 Yesterday, coming to Amsterdam, I was thinking about the subtitle of this symposium that ends with the words in a dispirited age. So this is supposed to be a dispirited age. And I was remembering for the 100th time some wonderful verses by William Butler Yeats from a poem called The Second Coming, in which he says more or less, the best lack all convictions while the worst are full of passionate intensity. So in a way, if I am dispirited, I'm quite happy to be compared to the one who are spirited now. I would like to make a sort of defense of a term that has been used in the very interesting debate between Mr. Dugin and Mr. Levitt that is the word nihilist or nihilism. I feel I am one and I'm not proud and not ashamed to be, at least in the sense that I am very different towards values, any kind of, because values can be very dangerous. And as the poem of Yeats says, the passionate intensity in believing in something can be very dangerous. I taught and I teach to people who belong or belong to criminal organizations who were full of values, who had values for everybody of us. And faith, they were faithful men and passionate. So if this is a dispirited age, we should at least defend for a while our sickness, our weakness, our doubts, our being, our lacking of convictions instead of having one having one's too strong and dangerous. I have a question for you. I think that it's clear, it's obvious that beliefs and values and convictions can be abused and can be perverted and that evil can be committed in the name of values that purport to be good. I think this is certainly historically true and etc. But do you really think that a life without belief is preferable to a life spent in clarifying the difference between true belief and false belief or good belief and bad belief? In other words, I have family too. I can't imagine how I could raise my son on an absence of conviction. And my question to you is, it is true that sometimes some food is, sometimes you are given meals that are very terrible and that can even poison you and kill you. But for that reason, would you stop eating entirely? Would you give up all food because some food can do you harm? I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing for. Maybe it has been a miracle with my family, but I had never to teach to my children values like respect the others or not kill the other. I had just to say to them, go and wash your hands. What is it that you learned about human nature, teaching those pupils of you in prison? That's a wide, wide question. Well, I learned what I knew before going there that human nature is bad. And so you have to do your best to prevent, to limit the damage that a man can do to other men or women. And that's all our duty, not much more than this, to put down the pain and suffering. But because evil is there, among us, is us. If the ban would be perfect, there weren't much use in making such a great effort. I had a very strange conversation when I was working 15 years ago in Afghanistan as a volunteer of the United Nations, together with other people, making my same job. And I was the only one to think that the man was bad. And we were surrounded by destruction. So what are we doing here if the man is not bad? We have proof of this. I don't agree with you. I mean, it's too fatalistic to say man is evil. I mean, there's, of course, there's evil, but there's a reason why this evil existed. And I think it's all in the childhood. I think that the source of evil in the world is unloved childhood, is neglected childhood. We cannot just deal with it as if it was a fact of life. We should go to the heart of the problem and start working on it. I think it would be too fatalistic and cynical to just say evil is there. We are wired for empathy. We are wired for love. We are wired for feeling the others. I don't agree at all with your vision of humans.