Ep. 494 I IMMANUEL KANT AND LIBERTARIANISM

0:00Dear Carla, thank you so much again for the invitation and I also want to offer my warmest, most heartfelt congratulations on your tenth anniversary. I know that you've achieved something enormous and there's so much that has to be done behind the scenes that others don't see. Massive feats of strength to pull off, to pull off and you've done it. I hope that in the future you'll continue to have the strength to keep going on the path of liberty, spreading the ideas of freedom within your club and having an impact far beyond it. And on the way here, I was thinking about this and that and then I also suspected that Carla chose August 15th, 2026 quite deliberately because it was exactly 55 years ago today that the gold convertibility of the US dollar was abolished. Yes. And I was, while I was listening to the

1:03lectures, hoping, praying that nobody else knew that. My father was born in 1934 in the East Prussian city of Conexburg. In January 1945, he escaped on one of the last ships from his besieged and later fatally destroyed hometown. He was an East Prussian through and through and in his library he had the collected works of a manual cunt, the Conexburg philosopher of the Enlightenment. And I remember very well that my father, usually with a smile, would point out to me that cons original works were not exactly easy to read, but he encouraged me nonetheless to work my way through these books. And fortunately, he also helped me out with some pointers on secondary literature. And so from home, I had a certain predisposition. Yes, I should probably say a preference

2:06for the great philosopher from Conexburg, the great philosopher of the Enlightenment. I must admit, however, that in earlier years, I didn't really know how to make cons insights useful for myself. And only over the years, I must say, primarily for epistemological reasons, did the idea of liberty move more and more to the forefront of my economic thinking. And that then created a direct point of contact for me with cons ideal of the Enlightenment. Because it became increasingly clear to me that the ideas that breed lack of freedom, the destructive sinister ideas from the darkness, the theories of socialism, communism, fascism, which today mostly carry different labels like green politics or the great reset can't be defeated by economic insights alone. But that above all, a great awakening of the people and Enlightenment in the Kantian sense is required. For Enlightenment, according to a manual Kant, is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.

3:17Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-imposed if its cause lies not in a lack of understanding, but in a lack of resolve and courage to use it without another's guidance. End of quote, Emmanuel Kant, his essay, What is Enlightenment from the year 1784. Kant is telling us, think for yourself, turn your brain on. Don't let yourself be guided, commanded, or bossed around by others. In Latin, sapere outay, have the courage to use your own understanding without the guidance of another. That is Kant's motto of the Enlightenment. But there is something in Kant's work that has perhaps fascinated me even more, and moved me even more deeply than the call for Enlightenment, because it is the foundation of Enlightenment itself, and that is the theory of knowledge that Emmanuel Kant presented.

4:18Perhaps you know, the Italian philosopher of history and law, John Batista Vico, who lived from 1668, to 1744, he had with his principal, Varum Ipsum Foktam, which is Latin and translates to, Truth is what is made by man, essentially anticipated modern scientific thinking. John Batista Vico thus said that man can only understand what he himself has created, and therefore, man cannot fully know nature, because it was, according to Vico, made by God. However, he, man, can know history and society, which are indeed the work of man himself. And Kant says, in a nutshell, and here we see, to some extent, the proximity to John Batista Vico's reflections, that we humans only experience things in the world in which we live, as we can experience them with our cognitive faculties.

5:19And Kant formulates this in his critique of pure reason, published in 1781, and the chapter we're talking about now is titled Transcendental Analytic, namely, that the knowing human actively structures their experience through the forms of pure intuition, meaning space and time, in which we locate things, and through the categories of their understanding, the basic concepts of thought. We recognize, according to Kant, appearances because and insofar as we make, or rather constitute them, not things in themselves. And to understand how Kant arrived at this result, let's briefly re-re-call which questions moved Kant. Emanuel Kant was of the opinion that one can only lead a successful life if one holds on to metaphysical assumptions. So metaphysics means that which we can't grasp with our senses. What we cannot hear, cannot touch, cannot see. So, and the metaphysical assumptions

6:23that Kant sees as necessary for a successful life are, God is the ultimate cause of the universe. Second, human beings have a free will. Third, human beings have an immortal soul. And fourth, the world is meaningfully arranged and tailored to human beings. Kant, in his effort, responds to the preceding metaphysical questions and to find the answers, he first asks, can metaphysics even qualify as a science? So, can we even conduct metaphysical reflections with scientific depth that then qualify as scientific? So, can that which we cannot perceive with our senses be the subject of a science? And to answer this question, Kant then presents his critique of pure reason in the year 1781 and in it a very important consideration. Kant says there are statements, he still spoke of

7:25judgments back then, but you can also say propositions. In modern terms, there are statements according to Kant whose truth content is dependent on experience. And there are statements whose truth content is independent of experience. Kant calls experienced dependent statements a posteriori. Example, I touch the stove burner and notice that the burner is hot and Kant calls this form of statement a posteriori, meaning after the fact. And then there are the experience independent statements that we can see is true, but which we don't need to validate through experience at all to know if they're true or false. And Kant calls these statements a priori. For example, we find a priori statements in logic. Many of you will know this, for example, the law of non-contradiction. It cannot be the case that a statement is true and at the same time be the case that a statement

8:28is not true. The sentence stands for an apriori true insight. One cannot deny the truth content of an apriori statement without contradiction, without already presupposing its validity. It should be emphasized here that when Kant speaks about apriori, he is essentially not concerned with every kind of apriori statement, but rather with pure apriori statements. This adjective pure is also featured in the title of Kant's book, Critique of Pure Reason, that refers exactly to this point. By adding the term pure, Kant refers to statements that operate using concepts that are entirely independent of experience, meaning that no experience is mixed in at all, and they simply originate from our own understanding. An example of such a pure apriori statement is the following. In a circle, all points on the circumference have the same distance to the center of the circle.

9:29This statement is true, and specifically, it is true, independent of experience. We cannot verify the statement through experience, because for one thing, we can't measure all possible circles, and thereby definitively classify the statement as true or false, since the number of circles we would have to draw for that is infinite. We couldn't possibly manage that, and on the other hand, we also can't draw a circle perfectly, because there are always inaccuracies and measurement and production that prevent that. A manual Kant would therefore view the sentence, all points on the circumference have the same distance to the center of the circle as a pure apriori statement. We do not verify it with any experience, but solely with concepts independent of experience that originate from our reason. In view of a pure apriorist, Kant speaks of pure concepts of understanding, that is, special apriori concepts, those to which no experience is mixed in.

10:33And Kant now makes a further distinction, namely between analytic statements and synthetic statements. Bachelors are unmarried. His analytic statement, Bachelors is the noun of the sentence, and unmarried is the adjective. And in an analytic sentence, the adjective, in this case, unmarried, only states something that is already conceptually contained within the subject, so to speak. An analytic statement therefore does not expand knowledge. It explicaits or rather merely explains what is already implied in the subject. So the classic example is Bachelors are unmarried. It is different in a synthetic statement, such as water freezes at zero degree Celsius. That water freezes at zero degrees Celsius, is not already contained in the word water, but must be learned through trial and error, through experience. Synthetic statements are, according to Kant, knowledge expanding. And with that, Kant arrives at a so-called four-field matrix,

11:36which you might still remember from your school days. There are a priori statements, and a posteriori statements on the one hand, and analytic and synthetic statements on the other hand. And what is particularly important and interesting for us here are the synthetic a priori statements shown in field three of the matrix on this table. In other words, statements that expand our knowledge that are synthetic, and that are also independent of experience, which apply a priori. And all of this takes place in your reason, in your mind, even if it may sound abstract. And the difficult part of my presentation is almost over. For Kant, synthetic a priori judgments are, here it comes, the conditions for the possibility of experience, which stem from the fact that we exercise our capacity for experiential knowledge. In other words, all objects of our experience, such as what you see here in the room, like a chair, a table, and so on, must satisfy these

12:36conditions. And therefore, the statements asserting that the objects of experience are subject to these very conditions are synthetic a priori statements. And I don't want to withhold from you how Kant himself formulated this in his book, the critique of pure reason. Kant puts it this way. The conditions for the possibility of experience in general are at the same time conditions for the possibility of the objects of experience, and therefore have objective validity in a synthetic a priori judgment. And perhaps you now realize why my father, with a certain smirk, pointed out to me the difficulties of Kant's texts. But to put it very simply once more, we humans do not perceive the objects of our experience as they are, but only as we are able to perceive them. That is, depending on our cognitive faculties. We impose a priori concepts on the objects of our perception, and those statements that claim that objects of our experience are subject to these necessary conditions are synthetic a priori judgments. Now you've made it. And with these insights,

13:41we can now move on to the work of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and his contributions. Mises presents an extremely far-reaching, and I think to this day underestimated, and also partly unknown message. Namely, that economics, that is, economic science, the study of political economy, is not an empirical science, but rather an a priori science of human action. And the term a priori already reminds us here of what we have already heard regarding Kant. And how does Mises justify that economics is not an empirical science, where you gain knowledge by trying things out and testing them in a lab, or surveying people, but rather an a priori science of action? Well, in natural science, one perceives as follows. You formulate hypotheses, so-called if then statements. So if the iPhone is let go, then it falls down. And then these hypotheses

14:45are tested for their truthfulness through trial and error. And the statements obtained in this way are in Kant's words, a posteriori, established through experience. But this exact approach, which is common practice in the natural sciences, is according to Mises not possible in the realm of human action, and thus also in economics. And the reasons are, first, the object of study in natural science is completely different from the acting human being. In natural science, for example, it's about atoms, electrons, stones, planets. So inanimate, soulless objects that merely react to impulses, but have no will of their own, do not set their own goals, and do not choose means to achieve those goals. And the acting human being, however, has a will. He acts, meaning he chooses between different goals, and also chooses means he uses to achieve this or that goal. Man, his

15:46action, his acting, therefore in no way resembles a constant impulse response function, as is the case with objects in the natural sciences. And there is a second reason why economics cannot be practiced as an empirical science. And that is, in natural science, one research is as follows. A is caused by B, and B is caused by C, and C is caused by D. And perhaps one eventually reaches the cause of everything. But that hasn't been achieved yet. But in principle, that's how one proceeds in the natural sciences. And one can proceed this way because the ultimate justification of the phenomena one wants to explain is unknown. One simply doesn't know it. We can perhaps explain B, which causes A, and then perhaps C, which causes B. But the path to explaining the original cause usually remains blocked. But it's different in the realm of human action,

16:48because here the ultimate justification is known. It is the acting human being who decides to do this and refrain from that. The statement that man acts is inescapable. It is no longer subject to any further ultimate justification. An ultimate justification here means there are no external factors that could be cited to justify or explain human action by scientific means. And with the insight that man acts, the sentence man acts, one now has a logical, unassailable, irrefutable starting point for the science, the study of human action. Because if you now think more closely about the sentence man acts, you realize that it cannot be denied without contradiction. Whoever says Mr. Palate, that man does not act, is acting and thus contradicts what they said. So they're saying something false. Man acts is valid a priori.

17:48Further insights can be derived from this sentence. For example, human action is always goal-oriented. So if you say Mr. Palate, human action is not goal-oriented but random, then of course that statement itself is a goal-oriented statement and would be a contradiction and thus false. The actor must use means to achieve goals. Means are scarce. If they weren't scarce, they wouldn't be means. Time, for example, is a means that every actor must use. There is no timeless action. It is a logical contradiction to think that. Whoever acts assumes cause and effect. That is causality. If I do this, that might be the result. So that is also already implied in the sentence man acts. We also heard something today about time preference in the formation of the original interest rate. The manifestation of time preference is precisely the original interest rate. And further, significant insights can be derived from this a priori sentence man acts.

18:52And let me perhaps add at this point because I'm probably the only one who's enthusiastic about it, but I'd still like to let you know. This sentence human beings act is even, and I recently argued this in an essay for a book in honor of Hans Hermann Hoppe, a pure a priori. Or rather, I see in the sentences that can be formulated from Mises logic of action, synthetic a priori judgments, just as I understand them in Kant. And a footnote from the sentence human beings act further true statements and economics can be derived. And you don't have to test them to determine whether they're true or false. Here are some examples. A voluntary exchange makes everyone involved better off compared to a situation where such an exchange hadn't taken place. Or an increase in the supply of goods with demand for goods remaining unchanged leads to a decrease in the price of those goods. Or increasing the money supply in the economy lowers the purchasing power of a unit of money

19:56compared to a situation where the money supply hadn't been expanded. All these statements are a priori. They are true independently of experience. One doesn't have to test their truth, conduct laboratory experiments, and so on. With praxiological thinking, one can also see somewhat more complex economic statements as true or false. Here are three examples. If Fiat money is created and put into circulation, then overconsumption and malinvestment occur, eventually leading to a corrective crisis. Or, as already said today, socialism is unworkable. It's not an economic system at all. It ends in chaos. Or there are no just taxes. They cannot exist. Or the state as we know it today didn't come about through voluntary decisions by people, but through coercion and force. And it's also kept alive by coercion and force. Not by volunteerism. Praxiological thinking in the field of economics thus allows us to formulate true statements. Statements whose truth is independent of

21:01experience. With praxiological thinking, one can see the truth of economic theories without having to, as I already said, test them first. And you probably already suspect what enormous explosive power lies within that. Anyone who treats economics as an a priori science of action and not as an empirical science sees the world literally through a different lens, reaching entirely different judgments on many issues than the usually empirically oriented mainstream economists and those informed, hypnotized, and hypernormalized by them. Here's a very important field of application. I'll speak about the state once more. Anyone who thinks praxiologically recognizes that the state is an apparatus of coercion and force that doesn't protect human freedom, but destroys it. The state claims to protect property, yet it destroys it. And it also destroys the very right it claims to protect. Or one simply recognizes through praxiological thinking that the state,

22:05which replaced commodity or precious metal money with its own fiat money, and you'll remember 55 years ago today, it was basically sealed that the world now deals with an unleashed fiat money system that this would not lead to a better solution to the monetary problem, but that it achieves the opposite. The state fiat money system is an evil. It is the cause of many economic and social grievances. Or one recognizes that the European Union is not a benevolent institution, but an internally and externally aggressive state cartel that erodes the sovereignty of people in nation states, promotes the centralization of political power, and destroys economic and civil liberties. Or one recognizes that the social market economy, which I know is very popular in this country, is not a good thing, but a manifestation of interventionism. And if it is not stopped, it leads to a command and control economy, in extreme cases, to full socialism, to a lack of freedom.

23:07And with the word unfreedom, I have now given the cue to switch over to libertarianism after having worked through this a priori basis, and briefly touched upon Kant and Mises. To that end, first, a reference to a practical example, the American Declaration of Independence, which was signed not exactly today, but about exactly 250 years ago, as you can see here in this picture. The people in the British colonies strove to free themselves from British rule, British imperialism, and its aristocratic structure of privilege. The revolutionaries and the colonies wanted self-government for the people. They no longer wanted the rule of the king, the emperor, or whoever else. They wanted a shake off social oppression and economic exploitation, and what they wanted to organize as a state was to be restricted to the utmost degree. A state that taxes little or not at all, that has no standing army, that does not intervene in

24:09free markets, that incurs no debt, that is denied access to money production, and that is separate from the banking system. The American revolution was, at its core, a libertarian freedom movement. What is libertarian? Well, the adjective libertarian stems from the noun libertarianism, and libertarianism goes back to Mises' student, Murray Rothbard. Rothbard built upon the theoretical foundation that Ludwig von Mises had laid, and that included consistent a priori thinking, and the consistent application of this a priori thinking to economics. And on the other hand, Rothbard consistently thought everything through to the end. Without any hesitation, he thought everything through and followed it to its conclusion, especially the classical liberal idea of the state and of liberty. From this, Rothbard then formulated libertarianism, which can be described as the most

25:10fearless development of classical liberalism to date. Libertarianism is based, and this is central as well as easy to understand, on the Carlo Wagner already mentioned that this morning, on the non-aggression principle. And this non-aggression principle is in turn built upon an a priori justification. According to the non-aggression principle, every person is the owner of themselves, has self-ownership of their own body, and also has ownership of the external goods they have acquired through non-aggressive actions, such as through homesteading, such as that. One acquires goods that no one has claimed before through production and exchange. All of this can be derived from the a priori theory of the logic of action. And at this point, I would like to point out to you, once again, that a derivation can easily be made by referring back to the so-called a priori of argumentation as presented by the philosophers Hans Otto Apple and Jürgen Habermas

26:15in their discourse ethics in the 1980s. Truth claims are established through arguments. It is an intellectual undertaking, not a boxing match. It requires rational beings, and therefore you can argue with a gorilla, and one cannot deny the act of arguing without contradiction. Whoever says that humans do not argue or that you do not argue is himself arguing. One can therefore speak of the a priori of argumentation. And arguing presupposes physicality. I have to use my vocal cords, make them vibrate in order to make myself heard. Or I have to press my fingers on the keyboard to compose an email that I then send to you. The person arguing must also have exclusive control over their body. Otherwise, they could not argue. One cannot argue without contradiction that one cannot argue. The non-aggression principle does imply ownership, private property, the cell phone

27:16of a person over themselves. And from this, it follows no one can convincingly justify inflicting violence and coercion on other peacefully behaving people without being asked, behaving aggressively towards them, taking away their property, their own body, or the things they have acquired in a non-aggressive way without being asked, or using it without permission. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, it becomes obvious that the state as we know it today is completely incompatible with the a priori non-aggression principle. For the state as we know it today has elevated itself through the use of coercion and violence to the final decision-maker over all conflicts in its territory. And it presumes to do something that neither you nor I are allowed to do, namely taking things from people against their will, or in common parlance, levying taxes. So you see, praxeological thinking unmasks and disenchance the state, revealing it to be a

28:16criminal organization. And here's a short quote from Murray Rothbard, which I will briefly translate for you. Rothbard writes, the state is an inherently illegitimate institution of organized aggression, of organized and regularized crime against the persons and properties of its subjects, a profoundly anti-social institution which lives parasitically off of the productive activities of private citizens. And a quote, Hans-Humman-Hoppa further emphasizes that the state continues to expand. That is, the state just outlined, as I have just described it, and as Rothbard of use it, that the state continues to expand, becoming ever larger and more powerful, especially because the state's coercive and violent power can be exercised by virtually anyone at any time. Because it is virtually a public good to hold an office, to strive for it, and to be able to

29:18carry it out. And that is indeed the case today in modern majority democracies. And from a minimal state, according to Hoppy, a maximal state that emerges sooner or later. From the perspective of libertarian theory, the state's coercive money monopoly proves to be, you see, I am trying to establish the connection to monetary current events here. The state coercive monopoly is thus also a particularly evil institution, because the state replaces commodity or precious metal money sooner or later with its own fiat money. Grants itself a coercive monopoly for the production of fiat money, and the state fiat money course of monopoly is not only inflationary, it is also, for example, socially unjust in the truest sense of the word. Expanding the money supply favors a few at the expense of many. It also causes boom in bus cycles, that is, crisis-like developments, over-indeadedness, and it also promotes wars.

30:18It allows the state to grow beyond all measure. The grievances caused by fiat money, especially the impoverishment of the general population, that is, impoverishment not only in absolute terms, but also relative to other currency areas, must be taken into account here. The financial crises, the economic crises, are then usually interpreted as consequences of the free market, of capitalism by mainstream economists, by state-paid mainstream economists, by ideologues and demagogues. And as a solution, they then demand more regulation, more laws above all prohibitions, a strengthening of the state, at the expense of the freedoms of citizens and companies. The general population, usually uninformed or ill-advised, because they're at the mercy of state propaganda and manipulation in schools and universities, mostly lacks the ability to contradict the state-mandated narrative, to rebel against it. But state fiat money causes this excessive growth of the state for another reason as well. As I said before, in modern majority

31:24democracies, politicians buy the majority of votes by handing out election gifts and paying for them with borrowed money. Of course, only after the state has provided itself, and its own, princely, with funds, with salaries and pensions, to make it easier for the state to obtain credit financing, the state central bank privileges government bonds. The state thus lives unabashedly and unhindered on credit. Companies receive government contracts, are, and not a few of them are subsidized. And more and more people will soon work directly in the bureaucracy, or indirectly in sectors that only emerge and flourish through state laws and regulations for the state. Mainly thanks to debt financing, the state penetrates further and deeper into all areas of the economy and society. Education, school, university, I mentioned that already. Old age provision, health, transport, environment, law and security, money and credit, capital investment, culture,

32:31everywhere the state becomes the dominant actor and worship distributor of money. The freedoms of consumers and producers are dwindling. The national economy is thus gradually transforming into a managed and command economy in which the state and its bureaucrats, or the special interest groups that hijack the state and its bureaucracy for their own purposes, increasingly determine who can produce what, when and how much, and who was allowed to consume what, when and in what quantity. The whole thing paves the way to socialism and initially through scarcity and hardship, which the expansion of the state causes. The proliferating state actually paralyzes economic growth. Scars resources are used inefficiently, leading to waste, mismanagement, corruption and cultural decay. The debt sustainability of the national economy deteriorates and lenders eventually no longer want to give the state new loans, or if they do, only at interest rates that net taxpayers can't pay and or justifiably do not want to pay. There are also current examples now.

33:38Japan, for example, is a candidate where massive intervention is now necessary so that interest rates do not rise too much, too much, so that the whole thing remains affordable. In the United States of America too, special measures have already been set up behind the scenes to absorb government securities so that prices do not slump and interest rates do not rise. So, libertarian theory already provides a good window for interpretation here, and ultimately it's revealed that rulers and those in power are simply unable or unwilling to repay the accumulated loans. And to prevent a major bankruptcy, the only thing left is the state central bank. It buys up the national debt, pays for the newly issued securities with newly created money, and the result is severe currency disruption or even hyperinflation. And then the collapse of the community and great crisis and great hardship then probably even offer the opportunity for socialist ideologues and demagogues

34:38to achieve their promises of salvation, to expropriate owners, to nationalize the means of production, to establish socialism. This or something like it is what the future of the state as we know it today looks like, according to the A-priori theory of action or libertarian theory. Libertarian theory, libertarianism, as formulated by Murray Rothbard, doesn't just have a knowledge generating dimension, but it also has a practical implementation-oriented dimension for freedom. The latter was formulated by Rothbard as a double strike strategy. As a double strike strategy, Rothbard argues that libertarians, that is, freedom-loving people, need a dual-complimentary approach to regain freedom, to scale back the state as much as possible, instead of relying solely on an intellectual conversion of officeholders and competitors for power. Rothbard called this

35:39double strike. One should have that up one sleeve, so to speak. There is the, and I quote, on the one end there is the ideological strike. That is, the building of a group of well-trained libertarians whose persuasion is based on concrete principles and ideas. This means the dissemination of libertarian and economic theory, Austrian school, universal A-priori ethics, and the idea of a peaceful society to form a core of intellectuals, authors, and influencers who rigorously understand and can also represent the ideas of freedom. And there is the populist strike, that is, the direct appeal to the masses. Of the people, through the ruthless exposure of the ethical and economic deficits of the Razon D'Ita, by strictly revealing how certain elites, such as political functionaries, pseudo-entrepreneurs, profiting from state funds and regulations, technocrats, activists, journalists, etc., benefit from the existing state of system and exploit the people

36:44through compulsory levies, arbitrary regulation, transfer payments, inflation, wars, and so on. Rothbard emphasized that this strategy must connect the abstract with the concrete. So the ideological blow must go hand in hand with the populist blow. And I think Rothbard's populist approach is exciting, confrontational, and dynamic, mobilizing the exploited middle and working classes against the unholy alliance of elites who want to rob them of the fruits of their labor and control them. This is very clearly observable, for example, in the current efforts to combat free speech. Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, we have connected the points I addressed in my presentation, drawing a line between them from Kant's A priori knowledge to Ludwig von Mises' insight that economics is not an empirical science, but an A priori science of action, all the way to libertarianism, with its likewise A priori

37:49foundational basis. By drawing this connection for you, Emanuel Kant should not be understood as the pioneer or father of libertarianism, but rather as the thinker, who, like no other before him, provided the foundations to justify freedom and libertarianism consistently and rigorously. And the final steps necessary for this were not taken by Kant himself, but by others, thanks to his preliminary work. And once someone gets wind of the fact that human freedom is not just an arbitrary assumption, but that human freedom applies A priori, they might already sense the intellectual firestorm inherent in this insight, which once ignited, no one will be able to stop. The state and politicians have succeeded in recent decades in staying in power, or getting there and clinging to it through deception, lies, and fraud by psychologically manipulating, politically suppressing, and economically exploiting the people. But the scam is now

38:55being exposed. The truth is, now increasingly coming to light. The state is bankrupt, often dysfunctional. The emperor has long since had no clothes. And more and more people now feel, perhaps without being able to justify it deeply, that there is no justification for some people to psychologically manipulate, politically suppress, and economically exploit their fellow human beings. And they are absolutely right about that. The state and its cronies are therefore now doing everything they can to fight the truth. Primarily with anti-enlightenment, that is, restricting free speech, or attempting to restrict free speech, with cancel culture, with intimidation, such as show trials, attacks on individuals, by terror groups, paid by them, and so on. For the state, as we know it today, and its cronies, the last battle has begun. And freedom-loving peaceful people are countering this with the firestorm of A priori knowledge,

39:57which you should have no doubt will ignite a firestorm of freedom, a firestorm that burns down the false evil foundations on which the state and its cronies have built their power. So help to fuel the fire of freedom even more now, to ignite a firestorm of freedom, especially by making these A priori insights your own, and spreading them fearlessly, and aligning your thinking with them. Thank you for your attention.