Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN)
The Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN) is an exchange of information and ideas by institutions, for institutions, which is formally presented to the public as an as-if News Service. Eric Weinstein first publicly introduced the idea in his appearance with Bret Weinstein on The Rubin Report on February 5, 2018.
Transcript Excerpts
The Gated Institutional Narrative is like an exchange, a financial exchange, except it's an exchange of information and ideas.
In order to actually participate in this particular special conversation, you need to have a seat on the exchange. That is, you need to write for an important paper, like the Wall Street Journal, or you need to be a Senator or a Congressman so that you can gain access to the news media, where you need to be sitting at a news desk in any of these situations, whether you're a professor, or a reporter, or a politician. If you can gain a seat inside of the Gated Institutional Narrative, you can attempt to converse with other people within that particular conversation.
The rest of us do not have the same level, or kind, of access to this highly-rarefied discussion. It's comparable to what we would term a promotion inside of the world of professional wrestling. It's an agreed-upon structure in which people often agree to simulate dispute. Rather than actually have disputes (because somebody could get really seriously injured) the participants are in fact, working together to produce an engaging, and regular, product for mass-consumption.
The problem with this gated institutional narrative is that in general, it doesn't contain the most important ideas. And that's where the gating function comes in. The most important ideas are likely to be the ideas that are the most disruptive:
* What if the entire food pyramid, for example, was wildly off? What if fats were not the great danger we thought they were and those waving fields of wheat that are fabled in American song, in fact, give rise to carbs, which are very dangerous to us all.* So if everything were invertedālet's say we're in a world where instead of banishing volatility during the so-called great moderation, before 2008, we were actually building the Tinder for the world's largest financial forest fire.
* What if in fact, we had all sorts of things, exactly backward and completely wrong?
* What if diversity, wasn't a sign of our strength, but sometimes a sign of our weakness?
* What if, for example, immigration, far from being an issue of xenophobes versus xenophiles was actually an instance of redistribution having little to do with xenophobia or xenophilia to begin with?
These sorts of ideas, cannot be entertained inside of the gated institutional narrative.
And that's where the gating function comes in. What was originally a function intended to ensure quality control (of the narrative) became an instrument for something else.
And this is where I want to introduce the most important concept that I think we will be dealing with going forward. In 2020 on this program, the disc, what is the DISC?
-Eric Weinstein on The Portal #18
Breaking of the GIN
Our Gated Institutional Narrative (The G.I.N.) has now broken for only the 4th time I can remember in my adult life:
2001: With 9/11
2008: With Lehmann Brothers
2016: With Trump over Hillary
2019: With Jeffrey Epstein and the Simple Suicide Story
No one smart truly believes it.
Explain 9/11?
The GIN is defined as breaking when events overtake the official narratives by such an extent that they canāt figure out how to continue their arcs. Which, I point out, is where we were on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001.
More On X
2018
1/ The "Adj.-Profession-Name" Formula, Disagreeables, & the "No-Living-Heroes" thy. Consider adjectives:
Embattled
Controversial
Divisive
Reclusive
Provocative
Struggling
Right-Wing
Eccentric
Self-styled
Far-Left
Recovering
Disgraced
Self-Promoting
Free-thinking
Volatile
etc.
2/ These adjectives are really reserved terms and the 'tells' of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns.
3/ So what's wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a "controversial professor" you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds clientside architecture in your own mind that you don't notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached.
4/ Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase "controversial professor Paul Krugman" to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor.
So...how can that be?
5/ Letās first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague ācontroversial professorā @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick.
The point is that real humans donāt talk like this.
6/ My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the āGated Institutional Narrativeā or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwellās 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target.
Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality @EricRWeinstein.
7/ So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn.
And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability.
8/ This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindberghās attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility.
This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures.
9/ The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions...and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn?
10/ Hereās the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them.
So something new *has* to happen.
Here goes...
/11
Either:
A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again.
B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc... all get taken out.
C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables.
/END My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Hereās to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb.
Life makes more sense when you realize that there is more or less only one Gated Institutional Narrative defended by a permanent Fear-Uncertainty-and-Doubt campaign, rather than 1000s of individual voices somehow miraculously coming to the same tortured & erroneous conclusions. https://t.co/A8Osjrv3wI
@buybuydandavis Yea. Iāve been talking about the GIN since the 80s. Nice to finally have company.
@peterdukephoto Come again?
Welcome to the GIN (Gated Institutional Narrative):
@macfound cites @NPR.
@NPR cites @datasociety.
@datasociety promotes @beccalew.
And who is @beccalew? A judgmental activist who favors no-platforming people she disagrees with by using simple guilt by association.
Game on.
The Gated Institutional Narrative is not something you can join as an individual. You have to sit in an institutional chair. This is how its magic works. The funny part about the narrative is that it would instantly collapse if it were not protected from challenge by individuals.
So I issue a challenge:
Dear @zephoria, @datasociety & @beccalew. I want to long-form platform you to boost your signal. Join me in explaining your methodology to the very folks you think are trapped in a reactionary echo chamber.
That is if youāre serious of course.
-ERW PhD
@RubinReport @joerogan and @benshapiro @jordanbpeterson @SamHarrisOrg please consider issuing an invitation. As a Bernie voter, Iāll personally guarantee it will be civil, intellectual, and electrifying audio having nothing to do with right wing sentiments.
2019
Our Gated Institutional Narrative (The G.I.N.) has now broken for only the 4th time I can remember in my adult life:
2001: With 9/11 2008: With Lehmann Brothers 2016: With Trump over Hillary 2019: With Jeffrey Epstein and the Simple Suicide Story
No one smart truly believes it.
@jadrievic Perhaps you missed the word āSimpleā in the above.
@ractive_soul Ask someone older.
@DavidWinston447 I turned 18 in 1983. Notice the word āAdultā in the above.
@bariweiss @primalpoly The GIN is defined as breaking when events overtake the official narratives by such an extent that they canāt figure out how to continue their arcs. Which, I point out, is where we were on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001.
@LacuaHalonen @MichaelDavSmith Not saying that.
@markyzaguirre Smart people believe that "truly" modified "believes" in the above. I see what you did and that move doesn't feel promising. Pass.
@markyzaguirre Itās all I thought about for 24 hours. You win.
The Gated Institutional Narrative or GIN is that which Section A of the reserve index was repurposed to protect. Itās the false story of us as a country, and right now nobody smart has any idea why we shouldnāt call for an independent investigation of the Gated Epstein narrative.
Underrated cryptic tweets that I placed 9 years ago for future use. Unnoticed with *zero* likes in almost a decade.
Yes, our government developed a plan for rounding up people who could contradict the GIN. Thereās a plan for a coming total collapse of confidence in our system.
Seriously, you shouldnāt believe it from me. If you think the idea of rounding up innocent professors, rich people, labor leaders, newscasters, professionals, etc is nutty....hey so do I. It sounds crazy.
So go search on that string. Tell me how you make out.
Whoās crazy now?
2020
If you want to spin conspiracy theories, my feed is not the place to do it.
I donāt know how to communicate this clearly enough: I live with *gaps* in my knowledge. I donāt want them filled in with unquestionable tortured official stories nor wild-eyed conspiracies theories.
Those of you who want to prematurely fill in all gaps from either the pro-instution or pro-conspiracy side of the fence look exactly the same to me. Iām for leaving the real gaps in our knowledge. Pro-gap.
Donāt want gods in my gaps. Donāt want false explanations. #LeaveTheGaps
This feed is trying to give you room to say āI wonder.ā & wonder comes from gaps. Everyone trying to humiliate you to keep you from saying āHang on, I donāt get this.ā is trying to get you to accept some gap has been filled in. That fetish is common to the GIN & conspiracy buffs.
I am a conspiracy theorist to the extent that I have studied past conspiracies and entertain comparable ones in the present as hypotheses. That is healthy.
That is your right too. But donāt take that as liscence to lose your damn mind. Study what has been previously proven. š
Now many of you know I talk about there being a GIN or Gated Institutional Narrative which is basically a fictionalized national story. Harpers is part of that system along with the Atlantic, The Times, etc. What must not happen is that these same players be allowed to lead now.
Seeing my own brotherās family hunted & the Campus police force stood down was a preview of CHAZ & the totally foreseeable deaths there under the same crazed Governor who let them happen. Dead young peopleās lives donāt matter to the Left, āBlack Lives Matterā notwithstanding.
What I learned during the Evergreen State meltdown was that there was no neutral or center-Left institution to champion even basic physical safety. NPR wasnāt interested. Nor CNN. Not the NYT newsroom. The Democrats didnāt see it even as an opportunity to champion our old values.
Am I irritated that I wasnāt asked to sign? Iād say āMildly irked at most. But in no way surprised.ā
- Much* more important however is when @BretWeinstein & @HeatherEHeying are left off. And then I *am* surprised. Thatās telling because itās still covering up the GINās crime.
This problem we have is largely a creation of @Harpers, @TheAtlantic, @Harvard, @nytimes, @DNC, @NPR, @GovInslee, @Princeton, @Yale, @NewYorker, @washingtonpost, @vox etc who failed to ring the alarm and even sufficiently support their own people like @bariweiss or @NAChristakis.
Now Harpers is playing its role. And a lot of instutional cowards will jump on the band wagon if this āNew Recognitionā of the lefty extremism problem is seen to test well with readers.
And thus itās time to hold their feet to the fire. We need brave leaders, not test marketers.
Why is this? Because they arenāt fit to lead until thereās a reckoning with their decisions to consciously facilitate our slide into hell. They consciously refused to see this problem under life & death situations. They have actual blood on their hands. So thereās a missing step.
So thatās it. We canāt allow our institutions to become leads on the solution *before* a period of repudiation of previous cowardice for reasons of *safety*.
To sum up: we got here by glorified marketers being in the leadership chairs at our institions. And we need them ousted.
As to the signatories, I have mixed feelings. Some are brave heroes. Others have been villains who are hopefully turning over a new leaf. The rest are on that spectrum. But I donāt have a lot of strong feelings about this. Long term readers know that my focus is *institutional*.
And why is this important? Because without a reckoning, our institutions will continue to stir our national pot. Theyāll continue to do A/B test marketing and I do not want the US to be led by *marketersā¢ into freefall even while I welcome them as guests way late to a party.
So why am I not surprised I wasnāt asked? Because Iām a person who is pushing for institutional overhaul. My question would have been: āWhy do you get to lead discussion if you werenāt clearly ringing alarms all this time? You arenāt the leaders. Do you own this as your failure?ā
Just ask yourself who has been fighting this visibly w/ courage that is conspicuously left off the letter and why. Those people should be leading and not watching. And their omission means the problem of our commentariat as cowardly institutional marketing guild is continuing. š
@LiebermanJeremy I am unsure what I can ask of tech companies. But I generally share the sentiment.
@chadloder Organized labor is like a distant memory.
@clairlemon @tylercowen Agreed. Thanks CL!
@RubinReport I am not sure you have my position accurately.
2021
Everyone credentialed outside of narrative control must be brought under narrative control. This is the #GIN as defended by the #DISC. Right on time.
If it works on you, you should be feeling FUD right now: Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt about Dr Malone forced to ācomplainā aloud.
Yes, I have been locked out of Linked In and my account has been shut down. #censorship in the time of COVID. I have had to submit copies of my driver's license and Linked In will now make a determination about reactivating my account.
Notice your feelings. Maybe he has a problem?
Notice random hater accounts: āStop whining: A private company can do whatever it wants!ā from fellow ācitizensā like @mydogsbutt4381.
As long as you feel FUD, the train keeps a rollinā. Itās not targeted on your pre-frontal cortex.
My recommendation? Learn from the Tobacco industry. They were forced to put their archive on line.
Learn from COINTELPRO who was subjected to the Pike and Church committee hearings.
Narrative control and personal reputational destruction isnāt something exotic. Itās a playbook.
What can you do? Talk back to the FUD cloud. Laugh at the dedicated haters. Many of them arenāt people but farms of bots after all, searching for the amygdala of the weak who fear standing next to a target.
And in the end: you get to fight actual evil! Which is kinda awesome. š
Not nobody: think of the Gated Institutional Narrative or GIN in its most recent incarnation as āRationalization by Institutions, for Institutions, formally presented as an as-if News Service.ā
At some point, the GIN will be subsidized as a non-profit. Itās not for individuals.
Meanwhile, CNN -- with a gigantic corporation of their own behind them and full national cable access -- has been below 1 million total viewers all years (even counting senior citizens) and is falling further and further toward zero. The whole model collapsed nobody watches.
In the GIN, @joerogan went to a feed store to buy āHorse DeWormerā rather than getting a prescription from a concierge physician for a human medication.
Zero individuals NEED to believe it. @jack, @vijaya, @Facebook can throttle outrage over the issue.
People vote w their feet.
So why do we care at all? I care in three situations:
A) Crisis reporting (once in a blue moon).
B) Keeping track of Institutional stratagems.
C) Keeping abreast of what people who are employed by our main institutions *cannot* entertain; the GIN enforces our Overton Window.
And such reasons, averaged over a large enough population that has largely tuned out, is enough to keep a few of us tuning in once in a while whether or not we believe.
And that is enough to keep the game alive. Even if News is unrecognizable after its complete Kayfabrication.š
Predictable application of The Law of The Gated Institutional Narrative:
Every important story that begins as something else, once reported, now will always end up instantly being about gaslighting, perseveration, framing, distortion, Russell Conjugation, omission, etc.
- crash
If the races were reversed, do you have any question that this would be reported as an assumed terrorist attack by a white supremacist perpetrating a hate crime?
Not only do I have no doubt, I also know that you have no doubt.
Weāre in monstrous territory. Our media as monster.
And no, Iām not tweeting about the crash. Iām not tweeting about any motive. Iām not tweeting about my ability to read your mind.
Iām talking about how media would choose to cover the SAME loss. Accident, Manslaughter, homicide, murder; the fact that matters to the GIN is race.
2022
This isnāt that hard. How many times has Fauci done a long form podcast? Or Daszak? Everyone wants them to make the rounds.
The Gated Institutional Narrative or GIN is like a Pro-Wrestling promotion. It requires agreement and scripts.
It doesnāt survive without the gatekeeping.
@conor64 This is the Gated Institutional Narrative or GIN.
The GIN says: āThis isnāt *supposed* to be funny. This is backwards!ā
The public says: āBut it is. And you are wrong. Go nanny elsewhere.ā
Eventually the public Delta between these two measures will have to be discontinued.
Iāve noticed that outsiders are of two minds about this.
A) Thatās outrageous! B) Thatās totally normal.
Some examples.
RULE: USG canāt spy on US citizens. WORKAROUND: Get Allies to spy on your citizens.
RULE: No offensive Bioweapons. W-A: Do convertible ādefensiveā research.
Washington DC lawmakers make rules to restrict what USG units may do. Units almost always work around the letter of the law to thwart that intent when intent would negatively affect their ability to perform. Examples of this are everywhere.
This leads to DC āWorkaround culture.ā
This Workaround requires a narrative that says many things:
A) Vaccines are costless & safe. B) There is NO benefit to any other therapeutic, necessitating vaccines. C) The virus CANNOT be from a lab working around the Geneva & Biological Weapons Conventions. D) No forced jabs.
More or less Washington DC wants to forceā¦and I mean FORCEā¦us all to vaccinate using unapproved drugs. This could be for our benefit or not. But they canāt do it under the letter of the law. So they do what is TOTALLY NORMAL to people who work in DC. They workaround the rules.
RULE: No importing ordinary labor for jobs Citizens can do. W-A: Reclassify aliens as extraordinary or āstudents.ā
Etc.
Then we come to this moment: Science, Emergency Use Authorization, and Nuremberg rules against forced medical interventions. Or:
āScience vs TheScience(tm)ā
And to this we see both reactions as before. But on *steroids* this time.
A) You unspeakably freedom hating evil godless tyrannical medical traitors of pure satanic evil.
B) Hello? Itās just Public Health. Read āNudgeā, chill out & grow up. Drama-Queen much? Itās not personal.
E) Anyone who so much as *questions* any of the above is a despicable anti-science fringe charlatan crackpot psychopath who must be publicly reputationally incinerated w/ a quick & devastating takedown of racist pseudoscience conspiracy thy beliefs as this is Life&Death.
Ahem.
But I do know what Iām looking at: a massive pre-internet style *workaround* Gated Institutional Narrative campaign (or GIN). This is exactly the Distributed Idea Suppression Complex or DISC that I introduced long before COVID.
And it is as close to evil as anything I know. Why?
Quite honestly I have a particular hatred for Public Health and other DC professionals that prevent smart non-DC science folks from asking obvious seminar questions in the middle of such broad narrative campaigns via reputation tarnishing. Hatred is probably too mild a word here.
First of all, because it destroys scienceās hard won credibility.
Fauci/Collins/Baric/Daszak donāt share Bioweapons workaround information. Which Is ānormal.ā
But they MASSIVELY worked to destroy their colleagues like @DrJBhattacharya of Stanford who were doing actual science. https://t.co/lBxGGNbFvH
I still donāt know why Daszak/Fauci/Collins are lying. I get that it is a workaround. But what I donāt understand is why we are continuing without hearings. I grew up with hearings into Watergate, Iran Contra, Domestic terror by FBI, etc. This world with no hearings is new.
If you screw up this badly with millions DEAD, you donāt get to keep your secrecy. Or your grants/program. Or your workaround. You have to lose. You have to disclose. You donāt get to stay secret. Too many dead. Donāt like that?
Tough luck sweetheart: Picture the bodies stacked. https://t.co/CLgcYMmJbR
Also, trying this out to see if @elonmusk is really in charge.
MORAL: The COVID narrative was the GIN. The destruction of all credentialed dissenters was the DISC. Now you know.
[Welcome Elon. Thank you. How can we help? Good luck & please please donāt cock it up. ;-)] š
So my point is this: Science needs hearings and REHABILITATION of those who were destroyed by this unholy workaround, likely of the Geneva and Biological Weapons Conventions via āNudgeā coercion to evade Nuremberg restrictions in name only. Itās pitchfork time in science. Enough.
[Result: Throttling still on. Red meat tweet after 20 minutes on an under 700K account. I meant what I wrote, but it was also a test. I know from years on the platform; thatās not possible when people are this rightfully upset.] https://t.co/T3Tzfw2WpP
@TommyRo Actually, it isnāt as easy to tell as many think. CYA is the easy part. And I know all the guesses. I have mine as well. But yelling āProfits!ā Or āTyranny!ā or āCulling!ā Or āScientific Arrogance!ā or whatever doesnāt equate to knowing what the decision makers thought they did.
@montuakmo66 No. But I did wonder whether the outgoing folks would flip the switches themselves to muddy the issueā¦
@Alicethegoon5 @elonmusk I thought the outgoing engineers might do it. Actually.
@SJ_Cap I donāt. True.
But Iāve been out here since 2009. So this isnāt my first rodeo either.
@BowTiedIT I hear that a lot. Hopeful it may be soon in our rear view mirror.
Distributed Idea Suppressed Complex
The DISC protects the:
Gated Institutional Narrative
Or GIN.
This is what we have been talking about on The Portal and for years before. Coming to light now. Be prepared for the size of this thing. Itās enormous; *much* bigger than Twitter.
Have been asking everyone for years.
Are @Twitter, @facebook, @Google etc all hooked up to FBI/DHS/CISA/CDC/IC to control what we can discuss on the internet and monitor who refuses the narrative or GIN?
Tech elite are always loathe to answer directly. Now we see why.
2023
āAs you know, we have been focused on reducing the virality of contentā¦[that] is often true content.ā
Hence the Prebunking (discrediting/image cheapening) of Malinformation Agents (Those spreading real/true information that contradicts the Gated Institutional Narrative or GIN)!
The Law of the DISC: āWhenever you see it on the mainstream media menu, ALWAYS order the Nothing-Burger.ā https://t.co/q2MuDqObfl
2024
900k. Yay.
I knew something was made deliberately wrong with the algorithm a long time ago. It was comforting to find out I was completely right about that when @elonmusk took this place away from @vijaya and company.
Iāve been out here a long time and I know how organic engagment feels from all that time spent here. Oddly, there is *still* something very off with the algorithm! I trust Elonās team will eventually find, fix, and most importantly announce a deep feature in the code. And I will likely post more after that. In the meantime, enjoy the story of our reasons for throttling our own citizens by following @MikeBenzCyber and learning about what I have called the āGated Institutional Narrativeā involving the GEC, CISA and those protecting Democracy ā¢ from the voters.
Mike found the details in many places where I had but a sketch. Also, I recommend @shellenberger and googling āDisinformation Primerā as well from USAID.
At least now I know what happened to this account and accounts like it that need to be throttled, Prebunked and redirected to avoid harm to our institutions.
Thanks @elon, and to all of you who stick with and encourage this account! Itās an election year here in the states; never give up. Thanks for the love and keeping me going. š
Click on and check the graph below. At least, now we know the actual conspiracy down to the individuals, lines of code, and the history of the movement to prebunk heterodox accounts that contradict the GIN:
2025
This is āManaged Realityā. Yes. Itās real.
The Gated Institutional Narrative or GIN is a real thing.
Likewise the DISC or Distributed Idea Suppression Complex is a real thing as well.
Itās not fake. Yes. This is that thing.
Your whole life within civil society:
Iām only now realizing that people thought I was speaking figuratively about all those crazy acronyms:
EGO
GIN
DISC
No. No no no. This is it. Rather, itās only a part of it.
And it spares nothing. It is cradle to grave. Seemless. Including ground truth.
You will ultimately find that people were paid to fake science. Then reviewers would be induced to gate the debunking science and publish the bad science. Dissenting scientists and researchers would vanish and/or have their work ascribed to others who went along.
Journalists would then breathlessly report on the faked science. Funding agencies would take note, then fund the fake science citing the public interest. A giant tax funded ānon-governmentalā circular Kayfabe machine.
All peer reviewed.
Laundered.
Immaculate
Controversial Professor Jordan Peterson
Disgraced Financier Jeffrey Epstein
Panamanian Strongman Manuel Noriega
Anti-Vaccine Activist Robert F Kennedy Jr.
Dragon Believer Joe Rogan
Far Right Crackpot Laura Loomer
Fringe Epidemiology Professor Jay Bhattacharya
It's their formula.
Take it from "Self-Promoting Grifter Eric Weinstein":
Again I am not opining on whether these words are right or wrong. It's that no one else speaks this way. Whenever you hear this or read it, you know you are listening to the sound of what I have called the GIN: The Gated Institutional Narrative.
If I say "Lethal Motorist Ted Kennedy" that is accurate. As is "Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy" or "Controversial Democrat Ted Kennedy" etc. They are choices as to which feature or claim to highlight.
All of our brains are thus trained to process what is said Client-Side if we wish to keep our jobs and our dinner tables from chaos.
I don't think Jeffrey Epstein was "Disgraced Financier Jeffrey Epstein" at all. But it is the only description that may be used without hearing "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And yet there is no proof that he ran a multi-billion dollar currency trading hedge fund at all as he claimed to me.
Presumptive Intelligence Asset Jeffrey Epstein may not be used. Go figure... Because "Disgraced Financier" is actually the extraordinary claim.
That's my take, Evolutionary Theorist Prof. Gad Saad.