The world according to Janusz Korwin-Mikke: state children, counterfeiters and other paradoxes

Janusz Korwin-Mikke has been famous for years for his statements that balance on the border between provocation and bitter truth. This experienced politician and publicist likes to tackle sensitive topics – from family policy, through the pension system, to economics – always seasoning his judgments with a generous dose of irony. In a recent interview, he did not disappoint: he peppered his speech with bon mots that made some people laugh until they cried and left others speechless. However, beneath the humorous veneer of his words lie theses that Korwin-Mikke presents as logical and consistent, although not everyone shares his way of thinking.

Family vs. state: who has the children?

When asked about the reasons for low fertility rates in Europe, Korwin-Mikke rejects popular explanations in his typical style. He calls the argument that young people today cannot afford to have children utter nonsense. "It has always been the poor who had children, not the rich," he notes soberly, recalling historical realities. "Saying that people cannot afford children is complete nonsense," he adds with conviction. If it is not material issues that are preventing Poles and Europeans from expanding their families, then what is it? Korwin-Mikke points to two main reasons, both of which, in his opinion, result from excessive state interference. Contemporary demographic studies point to a much broader range of reasons for the decline in fertility – from cultural changes and urbanization to the postponement of decisions about permanent relationships. However, Korwin-Mikke consciously rejects these explanations, considering them secondary to the role of the state and its interference in family life.

The first culprit is the all-powerful state taking children away from their families. Korwin illustrates this with a striking example: "If I spank my child, I can go to jail—that is, I have violated state property, " he mocks, deliberately exaggerating the situation. In the old days, when a family tragedy occurred, sympathy was due to the mother and father. Today, the politician argues, the child is treated as the property of the state, for which the state holds the parents accountable. It is officials who decide whether a child needs to be vaccinated, what its education program should be, and even how a parent can discipline it. As a result, according to Korwin-Mikke, the role of the parent has been reduced to that of a guardian watching over the "state child." It is worth noting that Korwin-Mikke is using deliberate hyperbole and rhetorical provocation here, rather than a literal description of the law. His aim is to sharpen the debate and draw attention to what he sees as excessive state control over the upbringing of children.

From this perspective, Korwin draws a shocking conclusion: if the offspring no longer really belong to the parents, the effort to raise the next generation ceases to make sense. "If children are state-owned, why give birth to and produce state-owned children? A slave will not produce children for his master," he chuckles provocatively. This perverse metaphor of slave and master strikes at the heart of his argument. Citizens, like subjects of the state, see no reason to "produce" children when the fruits of their efforts will be taken over by the master's court anyway. Korwin-Mikke suggests that people subconsciously sense this dependency - and react with rebellion in the simplest possible way, by refraining from having children.

He sees a second reason for the lower fertility rate in the... the pension system. According to Korwin-Mikke, the introduction of state pensions has undercut the natural motivation to start large families. In the past, children were the "investment" for old age - they were the ones who were supposed to take care of their parents at the end of their lives. Today, when the role of caregiver was taken over by Social Security and the state pension, the logic of many people has become simple: if the state will support me in my old age, why the hell do I need children? - this is the unspoken conclusion Korwin-Mikke seems to attribute to modern society. Brutal? Perhaps, but in his view this very mechanism is operating unnoticed in the background. The welfare state paradoxically discourages having offspring, taking away from families both the responsibility and the benefit of raising children. In this way, Korwin concludes, the expanded welfare system undermines itself, leading to a demographic crisis.

Significantly, the growing demographic crisis is increasingly undermining the stability of pension systems, which paradoxically partly confirms Korwin-Mikke's diagnosis—by taking responsibility for its citizens' old age, the state is depriving itself of the foundations on which this system was supposed to be based.

Real or counterfeit money - who is stealing here?

Korwin-Mikke attacks economic topics with equal ferocity, especially where he senses falsity or hypocrisy in the system. He bluntly calls inflation a hidden tax and even a form of robbery perpetrated on citizens. He explains it in his typical figurative way: when the government adds money, increasing the amount in circulation, the real value of our savings decreases. "Instead of PLN 100, I'm left with 50 in my pocket, and the other 50 the government has," Korwin-Mikke calculates, showing with a simple example how the purchasing power of money decreases. The state, deliberately causing inflation, takes away half of citizens' savings - maybe not directly to the safe, but through price increases that eat up the value of banknotes. The comparison could hardly be more blunt. In Korwin's mouth, money printing equals theft, differing from ordinary robbery only in the subtlety of execution.

Speaking of thievery, Korwin-Mikke goes a step further and poses a perverse question: who causes the lesser evil - the counterfeiter of money or the government that runs the banknote printers? His answer again makes us smile, but also makes us think: "It is better for the counterfeiter to add money than for the government to do it," he argues with a spark of irony. Why? Because according to Korwin, a private counterfeiter, although operating illegally, at least has human needs and will spend the new money in the real economy. "Such a forger will buy se for it a chair, a table .... that is, he will give work to craftsmen," - he argues with perversity. The money will go to the carpenter or shopkeeper, circulating in the market. "On the other hand, if the government does it, it will buy some speed cameras, batons for the police..." - Korwin-Mikke adds, not missing an opportunity to stick a pin in those in power. In his picturesque comparison, the forger comes off almost as a benefactor, and the state as one that wastes resources on bureaucracy and the apparatus of oppression. Of course, Korwin-Mikke does not approve of the actual counterfeiting of banknotes - this is deliberate hyperbole. What he means to say is that the state never economizes at our expense as efficiently as the market (even the black market) would. His message is clear: it's better to leave the money in the hands of citizens - otherwise it will feed the proliferation of "speed cameras" and other dubious expenditures by the authorities.

Korwin-Mikke also views large financial players with suspicion, believing that they are capable of exploiting systemic loopholes in the same way as governments. He mentions, among other things, the accusations made in the 1990s against George Soros for manipulating currency markets. Although Soros claimed that such operations did not generate real profits, Korwin-Mikke argues that market practice has repeatedly shown otherwise. He cites his own experiences from the communist era in Poland, when trading on different stock exchanges and exploiting time differences allowed – with the right contacts – almost certain profits to be generated. For Korwin, this is proof that theoretical market "safeguards" often fail in the face of human ingenuity.

Irony that makes you think

It would be hard to find a more unsettling commentator on reality than Janusz Korwin-Mikke. His statements alternately amuse and shock, but never leave the listener indifferent. Underneath the sharp phrases is a coherent picture of the world: deep skepticism about state omnipotence and the belief that human nature - be it a parent or a financier - cannot be fooled by systemic tricks. Korwin humorously exposes paradoxes: he shows a father as a slave deprived of his own children, or juxtaposes a banknote counterfeiter with a central bank. At first it sounds like a joke or provocation, but upon reflection it stays in the mind as a bitter reflection.

One may disagree with Korwin-Mikke's theses, one may ridicule or condemn them – but it is difficult to deny his intelligence and consistency in thinking against the tide. His sharp, ironic language means that even the harshest criticism of the system is presented as a brilliant aphorism. However, provocation is not synonymous with being right. Korwin-Mikke consciously balances on the edge of exaggeration, treating it as a tool for intellectual testing – who will stop at indignation, and who will try to trace the logic behind the controversial comparison.

As a result, Korwin's controversial words have taken on a life of their own, sparking discussions that go far beyond political circles. And this is probably what he wants: for someone to stop and think amid the flood of politically correct statements, even if provoked by a remark about "state children" or "better forgers." Korwin-Mikke laughs at the system—and whether we like it or not, we ponder along with him.

‍