Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Eric Weinstein: Don't Call It A Conspiracy! [Ep. 421]

Episode Date: May 31, 2024

Join my mailing list https://briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN! Are experts failing us? While there is no clear answer to this question, it is clear that there is a growing public distrust of experts and institutions, and even more clear that this has severe consequences for society and science.  Join me and my colleague Eric Weinstein as we explore this issue, dig deep into the reasons for this skepticism, from political pressures to historical deceptions, and hypothesize potential solutions! Eric Weinstein is an American managing director of Thiel Capital, Peter Thiel's investment firm, a position he has held since 2015. Though not an academic physicist, he proposed a unified theory of physics in 2013. He and his brother Bret Weinstein coined the term Intellectual Dark Web to refer to an informal group of pundits. Eric is a vocal critic of modern academic hierarchies and advocates for advances in scientific theory over an emphasis on experimental results. We discuss funding, academic freedom, and theoretical vs experimental physics. Key Takeaways: 00:00:00 Intro 00:00:33 Giving platforms to unorthodox thinkers 00:03:39 Eric on the collapse of institutional trust 00:06:25 The decline in the reputation of universities and their impact 00:11:49 Need for reconciliation over COVID-related lies 00:24:08 Dangers of misinformation  00:28:04 The complicated relationship between national security and science 00:40:57 Eric’s vision for re-establishing trust in the scientific community 01:08:14 Outro — Additional resources: 📝 Get one month of Snipd Premium for free with this link: https://get.snipd.com/Cx7S/brianSnipd Snipd lets you take Smart Notes 🧠 with AI 💡 — it’s my favorite podcast player 😀 ! ➡️ Connect with Eric Weinstein ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/ ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating  🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1  📝 Join my mailing list: https://briankeating.com/list  ✍️ Check out my blog: https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/  🎙️ Follow my podcast: https://briankeating.com/podcast Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you use the word conspiracy theorist so much as once to throw shade, to disparage, and discredit somebody who was actually correct about something, you'll lose that as a weapon. We've lost that as a term. We call people conspiracy theorists who were right. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Open the pod bay doors, Hal. We are going to start.

conversation about this mysterious interview that has been really kind of bewildering to me, how much attention it's getting and sort of some of the accusations I'm hearing now, not just about me, you know, personally and how I'm reacting to it, but how it's being portrayed as an example of why we shouldn't trust experts. and what's wrong with experts? So I invited my friend Eric Weinstein, who is eminent scientist, mathematician, and friend we had dinner the other night and kind of were discussing this. So I wanted to bring him in as well, and he's graciously joined us. So we're going to talk. Hopefully I'm going to get to a better microphone in just a bit. But I know that Eric's had some thoughts about

this as well. For me, I'm very, I'll just be honest. I'm very worried when people go on huge platforms, the biggest English language speaking podcast, or English language platform in the whole world. And Joe's had on scoundrels like me. But he's had on a lot of people lately who are not only counter-narrative on Orthodox, heterodox thinkers, but are actually calling into a question the following phenomenon. The moon landing, the various hypotheses about the Earth not being flat, or not being round, hopefully that wasn't clipped for my 10-year review,

and that the Earth may not be around, that the Earth is in fact flat, the moon landings were a hoax. Now we're hearing questions about the properties of the natural numbers, and equations, including strange behaviors that Eric will summarize as well. So to have this happen as well as things that aren't conspiracies, having Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I'm talking about the COVID vaccine and other issues that he spoke about. But he's had on people from Tucker Carlson to Bart Sibrell to recently Terrence Howard,

and the question I have is if this is a good thing for science and for society. I wanted to have Eric maybe share your experiences. What have you experienced as Fallout as someone who is an extremely large platform makes him a good person to talk to to get his appearance, his perspective on this whole matter? So Eric, if you're able to, could you unmute and help us walk through this perplexing situation of the distrust in experts and science. I guess I find myself in a relatively difficult position because it's very clear to me that the

experts have failed and that the vacuum left by the collapse of institutional trust is now going to be filled by things that are not an improvement necessarily on the expert perspective, that the expert perspective is really a victim of, I would say, the political economy. When you don't pay experts, you don't give them high prestige, you don't give them the ability to chart a course through a life the way, let's say professors were once able to do with academic freedom, very high standards, grant security. They were much more trustworthy.

Right now, what we have is we have a culture of expert witnesses. And the culture of expert witnesses is, is that the culture of expert witnesses is that. eroding trust in experts. And I think that the experts would do very well to take that very seriously, not to reflexively say, ha, ha, ha, people believe now in a number system where one times one equals two. Instead, what they should be doing is say, what is it that we've done that has lost so much credibility so quickly? And I would say it has a lot to do with COVID origins. It has a lot to do with not acknowledging national security issues and pretending that they aren't national security issues. This goes under the heading of covert operations, which are deniable operations.

That's not a conspiracy theory. In fact, it is what, let's say, the CIA is taxed with not just intelligence, but also doing things that can be denied. And so by denying way too many national security things, by denying scientific things, by not paying people, by allowing for all the gamesmanship and academics. A small number of topics, particularly COVID origins, the COVID vaccine, lying about inflation, lying about the Fed, the money supply, M1, M2, being deceptive about Ukraine and Russia and the risks that are being run, et cetera, et cetera, not covering the Jeffrey Epstein story, not covering the firebombing of the federal courthouse where you could see a daily battle, but then it didn't appear to be a big deal to our major news organs.

This is the thing that's destroying expert credibility. Now, the problem is that on the other side, we're really going to talk about one times one equals two and zero doesn't exist. And, I mean, come on. Well, one thing you left out is the greatest concentration of experts. The system, a member of the academic institution, and you being an academic institution, and you being an academician, a scholar and intellectual, all your life spent around academics and in academic settings. I find that to be one of the next eye, the nexus, that you. that you might have omitted, maybe not intentionally,

but we're seeing a concomitant destruction of the respect for universities, which used to be the paragon of civilization, being completely eroded at my campus, at your alma mater, Harvard, and many other institutions. How do you think the universities play into this and what culpability do they have when you hear, you know, the kind of things, chance that are going on on campus, and then you also see the institutions.

intellectual pushback to such individuals as myself. Well, roughly speaking, the universities have been on a slide since the late 60s. The legal changes that have been inflicted on universities include the Mansfield Amendment, which cut off military funding for Blue Sky Research, the Isleburg Amendment in 1976, which changed the immigration status, the Bidol Amendment in 1980, which gave universities the right to commercialize their finding which made it the case that Blue Sky wasn't a mandate because it was it was supposed to be the thing that the market couldn't do and then we doubled up then we did the Immigration Act of

1990 the NSF and the National Academy of Sciences through the PRA and G UIRRR divisions lied about a labor shortage where they knew full well that they were trying to suppress wages but they were claiming a demographic shortfall so that no one would be around to do science and engineering. The number of changes in the environment in law and in funding, cancellation of the SSC, superconducting supercollider, changes in the structure of the NIH under Reagan. Basically, what we've done is we've taken something that was secular sacred. Like we have reverence for universities, even though we don't tie it to God, because we revere

knowledge. There's sort of a respect that you have for books, even if the book is thin thighs and 30 days. If it has the spine and papers between it, it might be a bad book, but people who revere books, revere learning, have been taking it on the chin because effectively what we've done is we've turned this sort of, I don't know what you want to call it, a monastery or a nunnery into a house of ill repute, and it's too close to business. It doesn't have the right relationship to the military. I wish we had in the U.S. a more open relationship to the military,

where we have some say in the ethics of the toys that we create. But what I find is that it's been a long slide since around 1970, and these universities are going to have to, there's a very important part of the New Testament where Jesus visits the temple and sees the money changers and is not happy with what's going on in his father's house. He breaks out the whip.

Well, you know, there's time for love everyone, Jesus, and there's time for kick-ass and take names, Jesus, and this is the time to kick a lot of people out of the universe. And speaking of whips, and universities and physics, our specialization, are string theory as a whip, as a cat of nine tails. What is it doing to contribute to this problem or maybe ameliorated? Oh, boy, I mean, this is the thing, right? At some level, I don't think any string theorist, no matter, the most ethically badly behaved

string theorist is not confused about whether one times one equals two. and it is also the case that the thing about string theory that no other field does is it attempts to murder all of its rivals, not by success, not by proving things through experiment and prediction, but it has a particularly similicidal attitude that I've never seen anywhere else in academics. It is the belief that no one else is doing anything, and if anyone else does something, then they're part of our team, that is the sin, which is in part leading to this becoming possible. The reason that this is possible, this podcast, is because at some level people can see, well, obviously the strength theorists are lying. They're lying about their level

of success. They're lying about their competition. They've been 40 years promising people, things will be different 10 years from now. And people can, people can, people can tell that you're peeing on their leg and saying that it's raining. And their feeling is, if you're doing that behavior, maybe I can't trust you down to the number zero or down to what it means to do a simple arithmetic opportunity. It's peak pollination season and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speed. That's why I chose GoogleFi wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month.

Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore GoogleFi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. Google Fi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. Bridge. And also looking at the confluence, again, of we're in an election year. We've got the same two candidates we had. We have, you know, at various times different mental pandemics, physical pandemics.

now we're seeing a mass sort of revelation and and maybe maybe even a mea culpa a Teshiva moment. How do you see what's happening with recent forced revelations? And by the way, for those that don't know, Eric was probably the first person I knew who was on this. We got to know each other very well at this time, four or five years ago. And this was almost immediate to you, immediately apparent to you, these charges of race, and so forth against those that spoke about COVID. Where are we at with COVID? Is it time for a reckoning?

Can we say Mayaculpah? Can we let people off? Did there need to be orange jumpsuits? What do you think about that, Eric? We need a deep and painful reconciliation over the lies around COVID, period, the end. How can you trust this same government that was responsible for many of the attempts

to suppress, conceal, and call into question, so-called conspiracy theorists, that they're now, you know, kind of the blue ribbon panel that's responsible for this as well. The first thing we have to do is we have to get the allied fields to stop using science's credit card for political expedients. That is, public health is not science. I'm going to repeat that. Public health is not science.

When you have to communicate something like wash your hands or, you know, where a condom before sex. And, you know, part of it has to do with where we'll get celebrities to say things that rhyme. You know, you're trying to spread information. You have hypotheses in public health that, like, people aren't very smart. They're not very capable of following long protocols. Things should be simple to the point. So this created a disaster. You know, we told people, oh, only crazy people need masks. Don't be a worry warrant. This is no worse than the full. flu. And then it was, no, no, it's the black plague. You must wear masks. And then it's, well, you'll kill grandma. You'll kill grandma. Well, maybe you would kill grandma. Maybe you would

kill grandma. But yeah, you know what? Maybe you're going to damage, the next one, you will. Maybe you're going to damage kids by keeping them home. And maybe you're going to throw the world into a dangerous state by shutting down businesses. What we need is we need to make sure that public health is on its own. You guys want to lie to the public? Fine, but I don't want to get all the credibility from the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron out to 10 decibel places of accuracy and throw it away on Anthony Fauci's changing position on masks. I also don't want, if our bio-warfare program is housed inside of NIAID, remember that's the National Institute, and then we'll deempset allergies, and let's highlight an infectious disease.

We signed and ratified these conventions, the BioWeapons Convention, the Geneva Convention, that gave us rules and restrictions about what we could do with offensive biological weaponry. And my concern is that we rolled this stuff into the NIH. We have no idea what the EcoHealth Alliance is. I'm reasonably sure it's not the charity that pretends itself to be. Hello, students of the impossible.

It's Professor Brian Keating here with just a tiny little homework assignment to interrupt your podcast. And that's to make sure that you're subscribed to the podcast or following us on your podcast app of choice. Did some research and actually only about 50% of you are actually following or subscribing to The Impossible podcast. And really mean a lot if you could subscribe and keep up to date with me with all the greatest content. I'm putting out tremendous amounts. Podcast has grown in popularity, but it can be better and bigger with your help. Do that. Please do it now.

Don't wait. You'll forget. If you're looking to really boost your position on the grade curve for some extra credit, make sure to leave a rating or review of the podcast. It really helps. Thanks a lot. Now back to the show. We have to get the national security complex into a more mature relationship with science.

National Security needs science, and science, quite honestly, has benefited from national security. But this relationship we're in now where basically they lie about things and then scientists have to cover for it. Yeah. Where we're using nature to make crazy statements about men and women. Like, you know, the journal nature can't figure out what male and female is. This is not going to work. What we need is a painful come to Jesus moment where lots of people say we lied. And I don't know what's complicated about that.

This is the time to restore credibility. And credibility begins with, you know, we lie. Transparency. Sometimes for better reasons, like national security, we thought we were doing the right thing. Sometimes for worse reasons, because Pfizer has its tentacles wrapped around our news bureaus, whatever it is. But for God's sake, we're either going to go to the gym and get healthy or not. And we look at the challenge that I see is that basically to take at face value anything an expert says and follow it. blindly is, you know, incredibly perilous.

And the people that believe that most of all are scientists. There's always a danger invoking Richard Feynman, right? He can say anything for any purpose at any time. But, you know, his famous statement, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, meaning you don't make progress if you assume there are authorities that can't be questioned. And while that's true, it's also a double-edged sword. Because I don't think scientists themselves, by their nature, are anti-authoritarian. And I think that leads us to have some credibility that we earn in certain regimes that should be narrowly restricted to our domain expertise.

When people ask me about global warming, I always say I hope when you invite a climate scientist and you ask her about the effect of dark energy and the expansion of the universe, she says, you know, ask a cosmologist. But typically my colleagues don't have that restraint. I want to get your take on this, Eric. I claim controversially, and I get punished from this from our friend, Sabina Hassanfelder, but I believe it's a moral failing of a scientist to not communicate in simple terms what we do. I think we exist at the pleasure of the public. They pay our salaries through taxes. I'm a professor at a public university.

But every scientist is funded at some level, you know, as a public servant at some level, public funding. what do you think the obligations of a card-carrying scientist, you know, is, what are the obligations, rather? What should he or she do? I have a podcast, you have a podcast, you do outreach, we do talks all around the world. Is that enough? Should I be doing more? Should our colleagues be doing more? And is this going to lead to the ultimate eroding of confidence if we silo things away and say,

you're not smart enough to understand it? I mean, to be blunt, let's talk about how we got into the situation with the Terrence Howard podcast. We do a guided tour of science. And the guided tour is a huge danger to the public support of science. Let me explain. If you say I went to France and I toured Versailles, I saw Versailles, did you really see Versailles?

Do you know how many rooms are in Versailles? Did you visit them all? You know, what percentage of the grounds did you have access to? So my claim is, is that we're doing the same thing with science. And let me say how it relates to Terrence Howard's podcast. Terrence Howard went off the guided tour. And he found all sorts of rooms that experts know exist, but that the public is sort of misled into thinking aren't there.

So I'll give you a very simple example. The periodic table. There is no the periodic table. And everybody who cares about periodic table stuff, should know that there is no the periodic table. The physicist's favorite version of the periodic table is called the, I don't know whether it's Jene or Jeanette, because I've never heard it said even once in my presence,

left step periodic table. But there are multiple periodic tables having to do with the complexity of electron orbitals. And when Terrence Howard tells you, you know, oh, I'm looking at the Walter Russell periodic table. And it's a spiral. Okay, well, you say spirals, right? but the issue is, let me tell you it's something else.

He's going to say, well, if there are vibrations in atoms, then there's also vibrations in music. And so everything that is an atomic vibration is also there for a musical vibration. You know, Milton Babett, I think, explored this at Princeton in the music department. And his student, Stanley Jordan, who I met, he and I discussed that Stanley Jordan, who's a brilliant guitarist, was mining this, inspiration. What is what what what what would what the molecule sound like? So that's not crazy. Right. So it's not fair. It's not fair to say okay, well this guy is just like loop-de-do because

he knows about a spiral periodic table or he's comparing the sound of a vibration to something in atomic physics furthermore. But Eric, you would never say that Stradivarius played an incredible atheism note. I mean, it only goes one way. And you'll never have it go the other way from Wu to Nanwu. It's always from non-woo. No, no, no, no. It goes from Wu to non-Wu. When Kekuli saw a snake eating its tail and decided that that was the inspiration for benzene, right? There aren't ways in which

Wu ends up as non-Wu. So again, the thing is, I don't... You and I can also have a different perspective. You may say that there is no instance of woe becoming non-woo. I don't mind disagreeing, but I warn you, I know a lot of history. The thing that I'm going to say is that it pays not to rush off Terrence Howard's appearance with the back of our hands. And let me say where I was headed with this. The circle of fifths in music is not a circle.

It's a spiral. And the reason for that is that you can't have both a perfect octave and a perfect Pythagorean fifth as part of an even temperate scale. Number theoretically, it just can't work. And as a result, if you choose special numbers of notes, namely 12, 29, and 53, you can get a great, you can get a perfect octave and a nearly perfect third. Those special numbers cause that, sorry, a nearly perfect fifth. Those special numbers have that property.

Most people don't know that that's true. If they sit down at a piano, they see 12 notes on it. So what happens when Terrence, for example, figures out that lots of things are true that aren't well known? There is no the periodic table. There is a spiral one. There is no circle of fifth. There's a spiral one. And you can associate tones with vibrations.

and molecules with vibrations and frequencies, you take all of that and you push it together and you create this delicious amalgam where everything is connecting to everything. And this is part of the pleasures of the overly associative mind is that it sees meaning in random numbers, random letters, you know. I think that's beautiful from an artistic perspective. I don't think Terence is meaningful, you know,

trying to mislead or harm or sell some life extension or, you know, penis extension supplements or something like that. What I do hear people like Tucker and people like Bart Zibral, they do have a gendos, Eric. And I don't think it's as innocent as the kind of melifluous mind that you're pointing out, which I don't have a problem with what you said. I think it can be taken too far into the quantum healing of our friend, Deepak Chopra. But at least in that frame, they're not eroding. You know, you said once, you know, people that claim, they don't trust in experts, you know, should never take a Southwest flight, although, you know, maybe experts also take Southwest flights on Boeing airplanes, but that's besides the point.

At what point do you feel it's dangerous? Not the Terrence Howard's baby, although that is the title here, but the Tucker Carlson's and the Bart Cibroles that undermine the credibility in what should be our least polarizing institutions, NASA. You know, this is not like the Wuhan Lab, Health Alliance. This is funding basic research into airline safety, space travel, telescopes. What do you say to people like that? I claim that is not so innocuous. And I think it's actually dangerous. I think it's dangerous too. But I also, if we're going to be dealing, look, Brian, I think that you and I should both agree and disagree on this panel. And because we know how to do that as friends and colleagues, maybe the space benefits from that. But here goes nothing. Yeah. We went to the moon in peace.

and we did it on top of an ICBM. The international geophysically year was 1957, and we all agreed that Antarctica was never to be militarized. I'm not positive exactly what our issues are between national security and national advantage and our concern for the human race and all knowledge. In other words, it's always been a difficult and fraught relationship figuring out

why the taxpayers are funding something that has no national component to it at all. National security, national interest, and science have this really, you know, it's like a great partnership that's incredibly fraught

like Lennon and McCartney or... Yeah, the two cultures. Or Gilbert and Sullivan or, you know, aerospace. You always get these writing teams where people make magic

and drive each other up absolutely crazy. And that's what I would say is the relationship between the federal government and the universities that do the science. So what I believe is, partially what people are telling us is if you don't stop lying about national security, we don't trust you. And putting gatekeepers, again, the same people that will investigate what happened with COVID or, you know, at a 9-11 commission, where do you draw a line? I'm getting criticism for, you know, this debunking, the debunking video that I made about Bart Sibriol on Joe Rogan's podcast because, you know, I'm, it's claim I'm making ad hominem attacks

and these people are really showing the truth. And I'm just a gatekeeper, Eric. I just defend big NASA and big cosmology. I wish, by the way, I wish there was a NASA lobby. I could, no, I'm just kidding. But the point is it's almost like we. don't have any comity, not comedy, but comity, that we cannot agree that we can, we can differ and I can present scientific facts. Lunar laser ranging measures the precision of the retroreflectors

left by Neil Armstrong to one millimeter precision. That is done to measure the, you know, third order terms in the, you know, in the, in the Einstein equations, you know, for looking for departures from the inverse square laws. These are not things that are, like we're battling for Cold War supremacy. This is fundamental physics, and it's being doubted by people that have agendas and have, you know, films and projects that they want to propose in books and want to get on big podcasts like, you know, speaking to people like you and Joe Rogan and Lex and others. So what is to be done with people like that?

Is it true that it is questionable because we question the COVID origins and we question, you know, the 9-11, if it was inside job and so forth, that now everything is on the table to be questioned. And what point can we draw a line without being accused of being a gatekeeper? I wonder if you're going to love or hate this answer, but here goes nothing. Okay. If you take Building Seven's collapse, the instant I say Building Seven, an enormous number of people get very either excited or disgusted.

In other words, Building Seven was a thing that happened. but you'll notice that you're not allowed to have questions around Building 7. I think it's the only collapse of a building of that type ever recorded in human history, and if you find it interesting, there is something terribly wrong with you. So my point is not to make any new headway on Building 7, it's to say, whatever that thing is doesn't work anymore. In other words, if I can prove that this is the only building that's ever collapsed with a story like that, It is interesting in and of itself.

And telling people, nothing to see, nothing to see move along is incredibly creepy. Assume that it collapsed exactly as the official report says, there's nothing weird or... That's fine. Well, but telling people that you are creepy for finding that weird or interesting is partially what's fueling the backlash. Oh, that's not my point, Art. My point is that the building Savin's uniqueness, Sui generis, is now causing people to doubt metallurgists. I understand.

But like, what I'm trying to say is the Bureau of Labor Statistics is lying about the CPI, the consumer price index being in the cost of living framework, because that would require understanding the preferences of consumers. So if I want to question the CPI, which I do, because I have actual, actually original work in exactly that area, the response is not a normal scientific response. And what you're trying to say is, look, you know, people know interesting things about beryllium. And why is it that if I publish something about beryllium, it has nothing to do with national security that just has to do with, you know, understanding how it behaves in the laboratory, that is under question.

What I'm trying to say to you, Brian, is we've got to realize that we branched off into expert witness culture. And in expert witness culture, you say, okay, who's hiring me and what do you want me to find and when I get to understand what's a win for you? That culture causes everyone to think, maybe I can't trust anything about Borrelia. Maybe I can't. Maybe I can't. You can't trust a study that tries to figure out how fast fingernails grow in different ethnic groups. Maybe the idea is if you can't tell what a male is from a female, maybe I should apply, and this is the key concept, the global universal discount of 95%. Now you start to understand what the problem is that a small amount of lying about national security or trying to get grants or pretending that you have no competitors and that your theory isn't failing in string theory,

let's say, causes people to think, I don't trust your calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to 11 decibel places. And you're thinking, well, wait a second, we're just lying about string theory. We're not flying about electrons. Well, there's no just lying about string theory. We're lying about string theory, and it's being applied as a global discount. what I would claim is that we need to come to Jesus moment where we need to say that more or less science is trustworthy and we need to say that universities are trustworthy. And there's a small amount of social engineering you can do in order to serve your home countries. But my belief is that it will not support the level of activism that we're seeing.

You should take my detractors and haters from within the PhD community and you should give them more money. And the reason that I say that is that a lot of, of what you see as hatred or negging or all of the stuff is people jockeying for a position where there's far too little security and people are incredibly accomplished and they are all fundamentally at death's door because everyone is sensitive can my provost now get rid of me can i have a dei complained against me am i going to lose my grants and if you don't have people who can say f you to all of that stuff you will not be able to trust your science your medicine, your nutrition, and not paying your experts is basically a decision to commit suicide.

If you don't pay your experts, your society is checking into a hospice. The idea that you cannot share the fruits of a capitalist society with people who cannot patent their ideas because they traffic in basic research, you've excluded them from the wealth-generating portion of your country and you said please serve the rest of us with truth, with new creative ideas, with new industries. And this is a recipe for disaster. And I'm sorry to say it, but you have to get people who say, it's subject everything to the market to recognize you have made it impossible to market to commercialize certain things like pure science. You'll need to pay these people at the level that they can take three children through school,

they can buy a second home, and they can buy a luxury automobile or true, and they can have a retirement. And if you want to whine about that. But don't we need the gate keep there, too? I mean, if you want to whine about that, please unfollow, right? If we don't pay our experts,

we don't make them secure, we are going to have what we have now, and I don't want to live in a society where I can't trust my experts. When you have the same experts, though, that seemingly are willing to support mutually contradicting ideas, assertions that the average person with no academic credentials can see is lunacy, things like, you know, no free will.

And despite the fact that they admit they act as if they have free will, I mean, at what level do we take, say, people that study hand psychism or, you know, Roswell, et cetera, fund those? I mean, who gets the magnificence of the taxpayer? Did we fund John Archibald Wheeler to study UFOs and anti-gravity? I am assuming that we did. Did we fund Freeman Dyson? Did we fund Robert Oppenheimer? Did we create a cutout in Roger Babson and Agnew Baineson and fund the Institute for Physical Fields at North Carolina Chapel Hill where Peter Higgs did the work on the Higgs boson?

I mean, my claim is that I don't know what we funded and what we didn't. Did we inject people with plutonium fellow citizens against their will and without their knowledge? We did. I mean, in other words, we all talk about Tuskegee now, right? But what about the fact that we infected San Francisco from a ship with a bacteria to test how bacteria would behave in a city? I think what I'm trying to say, Brian, is the first. The first move is ours as scientists, which we have to say we are way too poor. We are much more trained than we pretend when we say ah shucks.

We are much more willing to allow our colleagues to lie to pursue grants. We say that everything's going great when it isn't. Nobody has an idea that when we're caught lying, we are a assumed to be lying about everything. And I think that what we need to do is that we need to say, look, you're not paying us enough. You're not funding the experiments. You're putting us in a terrible situation. And if you want to whine about taxpayer dollars, you can kiss your prosperous society goodbye because this work needs to be done and the market can't do it. And if you want to have an adult conversation, we're here for it. But we need to be unapologetically elitist, Brian,

and I think people are very uncomfortable. They believe in elite surgeons for their children when they're under the knife. They believe they want to be defended by elite commandos in Delta Force. And what I'm trying to say is you also want elite scientists, and let's not beat around the bush. There's a big difference. Even I, who's one of the biggest critics of Ed Witten or Leonard Susskind or any of these people at the top of the string theory pile, we all know that zero exists and one times one equals one. And yet, people will say the data belongs to us.

I've heard that more times than I can really contemplate. And, you know, for me, the question first of all has to be answered, what is the data? What are the data, if you want to be pedantic? Is it the Hubble Deep Field? Is that the data or the web telescope data? is it the findings of your friend David Grush? Does that belong to the public? And where do we draw the line?

Is it okay for the taxpayers to demand access, accountability, transparency? Let's look at this. If I were to say, hey, do you believe that you want all data made available to everyone, even if it results in homemade nuclear weapons, weaponized anthrax. Everybody who wants all data made available

to everyone, please put a thumbs up. I'm not seeing that many thumbs up. If you believe that... Well, give it a second. Give it a second. Professors only wait six seconds before the answer to them were. So put a thumbs up if you want access to

anthrax data, COVID-Eco-health. Everyone to have all data, including weaponized anthrax, including homemade nuclear weapons. Okay. Now, if instead you want most data to be made available to the public that the public pays for with some sanity provisions, then put a thumb up now. So my claim is, in general, people are asking for all data because they don't trust what's going. And I understand this completely. When you've lost trust to this level, I want all data on eco-health alliance.

That could be incredibly damaging to U.S.-China relations. It could be very bad for our position with respect to Russian bioweapons or the Iranians. Right now, I don't care. I'm so tired of Peter Dajek. I'm so tired of Francis Collins and I'm so tired of Anthony Fauci that I just don't trust them at all as far as they can throw them. And sight unseen, I want to know what the hell happened to my lungs, to my children, to my body, to my country, to the economy. I just have no concept of what happened. That is a very bad position to be it.

If you imagine that I had given some kind of an explanation, I would not be here. I would say, you know, we have to be careful. We have to be cautious. Of course, we can't know everything about what's going on. on. We have to realize that there are long-standing programs. Some of them are quiet, blah, blah, blah. The problem is that the loss of confidence is so profound at this point that many of us just want to cut the Gordian knot. And what I would say is if the intelligence community doesn't want that, if the higher-ups in science don't want that, if the elite institutions don't want that, then come across with the goods now or else prepare to face the mobs at the best deal. These kids on these college campuses are going to to get older. They're not going to necessarily grow out of all of this stuff. And you're not going to want to live in the society where things are so relative that we're questioning basic arithmetic. You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet.

How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay. And how are we going to confront this in an open society to use our, you know, George Soros' favorite term,

when we have unfettered, unlimited, open access, LLMs, you know, and do you think that there's some hope or does that bring any optimism to you that not only will, if the data were made public, that actually something could be done with it. You know, there's nothing worse than getting, you know, petabytes of data, you know, if you want to curse somebody, just bless them with a petabyte of data, right? So let's say this comes through. Is there, are there tools that we're not looking at?

Or what would you do if you were now, you know, standing at, sitting at Fauci's desk or Collins's desk? What would you do maybe in that realm and maybe in the realm of, you know, UAP phenomena. What would you open source and what do you expect to be made from, say, open source LLMs and? Marsha McNutt, if she is still head of the National Academy of Science, should give a speech. The speech should say there is now a crisis in scientific confidence and we are going to reestablish ground truth.

We are going to have a concept of national security and national security privilege, and we are going to try to let you know to the extent possible when we cannot answer a question for reasons of national security. We expect you to trust us. And in exchange, what we are going to provide is the fact that we have lied to you and we've broken confidence and trust. And in so doing, we are going to say why and how we have broken confidence and trust. In what cases are we too close to industry. In what cases have we underfunded people who needed higher levels of funding and effectively asked them either to lie or to put themselves in terrible situations? We are going to be honest with you about our needs and our expectations and the difficult

nature of the relationship between government and science and universities. And quite honestly, we are going to be unabashedly elitist. We are not going to do this democratization of ability. everybody deserves a fair shake to try to play this game, but people have vastly different abilities, and we're not going to slow everybody down so that the weakest among us can catch up. This is a high-performance activity. Almost nobody belongs in research,

and we're going after the cream of the crop. We're going to be more honest about the way in which science is international and knows no boundaries, and the way in which science is highly national. And it is very important that different kinds of, countries do science in different ways. There are different national cultures, and there is certainly national advantage and national interest. In particular, our new relationship is going to talk to you about the last 50 years of deception. We have deceived people. We deceived the world when we were

building the atomic bond by pretending that we did not have a new city in New Mexico called Los Alamos. Harold Urie published false information in order to get our enemies off of the scent. We have used small amounts of deception. We have done things that are unethical, like the Tuskegee experiment, like the plutonium injections. I think it was Operation C spray in San Francisco. We need to be able to test things, to do certain things quietly. We need data that we can hold back. And we also have to realize that we have relied on that as an explanation.

when it was not a fair explanation. And the American people and the world deserved better. Many people may be dead by something that went wrong in a lab accident in Wuhan, China. And whatever the cost to our relationship with the Chinese, we need to get to the bottom of it. We may need to revisit the bio-weapons convention from the 1970s because maybe we signed a bad deal. But fundamentally, we need to renew the Vannevar-Busch endless frontier compact

between university science and the federal government for a modern age in which we can rely on a deep partnership where you are represented by experts who are not hostile to your interest, who are well paid, and we're not seeking infinite fortune because what they have is they have societal respect and the ability to work on the most interesting problems on the way. And we're not going to make these people poor, and we are not going to tell them that they are somehow welfare queens and white lab quotes to use the old expression for expecting money, because what we've done is we've taken them out as a priestly class from the world of intellectual property. And in so doing, we are reestablishing the relationship that everyone wants where the

adjudication of ground truth will be done by scientists. We're going to stop lying to you about gender. We're going to stop lying to you about COVID origins, and we're going to stop lying about vaccine safety, we're going to trust you with more information. And if you can't handle that, then this will go horribly south and will all suffer. But the right thing to do is to trust the people who we are ultimately trying to serve and who fund the projects. Will there be irreparable damage because of people with enormous megaphones like Tucker and Terrans? Will it possibly be past the tipping point that we cannot recover credibility? the public that's used to treating, you know, the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist or somebody

like that on an equal par with, but you're doing saying conspiracy theories. My question, I'm talking about Bart Zibarol in this case. Yeah. It's a conspiracy. I mean, his Wikipedia page says conspiracy theorist. That's right. Okay. If I look at Google Ngrams, conspiracy theorist appears to start in 1962, 63, right? Yeah, I think I know. Yeah. Well, my claim is, if you use the word conspiracy theorist so much as once to throw shade, to disparage and discredit somebody who was actually correct about something, you'll lose that as a weapon. We've lost that as a term.

We call people conspiracy theorists who were right. What I'm trying to say is, if there's going to be a new compact, we are not going to go around saying these people are conspiracy theorists. We're going to be going around saying Tucker Carlson does not know partial differential equations. He just doesn't, right? It is the case that when you give everybody a virus in their lungs, suddenly everybody knows what messenger RNA is. You know, MRNA, we've heard of now, but do we know about transfer RNA?

The adapter hypothesis. In general, what the public is being forced to do is to learn science, piecemeal. The problem with Terrence Howard or Tucker Carlson or any of these people, including us, is that we're not coming at it with the right concepts. Hey there, fellow Voyagers into the impossible tis I, your fearful host. Professor Brian Keating here with a tiny little homework assignment before we get back to the episode. And that's to make sure that you're subscribed to the podcast, either following it or

subscribing to it depending on your podcast. catcher of choice. I did some research of my own and found out that only about half of you are actually following or subscribing to the podcast. So please do that. And for some extra credit, if you're looking to boost your position on the grading curve, please leave a rating or review. It really helps us out tremendously. Do it. Do it now. Before you forget, let's go back to the episode. Conspiracy theorist is the wrong concept. I claim there's some conspiracy around the EcoHealth aligns. Am I a conspiracy? theorist, okay. Sure. And someone could be a scientist, call themselves a scientist, and

they may or may not be an actual scientist, a cognitive scientist, medical scientist. Conspiracy theorist is an epithet. It is also a description of somebody who has, if you're going to try to catch a conspirator, everybody who prosecutes RICO against organized crime is a conspiracy theorist. But you never, sure. So that's why I don't agree that it's an advocate. do you? You don't say, do you believe in the five crime families of New York? Do you believe in the Gambino's? The one is everyone who believes that the Gambino crime family exists, a conspiracy theorist. We never use the term. Okay. Wow. I mean, I think that's sort of undermining the original point. I don't think so. The, I mean, forget, I'm not calling Perens Howard a conspiracy theorist. I'm calling him, uh, manipulating maybe an actor, maybe a sensationalist.

I don't know why. Of course, he's definitely in curious, but I'm asking you, he's undoubtedly smart. He's at the upper, you know, 0.01% of people in his profession. It doesn't come by accident. But my question is, does that do damage? If I tried to act as Terrence Howard,

I would utterly fail miserably and no one would take me seriously. But if I start to opine about his acting chops, then no one should listen to me. It shouldn't be a halo effect because the man was nominated for an Oscar in 2000. No, no, no, but why do we, what is the downstream, hold on, hold on. What is the downstream effect of having such people platformed on, and I'm not for suppressing him? I'm just saying, what is the downstream effect? And is there a negative contributor to that?

I mean, we have a responsibility to the public as well as, you know, to curious minds. It's not like you're talking to Joe and over a beer. So the thing that I think where I am is, do you realize what we do? we say everyone can be a scientist. Here's literally how we talk to great school children. Everyone can be a scientist. All you need to do is to take an interest in something, form a hypothesis, take some data,

try to revise your hypothesis. It's fun. It's not something for other people, science is for you. Okay? Now, what I think happened is Territ Howard heard that, his whole life, took it seriously,

found out a ton of interesting stuff. made all sorts of connections. And there's some way in which we are going to blame Terrence Howard for following exactly the instructions we give, which is everyone can be a scientist. I'm not blaming him. I'm blaming the people that are relying on him for scientific knowledge and for facts,

not for wisdom, not for curiosity or inspiration, for relying on Terence Howard for science. And believe me, if you don't think that there's, you know, three quarters of the audience that's listening right now that could be positively predisposed to it. I think, I think that's not being accurate. There, there's a tremendous number of people that I've received comments from all day.

You know, he, he's, you know, here's Tesla said the same thing about frequency, energy, vibration. You know, here's a quote from, you know, uh, epictitious, you know, whatever. And, and at what level does that, um, does that undermine? maybe his noble intentions to excite people. I mean, what if you found out that the universe is 13.8 billion years, but that actually fits into a seven-day biblical narrative of Genesis quite accurately, in fact. Is that dangerous? I mean, if that is, I mean, how do you, how would you relate to that?

Or that it's actually a 57-100-year-old universe? At what level do we stake curiosity and say that these are non-overlapping magisteria or, you know, whatnot, and they're harmless. And what point do they become harmful? I wanted to restrict it to him and, and perhaps Tucker and Bart Sebril for their, you know, different classes, but, but I think this is quite curious. And if the one times one equals two, do you want that person to be, you know, to be selling out your bill at the restaurant or, you know, charting your course on your airplane? I hesitate to say it, but I will say the fall. There is a technical way in which one times one equals two.

Oh, no. We're not doing it. Wait, wait, one second. I'm going to have to shut down. No, no, no, no, you don't. You don't. You get into rings and. No, it's a group.

But that's not the way you don't. Go ahead. I know very well. He's wrong. Can we agree that he's wrong so that we don't get it? We can agree. I want everyone not listening. Yeah, the dangerous thing is that we call the real numbers under addition a group.

and the law inside a group is called group multiplication, and the group multiplication of the real numbers under addition is, the group multiplication law is addition. Now, I fear what happens when people, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, if people get confused by the fact that we use the word multiplication to mean addition in that situation, then you can say, oh, no, no, no, he's actually right.

She isn't. You can take any one of these things and push it. What I'm trying to say is, I would really like us to completely overhaul the relationship between science, the elite, speculation, research. I would like us to acknowledge all the times that an amateur beat the experts

and that Greens function, for example, would be a good example of this in the past. It's rare, but it happens. The problem that we have is that we would basically like to say too many things. You'd like to say, we want all of you to think of yourself as scientists. We'd like everyone to not fear research and try to do their own research. No, wait a minute, we don't mean do your own research if it contradicts the public health narrative. Is public health science? Yes, it is on Tuesdays. No, it isn't otherwise. We've gotten ourselves into such a web of contradictions, that we are going to have to extricate ourselves. And the first thing that I'd like us to do is to take all of the terms, crackpot, lunatic, et cetera, et cetera, and think very,

very carefully about how we doled them out. And then I'd like to say, why are we inviting everyone into science? Do we want them to do their own research? Or do we not want them to do their own research? And if we don't want them, can we explain to them why we don't want them to do their own research? What I'm thinking, Brian, is that the current relationship is unsalvishable. Now, what you and I believe is that science as a method of thinking of a way of approaching the world is second to none, and what we're in danger of doing is losing its preeminence in the mind of the public, which is now so turned around by the abuse of science and its use as a political tool that we cannot count on people saying, wait a minute, can we get an expert opinion?

does this claim about the square root of two? I'm just going to say it very clearly. To claim that the square root of two is somehow distinguished because its cube is equal to two times the square root of two. It's simply to say that the square root of two is one of three roots of a cubic polynomial that factors as y minus the square root of two times y minus zero times y plus the square root two.

We have a failure of the square root two. to teach high school algebra if this has gotten to this level and everyone thinks, oh, we need a podcast of all of you together to sort this out. No, we do not.

I guess the fun month of question, again, I divide different categories for these people, you know, that we listed in the top of the space. But ultimately, you know,

before I turn to the final questions about academia that I have for you, just on a personal level, as a fellow podcaster, when I'm talking with, people and I know that they have an agenda, it's often difficult for me to maintain, you know, the kind of comity of, you know, spirit and talking, you know, I'm thinking about I had a podcast with Eric Topal, you know, two years ago. And simultaneously while I'm hosting him, you know,

I'm thinking about all the downstream effects of his political scientific, you know, he's a physician, but he is what I call a political scientist because he was using the credibility from the scientific discoveries that he made and spending it in the political arena. I find that very dangerous and even ultimately undermining his own point. But the point I'm asking you about is

when talking to such people, what responsibility does, you know, and I'm absolutely putting myself in the, I want this clear and recorded. I am comparing myself to Joe Rogan and Lex Fried. No, I'm just kidding in here. But when I'm not, talking to such people. What

can I do to express with respect, push back, call them out. You don't want to be, you know, kind of tainted with a negative light. I'm already accused of being a gatekeeper enough as it is. What do I do? I'm sitting down to talk

to a Nobel prize-winning scientist who made great contributions to the COVID vaccine, a messenger of Renee vaccine upcoming. Do I talk about the unabashed, you know, side effects and, and sort of speak freely about that, even though it may alienate him and ruin, I shouldn't have said him. It could be a hurt.

But, yeah, should I, how, how do you recommend as a mentor in the space to me that I behave when I confront such people in order not to, you know, to develop a brand, but also to push back and ask the questions that my audience was being asked? The short answer is, I don't really know. None of us know we're all making it up. I'm in a parking lot outside of CVS having this conversation in front of, you know, over 2,000 people. I'm sure it's going to be recorded. I'm reading some of the reactions.

I found Christoph Waf. I don't have my reading glasses on. One second. And he says, Eric's attitude is so condescending, it hurts. It's okay, Christoph. You know, what am I doing? this is one of the, it's a motif, right? The idea being, right now I'm standing up for a lot of people who are voiceless. And I'm also standing up for a system that's under attack. So I'm viewing

myself, by the way, Christoph, just because I enjoy actually responding to these things. Right now my world is under attack. All of the people who listened to this thing and said, you know, this is inspiring. Somebody's connecting all sorts of stuff. I've never heard this stuff before. Now they're going to be yelled at by scientists. Oh, we have PhDs. Listen to us. That's exactly what I don't want to do. I want to yell at my colleagues and say, do you realize we're losing everybody and these people are going to vote on the NIH and the NSF and the DOE budgets? I'm trying, Christoph, to figure out how to reestablish a world of sanity, how not to give up preeminence in a dangerous world to actually take on the fact that people don't know whether they

made a mistake injecting their family with the vaccine. They don't know where this thing came from. They feel powerless. They don't know what's true and what isn't, is the economy, is the inflation rate that's published? Does it have anything to do with reality? I'm angry and I'm trying to basically stick up for everything that I care about. I don't know how to do it without becoming this incredibly forceful voice, right? So Brian, should you become a forceful voice? I don't know. Maybe the idea is that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Maybe, on the other hand, you need to just clear your throat and say what's true. I think that what all of us are experiencing is we don't know because we're in a new world. These devices that we hold in our

pockets are changing everything. And there's something wrong, deeply wrong, with the world that has a three-way race between R.FK Jr., Donald Trump, and Joe Biden with Kamala Harris as vice president of the United States. We are not treating this as a thermonuclear planet. We're not treating this as the dangerous place that it is. We're not treating it as a place with the future. What I would say is we've got to start having deeper, more meaningful conversations where people can see the difference. And if you ask me, the reason that people are gravitating to this. It's because they see somebody who's curious, interesting, has lots of knowledge that they don't have, which is one of the things I use Joe Rogan for, I try to talk about things like the hop

vibration or Clifford Algebra. Why is it that we hear over and over about the multiverse, over and over about entanglement? And we never hear about Clifford Algebraes. We are doing a bad job. And right now, the key thing that we can do as scientists is look at ourselves. and say, we're not doing the right job interacting with the public. We're not doing the right job when the public follows the directive that we gave them to enter this, the scientific framework. And we are also absolutely not doing a good job telling the public, we need vastly more job security and money in order to get people to be truthful. Because the pressures you're putting people under are going to crack almost every.

And then before I release you to get your fourth COVID jab, in CVS. I wanted to ask you about, I'm joking, that future of academia. I've been disillusioned. We talked over dinner and fine kosher wine recently about the situation that I faced on campus and my many colleagues have as well. I'm curious, if you were talking to a bright, you know, an undergraduate, you know, about to, you know, have all the options in the world, you know, go to graduate school, go, you know, work for Google Gemini to make their models more culturally sensitive, go work for a hedge fund. What do you say to him or her at that first critical junction of graduate school as someone who is, let's face it, abused as a graduate student, to me, who had a phenomenal experience and I'm thriving in academia and never been happier scientifically and never been more miserable to be faced with the awful situation that I have been on campus. since October 7. What do you advise to these, you know, four different, three different groups, graduate student and undergraduate faculty? Well, first of all, I would say that this situation

with Terence Howard is wonderfully clarifying. Terrence Howard, I don't know anything about him as a human being. I know nothing about his pluses and minuses as a soul. He looked like an interested person who had lots of ideas and he shared them. And I can guarantee you that in a world in which people are willing to throw away the idea that zero exists or that they don't know what multiplication is, it makes a lot of sense that right now there's a genocide going on in the Middle East. If you believe one thing, you can easily believe a second. There is no knowledge about what anything means at the moment. It's sort of like make up stuff.

If you're in a story, that's what's going on at some level. It's also the case that nothing feels like it actually. matters. You can yell at people. You can take over buildings. There are no consequences. Right now, what we're seeing is a cognitive implosion. Instead of actually caring about the Middle East and trying to figure out what to do that would stop deaths, we're actually protesting for things that would increase the number of deaths. We are actually, in a weird way, seeing pro-genicidal anti-genocidal protesters. Every up is down, left is right,

dogs and birds and bees and cats are having group sex. It's enough. Whatever this thing is, we can't constantly pretend that everybody has an idea, everybody has a worthwhile point of view. We need discipline. And what I would say is go back to things that were true in 1970,

to try to find institutions that went through two world wars and survived to the other side. Make sure that to borrow from Bob Dylan, strap yourself to a tree with roots. Right now, the winds are blowing heavy and fast. Lash yourself to something that feels permanent. And prepare for abuse. You ask me about graduate school. Yeah, I had a terrible, terrible, terrible experience in graduate school. But you know what?

I survived. I did some great work. people, and you're not meant to get through life without any abuse. Just try to make sure that you don't overdo it in one period of your life. You're strong, you can weather some trauma. Quite honestly, we need people to go into science who have incredible huevos, and the equal opportunity term for both men and women. What we need is more people of courage.

It's nice if you get a perfect ACT or SAT score going into college, and you get straight A's, but it's much more important that when they come with the loyalty oath to ask you to pledge to diversity, equity, inclusion, or say wrong things about science, or you won't get a grant to say, up yours with a red hot poker, I'm going to go find some rich person to fund my science. I'm not going to stand for this. And if you want to try to fire me, best of luck. Last question.

Channel your inner Stephen Pinker, but what are you optimistic about, Eric, what things on the horizon? then what... Interstell and travel, Brian. And what would be the mechanism by which that would occur, or should that be another podcast for a... ...theimetric community. ...more series. Thank you for asking.

Great, great space, really enjoyed it. And, Brian, thank you for taking up this obviously fraught topic at a moment where it's very much on people's minds. I hope that the fact that you and I have it perfectly agreed is helpful to people. And I hope that for those of you find the voices overbearing, elitist, et cetera, et cetera, just give some thought to what's being defended. We've got thousands of years of people trying to figure out what Western civilization should be.

After the barbarity that was in Europe within living memory that's finally fading, it would be a terrible thing to give up on everything that has been achieved at great cost just because we want to entertain ourselves a little bit more and we feel bored. Sounds great. Eric, I will see you next week at an undisclosed location. We'll do many things over delicious drinks and libations galore. I'm lucky these hours of drinking way too much with you, and I'll see you soon. Thanks, Brian for us to stay.

And you're welcome, Eric. Thanks a lot. Everybody else, I will rip this to YouTube on Dr. Brian Keating is where you can find it, and also to my audio podcast and to The Impossible. Eric's been an 11-time guest, and hopefully it'll be 12-time coming up very, very soon. And very much appreciate everybody attending this space and plan to do many more. So again, thank you all for attending. Give me some feedback, what you thought of it, and what you think about some of the stuff that Eric and I talked about, Terrence, Tucker, Bart Cibroal,

conspiracy theorist. He didn't like that, as you heard. I still think it could be used without being an epithet. And otherwise, yeah, I'll see you all next. next time at Twitter Spaces or on YouTube. Thanks very much. Bye. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building.

Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank.