Help
Some conversations flow smoothly. Others are the kind where every question sparks yet another debate about the foundations of civilization. This conversation definitely falls into the latter category.
The guest on the interview was Janusz Korwin-Mikke —a politician known for his sharp, uncompromising, and often controversial views. During the conversation, questions were raised about the relationship between the state and the Church, the traditional Mass, freedom of speech, the death penalty, marriage, the role of tradition, logic, mind games, and the limits of state interference in citizens’ lives.
It wasn’t just small talk. It was an attempt to delve deeper into the worldview, principles, and mindset of a man who, for decades, has provoked, inspired, irritated, and compelled people to react.
One of the first topics was the relationship between the Church and politics. The question concerned an apparent paradox: since politics always stems from a certain worldview, and the Church helps shape that worldview, is it even possible to speak of the Church’s non-interference in politics?
Korwin-Mikke distinguished between two issues here. On the one hand, he acknowledged that any statement made by the Church can have political consequences, because in a modern state, politics permeates almost everything. On the other hand, however, he emphasized that, in his view, the problem arises when formal institutional ties between the Church and the state emerge.
According to the interviewee, the Church should be an institution independent of the state—and vice versa. The point is not so much to prevent clergy from speaking out, but rather to avoid a situation in which the state begins to influence the Church, and the Church begins to influence administrative decisions.
Korwin-Mikke pointed out that the greatest tensions do not necessarily arise at the central level. In his view, much stronger ties can emerge at the local level—in local governments, counties, and municipalities, where the influence of religious leaders is often particularly significant.
The main point:
The church and the state should keep their distance from one another, because proximity to power corrupts both sides.
The conversation also touched on a situation in which a clergyman publicly comments on a political party’s platform. Does this constitute interference by the Church in politics?
Korwin-Mikke acknowledged that clergymen—as citizens—have the right to express their opinions. At the same time, he pointed out that a statement made “while wearing a cassock” may be perceived not as a private opinion, but as the official position of the institution.
The interviewee did not call for complete silence on the part of the clergy. He did note, however, that such involvement could later provoke the state to retaliate or attempt to regulate the life of the Church.
This is where one of the key points of the conversation came up: if the Church begins to interfere in state politics, the state may begin to interfere in Church affairs.
The next topic concerned the Tridentine Mass and the affinity some right-wing circles have for the traditional Catholic rite.
Korwin-Mikke sided with tradition. His argument was not limited to the Latin language alone. More important to him was the belief that institutions endure thanks to the stability of forms, rituals, and rules.
An evocative metaphor came up during the conversation: a person walking through a forest moves faster when the trees stand still. If everything around them started moving, the walk would be much more difficult.
According to Korwin-Mikke, society works in a similar way. Progress is possible only when certain fundamental principles remain stable. Without them, people are forced to constantly re-establish things that had already been settled.
The interviewee also defended the importance of Latin as the language of culture, law, medicine, and the Church. He did not claim that everyone must learn it, but he argued that familiarity with Latin terms and phrases facilitates an understanding of many aspects of European civilization.
Key point:
Tradition is not an obstacle to progress. It can serve as a foundation that allows society to move forward more quickly.
One of the most contentious parts of the conversation was the topic of marriage. Korwin-Mikke argued that the state should not be involved in performing civil marriages at all.
In his view, marriage should primarily be a matter for religious communities, private agreements, and traditions, rather than a centrally regulated state institution.
In the context of same-sex relationships, the interviewee emphasized that his objection primarily concerns the imposition of a specific meaning on the word “marriage.”
In his view, people are free to enter into any agreements they wish and organize their lives as they see fit. The problem arises when the state imposes a specific language and requires everyone to accept a particular definition.
This approach clearly illustrates the broader framework of his thinking: as little government as possible, and as much private decision-making and individual responsibility as possible.
The topic of freedom of speech was inevitably brought up during the conversation. Korwin-Mikke emphasized that freedom of speech is part of a broader concept of human freedom, but that it is not, in and of itself, the sole or highest form of freedom.
In his view, everyone should have the right to express their opinions, even if they are very harsh or unpopular. At the same time, he pointed out that one can be held civilly liable for one’s words if they cause specific harm to someone.
The speaker distinguished between an opinion and a statement of fact. It is one thing to say, “I think someone is wrong,” and quite another to publicly state something that could be considered false and harmful.
In his view, freedom of speech means the right to say controversial things, but it does not mean automatic freedom from the consequences.
The most complex part of the discussion concerned influencing children and people who—according to the interviewee—are more susceptible to emotional appeals than rational ones. Korwin-Mikke distinguished between openly expressing one’s views and subtle propaganda that influences the subconscious.
In his view, the government and the courts should take action especially when the message is not an open debate, but an attempt to shape attitudes without the recipient’s conscious reflection.
An interesting and less political topic of conversation was chess, checkers, bridge, and other logic games.
Korwin-Mikke explained that he views these types of games as intense mental training. He compared them to sports: people don’t play soccer just so they can walk down the street afterward, but because the exercise helps their bodies function more efficiently in everyday situations.
The interviewee pointed out that games such as chess and checkers have specific rules, a finite number of moves, and a clearly defined goal. As a result, they help develop precise, logical thinking.
In his view, regularly solving chess or checkers problems can help maintain mental sharpness even in old age.
Key point:
Puzzle games are to the mind what physical training is to the body—they exercise skills that we later use in life.
One of the most powerful parts of the conversation was the discussion about the death penalty. Korwin-Mikke argued that he does not view it merely as a deterrent, but as the foundation of state authority.
In his view, a state that cannot impose the maximum penalty for the most serious crimes loses some of its authority. During the conversation, the argument was raised that if a criminal sentenced to life imprisonment commits another murder, the state no longer has a harsher punishment it could realistically impose.
Korwin-Mikke argued that the death penalty has not only practical but also symbolic significance. It is meant to demonstrate that there is a final line, and that crossing it will be met with the state’s ultimate response.
This is, of course, one of the most controversial points raised in the discussion. For opponents of the death penalty, other values are paramount: the possibility of judicial error, humanitarian considerations, and the belief that the state should not take a life. In this discussion, however, Korwin-Mikke consistently defended the opposite position.
Toward the end of the conversation, a broader question arose: How do we know which rules are good?
Korwin-Mikke invoked evolutionary thinking. In his view, it is not a matter of first rationally establishing ideal principles and then imposing them on the world. Rather, we observe which principles have stood the test of time.
He cited the principle of “Thou shalt not steal” as an example. In his view, the fact that most civilizations have established a prohibition against theft demonstrates that this is a functional and socially necessary principle.
This is a very characteristic feature of conservative thinking: if something has endured for hundreds or thousands of years, it should not be recklessly discarded.
This does not mean a complete rejection of change. Rather, it reflects the belief that change should be approached with caution, because human society is too complex to be restructured solely on the basis of current ideological trends.
Toward the end of the conversation, the topic of Latin came up again. Korwin-Mikke explained that he had studied it himself, in part because it later helped him learn Romance languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.
He also mentioned the idea of creating a textbook on a specific type of Latin—one based on phrases used in medicine, law, the Church, proverbs, and classical quotations.
From this perspective, Latin is not merely a dead language. Rather, it serves as a key to unlocking the many layers of European culture. It enables us to understand law, history, religion, medicine, and literature.
Korwin-Mikke did not claim that everyone must know Latin. He did, however, emphasize that for people working in the fields of culture, law, medicine, or theology, knowledge of Latin can be extremely useful.
This interview portrays Janusz Korwin-Mikke in his typical manner: as an uncompromising, sharp, and often provocative interviewee, yet one who consistently adheres to a few core principles.
Among them, the following stand out in particular:
individual freedom,
limiting the role of the state,
distrust of democracy and modern ideologies,
attachment to tradition,
belief in logic and a hierarchy of principles,
the conviction that civilization needs stable foundations.
You don’t have to agree with every point. Many of them may provoke disagreement, strong feelings, or a desire to debate. But there’s one thing you can’t deny about this conversation: it’s neither lukewarm, bland, nor predictable.
Because conversations with controversial figures are meaningful only when they are not merely a form of self-promotion, but a genuine test of arguments.
Here, the questions touched on fundamental issues:
Who should decide on marriage?
Does the state have the right to regulate language?
Is tradition a hindrance or a foundation for development?
Where does freedom of speech end?
Should the Church influence politics?
Is the death penalty an instrument of justice or a crossing of the line?
These are questions that never lose their relevance. And that is precisely why such a conversation can be interesting even for those who strongly disagree with the speaker.
At first glance, it was a conversation about politics, religion, and controversial ideas. In reality, however, its main focus was on principles.
In almost every discussion, Korwin-Mikke kept coming back to the question:
Can society exist without permanent rules?
His answer is no. In his view, where tradition, authority, logic, and individual responsibility disappear, chaos, excessive state intervention, and ideological pressure quickly take their place.
You may agree with this or not. You can argue with every example. But one thing is certain: this conversation makes you think—and in an age of ready-made opinions, that’s already a lot. 💬
