Council of the Canceled with Eric Weinstein, Jay Bhattacharya and Mike Benz (X Content): Difference between revisions

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google Google]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Jigsaw Google Jigsaw]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration Great Barrington Declaration]

Sure. I mean, one of the things that I think I was most moved by was your concern that, by creating consensus in this new way of taking the dissenting portion of the expert community and deciding that they suffer from some strange psychological malady, or incompetence, or that they're bizarrely self-serving, the institutions have been running their own credibility into the ground. And you can see this across different disciplines, in different fields through the polling data. How much confidence do you have in medicine, in journalism, etc., even science in particular, with disastrous Public Health under Covid. I think that what you're trying to do is you're trying to say, "each time you buy a consensus by doing character assassination against dissenters, you're actually destroying the long-term respect in that institution". How many people still feel the same way about UPenn, Harvard and MIT, my three universities, after those disastrous testimonies before Congress? So what you what you're seeing, I think, is—I think this is your plan—your plan seems to be to offer the institutions a way back by saying, "here's how we would come up with a protocol for figuring out who are the stakeholders and the representatives of the public in the expert community that are being silenced, or being maligned or prebunked" or whatever crazy terminology we'll get?

The thing that I'm realizing is that it's actually already quite big, but it's fragmented and not united, and that we're still in the storytelling, information collection phase. And what I was really inspired by, Jay, you said 30,000 qualified doctors and epidemiologists and public policy experts signed your Great Barrington Declaration. I did not realize it was that many people.

Yeah. I mean, almost a million regular people signed it. But of many of the regular people are tremendously impressive. But, with the particular expertise in epidemiology medicine, I think like 30, 30 or 30,000 people, signed it. What that tells me, Nicole, is that, that the center which basically labeled the Great Barrington Declarations a fringe idea was not actually a fringe idea.

But this labeling has a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect about it. You know, there's a there's a technique in markets where if a hedge fund wants to you know, short a stock, you know, they'll work with PR companies to create bad press about it, which will drive down the stock price, and then everyone will see the volume moving into shorts. And so other people will start to, you know, think the company is bad or they will start to short it themselves because everybody else is shorting it. And so it becomes a short where the company because everyone's shorting it. And I think there's the same thing with terms like fringe or even the nature of cancellation itself is people who are not yet deemed fringe or not yet canceled by being by the public record, saying that they are canceled. They are fringe. They sort of become fringe because they were called fringe, not because they were at the start of it. And, you know, frankly, I think that's that's part of the framing of saying that someone is a disgraced scientist or something, and it's like they weren't disgraced until you called them disgrace. And then everybody looked around and said, oh, they're disgraced. They're probably disgraced. And then by virtue of that, now you're disgraced. And so I think, though, there is this collective immune system response that's starting to happen, when those labels are thrown around, because it's they've abused that so much. And every time they do, they lose institutional trust because some new disaffected group says, well, that's not really true in this case. And then they look around and they say, actually, I don't I don't trust the National Science Foundation anymore. I don't trust the National Academy of Sciences, I don't trust Tony Fauci. And and this idea on expertise. I mean, I think it's embodied almost in this sort of Great Barrington Declaration versus Tony Fauci type thing, where Fauci publicly declared that he was the science, you know, that it was not a collection of experts. It was not people represented from all these different beliefs. It was all like all the energies were just poured, you know, from this one Sun Ra god who's come down to us in Egypt and is in there saying, “I am the science. And any scientist around me who opposes this is anti-science.” And that works to pull off an emergency operation to, to to ram through something in the short term, but almost like a, like cancer, like the tumor cells spread from there in the institutions and people. It rules through fear and resentment. But that resentment builds and and and it starts to crack institutions. And I think we have an exciting moment in history now where the opportunity to change that course is, is here.

Yeah, linguistics. Computational linguistics is a big part of this. And and the, the design is that so that if you can't censor everything, you can collectively inoculate people from believing opinions the government doesn't want you to believe. This is not all that. You know, I, I sometimes jokingly refer to it as digital MKUltra because it's sort of like this psychological control program, but it's laundered with government dollars into universities. In the case we were talking about, it was a University of Cambridge social decision making laboratory, which is, you know, the study of how humans make decisions. Now they're funded by Google, jigsaw, which has its own sort of dark history, but they have direct partnerships. This is a British psychology lab that's partnered with the Department of Homeland Security here in the U.S., CISA, the notorious agency that that was putting out videos telling children to report their own parents and family for disinformation if they questioned Covid orthodoxies. Our Department of Homeland Security, CISA office and also with our State Department Global Engagement Center, which was busted during the Twitter files for mass censorship and mass flagging of thousands of accounts.

Well actually I went back to schoolhouse Rock. And they say that the two parties choose the candidates. So you have to be very, very careful, because a lot of the sense that we have of democracy is actually post, Democratic Convention in 1968.

Yeah. That's right. Let's update the episode. You know, of the obvious lack of that. But, you know, it's funny that you mention that. So, for example, with NATO, you know, we're talking about public health and, you know, the government's role in funding these censorship awards. So about a month ago, Doctor Peter Hotez was giving an interview where he called on NATO to intervene online and to and to censor vaccine skeptics, all in on all the different NATO countries and a lot of people were saying, how is this possible? What the heck? Why? Might as well invoke, you know, with, you know, Martians or some alien horde to come in from another galaxy. But the fact is, is NATO is part of this, this, this coterie of rules based international institutions, you know, democratic institutions that uphold the, you know, the rules based international order. But people part of this change process, in this reforming process that we're talking about, like legal solutions, like what Jay is involved in and I'm talking about sort of like civil society and government reform institutions and, and part of reforming from government and getting a coalition within government involves making the public aware of it. So the public talks about it, so the government actors feel motivated to do it. And that involves educating actually people about the institutions that they've heard of, but they don't fully under understand. And so these are institutions like NATO. A lot of people think that this is the western world's transatlantic military alliance, but they don't appreciate that that institution has gone horribly awry in interfering in domestic civilian politics, which they view as a domain of war, because the opinion of the population impacts their war funding, it impacts all sorts of policies. And they played a very, very nasty role in Covid censorship. NATO Stratcom Center of Excellence, based in Latvia. It was a it was a group set up after the the Ukraine coup in 2014 and the counter coup that involved the Crimea annexation. They set up this this NATO office to control the, you know, to censor disinformation in East Europe. That was capacity. But you can understand you can say, okay, that's a war 5000, 7000 miles away. We have this institution that the American People fund here, and we don't really care what the institution is doing, you know, on the on the front of that war to influence the hearts and minds of people's news distribution there. Maybe you do, but that institution, that center of excellence, ended up doing a partnership with a company called Graphika, which is a which got $7 million from the U.S. Pentagon. It was a part of the Minerva Initiative, which is our psychological warfare research center of of the Pentagon to do a, trans NATO study. As soon as Covid broke out in January 2020, Graphika and NATO's Stratcom Center of Excellence surveyed all of social media to to catalog mis- and disinformation about the origin of the virus. They broke down political groups in the U.S, in the UK in.

It required a break-in. Required in 1971, break-in in Media, Pennsylvania, to the FBI office, I think during a Super Bowl.

Yeah. COINTELPRO.

To get COINTELPRO as a word that nobody knew what it meant. And then it was under FOIA that we had to pry open the information about our own government, because our own government has a very strong sense of state secrets.

But do we even know in a certain sense, whether this was a workaround to get around the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention Biological Weapons Convention (1975)] of the 1970s and the Geneva Convention? In other words? Yeah. My concern about this is, we're talking about a phenomenon that I call [[Jessupization]]. If you think about the interchange between Colonel Jessup and Lieutenant Kaffee in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Few_Good_Men A Few Good Men], it's not the way we remember it. These are two perspectives. The NatSec perspective and the democracy perspective. And Jack Nicholson has a much stronger point, until he occasionally veers into this thing where he says, I provide the freedom, right, which is Moses's sin, that he points to himself rather than realizing that he's part of a greater structure. And I believe that in some sense, what we're seeing is a group of people were saying, that deep down at a place that we don't like to talk about at parties, we're glad that they're there. And I'm actually not sure. And I'd like to get to the part of, “You're under arrest, you son of a bitch.” And it's not necessarily just—I don't want to punish anybody. I want this stuff to appear in a forum where I can trust that if I can't see the data because it's too dangerous, let's say the weaponization of anthrax or something like that. I want to know that somebody who holds my general concerns, who is highly competent, feels that they 100% were part of it. The consensus building before we got to how do we push it out and that those people are representing the interests where I cannot like I'm not a virologist. I'm not an epidemiologist. I need to have an expert, and the great danger about this is, is that if you don't want to play with the dissenting experts, just wait a decade and you're going to be taking this from internet figures who were, you know, until recently, gamers who were streaming on Twitch.

Can I make one more one. Know this, because I always refer to the field of disinformation studies as being censorship gain-of-function, because it's basically the same sort of, you know, mad science that could destroy the world, you know, on the on this sort of, you know, free speech and democratic society side that could literally, you know, physically destroy the world on, on this sort of, virus side where, what they, what they do is they are they're juicing up censorship techniques and they do this in this sort of OneHealth style way. And this is what the Convergence Accelerator Track F program is at the National Science Foundation, which is for, for trust, you know, in online news. And you know, so it's a convergence accelerator. It, it converges all these different disciplines who don't normally talk together and interact, you know, the, the, the linguistics people, the psychology people, the sociology people, the, the computational data science people, so that they're all working together to build this psychological vaccine. And so they're sort of taking that approach. But then the whole field itself is also cloistered in the same sort of intelligence, national security cloak that gain of health gain, gain of function work is, you know, these people always have someone from the CIA or someone from the military, you know, on their side. Now, oftentimes it won't be CIA operations. It'll be a CIA analyst in the CIA on the on the on the analyst side, will often recruit professors who are specialists in a particular language or region or cultural group when they are doing an operation in that, in that, or they'll have it basically bookworm types and they'll, they'll then when they leave the CIA, they now have a new track career to be an academic at the University of Stanford or MIT or Cambridge. And then they themselves will have partnerships with DARPA. They themselves are partnerships with NATO. And they they will effectively have a little bit of a public facing light, like you might read in The New York Times that there was funding to this gain-of-function thing, but you're not going to really look behind the hood. You may read on the National Science Foundation grant page that this university got a disinformation grant to study, you know, anti-NATO narratives circulating in NATO countries. But there's this whole cloistered national security underworld iceberg that they effectively, you know, do that Jack Nicholson thing where it's it's listen to the native because one of the funniest moments in my journey in learning all of this was, you know, there was this German Marshall Fund meeting and it was like 2019. And it was I think it was General John Allen who was, I think the Supreme Allied commander of NATO, or he ran the Afghanistan forces, and he had just become the head of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution Brookings Institution] with the largest think tanks. And he was asked to give, you know, he gave a talk at one of the panels at the top three geopolitical threats to the world order. And the third one was online hate speech. It was very—it's not like Russian aggression. And what he said is, you know, you have this situation where, you know, hate speech gives rise to ethnocentrism, which gives rise to nationalism, which gives rise to opposition to the rules based international world order. This is what gave rise to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit Brexit]. It'll give rise to Frexit and Italexit and Spaigsit and Grexit and and so then the EU will come undone. And then that means NATO will come undone. That means the IMF and the World Bank will come undone. So the whole rules based international order will collapse if we allow the civilian class—and this is a four star general—if we allow the civilian class to speak freely online.

I'm so glad we're doing this. So different version of this is in my work in economics with my wife, Pia Melaney. We solved a problem called the “[[Changing Preference Problem]]”, that you couldn't allow people's tastes to change over time or all the models stopped functioning. And unfortunately, we found out that there was a structural paper written by Gary Becker and George Stigler, two Nobel laureates in economics, that states and baldly, “we believe that you don't argue over tastes because tastes are the same to all men and don't change over time”. Now, this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in an academic journal, but it's they go in great detail as to how this works. And I'm sitting there fighting this thing. You know, we we have a mathematical solution to this problem, but this paper solves it by fiat, by just positing something that we know isn't true, that humans never change their tastes and we all have the same tastes. And I get this email saying, “I can't stand to watch you fighting this. You have to understand that when we set up the university of Chicago economics department, the reason it's so powerful and so famous is in part, that it was a bulwark against totalitarian communism, funded from inside, the intelligence world.” And then the person says to me, well, so I say, “I don't understand how how can anybody believe that all tastes are constant?” And what comes back is “we forgot to tell our descendants that this was being set up as a bulwark against totalitarian communism, so that when the end of the Cold War came, the grandchildren intellectually of this period have no idea that they're actually carrying out a long dead intelligence program so that the field can't progress.” And I was just flabbergasted by this, that—

It’s funny, cause the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics Chicago School of Economics] was used as the justification for the the, you know, the military takeover and international redevelopment of countries in Latin America. This is part of fighting Marxist Liberation Theology, was this idea that we're bringing market capitalism to them. And we're so the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics Chicago School of Economics]—

This was a piece of Kryptonite. In other words, the [[Changing Preference Problem]] gave anyone the opportunity to say, I appreciate all this work in neoclassical economics that you've pushed out to the planet, but are you telling me the whole thing collapses if we have tastes that change over time? So, in other words, they just they shoved in a fix with paperclips and masking tape and then, you know, and 50 years later, I think it was a 1977 paper called De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. We're still living in a world in which you can't innovate in economics mathematically because we're still fighting the Cold War.

So did you see your neighbor Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz’s podcast where they talked about going to the white House and the issue of AI, and they said, these visitors say, well, you can't bound math. And the White House says, oh, yes, we can. We had to do it. We had to do it for theoretical physics. In theoretical physics, you've got something called “Restricted Data”, which sounds completely innocuous, which means that there are it's the only category of intellectual property that is “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret Born Secret]”. That means that if you're working at a cafe, you have no job with the federal government—you're not under any restrictions—if you write down something that can potentially impinge upon nuclear weaponry, it is already Q-classified just at the table—no government agency has to come in. Then we have another concept called the Deemed Export, which is intellectual, like, ideas that you can't share with foreign nationals. You don't understand how much NatSec infrastructure lives inside of these places. And Jay, you know, one of the most meaningful things you ever said to me was something like, “I've been at Stanford for 30+ years, and I had no idea how the place even worked!”

But it's also the case that how did how did the US as a young country end up with, like, the lion's share of the world's great research institutions? And the short answer is dissent, is that cowboy culture, “Yeehaw”, is all about challenging each other and going out for a drink afterwards. And when this came in and, you know, I again, I'm old, so I really saw this coming in in the 80s and 90s, and it got to other things like Public Health at this level much later, because we have we've been blessed not to have serious pandemics. So it wasn't tested. But if you were trying to do immigration work in the late 80s and early 90s, this is Industrial Strength Personal Destruction, destruction of reputation. It basically destroys your ability to earn a living as a credentialed expert. And it's been there for a long time, but it hasn't gotten to each of us personally at the same moment. And it's gotten much, much worse in the last, oh, I don't know, the last ten years. I think since the Dear Colleague Memo of Russlynn Ali in the Obama administration, that's when the universities really start to go crazy, and then their products start emerging into, let's say, the New York Times or the The Atlantic or some of these, new organizations for policing the internet, and that the products of that have been absolutely terrifying.

And it coincided with other things that happened to the Smith-Mundt Act. That was the changing of the domestic dissemination ban. They lifted it. They said now the US AGM, which is a massive, massive media agency owned by the government, which used to disseminate this information just overseas, could now be allowed to disseminate to the American public effectively U.S. propaganda. There was—there's still a restriction on targeting individuals, but we've found, Weston Sager, a young, independent attorney, filed a FOIA request and found that they had, in fact, used social media to target. So there's many of these underpinnings that are required. They're prerequisites for the slippage that has amounted to where we are in 2024 today. You talk about it a lot, Mike, and, you know, I think that there's plenty of evidence. But I want to make sure we get back to solutions because we're a little bit on our back foot, all of us right now, and we're fighting from our back foot. We've got to figure out how to get on our front foot. What are—congressional legislation, you know, vote for individuals that are talking about free speech. It's just really simple. These are constitutional defenders. If anyone is anti-free-speech, or has spoken about misinformation, they're likely bought into this regime. So that's one solution. But we've got to get on our front foot somehow, and I think we've got to get on our front foot quickly. So, you know, we're not disclosing like our master plan by any measure. But, you know, what are some of the things that we should be thinking about to get on our front foot? Obviously, X has been a blessing to many of us. Being re platformed has been a blessing to many of us. we still have hope in our institutions. Jay, you have a conference on the Great Barrington Declaration at Stanford, which I think is wonderful. Kudos to Stanford for doing that. Any anything else we should be?

That's it. That's a great job. If you can get it, you know, to be in control, you've invested in a product and you can control every and how everyone thinks about the product. I mean, that's a that's a dream. But you know, you see this now with entities like NewsGuard two who who will, you know, work with certain companies. And then it just so happens the things that they censor happen to be anything that opposes that particular, you know, company or ad agency who's got these portfolio companies who are benefiting from the rigged searches or the suppression of anyone who criticizes this. I mean, but, I do think that there is this issue with, you know, Eric, you mentioned this this term, you know, “credentialed expert” and, you know, talking about, you know, the science in the financial economy of of doing science work is so much about grants. Most secondary research—the National Science Foundation is the single largest funder of grants in secondary education. It's not really even a private, you know, university research ecosystem. The government grants dwarf it, and know I almost think of it like the McKinsey analogy, where, you know, companies will want to fire, you know, lay people off, but they don't want to get sued over doing it. So what they need is an outside validator, an independent consultant company like McKinsey. And they will hire McKinsey not to get, you know, a dispassionate third-party opinion about whether or not they should go through with the restructuring. But they give the wink wink, nudge nudge/informal, you know, golf course conversation with their liaison at McKinsey, “we need this report to say that we need to fire these people, because we're going to hold that up so that we don't get, you know, hit with laws; that'll make it go down easier.” And that is the role of this sort of mercenary science in a lot of places. And I think it's hard to change that simply on the basis of ideology, because you have the financial interests, right? Like people do not want to lose their livelihoods. Well, where else am I going to get the money from if I decline to do this research? And now I'm a pariah in Tony Fauci's eyes or whatnot. And I think this gets to this kind of whole society framework that I think is necessary on this, which is, you know, and again, I'm also hopeful, like Jay is even you look at the, you know, the Murthy-Missouri, you know, decision where Jay is a, you know, a plaintiff with these great lower court rulings, Supreme Court, you know, made, in my view, a disastrous blunder. But the very next day, in I think it was Washington Post, but it may have been another, you know, sort of comparable no less than Nina Jankovic, the disinformation czar, you know, the head of the disinformation governance board who sued Fox News for defamation for calling her a censor. And then the court just last week said, actually, we're dismissing the lawsuit because you were a censor. But she wrote an article the very next day or two days after the decision, saying that she was not optimistic about the ruling. And I think that the title of it was something like, you know, “The Murthy Scotus decision cannot undo the damage wrought against disinformation studies”. And I think that's true. but that is because everyone activated from all of the different areas. You had multiple different congressional committees, you know, from, from judiciary to house to house. You have you had you had state attorney generals taking action. You had private sector lawyers taking action. You had media and tons of media on it. And you had civil society watchdog organizations and nonprofits all. So you you had this sort of whole society freedom alliance, which everybody sort of was able to do their part. That is how they actually established the censorship apparatus was through a whole site. So I think that whole-society-eye view is, is the way to look at solutions on it. And it's already racked up a lot of and

Brilliant, hearings, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee Church] and Pike hearings. I think Gary Hart is still alive, who was on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee Church Committee]? People have to—why don't we reach out to Gary Hart and say, well, what actually happened when we had to look at what the intelligence community was, that we found out there was something called Section A of the Reserve Index, which was people to be rounded up in times of national emergency. And who are these people? Are they criminals? Are they gang leaders? No, they're the independently wealthy, TV newscasters, labor leaders, professors, anyone who could sway hearts and minds. We don't even know that there's a secret history of the McCarran Act, which sought to take the success as it was understood by the NatSec complex of the Japanese incarceration and set up prospective camps for communists that then they were disallowed when Daniel Inouye led a fight against this because he was in a position to do so. That reoccurs under FEMA, you have this entire history of the United States. Think about Howard Zinn on lots and lots of steroids. There is a NatSec history of the United States that to know about it means that you're a crazy person. And I think that this—

More like Howard Zinn on on Hallucinogenics.

Hallucinogenics. And, you know, the interesting thing is, is that most people don't know what the CIA does. They think it's Central Intelligence Agency, but it's also the covert operations. Some people say, oh, covert that just means silent or quiet. No, it means deniable. It means we have a plan for gaslighting you if you trip over this, which is called “deconfliction”. So one of the things we can do is we can get all of the terminology. Like, how many Americans understand that there are three separate deconfliction systems to prevent blue-on-blue, two teams of good guys running into each other. You've got an undercover guy pretending to be a Mexican drug lord, and he's going to be busted, by local police. And they have a system for figuring this out. We don't understand our own lives, our own government, until we understand the National Security complex. But to take an interest in the national security complex is to court this term Conspiracy Theorist, which is a fascinating term. We all know the conspiracies exist. We have Rico Acts, after all. But to posit a conspiracy in front of the government or in front of one of the political parties before they get to it—if you're reading ahead in the script, that's one of the worst crimes you can commit.

Well, what I would say is, and this is the bitter pill for us, I know it's supposed to be light and fun, but there's one thing that I think we really have to look at. National Security is a really strange thing to be tasked with. You actually do have to do some dirty stuff. You have to do some stuff that's quiet, and you've got to do some stuff that's in the national interest that you can't bring to a vote. What we need to do is we need to talk to these people and say, listen, we understand what you're saying about NATO. We understand what you're saying about public health. We understand the game theory of it all. Right now, what you're doing is going to destroy everything you've built. If we just took our hands off and went to the beach, you would destroy it in short order. Is there anything that you want to tell us? Do you, instead of going after us, would you prefer to work with us? Because we have the credibility. Because we stand up. I will stand up again if the NatSec complex decides to go after ordinary human beings and torture them. Like we didn't talk about Human Terrain and the subject of Cultural Anthropology. They've weaponized fields like Cultural Anthropology so that you can do a study of how people think and treat it as if it's terrain. If we don't know the terminology, if we don't know the history, then we are effectively just clueless rubes who’ve gotten off the bus in a very dangerous part of town, and we have no idea where we are. We have to arm ourselves with the information, the terminology, and the history.

Yeah. One of the individuals that I think inspired this conversation, I wasn't actually previously aware of her until you shared prior to us going live is, Francis Kelsey, who was the scientist that prevented thalidomide from coming to the United States, which was prescribed to pregnant women to help offset morning sickness. Later Francis, alone, rang the alarm bells that this was responsible for horrible birth defects. She came to the United States, worked very, very hard to prevent it from coming into the United States, thus saving many, many children here from the fate that hundreds of thousands of children suffered in Europe.

When you believe in individuals like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Boyer Dean Boyer] or President—who was it—[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zimmer Bob Zimmer], you know, these are pivotal individuals. And just picking up on Francis Oldham Kelsey, we need to get back to the point where one person standing up is sufficient to turn back a tide of tens of thousands.

And that was one of the most beautiful thoughts, was that we are part of a tradition and we don't even know it, that this is not actually new, it's just ongoing. It crops up throughout history and there's an opportunity to recognize that we walk in the steps of those individuals like Francis Kelsey and, you know, JFK, when he was president, acknowledged that, acknowledged Francis and gave her a medal of honor, I believe.

They've set themselves up as the God figure in that anecdote. And that's not the way it was supposed to be. This in a civilian run government, the civilians, you know, are the spirit, the, you know, the Holy Spirit of it, if you will. It is, you know, they this the military, the national security state, the intelligence agencies and all of their proxies in the NGO world, in the university world are supposed to be answerable to the civilians. And I think one thing that's actionable in all of this is we understand that there's military work and national security intelligence work, you know, for things in foreign countries and, you know, where the troops are moving, the secret military bases, whatnot. But the fact is, there's so much of it. And, Eric, you know, hit on this phrase, it’s “hearts and minds” work. And the issue is, is that hearts and minds work is effectively classified. And we become casualties of a proxy war playing on, playing out above our heads. Because with the end of the Smith-Mundt Act, now hearts and minds work that's done by the U.S. State Department's Global Engagement Center can now come back, because that Global Engagement Center now is a partnership with the University of Cambridge for their psychological vaccine to stop Fake News, which is designed to prevent—

And the Five Eyes Agreement, where the idea is, we can't spy on our own people, so we agree to spy on the people of other Anglophone countries. It's like, how many of us are aware of these sort of bizarre arrangements and we can't talk about them—you want to—?