 I'm happy that you're all here again, so we're here in the morning. I'm even happier to be able to introduce Maha and Khabir man. Here it is to the best of our knowledge and conscience, phrases and politics. I have full confidence that you will be entertained this evening. Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Dear voters, participants of the 32nd Committee of the Asian Congress, representatives of various social groups, spectators, and new receptacle friends. I'm happy that today here in front of us, in front of you to be able to speak. Somehow we don't look like revolutionaries. Well, not like those, what people think, what people think they're looking like. But nevertheless, we're in the middle of a revolution, which we're on the one hand we're observing, but on the other hand, which we are also experiencing in various ourselves. Question which is posing ourselves is, are we subjects of change just like classical revolutionaries or are we able to influence where the travel journey is going? Or are we just objects of the new areas that the revolution is using for us? We're talking about the fundamentals of the lives of the generation that comes after this. We know that today we have to act. That has to be the request. All right. This was not original from Kai, but this was, except for the original speech by Angela Merkel, except for the text, the 32 Congress bit, including the bit about the revolution. As you can see, this is about phrases and empty phrases. So because we want to be scientific, we start with this definition. What is phraseology? It's this study of phrases, i.e. fixed statements. We are doing the phraseology, i.e. the study of empty phrases and statements. Well, what are these things? What are these things? We recognize them. They don't present little to no new information, which is an important criteria later on. We want to discover them later on. And this, exactly those things that don't present new information are probably, well, they are, they have a good, they sound good. It's not easy to spot. And they're obviously true in quotation marks. Well, we can also talk about, i.e. speech. But it's indeed, this is really, that's what it's called. It's just called in Greek. The pleonasm is exactly that in Greek. All right, let's get started with hypotheses. All right, okay, okay, we are not quite awake yet. All right, plus in phrases and common places have the following function, the political speech. This is our hypothesis. They're not just randomly there to lengthen the text. They have a fixed function. I want to demonstrate that later on using some examples. We want to hide things that belong together. The information density should be lowered or it should be, you should be distracted, you should be distracted from the fact that there is little information being conveyed. We later on will have a press statement which has zero information content and we'll look at it later. Well, sometimes they want to distract about the actual heart of the matter. On the other hand, and this also affects journalism, they want to create quotable phrases without making it clear what the actual position of the people is. And they should generate the impression with a lot of people, a lot of people, that these people have heard what they want to hear. These phrases are often open in a semantic sense, such that everyone can add their own thoughts into it. We will later see the example where someone is holding a press conference and everyone hears what they want to hear. It's a famous text as well. Right, so finally it's buzzwords about buzzwords. Buzzwords that people want to hear, they need to be used. And they need to be contextualized, perhaps using a harmless context. And now we get to the first example. This is now Kai's turn. We have a hot iron, this is a phrase, immediately a phrase. You will soon hear a famous politician who talks about exports or exports that we want to do of tanks to Saudi Arabia, which are not completely uncontroversial. We hear it in two versions. The weapons, the weapons of which you are happy that they are delivered, they threaten the Iran, they threaten the democracy. They don't protect Israel, but they protect a feud. In danger of us, which we have learned one thing, we've learned one thing in the West. In the past we thought, well, the US foreign policy is fine, because the devil that we know is better, we know that this can cause problems. And we send weapons and then later on have to send soldiers in order to do peace missions to take the weapons away again. That's not a very clever foreign policy. It's very dangerous for our soldiers, ladies and gentlemen. Once again, the text, ladies and gentlemen, is pretty obvious. While he used a few phrases, for example, that he wants to say something in particular clarity, but to summarize it was pretty obvious this was in 2011. Israel was in the opposition at that time. The same politician, speaking about the same topic, with the same base idea in 2014. Religious or ethnic point of view, the Arab space has always been complex, more so today than ever. So many of these conflicts are being done in a violent way. So further tension could be discharged in a military way in the future. So it has become inevitable to send weapons, after careful checking, send them in the region. But at the same time, the mass of the violence should not lead us to not differentiate between different states in the Arab world. Or we should be careful and carefully treat every individual case. The oft-requested delivery of Panzer tanks should not be decided from an economic point of view, but on the basis of a very differentiated and well-thought-of analysis. And if I, with my analysis on this basis, this basis, that this cannot be justified based on this, but we have to regularly check whether this is still valid, or if it's changed on the basis, on the political, on the social conditions, on location. Once again, for everyone for whom it was too much or it was too fast, once again, the same topic, the same idea, he still has the same position that he rejects the export of Leopard tanks. Just the sound is a lot different. In 2011 there were weapons and they were dangerous for everyone and they were a stupid idea. In 2014, right now he's part of the government. So now there are weapons with systems that can no longer be justified, but they have to continuously be checked if that's still true. So, well, the language is very nicely hiding the fact that he has the same opinion, but it's no longer so opportune to actually say it so clearly. Now we come to the seminar part. The types of phrases, what kind of things are, I've characterized them as follows. The real phraseologism or so-called collocations, or we have common places, and we have pleonasmus, which are well known. Then we have the handiades, and then we have words empty of meaning. There's a few famous phrases. We had this very well known. Everything became very well known. What we can do it is another sort of optimistic base idea, but we don't know what exactly it's been. I speak high-ranking talks, so high-ranking talks that fits well, but there are no low-ranking talks anyway. So German ground, also very, very famous. So on German ground there should be German law, as Parfale said. There's a whole, there's another talk later on about space. Good work is being done, so there's no bad work. The limits of endurance is another sort of classic one. The sort of the mission of the people. It's gone off from the table, the red line, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There's a special example here. So what we notice, to be happy about something, is in some sense you're satisfied, but you're also expressing something. So somehow here are some examples. So then I have here a whole group of examples, something about clearly or saying it in a clear way. So say it clearly, to speak clearly, use clear words, or to take a clear position. It's not obvious how you can take an unclear position. Parfale wants additional clarity. So it's not clear what could be. If it's additional clarity, it is clear or not. And then the famous common places, I already had it once. What does it even mean? Grasses green is one example, a common place. It's obvious because it's red here on my shirt. So listeners have already, my listeners designed this for me. Anyway, so for example, nothing is easy. A lot of things remain difficult in Afghanistan. As I mentioned, the common place is something that's obvious from the beginning. The situation is serious. We can only get something done if everyone does their part. And now the crowning glory, which has reached meme status without, which was already mentioned. Well, some hackers could hack something, but the reliability and security of the new personal identity card is not called into question. Right, talk about what a pleonasmus as mentioned, you cannot negate them. They're constructive talks. You cannot have any constructive talks. So valid law. So invalid law is not really feasible. Tireless work. You can't be tired work. So future potential dangers. So potential dangers is already talking about the future. So it's doubly future doesn't really make sense. So innocent victims. Well, there are no, you know, victims that can be blamed. We always talk about difficult situation. There's no, there are no simple situation. Yeah. Then we now have the situation with difficult, but difficult is not really adding anything here. There are specific individual cases. Well, unspecific individual cases of weird. I think it says on my shirt. All right. It says on my shirt. Yeah. I'm firmly convinced of something. We never say I'm unfirmly convinced of something. Or I have complete or utterly complete trust. But half full trust is not really feasible. Half full sympathy doesn't really fit. This is because the first part of this plenasm is is unnecessary. It doesn't add any extra information. A special case is also a case of plenasm is the enditis. It's Greek. It means one. It means through. It means one through two. One thing is this crest by two things. We had that a lot to the best of our knowledge and knowledge and conscience. So knowledge and conscience, they're similar. You can't quite work out the difference. So knowledge is also conscience that has to do with morals or according to law and order. So maybe law will be sufficient or order will be sufficient, but they're combined. They're combined to one thing that say the same thing. Open and honestly. So just open or honestly will be sufficient. But open and honestly they say two because it sounds better because it has more mass because it just enhances the whole effect. It's not just the conscience is also the knowledge. It's not just the, it just sounds better if you use two. And then to blow the text or the empty words are even better. The method or the new, the new, the new is there. The executive order, which is even, you know, maybe there's part of the executive, so he talks about you take it and found some in trust or situation or happening, which often there is a situation that happened at work. Just the work. We would do work or the installation or we claim something or seen as often or the scene of the people putting things at risk. Yeah. All right. We carry on. There's another interesting area about theory where neologisms where words are newly created. He blog a lot about this in the Newspeak blog and in a podcast. First is data retention. So now it's called traffic data retention. So it's always about not really saying what's being done, but also in the airport, airport order. It's always about and hotspot is also about doing the queen of neologisms. Those that don't have a perspective to stay here also have to leave again. So we talked about getting rid of incentives that cash rewards in asylum homes are not reduced and for people being home again will be reduced. And people are like again, it's not cut. It's second. It's original text from Angela Merkel. And there was a really increased. So staying active is like you don't get in here. Misincentives means that if you take account of your right of asylum, then get some money to be able to stay. And so it could be an incentive to stay here with the money and then it has to be reduced. So cash needs placed by things. Cash rewards, not really sure what they will get and enforceable. So people that have that hope for asylum, they don't know about German law and they know we can ask for asylum and some are really disappointed. So it's not a big deal. It's not a big deal. It's not a big deal. It's not a big deal. So they don't know about German law and they know we can ask for asylum and some are really disappointed. So where do these empty phrases come from? Where to sort through is where they come from? From which area these language pictures are coming from? So it means, yeah, only some people, limited amount of people can go in because otherwise they'll drown. And I have a metaphor to say you can't get in here. The refugee, wave, storm, flood or tsunami. It's not so funny because it's like, it's a picture to invoke fear. So it's meant to make people fear refugees. Oliver had like a really good picture from there. So if a few cats come towards me, then I want to pet them. But if a cat tsunami wants to roll at me, then I'm taking a weapon and want to... So everybody's in one boat. So maybe we are in the boat, but we want to make sure that the others don't get in. Taking the ride around so that we can do something. The pilot is going upward, but important. Ballistisms taken from the area of war. So gall-oriented, loading ash registers on the marsh. And then in the sense of refugees, there's a storm or attack towards something. Refugees are storming towards something. So here you can see if you use this. Also invoke to use fear. So when to induce fear of the people that only don't want to destroy our nice Germany. So it's like German tablet build and TV. Like traffic metaphor, also popular for internet. It's like very popular. So like... Like... Our company's... Over... Brake... Brake... Brakes are put on... The light is given... So it's not about... It's not really meant to... They're not really meant to lie, but... They're really meant to say... I don't know what's... They're talking about the real problem. Technology and physics is also very important. Things are put on ice. Or like... Emmetically... Virals of violence. Or it's also popular... What's left over? So listening is really important. It's not just noise that you should not listen to. But it's about information and... Them and get the information behind the empty board. So we try to... Find out what's left if you... Take out all the bloody speech and play a nuisance. So it's... Treason is left over if... Take all the stuff away. So in the beginning of August when Mr. Range had the... General... Data attorney... Also... For keeping the security and objectivity of the investigation... In July of 2015 I... Commissioned an external report... Where the investigator should... Confirm or not whether... The published leak documents... Are... Contain state secrets... And he... So far confirmed that... That the documents probably constitute... State secrets. And with that he... Confirmed our... Our opinion and those of the... Intelligence services. I gave this opinion to the... I gave this opinion to the... Interior Ministry yesterday. And then I was informed to... Up the investigation and... Up the... Up this report. So freedom of speech is very important. Even in... On the internet is... Freedom of speech not without limits. And they still have to... They still have to adhere to laws. And... They can... Justice is also protected by the... And... Influencing our investigation because... It's not... Opportunistic for politics. It was my... I felt it was my duty to... Public about this. Thank you very much. This is... I'm just gonna... The whole text. I'm just gonna... And I highlighted the areas... Bits that have actual new information. And the whole everything else is just... Unnecessary. Right, so... Just to begin with... The adjective... The beginning is to... To prevent, to protect the objectivity of the... Investigation, whatever. He has to say that anyway. Anyway, the... Independent expert. What else? If they're not independent, then they're not experts. So... It definitely... Independent is unnecessary. Given his... Temporarily judgment... I left the temporary in because it's important at the beginning. It gets repeated later but it's less important later. And then the actual information... That the so-called documents... The sort of preliminary judgment... Expert did contain some state secrets. And then... He told the ministry this... And it told him to... Stop asking for the report and... And he followed suit. So the whole second part is just... Just full of phrases or common places. So, because since no one doubts that... Freedom of press is very important. No one doubts that you don't need to do a press conference to talk about that. Then this... This freedom of speech is not... It doesn't have limits, even in the Internet. That's obvious, everyone knows. It does not free journalists from following the laws. Which is also obvious. So the whole rest is unnecessary. Well, it's not completely unnecessary because... He also says that the influence is unbearable. He didn't say that what was taken was taken. He just says if someone does take influence, it's unbearable. Given the accusations... Given that the accusations that are being done... But he didn't make any accusations. So you can only imagine what kind of accusations. So if he says it's unbearable that there's influence being taken... So he can't interpret that he means that there is some kind... He's accusing someone. Well, he is a lawyer so he doesn't want to make himself vulnerable. So a lot of people read between the lines that he's accusing... Making accusations that someone did take influence. Well, on the other hand, it's obvious that... Well, the Attorney General is indeed... Does need to take orders. Well, maybe the sort of taking influence is unbearable. But he's not being accused of it. And then at the end we have this phrase... I felt compelled to inform the public about this. About what? About things that you already knew? Or about the fact that freedom of speech is an important thing. It's not obvious. So at the end we were just left a bit clueless as to what we can speculate. Well, he already thought about... Predict that he might get fired. And so he put in a text here without a real accusation... From which he could derive an accusation. Okay, here's a little bit more war-like example. Thomas de Miséria during the meeting of the Federal Bureau of Police. So as you can see, under the heading terrorism in Europe. Okay, it's not clear what's going on here. All right. Well, let's listen to it. Let's start listening. The word situation is already mentioned. It often occurs. There is a debate. How do we deal with the public? And I want to clarify my position with regards to that. We cannot... We cannot discuss every single piece of evidence like this. And neither before a situation, or especially not during a situation. Not even through press activities. And especially, and most of the time, not also not after a situation. Why is that the case? The first point is a lot of these pieces of evidence or hints are from institutions people or official entities which do not want to be known as the source of the piece of evidence. If this happens, there is the danger that they will no longer give a hint in the future because they or their source from which they have derived this piece of information, they might be in danger. And it would not be of our interest to... I mean, it's not in our national interest to lead such people to no longer give us such piece of information. Right. Here's the text in full. Well, as I said, in our opinion, the only piece of information is that there is the danger that in the future there will no longer hints because the sources might be in danger. Well, I mean, that's you could think about that yourself. So not really a lot of information. The whole rest, the raining bit are just common places. In particular, that is particularly before or after and during the situation. You can say anything at any point. It's not a lot of adding not not adding a lot of information. Well, most of it is you could have just not bothered with it. The question is why is that this the rhetorical question? That's what he's supposed to answer. But what's the point of making answer asking? Well, you could say, well, these are just like sort of casual texts. Well, maybe he's just giving a speech. It's not the official. It's not meant for the history books, but the things that are meant for the history books is a statement by the government. They should be, you know, they should contain information that should be able to be put into history books. And they shouldn't sort of talk around, but they should speak directly. Let's have a look at how it's really the case. All right. So as I said, I think in Jamaica is a grand mistress of this kind of talking. We'll see quickly. We don't hear because it's too long. And we talk about the statements about one of the questions that has really a lot of people thought about about what is the, what does the, what kind of plan does the government have to deal with more than a million refugees? That's the whole, that's the whole statement. You don't have to be able to read it. There's going to be a few examples. The whole point is this is the whole mass. And she talked in the parliament, she took a long time about 5,000 words, 2037 words about the topic. How are they going to deal with these refugees? This is what it looks like. If you take out all the bullshit, if you take out all duplicates, all the sort of, I'm going to, I'm going to be emphasized the following, all the phrases. The funny thing is you can still read the rest and it's, it would still be a good speech. There's still some content, but that's not how it was held. Right. There's, that's about the percentage, about 2,000 words, 56%. Well, you could debate, of course, about how we cut things. You could, you could talk about it, but you could say, but well, there's some piece of information here, and maybe you could cut something else. But I think the percentage is approximately correct. This is the official statement. Well, we talked about it for a long time. This has already been discussed. The funny, the funny thing is the, the more often we read it, the more we cut. All right. A few examples. Dear colleagues, the police and secret services are working on the high, with high pressure to clarify the terrible attacks and the terrorist, even in Germany, there's a high danger. So we follow all hints. Well, and we have to, as we saw last Tuesday, we always have to make a difficult decision between freedom and security. I want to be clear in the name of the whole government. We trust in our security infrastructure that they deal with things properly and they need our political support and they have it because otherwise they cannot act. Two things are very important to me. First, and I want to, I want to thank the majority of the parliament. We want to be careful and guarded. And it is important that, that we did that before, even before the attacks, that we'll have, and that we're enhanced on our technical and employee persevere, new employees. We added 1,000 new people for the new federal police. And until 2008, about 3,000 people, we will create so-called robust units with the police, that will be equipped in such a way that they can deal with touristic situations and thus expand our possibilities significantly beyond what the currently, the GSG9 and the plenary place can do. Through this enhancement, we modernize them. We enhance the interior secret service and the external secret service with people as well. What does it say? I didn't mark it with color to make it harder. What does it actually say? It says we're going to enhance the police and the secret service. And we already decided that before we had these attacks. What the whole thing, how does this got to do, anything to do with the whole refugee situation? Nothing. But it was talked about in detail during it. There's some cool words like robust units of the police, which need to be trained in such a way that they can deal with such a touristic situation. Well, there we go again. Well, I would hope so. Otherwise, they're pointless in touristic situation. Right. Anyway, we're talking about refugees. Let's carry on. Maybe we'll learn what they actually want to know, what the refugees want to do. Because people think are interested and a lot of people are coming. What is the plan? All right, let's carry on. We have a clear demand to know according to which logic will the government fight the sources of these refugees and the European deals and how it works on the national level. But we have to start with fighting the sources of the refugees. There are a lot. There is a lot of war and terrorism in a lot of areas. Nations are collapsing for many years. We've read and heard and saw on TV. But we, at the time, we didn't understand that that, which happens in Lepin Mosul, that is important for Stuttgart or Essen. And so we have to deal with this. And this will cause changes in our politics in favor of exterior politics, in favor of the development politics. We have to ask ourselves, what does what mean? What does any act mean for us? I think it's obvious that we need to take this with patience and we need partners. Right. What is the plan the government has? They have a clear demand that they want to know about this. All right. You laugh. The information is hidden, very well hidden. It says, we have to do something. We have to do something abroad. We have to do something with our refugee politics. It will change something about the politics. We need patience and we can't do it alone. That's the information. Very well packaged. It's not all lying. It's about to present things in such a way that everyone thinks like they heard something that fit them and they're happy about it and they can sort of agree and they don't have to contradict it or reject it. Do we still have time? All right. A short example that's a lot older, just to show how you can get lost in such things. Christian Erich was a politician of the conservatives and said this amazing sentence. Bin Laden and other terrorists are not poor, but the social exclusion is the trash of the phrase that the terrorism want to light up. He doesn't really know what he's talking about, just as a small example, as a joke. Well, there is a sort of serious background here. Phrases do contain information, as you can see it. This is the data thanks to Ad Flosco Volker. Thank you very much, Flosco Volker. The project from two journalists who use Google to scan for like 130 phrases and empty phrases. They have a Twitter account and a website and they have an API. You can download them. You can search them 15 for some important events and then visualize them. And then you will see that you see some interesting things. In the middle, probably you can't read the description, what's going all through. That's without alternative. That's like the zero variable of political communication. Everything is without alternative, because that we stand here is without alternative, because then there wouldn't be a lecture and you would be barred. So you can see more. The first phrase over alienation caused some very conservative, you should best use them when talking about refugee problems. Human catastrophe is always used a few times. Human catastrophes, there were a lot of them. Most interestingly, they get less to the end of the year, so in the refugee situation it decreased and then the fear metaphor increased instead. There were a few spikes for Syria, like air raids, air bombings and they mostly related to the war in Syria. They got my importance in the second part of the year, so without alternative. Then social tourism, it's only used at the beginning when there were some refugees. Refugee issue, they use it like a little bit in the beginning, especially CSU, but Christian Democrats. So asylum critique, critical people, it's like a term used for Pegida. Those people criticizing the government and refugees. So then when terms were criticized, they get less and less, and when there's a debate about empty phrases or phrases, they are affected by that. Then there's the boat migrants. There was a spike in spring when a lot of people tried to go over the Mediterranean Sea. It was built and when it was seen, what their story was, they stopped using this term. Then the refugee tsunami, it was used very frequently, especially in autumn and winter, very popular. And then the refugee storm, so the fear is increasing and the empathy towards the boat is full. Also at the end, it increases and it's used a lot. Maybe now you're enough and we have enough of you, so stay away. So empty phrases are important, and you think they are important, but you still have to filter to know what's actually going on. So how can this be contextualized in this garden here? The overalienation and the refugee storm are really strong things in the end. If something like this is used, people get used to it, people get used to talking about conflicts, and that's dangerous. You really shouldn't do that. Everybody of you shouldn't do that. You shouldn't use such phrases or terms. Now we get back to the hypotheses. In the natural sciences, you always try to disprove them. So as a social scientist, we have to prove them. So context is blurred. I think this is clear that the information density is decreased or distracted from. I think that's especially is so with Sorange. He didn't say anything, but wanted to make a press statement. So added some phrases. Distraction from what it's all about. Merkel was doing that, especially I think, was only going about increasing the security services, and that was emitted into that. So the occasion was refugees, but then she talked about the robust entities of the police. Like quotable phrases, can be seen with Sorange, especially. And also with Merkel. In Demitia, you could see this, like the keywords, and also project an openness towards people and give the idea that they are hurt. So sometimes things are contextualized in a harmless way, and sometimes not so much. So from formulated way. Just summarizing again. They are not lying. And who says they are lying, didn't understand what it's all about. It's about they don't want to disrespect you. They don't want you to say, we don't want to be elected. I wouldn't elect him again, because they have to be re-elected. So they always try to take with them as many people as possible, or enable them to identify with these phrases. Because we are a society of majorities, and that's a background. So it's not like evil in itself. But you can change it by filtering, and also by engaging with opinions that are maybe a bit different from yours, and not talking so much bullshit. So we have a few minutes for questions. You have the microphone here. Please formulate short and precise questions. You'll answer in phrases. Question from IAC. When you're analyzing, are you also learning? Not to date. Maybe we should be doing it. In particular, Demi Zer is very expressive. Merkel's facial expression is not that expressive, but with Demi Zer you can see it very clearly. Also Ms. von der Leyen, our defense ministry, was acting out with her hands and her nice blue eyes. But to be honest, we limit ourselves to language. So when I was giving a presentation in Darmstadt, I analyzed Demi Zer in more detail, the famous press conference, where he said about the populace could be made unsure about what he said. There's a lot of expression. He looks to the Ministry of Interior, and he looks over to him as if they were good buddies, or the football guy, or the guy who's always pushing the microphones over to Demi Zer. There's a lot of expressivity in the gestures and facial expressions. You could do something about it. Well, I'll think about it for the future. Thank you. So I want to connect to that. Let's sing with the kind of presentation. So Range always looked down that he could talk well, because he was using the special words and this word order was important for me, because government officials can ask for written order when he's not... We're happy to... Please tweet us, mail us, send us a blog. Thank you. It's a bit off-topic, but I have to say this. This scandal for me, so that she's explaining her foreign policy to me, so that she's saying that it's all about combating the sources of the refugee problem. And that she's saying that she would have fought against it earlier if she thought that it would have an impact on Essen and Stuttgart. So it's a scandal that it doesn't concern us when it's not... Yep, thank you, thank you. Microphone number three. Do you see the decreasing of information density against the analysis of speech? That would be nice. Well, I think it's a sort of political inevitability. The more educated people are in this political spectrum, in order to unify and have a lot of people, this concept is one to sort of talk with the center. No one knows exactly what it is, but everyone's trying to gather it. It doesn't have anything to do with us. It's... I think it's all about political means to an end. And I think it was done in a very cunning way. There's the famous press conference by Seehofer where everyone thought he wants to kick out the refugees or shoot them at the board. But if you look exactly, he talks about refugees and then he talks about immigration. So he's always talking about limiting immigration, which is something else about accepting refugees. It's very interesting by thinking about the context. So the sort of random person in the very things like, oh, finally someone's doing something about those refugees. But he actually phrased in such a way that you can't actually extract that. But what he wants to do is limit immigration, which is a little bit different than refugees, than kicking out refugees. But nevertheless, he is able to involve these sort of random pub people. So he wants to get the people, the pub people on board through the context. And then those people who are listening a little more carefully, because those people say, oh, we're not really against immigration of accepting refugees. The other Conservative Party also understands it. I don't want to admire it, but it's very, very clever how he does it, to say something where the pub people say, oh, yeah, right, finally. And the other people, well, all right, well, fine, we can live with that. That's the trick. Thank you. Microphone number 2, please. Someone mentioned the first foundation novel where the delegates from the Imperium didn't actually say anything, but this was only mentioned of the intensive analysis. Can we automate your built-in analysis so that we can get this through some filters? We thought about it. We thought about it. Well, we'll meet in January with Flosco Volcker, who do have an algorithm, whether we can do it automatically. It's not that easy because the context is very important. A few things can be automated automatically. So if something has already been said, for example, Reng says three times independent and two times as expert, even the computer is able to notice that. But it's difficult. The same thing is said slightly differently in a different way, but I think we can do something there. We'll keep thinking about it. And we can do some automation, I think. Thank you. Microphone number 1, please. Thank you for the number. These phrases are also used by people that you're close to without really knowing about it. And so I can reflect with those people about the phrases, but then the debate is probably over. Punch them will be my solution, punch them and shake them. Well, on the contrary. I mean, people who are close to me. Well, me too. Yeah, me too. Well, I think it's important to think about phrases. I think you can do it in a peaceful way to say, well, all right, what did you just say? What does it mean to you? If you use that phrase, what does it do to you? What does it do to me? I think it's very important to talk about it. I think people, yeah, I do know that people get a bit annoyed and, you know, roll their eyes. But please, please do talk about it. It's very important. Thank you. Last question. Microphone 4. I'd really like your visualization of the Floske-Clarke phrase, Claude. You can see that some of the phrases pop up all at once. And then how did you, like, analyze how this happened or why, and when decreases, increases, like, if it originates from a blog and going somewhere else. Right, so Floske-Clarke analyzed Google News. So it evaluates blogs and media. There are no statements from politicians, only just indirectly if they are quoted. So I think you're right. For example, overly foreign, is that we could get it out. There was a blog by the extreme right. And then I think there was the Jung-Phae had newspaper which then distributed. And this you can also see in Google News, because other people quoted, they said that. So in some cases you can analyze it, but it's very difficult on us. And we did it a couple of years ago using the umbrella, the economic umbrella. You can see fairly well the first uses and uses. You can often see whether it's more coming from the politicians or from the journalists. You often, it depends on the word, but it's indeed quite interesting where does it come from and who's bringing it up. So in this case, in the case of the umbrella, it was the Financial Times. And it was very quickly used. And then it started getting used by the politicians, by the parliament and the ministry. Initially it was the Financial Times. Some things are the other way around. For example, data retention that comes from the politicians and then goes to the media. It's a circle. It's so good. Thank you very much.