 Good morning everybody. Welcome. Thank you very much Gülçin and Hans for your invitation and your most generous hospitality. Who is Helmut Schelzke? Helmut Schelzke was born in Chemnitz, Germany on 14th October 1912. He studied philosophy, sociology, history and German theology and received his academic training from the Leipzig School of Sociology. He embarked on his academic career in 1948. From 1953 to 1960 Schelzke had a professorship at the University of Hamburg. From 1960 to 1970 he taught at the University of Münster and oversaw the largest West German Center for Social Research in Dortmund. From 1970 to 1973 Schelzke taught at the University of Bielefeld, after which he returned to Münster as a professor of sociology of law. Schelzke published many widely influential works on family, sociology, the sociology of sexuality, loneliness and freedom, democratization and the separation of powers. Schelzke died in 1984. In 1975 Schelzke published his book The Arbeit tun die anderen Klassenkampf und Priesterherrschaft der Intellektuellen. In English, let the actual work be done by others, class struggle and the priestly dominion of the intellectuals. The book was and actually is a bombshell. It lays out a rather eye-opening, demystifying, heart-hitting theory. According to Schelzke, intellectuals are in some way indispensable for society. At the same time they can also become an oppressive and exploitative and I may add destructive class in modern society. I will apply Schelzke's theory to one subgroup of intellectuals, namely today's profession of economic, of empirical economists. I will point out that they play a crucial role in leading societies away from a free economic and societal order towards collectivism, socialism and that means tyranny. At the end of my talk I will present ideas that I believe can diffuse even solve the problem facing the civilized world, Schelzke feared. A concern that is, as I will point out in my talk, well supported by sound economic theory. Let us jump right in and start with a central issue of human action and that is the issue of ideas. John Maynard Keynes recognized the role of ideas in social development. He wrote that the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Ludwig von Mises provided a logically rigorous explanation of why ideas or theories for that matter are at the heart of human action. He wrote, ideas and gender social institutions, political changes, technological methods of production and all that is called economic conditions. And in searching for the origin we inevitably come to a point at which all that can be asserted is that the man had an idea. In other words, ideas are the ultimate given of human action and they originate from individual thought and drive individuals to act. What is more, Mises argued that there is no way to establish a causal link between ideas and external factors that could explain them, that it is impossible to detect a functional relationship between the two. If that were possible, if we could discover definite relations between ideas and physical or chemical events inside or outside our bodies, human action could become predictable. However, this is impossible from the viewpoint of the logic of human action. Mises concluded that there are no behavioral constants in the realm of human action. Human action cannot be predicted. Hans Sammann Hopper made Mises argument watertight by referring to the capacity to learn Hopper provides an a priori explanation for Mises' insight. For logical reasons we cannot possibly know today everything we will know in the future and so today we cannot know someone's future action caused by their future knowledge. We are left with the insight that ideas form the ultimate given of human action that ideas, the concrete value judgments and specific human actions they evoke are not accessible to further analysis. Against this backdrop, it does not take much to realize that those who develop, disseminate and or popularize ideas or theories for that matter can potentially wield great power over those around them. This is particularly true in modern societies where the state as we know it today is big and powerful. Let me define what the term state means. The state is a coercive territorial monopolist with the ultimate decision making power and the right to tax. You may be wondering how can a kind of state defined as such originate and be sustained? One possibility is by brute force the rulers oppress the rules, the ruled people are beaten into submission. But how can the few who typically represent the state dominate the many for long in this way? In fact, this explanation is not really convincing. Another explanation is that the many feel called upon to voluntarily support the state as we know it today. How could that be achieved? One possibility is that the state corrupts the population through bribery. The state lets the many share in the revenues coerce from natural owners of things. The other way is to convince people that the state is good, just and indispensable that the world without the state would be chaotic, nightmarish and brutal. But who could proclaim and convince the people of such a message? Mary Rothbard provides the answer. Since the early origins of the state, its rulers have always turned as a necessary bolster to the rule to an alliance with society's class of intellectuals. The masses do not create their own abstract ideas or indeed think through these ideas independently. They follow passively the ideas adopted and promulgated by the body of intellectuals who become the effective opinion molders in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion on behalf of the rulers that the state almost desperately needs, this forms a firm basis for the age-old alliance of the intellectuals and the ruling classes of the state. The alliance is based on a quid pro quo. On the one hand, the intellectuals spread among the masses the idea that the state and its rulers are wise, good, sometimes divine and at the very least inevitable and better than any conceivable alternatives. In return for this panel play of ideology, the state incorporates the intellectuals as part of the ruling elite, granting them power, status, prestige and material security. Furthermore, intellectuals are needed to starve bureaucracy and to plan the economy and society. With this quote from Raspard, I have actually introduced the main protagonists of my talk, the so-called intellectuals, opinion leaders, second-hand dealers in ideas, the reflexive elite or the priestly case of intellectuals. Who are the intellectuals? Thomas Sowell describes them as people whose work begins and ends with ideas. Teachers, professors, scientists, lawyers, writers, journalists, actors, radio host, artists and many others come to mind. George Sowell wrote, the intellectuals are not, as is so often said, men who think. They are people who have adapted the profession of thinking and who take an aristocratic salary on account of the nobility of this profession. What do we know about these characters? In chapter eight of his Capitalism, Democracy and Socialism, published in 1942, Joseph Schumpeter devotes a section to this sociology of the intellectual. For Schumpeter, the modern-day intellectual is first and foremost a creature of capitalism. The free society that comes with capitalism, office-free speech and economic progress, provides more and better means, including newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and in our time I should add social media to disseminate opinions, ideas, critiques, truth and packs of lies. Schumpeter believes that sooner or later the intellectuals would turn against capitalism and embrace the idea of socialism, which will eventually destroy capitalism. Why is this so? Schumpeter argues that one of the most important features of the later stages of the capitalist civilization is a vigorous expansion of the facilities for higher education. State-sponsored higher education increases the number of intellectuals well beyond the point determined by cost-return consideration. Many of these intellectuals end up unemployed in their field of specialization. They develop a discontented frame of mind. Discontent breeds resentment and the intellectual's hostility towards capitalism grows with every achievement of capitalist evolution. To Schumpeter what is really important is the generally hostile atmosphere which surrounds the capitalist engine. It is the raw material for the intellectual group to work on. The social atmosphere explains why public policy grows more and more hostile to capitalist interests, eventually so much as to refuse on principle to take account of the requirements of the capitalist engine and to become a serious impediment to its functioning. How do intellectuals exert their influence on the social atmosphere? For Schumpeter the intellectuals, staff, political bureaus, write party pamphlets and speeches, act as secretaries and advisors, make the individual politicians newspaper reputation which though it is not everything few men can afford to neglect. In doing these things they to some extent impress their mentality on almost everything that is being done. In this way intellectuals influence individual and party opinion in much to the same sense as is the moral code of an epoch that exalts the cause of some interests and puts the cause of others tacitly out of court. Schumpeter says that capitalism will eventually be replaced by socialism. The intellectuals role in this process is according to him to create the social atmosphere that is hostile to capitalism that finally helps destroying it and establishing socialism. In 1949 Friedrich August von Hayek published his essay The Intellectuals and Socialism. The intellectual according to Hayek is not necessarily an original thinker or an expert. The intellectual is often a second-hand dealer in ideas as he once put it. The intellectual does not even have to be intelligent. What he does possess is first the ability to speak and write about a subject and to be heard and second a way of familiarizing himself with new ideas earlier than his audience, thereby acting as a gatekeeper of ideas. Hayek informs us that it is the power of intellectuals to make their opinion of the moment influence decisions of the extent to which they can sway the popular vote on questions on which they differ from the current views of the masses. Another important point Hayek makes is that most intellectuals have a socialist bias. He argues that socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is a construction of theorists deriving from certain tendencies of abstracts thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar. Why would intellectuals lean towards socialism? On the one hand most intellectuals are deeply impressed by and influenced by the undoubtedly great achievements of the natural sciences Hayek notes. They believe that human society and its development would equally follow laws and that the state can plan, steer and manage human affairs according to political will. On the other hand the ideas of socialism are very popular with the intellectuals much more by the way than classical liberal libertarian ideas. They allow them to come up with fantastic visions and sweeping promises that challenge the status quo and appeal to people's imagination. In 1956 in his 1956 book the anti-capitalist mentality Ludwig von Mises addressed the resentments of the intellectuals. In a capitalist system intellectuals feel frustrated, Mises noted. They allow capitalism because it has assigned to this other man the position they themselves would like to have. The intellectuals steer, resentment and envy and they supplement their bad feelings into an anti-capitalist mentality. The intellectual index society's economic organization, the nefarious system of capitalism but for this unfair regime his abilities and talents, his zeal and his achievements would have brought him the rich reward he deserves. Like Schumpeter and Hayek Mises suggests that intellectuals with the anti-capitalist mentality are the harbinger of socialism, destroy individual liberty and freedom. Now I come to Helmut Schelzke in his 1975 book let the actual work be done by others. Class struggle and the priestly dominion of the intellectuals. Schelzke puts forward the following thesis. In modern society's a class struggle of its own kind develops. The front line runs between the intellectuals and the working people. It is a struggle for dominance which is not fought with physical but with psychological coercion with exercise in power through giving meaning. Let me explain this in some more detail. Based on Max Weber's sociology of religion Schelzke assumes that people seek meaning in their worldly existence for a promise of salvation. This is particularly true in the highly developed secularized society. Societies in which there is a demand for something he calls social religion. The ever-increasing complexity interconnectedness and abstraction of social relations in large modern societies with their information overload their unlimited freedom of criticism and the encroachment of subjectivity without attribution of responsibility for the real consequences prepare the ground for social religiosity. The demand for a social religion forms the basis for the professional group of the mediators of meaning the reflection elite in short the intellectuals in the broader sense. Its members are active in the growing functional areas of information science and orientation knowledge transfer. According to Schelzke they developed into a case of priests similar to the clergy in previous centuries. Their selfish goal is to create in the words of Friedrich Schleiermacher an awareness of absolute dependency among the general population which in turn creates the demand for protection and guardianship of those who believe in social salvation and are receptive to the promises of a better world of a life of harmony and order and justice of a heavenly socialism on earth. The proclaimers of salvation assert their rule in a sense that in a sense that the present everyday life is perceived as misery as an emergency situation as unbearable. The perceived misery of the people is what the intellectuals the elite of reflection need to further their own cause. To become a priestly cased to become a priestly cased the intellectuals have to maintain sense of need and misery among the people regardless of real conditions and circumstances. They do not only proclaim salvation but also promote a consciousness of misery. They are protagonists and propagandists of misery. The intellectuals who also position themselves as social saviors stand opposite the productive population living of the people who do the practical tasks in a society in the tourist sense namely working hard for their money. Now Shelsky emphasizes something very important the intellectuals can be content with a serving position dedicated to the needs of the productive people in society but they may also pursue objectives that just further their own cause at the expense of their fellow people. The crucial question Shelsky raises is what happens if the intellectuals in the field of social sciences pursues their own self-interest even if it conflicts with the interest of the wider population. Let us try to find an answer to this question by looking at the economists profession which can be seen as a subgroup of today's fairly sizable number of intellectuals. Suppose the economist conceives and pursues economics as a science of the logic of human action as was rigorously argued by Ludwig von Mises. In that case he will have to pay the price. For this type of economist career and income opportunities wouldn't be great. His activities would be largely limited to teaching in the classroom and correcting tests. There would hardly be an exposure to the world of business and banking and politics. Because an economist who practices economics as a science of the logic of human action is of little use to the entrepreneur. The economist who would have to admit that he cannot accurately predict business cycles nor can he foresee the future demand for goods and services. If however the economist pursues economics as an empirical science if he is an empirical economist and succeeds in convincing the general public that his endeavor makes sense rather different career and income opportunities open up for him. He can engage in empirical testing and develop models to predict the business cycle stock market turning points interest rate changes etc and all those who believe economics can be practiced as an empirical science will most likely be deeply impressed by the economist's output. Even the entrepreneur will consider him at least potentially valuable for his own decision-making and he might even be prepared to fund him to some degree. The state will be even more interested in working with economists to consider economics as an empirical science. Because empirically minded economists can be used to legitimate to legitimate even the craziest policies. This is because in the realm of empirical science the assumption is that there are no immovable economic laws according to the motto anything goes. So if the economist's theory sounds good enough politicians will make sure that these theories will be tried in practice. If the theory fails in practice the empirical economists will not even have to admit that his theory was wrong. He can simply argue that some element had not been factored in but if the element is factored in the theory will work just fine, next time it is tried. And so it is not surprising that the state has become a generous, a most generous benefactor of empirical economics. The empirical economist is awarded income prestige and status by the state. All of which he could not earn by pursuing economics as a science of the logic of human action or by offering his output in the open market. Needless to say the empirical economist will advocate interventionism. He will find all sorts of reasons why free markets fail and the state must interfere on practically every front. Education, kindergarten, school, university, transport, pensions, healthcare, law and order, money and credit environment and even climate. He will advocate for example government deficit spending, a state controlled central bank issuing fiat money, market interest rate manipulation, the issuance of a digital central bank currency, international coordination of monetary policy and the creation of a single global fiat currency. In light of Shelsky's theory the empirical economist might even develop a yearning for power over others by obtaining employment as a bureaucrat serving in the state-sponsored organizations such as think tanks, research institutes, advisory groups, central bank councils, regulatory bodies, etc. By doing so he infiltrates the state and its institutions cultivating his influence and power over the development of his own profession and the state itself. Shelsky's theory actually suggests that empirical economists might strive to advance themselves rising to the level of the intelligentsia proclaiming salvation. This in turn they can achieve in two interconnected ways. First the economist presents the problem of the prevailing economic and societal order. Rightly or wrongly in any case acting as a propagandist of misery. For instance he argues that workers incomes are too low, that the gap between the rich and the poor is too great, that the industry pollutes the environment too much and that too many people populate the planet. Second economist knowingly or unknowingly misinterprets the true causes of the misery he claims to see. For instance he blames capitalism for financial and economic crises, greedy businessmen for inflation, widening income gaps on the social forces allegedly inherent in the system of the free market. Then the empirical economist offers the solution to all the problems he has identified. He argues that the state is needed to end the problems and that only the state and not the free market can lead to betterment, to general salvation. And here we have it. The empirical economist would not only take orders from the state from which he receives his income, pension and prestige all paid for by the class of net tax producers, the working class. He may also size the opportunity to rise in the hierarchy of the intelligentsia that proclaim salvation, lifting him up to a powerful position indeed, he may not confine himself to bootlicking. As the empirical economist becomes part of the reflective elite he certainly does not have a self image of service above self but rather a self-serving one. He seeks to influence or even participate directly or indirectly in the rule of state power. And so the empirical economist spread among the masses the notion that the state is well-intentioned at the very least inevitable and better than any conceivable alternative. They inform the general public that the economy must be controlled by the state that without state intervention in the financial and economic system there would be crisis, chaos, injustice and even civil war. They make they make people believe that a third way is possible, a system that's oscillates between capitalism and socialism namely interventionism which as we know will result in outright socialism. All of this contributes to making the state as we know it today ever more powerful at the expense of individual freedoms and liberties of the working class. If anything the influence of the empirical economist as proclamers of salvation as a self-serving intellectual priesthood helps push even a minimal state into a maximal state. Helmut Scherzky understood the underlying dilemma that comes with intellectuals and their ambitions. On the one hand intellectuals might develop important ideas and theories that help people better achieve their life goals. On the other hand intellectuals can become truly dangerous to society even when they assert their own interest against the general population's interest with the support of the state. Can this dilemma be solved? Can the class warfare of the priestly dominion of the in our case empirical economists intellectuals against the productive population be one? Scherzky was not optimistic he suggested that the functioning of the modern society would subjugate the great majority of the people to the priestly dominion of the intellectuals which as we have heard from Schumpeter, Hayek and Mises would pave the way towards socialism. What made Scherzky pessimistic was his concern that science could all to easily be hijacked and misused to establish the priestly dominion of the intellectuals thereby exploiting and misdirecting the masses even ruining them. Zooming from the middle of the 1970s to 2020 we might get an idea of what Scherzky had in mind. The state sponsored education system in many countries is greater than ever and higher education has become a multi-billion dollar business. The proportion of intellectuals in the population has reached an all-time high. The propaganda of misery is in full swing people have been put in a state of terror as virus threats, climate change and overpopulation of the planet are concerned all allegedly backed by scientific evidence. Many people expect salvation from the intellectuals from natural and political scientists some of which are held in the highest esteem and greatly influence political decision making. Scherzky hoped to make a contribution to solving the problem by drawing public attention to the ongoing class warfare as he saw it and which he felt was not publicly known at the time he was writing. I think he was right however I would add that Scherzky completely overlooked the highly problematic role that the state plays in the problem at hand. The rise of the priestly dominion of the intellectuals has become possible only because of the existence and relentless expansion of the state as we know it today. For it is the state that allows the priestly dominion of the intellectuals to grow basically unchecked which goes hand in hand with an expansion of state power. This comes at the expense of liberty and freedom of the productive people who are coerced and exploited to finance it all who lose the economic and civil liberties who are basically enslaved. So what can and must be done? One could consider trying to convince the empirical economist profession to change course but that would be lost hope I think because it is fair to assume that most empirical economists have little or no incentive to stop what they are doing. Be that as it may I would argue that a good chance remains to successfully challenge and defeat the priestly dominion of the intellectuals as far as the field of economics is concerned. Modern means of communication especially social media make it possible that the target group of the priestly intellectuals the general public can be addressed and won over. That people's attention can be diverted from the proclamations and promises of the empirical economists and brought into contact with the insights provided by the logic of human action. This is the important step because the logic of human action makes it unmistakably clear that there prevails a regularity of phenomena to which man must adapt his actions if he wishes to succeed. The logic of human action exposes empirical economics as false. It refutes the idea that economics can be practiced meaningfully on the basis of the method of natural sciences. And with that the breeding ground for false and socially harmful economic theories and policies will be destroyed. The logic of human action not only appeals to people's rational minds but also has a good chance to reach in people's spiritual minds. Something that is often overlooked and underappreciated. By understanding what the logic of human action means that we as human beings have objectives which we try to attain by using means that means are scarce or that determinism as applied to man is self contradictory. That man has a free will etc. It allows people to align their way of thinking and conduct harmoniously and peacefully with the facts of reality. The logic of human action helps people understand and appreciate the benefits of economic and social cooperation. It helps them to find their mental balance clearing the mind of burdensome and negative thoughts and emotions. Replacing them with wisdom, compassion, a positive sense of purpose. Once all this has been understood everything else will fall into place. Most importantly the state as we know it today would be seen for what it really is. A coercive and violent, violent monopoly, economically and ethically utterly unacceptable institution. One of its most important and most powerful cheer leaders namely the profession of the empirical economists is exposed as a fake priesthood class stripped of its power. The state as we know it today becomes the emperor that has no clothes on and whizzes away. We have to give great credit to Shelsky's theory. It shows us where we have to direct our efforts if we want to repulse and the assault on civilization to fend off a socialist takeover and that is to demolish the narrative of the priestly dominion of the intellectuals of which the empirical economists are an inferential subgroup. This is an important task to be accomplished. For the priestly dominion of the intellectuals appears to be a crucial part of the attempt to subjugate the world's population, implied by ideas such as the great reset, the great transformation and transhumanism. If we do not succeed the chances are rather high that modern society will develop into the most sinister socialist tyrant in the world has ever seen. Thank you very much for your attention.