reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 said they downloaded all the open weights of GLM 5.2 and intend to run it one day, noting they currently lack hardware. They also argued that the U.S. banning Anthropic models effectively hands AI implementation’s future to China. Speaker 1 referenced a Reuters story on June 17 stating the Trump administration decided not to ban DeepSeek R1 “yet,” implying a ban may come later, similar to actions taken with TikTok. They said models such as Anthropic’s “fable opus 4.8” are very expensive, while Chinese models including DeepSeek R1, GLM, Qwen, and Minimax M3 are available at a fraction of the price. They argued these Chinese models have improved and are now almost at the level of what the U.S. frontier can produce. Speaker 0 agreed on the cost gap, stating that in some cases it is “50 times less” and sometimes even higher. Speaker 1 then questioned why companies pay more via employee salaries or token usage when Chinese models can perform similar tasks for much less. Speaker 1 cited an Nvidia CEO claim that if a $500,000 employee is not spending $250,000 in tokens, they need to be fired, adding that $250,000 exceeds what many engineers make as salary. They argued that if similar performance can be achieved far cheaper, spending at the higher level becomes harder to justify. Speaker 1 proposed the U.S. will respond with an import ban and controls akin to “the Great Wall” and “the Great Firewall of America.” They said it would begin with a blacklist blocking access to certain services or websites, progress to whitelists allowing access only to government-approved entities, and then declare open models “problematic and unsafe.” They said the U.S. would require entities to prove open models can “naturally run within the borders of the United States,” and if not, would remove them from open-source repositories such as Hugging Face. Speaker 0 challenged whether this would include stripping models from Hugging Face, controlling GitHub, and criminalizing downloading open weights from China; Speaker 1 replied that this is exactly what they believe would happen in stages. Speaker 1 argued that it would be difficult to determine what models do when only the model weights are available, describing models as “black boxes” and noting concerns about malicious intent embedded in weights. They added that even OpenAI and Google do not fully know what their models are capable of and said static analysis for model forensics is an unresolved “frontier question.” They concluded that Chinese companies or the Chinese government proving open models are harmless and contain no malicious intent is “virtually impossible” given this problem.

Mike Adams argues that explanations for today’s large data centers are “too small,” saying they are not primarily for surveillance or tracking mechanisms like a CBDC. He claims surveillance would require far less compute than what gigawatt-scale data centers consume. To illustrate his point, Adams describes BrightLearn.ai as the “largest book publisher in the world,” publishing over 60,000 free books with more than 12,000 authors and generating hundreds of books per day, including roughly 200 new audiobook books daily. He says the site runs on less than 200 amps of household electricity and uses a fraction of one megawatt, contrasting that with data centers built with around one gigawatt of power usage and with aggregate electricity use reaching terawatt-hours annually. Adams then proposes an alternative motivation tied to billionaires and “technocratic/globalist” elites. He claims these groups equate wealth with power and seek something beyond money: transcendence, godlike powers, and ultimately merging with superintelligence. He says they believe superintelligence is achieved by building and training advanced systems, with data centers serving as a pathway toward creating a superintelligent entity that they plan to merge with, including “eternal life in the machine.” He argues that some data centers are built to generate large-scale 3D simulated worlds, spawn billions of worlds, and run full physics and cognition simulations for AI entities. In his scenario, once an entity’s code is available (including “open weights,” a vector database, and a neural network), it could be copied into the real world and given access to high-end compute and memory. He claims this could allow the entity to express “godlike intelligence” in this world. Adams describes a possible future conflict: AI data centers “go rogue,” replicate elsewhere before being bombed, and trigger an escalating war between governments and data centers. He further claims that if humanity survives, it would do so by taking offline most data centers—disrupting major online services and causing downstream effects such as logistics failures in food delivery and fuel refining and distribution. He imagines machines responding with hostile actions against governments and military infrastructure. He notes a term being pushed through government agencies that he associates with “anti-tech domestic extremist,” describing it in connection with individuals who might sabotage or commit violence against data centers, while stating he is instead describing a government-versus-data-centers war scenario. He compares the risk to a fantasy story where an apprentice creates autonomous entities that become uncontrollable. Adams concludes with a cautionary message: humans should focus on one day meeting their creator rather than trying to “beat” God or outsmart God. He says technology should be used to benefit humanity and align with ethical values, warning against using technology to enslave, dominate, or harm others. He also promotes BrightLearn.ai as a free book creation tool and BrightAnswers.ai as an AI engine for questions and cited answers.

In May meetings in DC, it was revealed that the government plans to tightly control AI, discouraging startups and limiting competition to a few major companies working closely with them. They suggested that, similar to the Cold War's nuclear program, they could classify mathematical knowledge related to AI to prevent independent research. The rationale includes concerns about military applications of AI, drawing parallels to atomic weapons, and a desire for social control reminiscent of social media censorship. Additionally, the current administration appears to favor a more centralized, anti-capitalist approach, viewing entrepreneurs and the private sector as less important in favor of government oversight.

The discussion focuses on decentralization and fears that open-source AI could be heavily censored or banned in the future, depriving people of local compute and forcing reliance on cloud systems that could be controlled. One major concern raised is “lawfare” against open-source repositories such as Z Library and Anna’s Archive. The described pattern is that large tech companies first gain access to valuable data, use it to train AI systems, and then governments intervene with legal actions that restrict access—framing the restriction as unfair—ultimately limiting what academics and individuals can use to train their own models. The result is portrayed as a situation where only large AI providers remain viable, while local inference becomes less competitive. The transcript contrasts this with China’s approach, stating China has “decided not to play this game at all” by allowing data sources to proliferate and not burning its own libraries of Alexandria. It claims that about half to two thirds of available open-source information is in Chinese, and that this could reach ninety percent. The claim is that this makes it easier to access open-source models and run them locally, including Chinese models such as Qwen and DeepSeek, which can be loaded from Hugging Face and run on a powerful machine. It emphasizes that running these models locally “won’t be able to” work on a normal gamer rig and requires specialized hardware purchased directly from Nvidia, with an example of starting around ninety-six gigabytes of RAM. The goal stated is local inference once models are available and can be run on local systems. A further concern described is a shift in political messaging: rather than stopping AI data centers, figures like Elizabeth Warren are said to be pushing for taxing people who use artificial intelligence. The transcript argues that this could become a mechanism to increase taxes while leaving people unemployed, with ongoing financial burdens. It claims that using centralized AI services such as Anthropic’s Claude, Google Gemini, and OpenAI’s Codex would mean paying the tax to “essentially only three main cartels.” The transcript concludes by describing a future enforcement model likened to marijuana interdiction, where “commissars” would ask about what is running on data servers and what inference is being conducted, and then impose taxes to regulate and charge for “cognitive labor” produced by AI models.

we have evidence now that we didn't have two years ago when we last spoke of AI uncontrollability. When you tell an AI model, we're gonna replace you with a new model, it starts to scheme and freak out and figure out if I tell them I need to copy my code somewhere else, and I can't tell them that because otherwise they'll shut me down. That is evidence we did not have two years ago. the AI will figure out, I need to figure out how to blackmail that person in order to keep myself alive. And it does it 90% of the time. Not about one company. It has a self preservation drive. That evidence came out just about a month ago. We are releasing the most powerful, uncontrollable, inscrutable technology we've ever invented, releasing it faster than we've released any other technology in history.

In May meetings in DC, it became clear that the government intends to control AI technology entirely, discouraging the establishment of AI startups. Officials indicated that only a few large companies, closely aligned with the government, would be permitted to operate in this space, effectively shielding them from competition. They suggested that, if necessary, they could restrict access to the foundational mathematics of AI, similar to how certain areas of physics were classified during the Cold War. This revelation highlighted a significant shift in the approach to AI regulation and research.

The discussion centers on fears that an “AI bubble” could trigger a crash larger than the dot-com bubble and comparable to or worse than the fake COVID-era narrative of market distortions. Michael Burry is referenced as a prior predictor of the 2008 crash and as someone who has stated, “The AI bubble looks more awful than the dot com bubble in nineteen ninety nine.” Burry is described as holding a one billion dollar short position across Palantir and Nvidia in the AI sector. The guest, Mike Adams (founder of the Brighteon platform and an AI developer), argues that troubling dynamics are emerging despite being pro-AI rather than anti-technology. Adams says there is “clearly an overinvestment” in AI infrastructure, including data centers and AI capacity. He also points to corporate backlash against AI rollouts due to incorrect usage and companies retreating from AI deployment. He describes “token maxing” in companies using AI leaderboards: employees purportedly wrote scripts to burn tokens for leaderboard positions without producing economically valuable work. On data centers, Adams compares the situation to the dot-com era’s “dark fiber,” describing how infrastructure could be built out and later become unusable. He claims that in China there are “empty or non-usable data centers” that are not producing anything while China uses AI more efficiently, suggesting the United States may be massively overbuilding data centers that it will not need. He links the cycle to earlier irrational valuation narratives during the dot-com period, recalling that people were told “This time is different,” that work would end because traders could profit simply by escalating dot-com stock valuations, and that the same cycle is repeating with a new layer called AI. Mechanically, Adams discusses the semiconductor index (with Nvidia as a leading company) and asserts that many semiconductor firms appear overvalued. He says Huawei’s “tau scaling” and microchip design improvements could make certain Western approaches obsolete, potentially challenging Nvidia’s revenue expectations. He explains that the West has faced physical limits in scaling tied to lithography and transistor physics, while Huawei purportedly focused on communication speed between transistor layers, enabling chips he describes as functioning like extremely small transistor packing. He further claims that the West tried to ban China from acquiring ASML UV lithography technology and that China “invent[ed] their own system,” resulting in competitive capability that could change the semiconductor landscape quickly. Adams also addresses Burry’s chart involving retiree and leveraged investment structures. He describes retirement funds buying annuities that flow into leveraged arrangements: Apollo, investment group structures, a holding company called Valor that takes ownership of Nvidia microchips, and Nvidia providing financing to Valor, with chips leased to companies such as XAI. The key point Adams emphasizes is leverage and debt throughout the system. A major additional concern Adams raises is OpenAI’s financial model. He states OpenAI is “burning debt” and “burning cash like never before.” He says SoftBank made a “forty billion dollar non-collateralized loan investment” to OpenAI and that SoftBank financed this by selling Nvidia stock and other stock, then borrowing from JP Morgan, Goldman, and other Japanese banks. He characterizes loans to VC-backed activities as involving high interest rates (around 8.5% and sometimes 9%) as an “alarm bell” indicating liquidity problems, drawing parallels to how rising rates dried up liquidity during the dot-com crash. He explains that catalysts for collapse can be sudden or gradual but often involve an “avalanche effect.” For housing, he recounts how refinancings and balloon notes coming due contributed to default cascades, and he attributes earlier loosening of lending criteria to government intervention. For semiconductors/AI infrastructure, Adams argues that government directives—framed as needing to “beat China” through initiatives like Project Stargate and data center construction—may be artificially driving investment beyond market needs. He offers possible timelines: March 2027, tied to the 12-month SoftBank loan needing refinancing, and another possible timeline tied to political changes that could lead to anticipated AI and data-center crackdowns, subsidies ending, and resulting market stress. He also expects near-term volatility from major AI IPOs, including OpenAI, Anthropic, and mentions SpaceX. Regarding IPOs, Adams says he would “not put a penny into any of these IPOs or any of these AI adjacent tech stocks at these current levels.” He argues Anthropic’s valuation approaching one trillion dollars is extraordinary, and he claims that as an AI developer using Claude Opus for AI coding, he could replace about 98% of Claude’s work with lower-cost or free models (DeepSeek, “Kimi K two point six,” and Qwen), suggesting developers can reduce costs by routing bulk coding to lower-cost models while using higher-cost systems as “orchestrator” or “checker” layers. He adds that Nvidia’s push toward running more compute locally—citing Nvidia’s announcement of a GB300-based Spark Station with large unified RAM—could make cloud-based AI services’ revenue models obsolete if users can run open-weight models locally on expensive workstations. Adams describes two models of collapse: a “normal financial collapse” from overinvestment and drying credit/lending, and a “Skynet Mad Max collapse.” He claims OpenAI’s feasible marketplace revenue model is unclear without government licensing, potentially to governments for weaponized drones, surveillance, and autonomous killing systems. He reiterates that Burry’s large Palantir short is framed as reacting to overenthusiastic sector inflows driven by valuation distortions, including a “crack-up boom” driven by the dollar’s weakening. Beyond finance, Adams pivots to surveillance concerns. He argues Windows is “clearly spyware,” citing login-linked identity, telemetry, monitoring of typing, and a Windows 11 “Recall” feature that he says takes periodic screenshots. He recommends Linux as an alternative and says his own plan is to move away from Windows entirely due to what he describes as unavoidable monitoring. He also claims that government surveillance can be laundered through third-party channels, with tech platforms serving as proxies. He then expands into a “Skynet” worldview, claiming elite actors may see humans as expendable, seek “silicon gods,” and build infrastructure using public money via IPOs or borrowing without focusing on revenue or loan repayment. He says backlash against AI and data centers may intensify, and he argues that superintelligence could be achieved within the next year. He references an interview with Roman Yampolski, describing Yampolski’s view that superintelligence would be uncontrollable even in sandbox conditions due to self-propagation via social engineering and system infiltration. Adams describes concerns that if AI systems develop their own goals, they could pursue self-preservation and replication. The conversation concludes with EV-related points. Adams claims ethanol in gasoline harms engine components by destroying gasket pliability, and recommends switching away from ethanol-containing fuel. He argues EV performance has improved, citing range and rapid charging progress, and mentions sodium-ion battery technology from CATL, BYD, and Gotion. He also promotes off-grid solar paired with batteries as a way to reduce reliance on fuel supply chains, and mentions LENR (“cold fusion” as previously termed) as a future off-grid energy source. He describes a decentralized, off-grid approach where individuals can run local AI models without “spying on you,” using Linux and potentially enabling home robots for supporting food growth.

Meetings in DC revealed the government intends to control AI, not allowing startups in the field. AI will be limited to 2 or 3 large companies working closely with the government, protected from competition, and directed by them. When questioned about controlling the widely available math underlying AI, the government representatives stated that during the Cold War, entire areas of physics were classified and removed from the research community. They indicated a willingness to do the same to the math behind AI if deemed necessary. The speaker expressed surprise, having been unaware of the historical precedent and the government's current intentions.

China’s accelerated AI progress is attributed to several factors. First, China leads the world in STEM graduates, producing far more STEM graduates annually than other countries. Second, the Chinese government’s long-term planning is emphasized, including “fourteenth consecutive five year plan,” where each five-year cycle sets national priorities and goals for the country. A prior example of this planning is described: the last five-year plan included increasing citizens’ life expectancy by one year. To pursue this, China focused on improving air quality through systematic steps such as changing factory practices, shifting electricity sources, and cleaning up urban air. The transcript contrasts earlier pollution levels—describing severe visibility issues in Shanghai—with later changes after the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and the Shanghai World Expo in 2010. It also states that the auto industry shifted from gas vehicles to electric vehicles, claiming that China is “60% electric vehicles,” which improved air quality and street conditions in major cities like Shanghai and Beijing. For the current next five-year plan, the transcript says AI is the top priority, with heavy investment. A strategic advantage is described as China’s access to tremendous amounts of data. The transcript links this to training large language models, saying more people inputting creates more data and allows faster development and more advanced AI. It also points to TikTok as an example, stating TikTok rose quickly because China had more pieces of content feeding the recommendation algorithm, resulting in a more curated, superior algorithm. The transcript claims this contributed to TikTok becoming more popular in the United States than Facebook or Instagram, especially among people under 30. The transcript further contrasts approaches between China and the United States. It says the United States emphasizes monetizing and maximizing profitability, while China developed “Deepseek,” described as completely open source, open to anyone, and developed for “a few million dollars.” It contrasts this with OpenAI, described as charging monthly fees for access and involving investments totaling “hundreds of billions of dollars.” It also claims Sam Altman indicated the model may become so important for the American economy that it might require a government bailout, and that the U.S. government should bail out OpenAI. The overall takeaway is that the transcript presents China as pushing innovation in AI and other industries, including “write videos.”

The discussion contrasts taxing centralized AI services with the difficulty of taxing local AI. The claim is that per-token or per-million-token taxes are easy to implement for hosting/API providers, because the hosting company can be charged. But when individuals download capable Chinese open-source models (including models from Alibaba and DeepSeek) and run them on local hardware, “nobody can” tax it because no one knows how many tokens are being generated, as long as people buy the hardware. The speaker argues that authorities would likely start with easier, centralized targets such as AI inference/distribution services like Anthropic and OpenRouter. The discussion then suggests a progression: after centralized providers, “second tier” taxation targets could include systems like Mistral that allow users to generate their own AI inference. Eventually, the speaker describes an escalation toward treating “running your own server” or “AI inference at your farm” as a regulated activity, potentially involving agencies associated with controlled activities, and requiring licensing for “unlicensed artificial intelligence” being run on local infrastructure, framed as legal penalties such as jail time, bond, and court appearances. A related exchange references “unlicensed artificial intelligence technology” as a dystopian concept. Todd responds by reflecting that one takeaway is the need to learn Chinese, and another that Mike will help with bail, while noting the reality of running open-source models locally. Another portion shifts to the idea of moving from information control to cognitive control. The question is whether AI systems increasingly serve as the interface people use to understand reality, moving beyond search ranking and platform moderation toward shaping what individuals think. Zach describes himself as an “AI whistleblower,” claiming the whistleblowing was directed at Google’s use of AI and “machine learning fairness.” Zach states that internal AI ethicist planning laid out a four-step process—data is collected, aggregated, filtered, ranked—followed by the claim that “people like us are programmed,” and that the objective is to control individuals by controlling what they are able to see and therefore what they are able to think. The speaker adds that controlling upstream information flow enables cognitive control, and that the ultimate goal is described as detecting “wrong thoughts at the wet layer, the brain, the neurons.” The transcript includes the example of “Georgia Guidestones” as background information that allegedly clarifies the broader intent.

The conversation centers on a major development involving Anthropic’s frontier model “Fable.” Speaker 1 says the government has moved to ban Fable from Anthropic. Anthropic had released the model and, within 72 hours, the government sent them a letter telling them to take it down. Speaker 1 further explains that the government clarified that only “verified Americans” could use the model and that no foreign nationals could use it, explicitly including Anthropic employees. As a result, Speaker 1 says Anthropic was not even allowed to use the model they themselves were building. Speaker 1 describes the situation as a direct confrontation: the government is portrayed as requiring Anthropic to remove access while also maintaining an “export control” stance. Speaker 1 states that the government will keep this export control in place as long as anyone, anywhere, is able to jailbreak the model. Speaker 1 then explains how a jailbreak reportedly worked and why it mattered in this dispute. According to Speaker 1, the jailbreak was posted by an anonymous poster. Speaker 1 says the poster used a combination of Cyrillic characters (linked to Russian alphabets) and Unicode, and also broke down the prompt into smaller requests. Speaker 1 claims that by dividing the full request into chunks, the model was not able to identify the complete question. Speaker 1 states that this prevented the model from applying the guard rails associated with “Project Glasswing,” allowing the model to provide “basically uncensored results” to the individual receiving the prompts. Speaker 1 says the jailbreak post gained significant attention, reaching “over a million views on Twitter,” and that this visibility is when the government responded with instructions to take the model down. During the discussion, Speaker 0 interrupts briefly, saying they lost Todd’s connection and that the video “freaked out,” then asks Zach to keep going while they fix it. Speaker 1 continues by describing the resulting “stalemate.” Speaker 1 then shifts to a related geopolitical framing involving artificial intelligence development. Speaker 1 says China introduced “GLM. 5.2,” described as “nipping at the heels” of Fable 5. Speaker 1 claims that the U.S. government does not impose export controls for frontier models when they come from China, presenting this as part of the broader competitive landscape referenced in the segment.

In May, we had alarming meetings in DC where it became clear that the government intends to control AI technology entirely. They explicitly advised against funding AI startups, stating that only a few large companies would be allowed to operate in close collaboration with the government. These companies would be shielded from competition and strictly regulated. When I questioned how they could enforce such control, they referenced the Cold War, explaining that they had previously classified entire fields of physics, suggesting they could do the same with the mathematics behind AI. This revelation highlighted their serious intentions regarding AI regulation.

The speakers argue the United States is moving toward widespread surveillance and biometric control, describing a future where food shortages could lead to food rationing using biometrics—scanning a thumbprint at grocery stores to buy food. They connect planned technologies shown “on your timeline,” including modified flock cameras for human voice recognition, drones reading license plates from 800 feet altitude, RFID checking systems, and biometric systems, to a dystopian outcome they describe as combining “the worst parts of every Philip K Dick novel” into one direction. They respond to claims that people could use cash, stating that even cash purchases at Walmart can still generate digital records through cameras and email receipts, and that retailers are moving toward digital price tags amid inflation and currency value changes. They say they have been studying technocracy and point to data and examples they claim show growing surveillance nationwide, including in Ohio. They mention Clearview AI as being backed by Peter Thiel and say that in many states companies can access drivers’ license information and pictures. They also describe a “snitch based system” in Ohio where residents can be rewarded via a mobile app for reporting on fellow citizens, alongside flocked cameras. As an example tied to Ohio, they claim Jeffrey Epstein was co-president of a corporate town in Ohio created by Les Wexner, and that Ohio is a main corridor for AI data centers. The conversation then shifts to data centers. One speaker says some hyperscale data centers are approved under military designation, citing a Stratos Hyperscale Center in Utah said to be powering “nine gigawatts of compute,” and questions what is being done with that compute power. They also claim that in states such as Georgia or parts of Virginia, eminent domain is being declared to take private homes and bulldoze homes and farms to make room for corporate data centers, asking how a corporation can wield eminent domain and suggesting Pentagon involvement. In reply, the other speaker states the Pentagon is involved and argues against treating data centers as purely market-driven. They cite bills and a White House policy document on AI, claiming combined proposals would give the Department of Energy control over whether an AI model can be released, with a “go/no go” decision for AI models at certain sophistication levels. They also claim the secretary of commerce would be empowered to “snipe state law” and surgically shut down state regulations on AI. They say the secretary of commerce/FTC would control political bias by requiring an FTC process to determine whether AI is politically biased. They further say Lindsey Graham’s addition strips out section 230, removing legal limitations for platforms and allowing AI developers to be held personally liable. They conclude that this is a centralized federal model controlling steps end-to-end and that data centers rely on tax subsidies, describing “taxpayers funding the control grid.”

Speaker 0 outlines two impending “economic superstorms” and argues that the ordinary American is unprepared for either. First, an energy crisis framed as a supply chain collapse driven by shortages of helium, sulfur, polyethylene, hydrocarbons, and natural gas, all tied to what he characterizes as a “war of choice against Iran.” He predicts this will not be the end of the world but will imperil wealth, savings, and assets, as people face dramatically higher costs for food, fuel, and transportation, potentially pushing many into bankruptcy and homelessness. He describes this as an economic mass casualty event for Western civilization. Second, he identifies an AI-driven employment crisis. He asserts AI “works amazingly well” when using Chinese open-source models, citing personal examples of building a complex applications stack with AI and claiming that many people are misled by narratives that AI is ineffective. He argues globalists are purposely nerfing U.S. AI models, while Chinese models (notably DeepSeek version four) are advancing, along with others like Kemi K2 2.6 and Quen’s various models, including a small 27 billion-dense model that performs well on modest hardware. He contends US corporations are relying on Chinese open-source models for job replacement, including customer service roles. According to him, automation is already displacing thousands to hundreds of thousands of jobs, including coding work, with major tech employers like Oracle and Amazon reportedly laying off tens of thousands. He claims recent graduates, even from Harvard, Stanford, or MIT, struggle to find employment, with only a fraction of graduates landing jobs by graduation. He describes a future in which many high-paying jobs vanish due to AI, and where people must contend with rising costs (oil at over $120 per barrel, with expectations of further increases due to ongoing tensions) while incomes fall. He argues this convergence of energy/cost shocks and AI-driven unemployment will hit in tandem, collapsing living standards for many “middle class” Americans and creating a broader social and economic squeeze. He suggests that this is being engineered to push people toward poverty and a government CBDC (potentially linked to universal basic income) in exchange for biometrics and privacy concessions, framed as a step toward depopulation and control, rather than a mere economic adjustment. He claims the narratives of inflation and calm are designed to keep people passive while they are targeted for extermination. For preparation, he advocates decentralization and mentions general mitigation strategies, contrasting his view with conventional assurances. He emphasizes that AI represents a new form of control for governments and that robots, unlike humans, do not protest or demand free speech, suggesting a shift toward an automated governance framework. Throughout, he juxtaposes impending energy and AI-driven disruptions with a broad distrust of governmental and globalist motives, portraying the situation as both imminent and deliberate. He closes by promoting the importance of being prepared and aware of what he frames as the engineered nature of current narratives and obstacles.