dealing with conflicts, which results in an 'effeminate' generation that learns hysteria from the mother instead of 'gritting teeth' from the father.

He develops the thread of economic causes of feminization. In his opinion, women leaving homes for the labor market was not emancipation but an 'economic procedure' of capitalism. By artificially suppressing the growth of male salaries, a situation was brought about where one salary is not enough for a family. Introducing women to the labor market doubled the labor supply, which lowered everyone's earnings. He points to the 1950s in America as a positive model, where a man earned for the entire household and a woman did not have to work. He postulates a return to a system in which 'for one salary you can support a six-person family', which he calls a program for politicians.