Thank you very much for the invitation, dear Gulch and dear Hans, for your hospitality and generosity. It is an honour for me and of course a great pleasure to speak at the Freedom and Property Society 2023 here in Bodrum. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Yesterday, Hans noted that all what he said in his talk was a satire and I guess all of you agree that it was one. I would like to declare that all what will be said in my talk is not a satire but a satire of a satire or perhaps a satire of a satire of a satire. In the next 30 minutes, I will attempt to unearth the political and economic fundamentals that characterize the great reset. Based on these insights, I will set out to present an assessment of the economic consequences of the great reset if put into practice.  It may perhaps sound over-simplistic and even exaggerated to you, but to me the great reset seems to be a neo-Marxist, communist attempt to overthrow a recipe to destroy the existing free society of the western world or what little is left of it. This conclusion basically rests on a rather simple insight, namely that there are only two ways in which people interact with each other. The first way is voluntary action. Example, I offer you an apple for one dollar and you accept my offer or not just as you wish. The second way is coercion and violence.   Voluntary action or coercion and violence are the general principles of human interaction. There is no third option, no middle ground between them. Terzium non datua. Chapter one, voluntary cooperation. Liberalism is the logical and consistent form. Liberalism and its logical and consistent form, namely libertarianism, stand for the path of voluntary cooperation. Libertarianism is based on the principle of non-aggression. It forbids uninvited physical aggression, whether threatened or carried out against people and their property. The system of free markets or capitalism is the economic form compatible with liberalism, understood in this way. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. Unconditional respect for property applies. People use money for the purpose of economic accounting and trading, making possible an advanced degree of the division of labor nationally and internationally. Markets are free. Everyone is free to offer his or her goods and everyone is free to demand the goods he or she wishes to consume. In real capitalism, which is compatible with libertarianism, there is no such thing as a state as we know it today. All goods are offered in the free marketplace. This includes the goods, law and security, roads, education, money and credit, etc. Chapter two, coercion and violence. Now to the other way of interpersonal relationships, coercion and violence. Coercion and violence have many forms and are the basic principles of many social theories. An example of this is Marxism. Marxism is the political economic theory founded by Karl Marx, used to allegedly justify a demand for social transformation. According to Marxism, social development is determined by the material factors of production, tools, factories, etc. The progress of material production technology causes an increasing division of labor and creates material wealth. Marx's central criticism is that the workers create wealth, but it is concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists. According to the Marxists, this basic contradiction can only be eliminated by a revolutionary uprising, by coercion and violence in the truest sense of the word. Marxism demands that the working class expropriate the owners of the means of production and convert the means of production into common property. Communism is built on the doctrine of Marxism and thus its foundation is also coercion and violence. It strives for a classless society without rulers. After the necessary collapse of capitalism, which Marxists reckon with and the violent overthrow of the prevailing property structure, the face of socialism follows. Socialism refers to the economic and social order in which ownership of the means of production is nationalized. In other words, in which the owners have been expropriated by the use of force and violence. In socialism, a small group of people or in extreme cases only one person, a dictator, determines how the means of productions are to be used. That is, what is to be produced, when and in what quantity, and it is also determined centrally who receives what from the goods produced and when. From the communist point of view, socialism is supposed to be only a transitional stage at the end of which stands the classless, the stateless communist society in which everything belongs to everyone. As Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, put it in 1917, quote, the working class must break up, smash the ready-made state machinery and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it, quote ends. In real life, however, socialists have never broken up the ready-made state machinery. The reason is obvious as Joseph Starley noted, quote, the state is a machine in the hands of the ruling class for the suppression, for suppressing the resistance of its class opponents, quote ends. Another, a more subtle strategy to get to socialism is democratic socialism and it too builds on coercion and violence. Democratic socialism pretends to formally maintain ownership of the means of production. However, at the same time, it demands that the owners no longer have a 100% claim on the profits they make with their property. Part of it must be paid to the state through taxes and those who resist will be punished, thrown in jail, even be killed. Through parliamentary majorities, democratic socialism ensures that the conditions that lead to socialism are gradually created, like increasing taxes, laws, restricting private property, spreading socialist doctrines, etc. Democratic socialism differs only in degree, but not categorically, from Marxist socialism. Democratic socialism typically makes use of interventionism. Interventionism represents the idea that there is a viable middle ground between capitalism and socialism. The good of both can be harnessed and the bad of both can be eliminated. This idea calls for the state to intervene in the economic and social system as necessary to achieve politically desirable results. From an economic point of view, however, it can be said that interventionism is bound to fail. Ludwig von Mises made this unmistakably clear in his 1929 critique of interventionism. That interventionism doesn't deliver on its promises and that if interventionism is pursued further and further to its logical end, it will lead to socialism and even end in a totalitarian system. One outcome of interventionism is fascism. Fascism can be described as a mass movement with charismatic leaders and its modern form goes back to the Italian politician Benito Mussolini. It is characterized by putting the interests of the community before those of the individual. We may speak of anti-individualism and giving the rulers the power to eliminate all competition. Moreover, economic and social life is unconditionally aligned with the goals of fascism. It goes without saying that fascism, in whatever form, is also built on coercion and violence, not on voluntary action. Another outcome of interventionism is cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism is a neologism from the early 1990s that first appeared in the US. It is basically a process of intellectual infiltration through which social and political revolution is brought about. The origins of cultural Marxism can be traced back to the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci. He believed that Marxism could not be established in the West, unlike in the East, through violent revolution as in Russia. He argued that a different approach was needed, namely overthrowing the bourgeois system of morals and values. Once marriage, family, property, law, borders, nation and Christian faith were relativized and discredited, the ground was prepared for a Marxist revolution. In recent years, another concept also based on coercion and violence has emerged, usually referred to as political globalism. Behind political globalism lies the view that the fate of humanity should not be left to the free market system, but should be shaped and controlled by an authority, a central political body, whether economic and financial crises, climate, terrorism or epidemics. According to the political globalists, the community of states, ideally a world government, that wields all the power it desires should fix things. Political globalism brings us directly to the idea of the great reset. The great reset is promoted in particular by the World Economic Forum. It is not a detailed or explicitly formulated theory or strategy, rather it is a conglomeration of the only fascinating visions of the future, scary threat scenarios and far-reaching economic and social transformation fantasies and fantasmas, the economic consequences of which generally remain obscure. Let us take a closer look at the most important building blocks of the make up that make up the great reset. Number one, stakeholder capitalism. This means that the owners of companies should no longer serve only their own interests, but above all the interests of third parties. Number two, environmental, social and corporate governance, ESG. Capital investors are urged to invest in companies that bear the ESG label, and a good ESG label is awarded only to those companies that adhere to politically prescribed criteria. Number three, vocism. This is the psychological notion of creating conflicts between people, of destroying the peaceful cohesion of people, of instilling guilt and inferiority complexes into them, for example, that they are only doing well because others are doing badly in return, that it is good and right to desire less. Number four, climate catastrophism. According to this theory, the earth and its inhabitants will die if capitalism is not abolished. States must be put in the driving seat and restrain, reign in and suspend the system of free markets, constrain, even end individual freedom. Number five, transhumanism. The idea of expanding the possibilities of human beings through modern technologies more precisely hacking what constitutes human beings, computerizing their spiritual being. Number six, fourth industrial revolution. The technology-driven and politically promoted upheaval of production and society through new technologies, artificial intelligence, robotics, genetics, machine-to-machine communication, smart contracts, internet of things, internet of bodies, augmented reality, virtual reality and mixed reality. The metaverse and especially the introduction of digital central bank currency. I will get to that in a moment. Number seven, lockdowns. The shutdown of economic and social activity is also part of the great resetters toolbox to achieve their goals. And finally, number eight, private public ownership, private public partnership. The state joins forces with big companies to achieve certain goals as far as, say, climate, health, money and credit are concerned.  State and big companies enter into a symbiosis. Of central importance for spreading the idea of the great reset is that it represents that its representatives point out and dramatize problems, such as climate change, environmental pollution, epidemics, income equality, et cetera, and label them as existential threats to humanity. The possible solutions that the great resetters recommend to cope with the problems raised invariably recommend state interventionism. Chapter four, theoretical interpretation. How can the great reset or rather its building blocks be theoretically interpreted in terms of the history of ideas? It is obvious that the idea that capitalism is evil is of Marxist provenance, that capitalism is the cause of the grievances that the great reset proponents appall. The posting of threatening scenarios also has clear reminiscences of the Marxist impoverishment theory as a reminder to encourage support for socialism, communism. People were instilled with fear that capitalism would impoverish large numbers of people, leave them to starve and that only very few would profit from it. Whoever did not want that would have to end capitalism and help socialism, communism to break through. It doesn't take much to realize that this is deeply anti-anti-capitalist hostile to capitalism and state guidance and control is supposed to override what is left of the free market system. The great reset uses interventionism. It does not openly call for a communist revolution. It does not envisage nationalizing private property in the cause of a violent takeover. Nevertheless, implementing the great reset agenda will forcibly lead to a de facto false change in ownership structures, a de facto expropriation of many owners of private property. Consider, for example, that moving away from fossil fuels will dramatically reduce the income and wealth of many people. Real incomes decline and people become impoverished. For example, many people can no longer afford property in the form of apartments or houses. They have to sell them. This allows large banks and investment firms, which typically have favorable financing costs, to buy up land, houses and apartments and offer them for rent. Former apartment owners become rental slaves. Small and medium-sized enterprises run into problems when the purchasing power of their customers dwindles. They don't have the financial strength to survive virus and climate lockdowns. They go under, or they get bought out by big companies. Vocism can be understood as directly aligning with Marxism or Cultural Marxism. It aims not only to destroy existing social relationships, to bring about unrest and conflict, but also to demoralize and discourage people. Because, as we know, this weakens people's resistance to developments that they would not tolerate without demoralization and discouragement. This way, the state can relatively easy restrict and uprogate the freedoms of citizens and entrepreneurs. Above all, vocism also ensures that people inwardly say goodbye to the achievement principle, capitalism, that the pursuit of a better material life, the free market system, competition, and striving to be better than others are discredited. Vocism even relies, usually not overtly, on the polylogism with which Marxists sought to invalidate, defame and discredit their opponents. For example, the claim that there are more than two biological sexes, or that logic is an expression of white supremacy, that there is not just one logic. The great reset not only has Marxist, socialist communists, but also unmistakably fascist elements. Quite obvious, for example, is the harnessing of corporations to achieve political goals. For example, the CO2 reduction of food conversion away from meat consumption to artificial food, including insects. Today's much-vaunted public-private partnership is, at its core, an expression of the fascist concept. Private companies become an extension of the state and its interests. This way, the state gains a huge expansion of its financial and personal capacities. The corporate sector becomes a branch of the government. A regime of governmentality is established, that is, the corporate sector as a semi-state functioning on behalf and as part of the state itself. Seen in this light, the great reset fully caters to the idea of political globalism, according to which the people of this world should not shape their destinies in a free market system. But rather, their way of life should henceforth be directed and controlled by a central world authority, a technocratic world elite, a world council of the enlightened. Against this backdrop, it is not difficult to see that the great reset contains elements that indirectly or directly promote or can evoke totalitarian structures. Perhaps the most obvious technical tool for this is the issuance of central bank digital currency, Chapter 5, Central Bank Digital Currency. That central banks are working to issue central bank digital currency is not surprising in light of what has been said so far. The great resetters predict and advocate that basically all transactions of daily life will be digitally mapped, all the way to the internet of bodies, to storing everyone's brain activity on the internet. Having everything take place on the internet also includes adapting money transactions to digital needs and possibilities. In particular, programmable money is of great interest to the great reset promoters. One could, of course, use conventional fiat money produced by commercial banks for this purpose and in tokenized form. However, central bank digital currency is being advocated because there are tremendous opportunities for control and power associated with the issuing central banks and the special interest groups that seek to harness them for their own purposes. Here are just a few of the consequences of central bank digital currency. Number one, digital central bank money displaces cash. Consumers and producers thus completely lose their financial privacy and become transparent. Number two, once digital central bank money has become sufficiently widespread, the central bank can literally increase the money supply in the economy at the push of a button. The possibility of abuse with inflation which is put into the hands of the state and its central bank is virtually maximized. Number three, the allocation of central bank digital currency is based on the principle of arbitrariness. The central bank decides who gets how much money and when and who gets none. Some are favored by the policy, others are disadvantaged. With digital central bank money, the overthrow of income and wealth relationships can be achieved more easily than ever using monetary means. And number four, central bank digital currency can be combined with social credit scores, with social credit scores as in China. Behavior that conforms to the system is favored while criticism or even resistance to the system is punished. For example, payment options with central bank digital money are restricted if a politically prescribed maximum amount of meat is consumed or maximum travel distances are exceeded or politically undesirable books are purchased. It is not difficult to imagine what will happen if digital central bank money is even linked to a digital vaccination passport and a digital ID. It would be total control of a kind never before seen in history. The world would become a digital prison or a digital gulag as Michael Recktenwald put it compared to which George Orwell's 1984 would seem like a gentle spring breeze. Chapter six, where the great reset leads us. An economic analysis reveals that the great reset cannot create a better, more just and prosperous world. It amounts to a state directed command economy based on coercion and violence that will predictably produce scarcity, poverty, starvation and even tyranny. Digital central bank currencies would create a world of total control. Policy makers efforts to hide the costs of the transition to the great reset from the general population such as output and employment losses will foreseeably cause huge increases in credit finance government spending. Central banks will buy up the swelling tide of government bonds and put new money into circulation. The result will be ever rising goods price inflation and the destruction of civil society especially if and when digital central bank currencies become the dominant kind of money. The fanatical effort to end fossil fuel use accompanied by restriction of politically deliberate increases in the price of food will foreseeably not only pave the way towards poverty for many people it will also pose a serious threat to the survival of a large part of humanity. Chapter seven, stopping and reversing the great reset. Is it possible to stop the advance of the great reset to reverse the progress already made? Yes, that is quite possible. The destiny of mankind on this planet is not predetermined as the Marxists would have us believe. Rather, it is man-made action in the world that decisively determine his future. And since human action is in the last consequence indisputably determined by ideas or theories ideas and theories are in the end the back of field on which the great reset must be resisted if one wants to stop and reverse it. Ludwig von Mises formulated this impressively quote, only ideas can overcome ideas and it is only the ideas of capitalism and of liberalism that can overcome socialism. Only by a battle of ideas can a decision be reached. Human society is an issue of the mind. Social cooperation must first be conceived, then willed, then realized in action. It is ideas that make history. Not the material productive forces those nebulous and mystical schemata of the materialist conception of history, quote ends. Presumably, however, it is not enough to teach people about sound economics to cut off the water from the great reset. Rather, a new enlightenment is also necessary. What do I mean by a new enlightenment? It was the philosopher of the enlightenment and Königsberg native Immanuel Kant, he lived from 1724 to 1804 who gave people the idea of reasonable autonomy. By autonomy, Kant means the ability to lead one's life in a self-determined manner according to rules one sets for oneself and according to Kant, a reasonable person is one who sets the rules they follow for themselves and does so only after giving himself an account of their general acceptability. Kant's ideal of enlightenment shows that everyone is called to think for themselves and that everyone has to overcome their cowardice and take the courage to think for themselves. They are not obliged to follow expert opinions, authorities and self-appointed priests of opinion. Rather, the rule is Sapera Aude, dare to use your own mind. But unfortunately, man's lack of courage and not infrequently so, his laziness to think for himself calls him to remain in the stage of pre-enlightenment and even to fall back into it. The latest coronavirus crisis is certainly a point in case of anti-enlightenment. Fortunately, one result of enlightened thinking can be understood quite easily, very easily. No one has the right to rule over others, can justify such a claim logically. Another form of interaction associated with enlightenment is voluntary action, not violence and coercion. The world of states, as we know it today, rests precisely on coercion and violence, not on voluntary action. There is no blessing in that and accepting and tolerating the state as we know it today has bad, actually destructive consequences. The state, as we know it today, is becoming ever larger and more powerful, relentlessly expanding, destroying civil and entrepreneurial liberties. And even a minimal state will sooner or later become a maximal state, as Hans Hermann Hopper pointedly puts it. Seen in this slide, the great reset is nothing more than a concrete manifestation of the action-logical insight. Special interest groups harness the power of the state for their ideological purposes and the state gains powerful supporters by granting privileges. It is the state that enables something like the great reset, which is anti-economics, anti-human, anti-moral and anti-enlightenment. But once it has been made clear that the state, as we know it today, is based on coercion and violence and that the great reset is ultimately only a concrete manifestation of escalating state tyranny, no enlightened person can give their consent to this development. Rather, they are urged to stop and reverse it with the help of sound economics and, by no means less important, a new enlightenment. Thank you very much for your attention.


I'm sorry, in IRC.  Oh no, the other days you won't though. Now, how you could spend those other days in a sensible way for a backup and give power of attorney or make a living will to protect the properties of your own identity, that is what you will be able to learn from someone who actually grew up in an analogue way who actually trained to be a carpenter. He was a taxi driver in Bielefeld in the 80s and 90s and now for 25 years he is part of chaos. He is esteemed in Hamburg for his clear attitude and his clear words. A wonderful cis-buddy. So now listen to the wise words of our Yockels. I will take you on a journey about the question why we treat people different to computers and what happens if you do not change the default properties and what could should be improved. And I think that despite this being a strange kind of topic to talk about the fact that we are going to die or the inability of dealing with that, we can still learn about ourselves and about others and if we exchange that then we can all extend because we are all going to die. That is evidently linked with the fact that we're born, that we're young, that we can do everything and so on. We want to have fun too. Great. And we want to learn.  And of course you have your own properties. In the computer you don't have to change all the settings. Everything is like you want it to be in that kind of home. But how about the human? Is there a backup for the human? I'm not talking about Accelerando or other things, you backing yourself up digitally. There is an analog backup. Why do we actually have to care about this? The answer, Murphy's Law. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. It doesn't matter though because we keep learning how to deal with that and you can turn it around. Everything that can work, everything that can work will work. Sometimes things work. That shouldn't really work. And we then rely on it working, although actually and so on and so on. And then things happen that explode, that kind of assumption. Things that we have no concept for. Things that we haven't encountered yet. And I don't have to search very far. When I want to deal with what happens when a hacker runs into a problem, an accident disease, the combination of this crisis, Bauer Holland was 49, I think, when he had a stroke. And soon after that he died. Back then, the desperation and cluelessness that was all around was something I felt because, of course, there was no power of attorney. Computer, back up, properties, human. The default is to be taken into care that refers to both. So we need to look at that. What is that default? Care. What does that mean? Is that the guy who brings me a coffee? No. This is legal care, not social care, not the carer in the home, the nurse in the hospital or something. There is an authority, a government department. I didn't know that before I started being a carer. And that authority determines and goes to the court and communicates to the court and the court, then commissions a carer, sets the task and a verification time period, and will get people out of care again or end the period of care. The problems here are carers are mostly self-employed by an organization and they often have little time. The first problem is called either generalization or the consolidation into a lump sum. But there is lack of time as a second problem. It's very stressful to reach these vital decisions in a short time. There is no personal relationship because other than in Austria, I cannot select my own carer. And the job doesn't exist, at least not in Germany. That has a whole heap of implications. So professional carers, you turn into one or you are commissioned to become by the courts, but the profession doesn't exist. And that means that the carer is missing in the paragraph 218 in the criminal code and that is the paragraph on the obligation for confidence. If you are a journalist, a lawyer, a pedagogue, you have the obligation to remain silent, to keep things in confidence. And there is a penalty if you break that. But if you become a carer, you do not have this obligation, which means in a criminal procedure, the carer can be forced to testify against his client or her client. And they have to do this. They have no right to silence. And of course, that has huge implications. Also, the legal people that carry this, the 3 million people that are in care in Germany, determined by these legal people, because I think that's terrible because these people are never asked anyway. That's the one thing. And to put the care above the person, I think, is completely unbearable. And that is one of the reasons why I stopped. There's a whole amount of information about this. You can read on this, not such a good, not such a very nice read. And the alternative for the person, the alternative to default is power of attorney. And the alternative to properties is a living well, a patient's decree. Let's begin with the power of attorney. Of course, it exists in Austria, Switzerland, in Germany, and it's differing everywhere. In Austria, it's a law to it's a law of replacement. It had a different name in the past, but now it's the same. In the past, it's also called adult replacement. And in Germany, I think it's carer. So there are slight differences in wording and meaning, but that's in details. And I will just use the German case as default. So this authority of attorney or power of attorney, I can give with a court and I can give it to one or several people. And we know that it's known people. They know me. They don't have to wonder what I would want. They just have to remember. It has to be done in writing and it's possible to register it to document this properly. I think in Switzerland, I need to go to a notary. I don't think it's necessary in Germany. In context with this, I need to stress. I am not a lawyer. I'm not giving judicial advice. I'm just discussing something I know a little bit about. Otherwise, I could be punished. So registering this power of attorney or this authorization of care costs about 13 euros. I can just go to this department of the notaries or I can do it more locally. And it's right with the people who need to get it. Then it costs about 10 euros. The interesting thing is that normally there's a Q&A afterwards and we will do it differently. I have a few questions for you. If you can answer those, then you are a huge step ahead. Who do you trust? Who would you trust to take care of you if you're not well? Who knows you? Who is stress resistance enough? Would it make sense to have several people or would they just argue and fight? That's very much up to the individual and that's where the power of attorney or this letter, this authorization is important. It makes sense. So if you take a court mandated carer, you might avoid certain conflicts, but conflicts can be solved. You should discuss this. Discuss this with each other. Talk about it. That's something everyone thinks about on their own and only if it really comes to it, they talk about it, but you should do it earlier. You could get advice by lawyers and notaries, but you can also research yourself. There are other places, more local places, that are allowed to give advice and it really fits on a very small place. The name and place where you live. Hereby I give power of attorney in case I'm no longer able to do so myself, to person, name, address, date of birth, to have power of attorney over my interest. It can include more, of course. If there is such a note giving power of attorney or giving power of care, then no caregiver is called upon by a court and that's the point. What's more, we need living will or patient's provision so you're not just handled like anyone else. To have this you have to be of age, you have to be able to do official agreements. That means you have to do it in writing. You can mention all sorts of things, certain examinations, what you would want, what you wouldn't want, care, what you would want, what you wouldn't want, what doctors are allowed to do or are not allowed to do. So for the point where you can't decide anymore on your own, you can say I don't want to be fed artificially. I don't want to be kept alive artificially. And just in case I can't talk anymore or communicate anymore. And the important thing is that it gives guidelines to the doctors how they should treat you and how they shouldn't treat you. For example, in my will I declared that I don't want to have a whole limbs removed. It is connected to my personal history and I declare that and I also explain it and it's very much up to the individuals. Because it's a very personal thing we have to somehow connect it to the law. We have to put it in the frame of the law. So one small example in the paragraph 1901 in the public law book, I'm not reading it. In this paragraph a caregiver is mentioned but not the one given power of attorney, a power of will. But they handle the same but I don't really get the last sentence. This power, this living will can be taken back at any time without special form but by whom? We don't know. Important in this context is that you yourself know your limits and your wishes so you can't formulate it. Because at that moment when you lie there in a coma the doctor and whoever you declared your replacement has to talk and if they are in agreement the court isn't asked but if they are not in agreement it goes to court and it's the court that is applicable then and they decide. There are online offers. So the Ministry of Health, they say the Ministry of Justice is applicable. We have the consumer social people and a lot of people offer this service. It's all just defaults, just plug and play but it doesn't harmonize with each other. No one takes care to put it together. It's just boilerplate so it's structured but not personalized. That really makes it difficult for me to click the correct thing because I clicked something else above so why do I need to click on this but I can't and it's difficult. So those are guidelines for the caregiver and the doctors. Personal experience is important. So if I bring in why I want something why I made a certain decision why I don't want to be fed or maybe I want to be fed but only not internally so I need to know how that works to be fed internally and you can really learn a lot just deciding and thinking about this and learning about this but what do I want and how do I say it so that others will understand me. Also this is something that you can handle in a discussion and you will learn a lot in the discussion and you can find difficulties in understanding and increase understanding and between what do I want and what do I not want that's the whole space that has to be explored. What are my criteria? If I'm religious, if I have a certain worldview, if I'm atheist whatever then I need to show my criteria and that helps the people that maybe are not able to talk to me in the moment to take to make the right decisions. We have to learn, learn things, understand things and it's about all those things that are surrounding us all day. Some we even like. Learning is also remembering. Sometimes we forget things, things we knew all the time that seemed normal to us that were always there so we just think they are given, they are not. We have to differentiate in our in our perception so if I learn something then maybe the person next to me would learn something different because they have a different background, they have a different history. So in this we can also help each other and fill in gaps. There are alternatives. We don't have to use things for what they were meant and I think that's also what defines us. Finding alternatives. Something that's not forbidden yet. It's about unsanctioned free spaces and we can create those for the future by not just falling back on the default all the time. We can achieve good ways into the future. We have to find them and they are very personal. So summarize. Shit happens. That's a fact. The question isn't whether that happens but how we deal with it. Be prepared. You can do wonderful things. If you anticipate the moment that might come, I don't get up in the car because I plan to be in an accident. In football there always are goals scored after a free kick although we have a goalkeeper but that's no reason to do without the goalkeeper. You take a spare wheel with you, not because you plan to have a flat tire and that's what I mean. It's not about being incomplete or in fear but to be aware that these things can happen and the nice thing is you don't have to do it alone. We are all in communities where you can discuss things, where there are, where there is experience, where there are people that like to sit down with you and think things through. Let's learn from each other and exchange the knowledge, something we can do quite well and do. Do. Thank you. I know that I'm on air but I have to sort my thoughts. The depth of your talk, what you said and how you said it is very impressive and I see that in the chat, in the pad, how many really severe deep questions have come in and I'm very much looking forward to give these questions to you so that in the short amount of time that we have we can extend the issue. One of the first questions is on the organizational side and it is what actually is care. Well, care is installed at the time when someone is no longer able to exert their rights.  Oh, sorry, you have to be extubated.  You have to re-learn to breathe. Now, this cut, this incision into your throat is bodily harm, but it's a permitted one. If you have signed that you are wanted to have an operation of some kind, in that sense, it is legally permitted, but this kind of bodily harm, you cannot give a permit for because you're in a coma. You cannot sign, so someone else will have to sign for you. And in that moment, when that is necessary, the hospital goes ahead and applies for an emergency carer so that someone can go ahead immediately and give the signature so that legally they can make that incision into your trackier, your throat. And the question, next question maybe fits this, what is the legal provision for the carer, the caring person, not being under a obligation to secrecy? I cannot understand that. I can only report that that is the case. And it's even more extreme. I, as a social pedagogue, if I work in that profession, in a children's institution, or an institution for mentally, for handicapped people, I cannot talk about the sneeze that a child has contracted. These are all medical data. If I, in a part-time job, say for 20 hours a week, I look after children, I cannot do that. But I can talk in epic breadth about the issues that my clients have who are in care because then there's no such obligation. Simply doesn't exist because the profession doesn't exist and because it is not in a catalogue of professions that are under obligation to secrecy. Next question. I read it first. I have learned that the power of attorney was not on a BMAT but not fully in the legal form, was not accepted by the authorities. At exactly the moment when immediate decisions were necessary, can you name certain templates that are perhaps more elaborate than the BMAT? Can you recommend any of these? Well, again, this is a matter for the individual case that refers to the individual case. If I want my power of attorney to look a certain way, mine has a single page only, much more detailed than the BMAT, but it's 12 items on a single page. So it's not that much. And I wanted to look that way. Others might want to have it on a BMAT and if they take that to the notary and have it confirmed by them, then that is a registered power of attorney. And if it is a registered power of attorney, power of care, then there is no hesitating. You simply have to find the most expensive and most available lawyer who will be very happy. There are all kinds of decisions for banks, for example, they have to accept this. And you then go for an injunction perhaps. So no matter how it looks like, whatever material it's on, it is very individual. But with the seal of a notary, it is binding, or with the seal of the authority. Yes. What has to be in there is who is giving the power of attorney, whom it is given to, in what place, and at what time, on which day, and it has to have an original signature. Those are all the conditions and that is possible on a BMAT. And that suits the next question very well. And I thank our signal angels for the way they have sorted these questions. And by the way, many who are active here have either have to have the situation either in the immediate surroundings or they've had it. Okay, I'll continue. These powers of attorney are very individual and personal. And earlier on, you talked about the normally accepted templates that would be easy for getting these accepted. And that's a dilemma. But you always find the recommendation that the templates by the justice authorities and by the consumers association could be used. Do you know these? What do you think of them? Well, personally, I have a very low opinion of them because I'd like to make my decisions as consciously as possible. And that means that I want to think about every sentence very closely and with as many knowledgeable people as possible. So there are these structured templates that you can submit to. And that gets us to the issue of submission. And I don't like that. If I'm not well, I don't want that. And especially if I'm well, I don't want that. And if I'm not well, I don't especially do not want that. I would rather do what I as an individual would prefer. But that my very personal view and everyone else who might have a different view and might take a different decision, that is absolutely fine. As I keep saying, you yourself have to be able to look at yourself in the mirror and say, yes, I'm going to sign this.  That's how I would put it. Thank you for that. And maybe a maybe somewhat lighter organization question. Do these powers of attorney or patient decrease have to be renewed every year? No, they don't have to. If in five years, your view might change about terminal cancer treatment. If it doesn't change in five years, then you do not move a new formulation. But what I do in principle, and I've experienced this myself, I had my stroke at the age of 47. I was very much more lucky than while Holland was. I woke up after four days in a coma. I was paralyzed on the right side. I was unable to speak without any memories completely erased.  So there is my patient's decree and every time I go into hospital, you tend to have the operation now and then by default, every time I go to hospital, I take my current power, my patient's decree with me, which is slightly modified or not. So I take that with me and the stuff, I have to make the stuff, sign it and make sure that they have a copy because they need it. They have to do things according to my will if I cannot tell them. And if they sign this as a witness, then it is clear that they have knowledge of this. Yes, and even if legally you don't have to renew it every year, it would perhaps be a good idea to look at it yourself and renew it at regular intervals and see whether it still applies.  And maybe I don't like the wording anymore or the spelling or if the paragraph has to be said somewhere else. But again, you deal with it at the time. You look at your heart, confront the issue and repeat it for yourself. That is something for you. That's something you want.  Can I decide that on my own or do I have to talk this over with others?  Everything else is optional. The point is, if I feel good with it, then it's okay. But my feeling is okay with it. I can test it by having it mirrored to me. So with the person that I do trust, if I talk with them, is that how you know me, is that would you be able to do this if you don't feel well? And so you always have to update it and it has to be synchronized. And if I'm in the stack from two years ago and I haven't synchronized it in a while, then I should do that. It's the same with the living will of all these documents. It's nothing written in stone. And the interaction with the person that you are later, when you are unable yourself. You have to trust them and you do trust them. And I like this term mirroring and in the interaction to take them with you and find a solution together. And that is something that I can't create on my own. That's the result of talking with and so talking and a process. It's a continuing process, just like personality isn't just it becomes what it is and always. So what happens if the person you trust is out themselves back to default? No. So you can't inherit such power of attorney or such an authorization. So if they are unable to fulfill it, that's the interesting point. Maybe you could say as a replacement, I want this person or within this authorization, you can also put in, I want Hans Acker as authorized person. And if that's not possible for some reason, or if it becomes necessary by law, for example, with housing contracts, only a caregiver may do that by itself houses. For example, there are rules for that. If necessary, he should be ordered or commissioned as caregiver. You can write that into your authorization. That's the fallback then. So you have to look into it and research how you how to set it up securely. And there's a lot of information about that. There is the option of getting advice. And we can also talk about it collectively. Yeah, that also answers the question, can the authorized person, of my authorized person also make decisions? Thanks for that. So how much does it help to have the so the organization card? How much does that help? I have the emergency contacts in my phone. How much does it help? Well, that doesn't have anything to do with authorization in the first place. Because if I have something on my phone without pin and my emergency contacts are on there, that's public information. So whoever collects me from my car when I haven't had an accident or anything, whoever gets my phone, they can contact my mother, my sister, my friend, whoever. But I can't force them to do that. They can just say, I don't have time to call anyone now. I have to call an ambulance. An authorization is giving someone power. In the moment, I can't make decisions on my own. And then someone else has to power and the authorization. So it's two different things. And organization card is one thing, but this living world, this power of attorney, this authorization is something else. Organization has nothing to do with that. And if they contradict, then this authorization is what counts as far as I know. I will resist this cheap joke that we don't have time, but time is running. So this pad with questions is filling up and running over. So now the small hint that this topic will definitely be continued in the breakout room. You can find the link to it below the tab or with the tab info. And if we have to close up here, because the next talk is coming, of course, we will definitely continue in the breakout room. But one more question. What do I do if the person that I trust not, so if the person I trust doesn't want to talk about the topic, what do you say? Well, talk to someone else. I mean, it doesn't make sense to force someone who is not interested in the topic. If they refuse, if they push it away, because last year his father died, or I don't know, there are a thousand legitimate reasons not to want to talk about it. And the most important thing is, and I always think of Timothy Leary, you should not alter the consciousness of your fellow man. You have to accept if someone doesn't want it. So if they don't want, they don't want. So I can't have them in that moment. So they are not in the pool of people I can trust anymore. I can trust with this. I don't, I can't want them to replace me in this case. But you also give that person an opportunity to think about these topics themselves. So maybe they are facing the situation just in thoughts. So it could hit the person themselves and they could grow on it. Not for you, not for the person, but they could be in the topic and think about it at least once. Well, I'm a social pedagogue. You can get over it. And I always try to understand. Sometimes I don't want to understand. And that's okay too. So if someone doesn't want to face something, then it's not time for them. The question is, can I build bridges? Can I pay the path for them? Do I have something to give them? Maybe they give something back with openness with being ready to face something even though they can't in the moment. But then you have to take smaller steps. And it's not about decisions. I have an operation tomorrow, open heart surgery, and I need someone now. This decision has to be done well in advance. Yeah, thanks for this great wedding with the bridges because we have to stop now. But if I see how many more questions are in the pad, I promise all of us, we will see each other again in the break room. I do have to do the closing now. Unfortunately, but I wish all the beings that took part, that we meet each other again in the breakout room. Thank you everyone for your attention. We will meet again.