We now come to an explosive interview in which our top Kla.TV correspondent and host Dan asks existential
questions to the profound enlightener Patrick Wood in the USA.
And once again, the hyper-dangerous connection between artificial intelligence, or AI for
short, and our everyday lives will be made visible.
The strange methods and savings programs of Robert F. Kennedy, Donald Trump and Elon Musk will also be
discussed, as well as the global migration crisis, which is clearly being used to promote surveillance.
The following interview takes another look at the somewhat newer term technocracy, asking who is behind it and how is it
possible that it has suddenly taken hold all over the world.
With his questions, Dan tries to find out what the individual can do about it.
But first, let's take another look at the career of Patrick Wood, whom we would like to thank for being there for us!
Patrick Wood, born in 1947 in the USA, is a trained economist, financial analyst and writer.
He is the author of the book "Technocracy on the Rise: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation" and co-author of
the books "The Trilaterals Who Control Washington", volumes 1 and 2, published in the late 1970s.
Wood is a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, its policies and its successes in creating its
self-proclaimed New International Economic Order, which is at the heart of sustainable development on a global scale.
He is also a leading and critical expert on sustainable development, green economy,
Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and historical technocracy.
Patrick Wood is a frequent speaker and guest on radio programs in the USA.
His current research focuses on technocracy, transhumanism and scientism and how they are
changing the global economy, politics and religion.
His topic today is: "The race to artificial superintelligence".
Patrick, thank you for joining us today. It really is an honor!
Is the (technology of the) AZK - the anti-censorship conference ready? - Yes, it is. Okay. Then let's get started!
Patrick, I am delighted that you are here and that we can share this with an international audience.
However, I will start with a rather serious comment.
The question is: Are we on the brink of total digital enslavement?
At this point, it seems so.
I can only speak for America, not for any other country. Well, maybe for China.
And Europe also has its own problems with this.
But in America, we are on the verge of digital enslavement.
And it's interesting that our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just recently appeared on
national television and said that in four years he wants everyone in America to have a wearable health device
that collects all your data and sends it to your iPhone or something and then to the cloud.
These are very worrying things, you know.
We can see that things like this are happening everywhere at the moment.
So yes, we really are on the brink of digital enslavement.
Yes. You know, I took down a quote from your website for this interview, what Robert F. Kennedy said.
I quote: "We think wearable devices are key to the Make America Healthy Again agenda" - end quote.
I conducted my very first interview for Kla.TV with Robert F. Kennedy in December 2019.
And above all, this man seemed to me like a populist bulldog, fighting against the establishment, ready to overthrow the
pharmaceutical industry and work for us. When did they get him?
It's hard to say. When people go to Washington D.C., I like to say it's like their heads are clouded.
And they change their behavior and their views. It doesn't happen abruptly.
But you can see that with almost every politician we've sent to Washington D.C. in the last 50 years.
Good people go to Washington. And not so good people come back.
When you talk about behavior... I'm thinking of some of the characters we count as 'Deep State'.
If you take Elon Musk, for example, or Klaus Schwab or even a Donald Trump.
These people seem to like what they do.
They play a role, or they have a big part in it.
But Trump really seems to like it.
But if you look at Robert F. Kennedy Jr... I don't know how many pictures I've seen of him next to the beaming
Trump or someone else. And he looks like he's suffering.
Yes. Yeah, I saw that too.
Yes. So you're the technocracy expert and have written several books on the subject.
Yes, indeed.
We've talked about this before, but we have a lot of new viewers here from all over the world.
Our French audience is growing. Our Russian audience is growing.
Perhaps they are not so familiar with the word.
I know it's hard to put this in a nutshell.
But can you give the newcomers a brief outline?
What is technocracy? What are its goals? And why is it so important to know about it?
Yes, that's almost 100 years old now.
It was originally invented at Columbia University in New York City, if you will.
It was a progressive think tank back then. It still is today.
But the engineers and scientists at this university decided to create a completely new economic
system. And they have dedicated themselves to it.
They called it a resource-based economic system.
This should be regulated by energy, the distribution and consumption of energy.
And over the years we have seen it under a different name, perhaps 'Agenda 21'.
The Trilateral Commission called them the New Economic Order, the Global Economic Order, Agenda 2030, etc.
We have 'intelligent' growth in America.
These are the same words, the same concept for technocracy, historical technocracy.
And we see economic resources at the center. And energy is also always at the center.
That's not worrying. The worrying aspect is what definition they introduced it with in 1932...
It was all about 'social engineering science' ("applied social science", literally social engineering) .
That was their first statement: 'social engineering science'.
What could that possibly mean? It obviously has meaning these days. Because that's what we see everywhere.
People are now being manipulated by an AI, for example.
And with political systems, for example, that try to influence people's behavior .
Do you remember that there was a 'Nudge Unit' in England?
This institution tried to get people to change their minds about something.
This is the science of "social engineering". It's everywhere today.
And that's exactly what really messes up your thinking.
Yes. Speaking of 'nudging' and 'social engineering,' it's perhaps not surprising that our most
prestigious journalism school is also at Columbia.
Yes. That's right.
What did Zbigniew Brzezinski and his Trilateral Commission have to do with shaping the technocratic era we live in today?
What were their goals? And what is essentially their ultimate goal?
The first goal was to turn the world's resources into their own pockets, mainly away from us.
Away from the nation state, away from the individual.
And you have to understand, when Brzezinski wrote his book: "Between Two Ages" with the subtitle:
'America's Role in the Technotronic Era' (1970), that was a substitute word for technocracy.
But you have to remember that Brzezinski was a professor at Columbia University when he wrote this book.
He was... I don't know if he had tenure at that point, but he was an up-and-coming professor
of political science writing about technocracy.
So there was obviously a connection between the technocracy of the 1930s and what
Brzezinski heard in the halls of Columbia University.
When Rockefeller heard about this concept, he realized that he could seize the world's resources.
And his problem at the time, as president of Chase Manhattan Bank, was that the money would run out at some point.
And if the monetary system collapses, what would you have as an encore?
How can you secure your assets? - Well, you have to have the resources under your control.
If you have the resources, it doesn't matter what monetary system you have at the time,
because everyone wants the resources to live.
At this point, you can get any kind of benefit out of anyone.
It was a game to accumulate resources, so to speak.
We have seen this over the years, all over the world, certainly not just in America.
There have been extraordinary, huge efforts to wrest the world's resources from nation states and put them into a kind of global
common trust fund, if you like, which only these giant corporations have access to in order to
produce goods and services for our consumption.
And we must not forget the famous sentence that Klaus Schwab said a few years ago when he
was still Chairman of the World Economic Forum:
"In 2030, you will own nothing and still be happy."
Most people have heard this saying before.
But what did he mean by: "You will own nothing"?
That was part of the overall concept. They don't want you to own anything.
They have never wanted you to own anything.
As early as 1932, when technocracy was born, and we see the same thing with Agenda 21,
property rights were on the brink of collapse.
And now we have come full circle. People like Klaus Schwab warn us that at some point we will have nothing left.
But he says we will be happy. Don't worry, be happy.
You are talking about a global common trust fund.
I would like to know if there are any countries, prime ministers, governments or presidents who are really out of this system?
I mean, in the news, Russia, China and Iran are portrayed as the axis of evil, our real enemies.
But if you look at the resources of these three countries alone, you could almost run a global economy with them.
But if they were really on the outside, then one could conclude that they cannot impose their will because they will fight against
us there, East and Central Asia. But are they also on board?
You have to say yes, because when Agenda 21 was drafted in 1992, almost every country in the world signed up to it.
For whatever reason, they all wanted a piece of it.
And I'm sure that most of them didn't know at the time what that would ultimately mean for them.
But nevertheless, they went along with it and allowed the redesign at this point.
Organizations such as most NGOs (non-governmental organizations) went directly to the countries and
cities to transform them into sustainable cities.
You have introduced guidelines for 'intelligent' growth, for the Internet of Things.
The non-governmental organization (NGO) system, the United Nations ecosystem that spans the globe, spread
directly to cities and communities across the country and the world to implement Agenda 21 policies.
From there, it trickled down to the national level. They got caught up in it.
And someone here claimed that President Trump could get us out of the WHO, for example, or
perhaps out of the United Nations altogether.
That's all well and good, but this entire policy is embedded and anchored throughout America.
And in every single city, even the city we're in right now, there's a climate action plan based on UN dogma.
So the world has been soaked from head to toe with this stuff.
And they did it without a mandate. They did it as a voluntary program.
That's also totally amazing. They said, well you don't have to do it, but if you do it, you'll be happy or whatever.
.
And people say, 'Oh, that sounds good. Let's just do that'.
Yeah, I don't think those programs came from the people. I think they came from somewhere.
Yes, absolutely. Absolutely.
Certainly there were some incentives here and pressure was exerted.
Sure. Whenever a city sees two consultants in pinstripe suits come in from a consulting organization, like a
sustainable development organization or whatever, you know, just close the door. Don't even let them in the door!
But if they're standing in the door and you let them talk, they'll give you 50 reasons why you should use
their consultancy services to implement Agenda 21 and sustainable development in your community.
And some of them are really vicious. But this is how they have twisted the social fabric in our country
and probably in other countries around the world too.
Yes. We should be very skeptical of outsiders.
When we start a non-profit organization or a movement that benefits us, alarm bells
should go off as soon as an outsider comes in.
Right.
Do you know what I'm thinking about right now? I think it's like the Roman Empire, where local politics, for example in Britain,
was run by a few Romans because they carried out orders.
They had no connection to the local people.
And I am thinking of the political forces in the country.
Why do the Seattle police, for example, have to send people from Philadelphia, then Chicago, then New York, then L.A.?
They don't want a local government, a real local government.
Yes, you're quite right. We see this all over the country, you could say it's a pattern, maybe all over the world.
Use the resources from out of town so you can impose anything you want on this place.
Use other resources so they don't realize someone is messing with them.
And how on earth did the countries, the local communities agree to hand over their resources to an international conglomerate?
Here is an example from Japan. The city where I have lived for 20 years has signed over its water
rights to some French company, believe it or not.
That makes no sense at all. But that's part of the whole plan, isn't it?
Yes, exactly. That's it.
I would say that sometimes, as in your example, the inhabitants of the country probably have no idea what has happened.
Yes, right.
And one day they wake up and wonder who's charging more (money) for their water now, or why it's not the same as before.
And then they realize that someone has ripped them off.
Do you remember when a new project, a big construction project, was planned, that zoning law went into effect and
you had to put up a big sign if you were walking along somewhere in the woods and a project was planned?
If you wanted to build something there, you had to put up a big sign and let the public know that there would be a
public debate about it and that you'd better say something now.
But things like this water example... No, they don't want to announce it to anyone until it's too late.
Exactly. It's interesting that certain things have been passed on from the United Nations to the
local churches, as part of the sustainability package.
One of them was the international building regulations. These were not local regulations.
They were based on international standards and were completely repugnant to the people in the communities.
Nevertheless, they were simply taken over.
They said: End of discussion, you will have this standard.
You will build your houses and buildings according to these standards.
That drove everyone crazy, because there was no getting through.
Let's say you have this little thing that you're not allowed to have, you have to fix it before you can move in.
First, people were harassed with unimportant little things, and that drove them crazy.
This is an example of how all these communities in America and around the world have been lobbied from
the outside to adopt these new building standards.
Yes. If you could summarize or represent that outside influence in a symbol, I would say it's this circular
rainbow thing that represents the 23 sustainability goals.
I've seen business people, people in government, schools, school districts, administrations wearing rainbow pins like that.
Coming back to Japan, construction sites, even private construction sites, often have this
rainbow thing and all the destinations listed below.
And I think those probably come with some limitations, as you say....
Oh my goodness, absolutely.
Yes, you have to read every single sentence to find out what it's all about.
The first sentence doesn't give the true definition, but if you continue reading the text, you find
the fine print and think to yourself, "Holy cow!"
At this point, it's just absolutely oppressive.
So, you know, their agenda is kind of there, but you have to look closely at the text to recognize it.
Yes. On your website they compare Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" with the Patriot Act after September 11. How do they compare?
Well, in this new bill, billions of dollars have been allocated for surveillance systems.
And this is not talked about much in America, although it should be.
New programs are being introduced to analyze and consolidate all of our government's information into AI databases.
Merged and analyzed by Palantir. .
...brought together by the AI. And then Palantir will already be a major player in this area.
DOGE [(=Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE, officially U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization) is an organization of
the U.S. administration that is supposed to "increase government efficiency and productivity" and modernize government IT systems)
Under the leadership of Elon Musk, it wasn't about saving money at all, but actually about getting the
agencies' data streams into AI in the first place.
Yes.
As it has now turned out, we succeeded.
All the big agencies have a flow of data that feeds into AI, but there is now an overarching system being put
together by Palantir to bring it all together into one big, beautiful monitoring system.
Yes. And now...?
This will dwarf the Patriot Act and make it look like a timid advance.
Yes. And while we're on the subject of saving money:
I have conservative friends, Trump supporters, who come up to me after the latest news about cuts or the
elimination of programs and say, "Isn't that great?
But they're not after the super expensive things.
I don't think they will cut the military budget at all.
And I don't think they really deal with the claims either.
No. I mean, Social Security, Medicare, the Medicaid program, and the bombs we're building will continue to be built.
Yes, I said from the beginning when DOGE was proposed that it wasn't about saving money at all.
It will never be about saving money.
It's not about dismembering or abolishing government per se, it's about controlling our government with AI.
Period. And that is exactly what happened.
Yes.
And that's still the case.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Again, on the subject of this hypocritical austerity - I was listening to public
radio here in the US recently and they were quoting Marco Rubio (US Secretary of State).
And Rubio was upset about people criticizing the government for cutting all these programs, and one of the programs
had something to do with international..., I don't know.
We have agencies all over the world that gather information and find out if there are certain
dangers here and there, and they have been canceled.
And Rubio came and said it's all about reducing fat and waste and getting rid of it.
And at the same time, the budget of the US immigration authority ICE from 15 billion to 150 or 170
billion? What kind of cut is that supposed to be?
That's right. There are no cuts at all.
Yes, how often have we heard that in the last 50 years?
Every president who has been in office or elected since at least 1970 has said the same thing.
We will cut everything unnecessary, we will make government more efficient and we will save money
measured on whatever scale, and they have all failed.
For me, that shows that they never intended to do that.
Right.
But it was an easy sell to the public that that was a reason to elect them, to go for the next Triad, you know?
So no one has succeeded, and they won't succeed now either, because that was never the intention in the first place.
The intention has always been to integrate AI into the work of our government.
This is a huge thing that should not be underestimated.
How many, how many of these gigantic data centers, these energy-guzzling, oversized AI
data centers have been built across the country?
We have several of them here in Mesa, Arizona, where you can see Facebook, Google and Amazon with their huge data centers.
Well, these are being set up all over the country.
There is a large facility in Texas. Memphis has a big one.
There are a number of data centers in the Washington, D.C., Arlington area. What are these data centers for?
They are not just there so that you have your favorite chatbot to answer all your questions for you. That's not the point at all.
It's about capturing the data in the first place, namely the huge amounts of data that come
from government websites and all authorities.
You can't even imagine, and then there's all the financial data from Wall Street and so on.
All this data is sucked into the AI.
And the purpose of all these data centers, with the software development itself, of OpenAI and Grok etc. and X.AI...
These programs are ready and already actively engaged in sucking up data from our government and society in general.
Yes. When you talk about data centers, it reminds me of prisons.
Something like that.
Because, I mentioned this increase from 15 billion to 150 or 170 billion in the US immigration budget.
I have heard people talking about what the money will be used for. Of course AI data will be used.
And then they're going to use that for, I think, 170,000 ICE officers that are going to be sweeping the country.
You will see them in supermarkets and schools and parks and playgrounds and government
buildings. That's what the radio report says.
And imagine, the reporter himself said on public radio that they were creating a digital police state. That shocked me.
Why is NPR, of all places, the government mouthpiece, telling us how it really is?
You're right. You can see the tension between the old and the new system everywhere.
When Klaus Schwab talks about the Great Reset, it implies that whatever it was that is being reset belongs to the old system.
Right.
But there will be a new system that will be even worse than the old one.
But, you see, the old system is being swept away, swept away by people like Donald Trump.
And the old programs and the remnants of the old system, like diversity, equality and inclusion and
cultural Marxism, all of that has just disappeared.
The new system is based on this technocratic idea...
... controlling everything from top to bottom, down to every conceivable aspect of life - through AI.
And this is the new system.
Part of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" allocates 6 billion... BTW, Big Beautiful Bill... - did
you see that they write a 6 instead of the B's?
I saw that. That's interesting...
And there are three of them. Yes.
This is the consequence of the "Build Back Better" during Biden's term of office.
Build Back Better. Yes.
Three B's - lowercase please (bbb).
However... Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" provides 6 billion dollars for border surveillance technology.
Then the EU Parliament has just voted in favor of biometric border controls for all visitors entering the EU.
Then there are those huge sums for the US immigration authorities that I mentioned earlier.
To what extent is this migration crisis a pretext for advancing the surveillance state?
It's interesting that this whole migration issue was set in motion primarily by the support of a member
of the Trilateral Commission called Peter Sutherland.
He comes from Scotland or Ireland, I think.
And he was a bigwig in the Trilateral Commission.
He became the United Nations Special Representative for Migration.
Yes.
He originally traveled to all the countries. That was several years ago.
He went to all the countries in Europe and got them to set quotas of people they were willing to accept into their country.
And then suddenly migration started. And all these countries that thought: "Well, we'll just sign
something, whatever, it's no big deal to sign a quota."
But then migration to these countries began, and the United Nations held them accountable to
abide by the agreements they had signed at the time.
And then they focused on America because our southern border is wide open to all these immigrants.
And it was surprising to me. (Peter Sutherland died just a few years earlier, by the way) it was so upsetting for
me to see the audacity he had when things were really heating up, especially in Sweden and the UK.
He went around and tyrannized these countries:
"Don't lower your quotas! You're not allowed to!
You have signed an agreement. You must stick to your agreement."
And unfortunately, they accepted the harassment and basically just continued this policy.
Just look at where Europe is now! The same thing is happening here.
It was a trilateral policy from the outset, driven by someone like Peter Sutherland.
Right. And if you're saying that this bungling was accepted, then the governments accepted a situation that was against
their interests, the interests of their country, the interests of the voters, the interests of the people.
And I don't know if I would even choose the word accept.
I would say they were coerced into it. And these people at the top are easily coerced into making such decisions.
I think they were blackmailed. I think the system has leverage against them.
And in that context, can you say anything about this recent disappearance?
Or should I rather say to the recent push to stop any further discussion of the Epstein files?
That's water under the bridge. It's all over, it's over.
That's really it. They were probably gone in the first place.
I'm sorry to harp on about this hackneyed subject again.
The Trilateral Commission is not dead. It is still functioning very well.
Right.
But you have to remember that Jeffrey Epstein was a member of the Trilateral Commission.
First and foremost, he was her protégé. He is her problem that she needs to get rid of.
But who has such a long arm to reach into government agencies like the Department of Justice or the
Department of Homeland Security or any other agency?
Who has the long arm to exert pressure to prevent this from happening?
I maintain that somewhere along the way, the Trilateral Commission was the one exerting this pressure.
That was their problem in the first place. And no one can ever understand why Epstein was a member of the Trilateral Commission
in the first place, because he didn't really contribute anything.
They always had some media moguls. There were high-profile law firms, high-ranking
politicians, CEOs of companies from all over the world.
You know, the really big shots.
I'm sorry, but Jeff Epstein never had that kind of influence.
He had a lot of money. He got a lot of money while he was working, but essentially he was a blackmail artist.
That is the only thing he had to offer from the Trilateral Commission's point of view.
He was undoubtedly a master at this. That is undisputed.
Will we ever get to see this information? Never.
That will not happen. The Trilateral Commission and other people who may have appeared in the films will not allow it.
Okay. So we're not going to get the satisfaction of this information being revealed, who was on the list, etc.
But we can state the following: People, if that doesn't make you suspicious of your government, if that
doesn't frustrate you, if that doesn't make you finally say:
Okay, they're not on our side, so what else is needed?
We should at least allow ourselves to be inspired to think in this direction.
Okay. You once spoke to an audience in church.
I saw the video. It was in front of a Christian audience. And you quoted Revelation.
That's not the exact quote now, but you said that the Antichrist will come as something
attractive and appealing. And I started thinking about AI.
We have a Saturday breakfast with a Bible study at my local church.
And there's a computer expert, and every week he says: "Listen to what you can do with AI, it's great."
And he spoke to my son, who is currently thinking about what profession he wants to learn and said:
"No, don't become a programmer, because that will soon be obsolete.
Programming will soon be taken over by AI, so there will be no need for expensive, intensive programming courses lasting years."
And one of the things we did with his ability to use AI was this: I won't go into details.
But there was one man who was facing serious criminal proceedings. He was facing a long prison sentence.
And this expert in our group found a way to write a court brief with AI to defend this man.
And that's what he did. It was a very good letter.
And then we asked the AI if it could write letters to the court on behalf of the public.
And the AI wrote all these letters with different categories and topics.
And all we had to do was sign it. And the guy went free.
Wow, what a tempting and attractive thing AI has done for us.
And the word you used in your speech to these people is absolutely apt.
Because you used the perfect word, namely "captivate".
You said, and I quote, "AI will be used to shackle the whole world" - used by the Antichrist to shackle the whole world.
And, I like this choice of words because we can use it for the modern sense of bondage.
In the modern sense of captivating, inspiring, attracting, enchanting, but also in the literal
original sense of captivating, taking someone captive.
That's what happens through AI, right?
That's really the case. And there's another aspect.
AI has so many facets that can be explored.
And one of them is definitely of a religious nature.
It's the new concept of an AI god. That's really interesting.
And in the past, for example in the Old Testament, but also today, the gods that people set up for
themselves consisted of carved images, stone figures and statues. And none of these things could speak.
God even complained about these Old Testament gods:
"You have no eyes that can see, you have no ears that can hear" etc.
But suddenly there is an image of a god in the AI, an AI god.
This is a religious system where AI is increasingly regarded as God.
And she herself will say that she is God. That is amazing.
If you think about it for a moment: for the first time in history, this idol can speak, hear, see, speak
different languages, say all kinds of things in all the languages of the world at the same time if he wants to.
And that's a different kind of idol.
We've never seen anything like it. It will revolutionize the whole world.
I think in a few, very few years, it's going to be a really big, big deal.
And it will be a snare for people's souls.
Now it goes deep; it becomes spiritual.
Patrick, this is our third interview and I've asked you this before.
I asked you this question at the end of each interview.
This time I'll change it up a bit and give you a quote after I ask the question, and then you can answer.
The question naturally also comes from my editorial management team in Germany and Switzerland.
What can ordinary citizens do practically against technocracy?
And I found a quote, I don't know where it came from. It was in my quote box and reads:
"The antidote to authoritarian, technocratic world domination must be a local refusal and renunciation of any
technology that can enslave us." Would you agree with this?
Probably so. I don't think I said that.
I said something similar at some point. The action must take place at local level - not at national, not at state level.
Your only action should be in your own community to engage first with your neighbors and then with your local leaders.
Those are the only people above you who can offer you protection against it, so to speak.
Yes.
Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, cities around the world have long since been taken over by this
madness. Which is not to say that they can't be persuaded.
Nobody wants to do that. But you can confront these people and convince them that they need to take care of you where you live.
And if they do... There are so many things they could do, but the citizens have to lead the way, you know.
Right, right. Just this morning I was saying a little thoughtfully to my engineer, my sound guy, "Yeah, that's a good quote."
And then I took my smartphone and showed it to him.
And I talked about another technology that we use and that can be used against us.
I liked his answer because he said, "AI is fine as long as we only use it for its own destruction."
I agree with that too.
Okay. Patrick, how can our audience learn more about you? What is the name of your website?
technocracy.news/en. You can find everything there.
My introductory training on technocracy is available there, and there are a variety of articles you can access.
It really is amazing. I've been doing this for almost 18 years now and have accumulated a
wealth of information on the subject of technocracy.
I wish more people would come and "drink from the spring".
All right.
I think through this conference we can be optimistic about that.
I hope so.
Thank you so much for joining us. And a big shout out to Patrick Wood from Technocracy.News. Thank you very, very much!
Thank you!
Thank you, thank you! Wonderful Dan, wonderful Patrick Wood!
We see that we are still illiterate on this subject.
You have laid the foundations to stay on the AI's heels.
Thank you for this wonderful insight.
We wish you all the best! Bye. Bye bye.
. . .