 You have a war on hate here on Think Tech. I'm Jay Fidel. It's nine o'clock on a given Monday. And we are joined by Henry Coppell, otherwise known as Hank. And I'm going to call him Hank because I want to be informal. Hi, Hank, welcome to the show. Thank you, Jay. It's a pleasure to be here. So you've been a federal prosecutor in Connecticut and you've prosecuted some terrorist crimes and you've studied hate over the years as it has emerged or re-emerged, depending on what period of time you look at, and to try to study it and figure out the relationship between hate and genocide and some of those very strange, hateful incidents in the Middle East that keep happening. And I suppose from you we can learn more about Mr. Putin's war on Ukraine because there's a common denominator there of some kind. So welcome to the show, Hank. Let me ask you first, have you written about this? Have you written articles? Have you gone on the media about it? What have you done to express your views so we can, as I say, qualify our witness here today? Sure, thank you, Jay. So in July, 2021, I published my book that's been in the works for so many years. It's titled, War on Hate, How to Stop Genocide, Fight Terrorism and Defend Freedom. And as we'll discuss probably as we go forward, it's a somewhat contrarian analysis of why do genocides happen? Why does terrorism happen? The book is somewhat unique in saying the causes of both forms of mass violence are very similar and what can we do once we learn what's driving it? What can we do to stop it? I'm also writing a blog column in the Times of Israel and some other publications. So basically, as you say, I retired from DOJ. Very grateful for the work there with a great bunch of folks over the last 30 years. And now I'm doing a second career as an author. Good, I can relate to that. And I think it's great that people do second careers, especially when they are passionate about the subject. What made you passionate about hate? Was it what you were doing in DOJ or something else? Great question. It was a mix of a lot of things. You're right. Some of my DOJ work certainly reinforced a prior interest because I had the privilege of prosecuting in the office's national security section in Connecticut. We investigated and prosecuted a group called the Connecticut White Wolves, which was the most prominent white supremacist group in the state who we tabbed on illegal guns and explosive trafficking. They thought they were selling to the Ku Klux Klan, but fortunately for us, I'm forcing for them, their interlocutor was an informant for the FBI with a microphone recording everything they said. But my interest goes back to, you know, I get kid who grew up Jewish in Massachusetts. So I was part of the heritage. I followed news in the Middle East in Israel. Always a subject of interest among many others. And I remember in 1993, sitting wrapped at the TV screen watching the Oslo Peace Accords being signed on the White House lawn with Bill Clinton, the S.C.R. Arafat and Israeli president and thinking, this is great. Finally, such breakthroughs only to be followed by years of suicide bombings, terrorism and thinking, what's going on here? Again, not to get into too many details of the conflict because we all know it's complicated and there were legitimate claims on all sides at some point. But the peace plan offered by Israel in 2001 with the intermediation of the U.S. seemed to me very reasonable. Even the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar, definitely not know for being biased toward Israel, said when Arafat rejected that, it was a crime against the Palestinian people. And I saw Jews in Israel being blown up in large numbers instead of peace happening. This of course happened against the backdrop of 9-11 when Al Qaeda blew up the World Trade Center in a part of the Pentagon and the other plane landed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, thanks to the heroism of the passengers on board. Let's roll it. And I thought, why is this happening? We all asked the question, why do they hate us? That was a common headline. And when I started digging down on it and reading and studying and relating it to the groups that I prosecuted, the white supremacists I saw, they all bathed in a tsunami of hatred and hate propaganda. I don't mean to go on too long here, but I would read in the papers, he has arranged in hatreds, that's what's driving this stuff. And therefore there's no point in intervening in a genocide because these hatreds have been around for a thousand years, they'd be around for a thousand more. But if that's true, why do so many groups that are ethnic rivals, sometimes of a very serious height in nature, they still managed to live alongside each other without a lot of conflict. Most of the time, genocide is the rare exception. Same thing, terrorism. Why are these people trending to terrorism? Scholars and writers say it's poverty. Poverty's drying it, driving it. But there are so many poor places in the world with virtually no terrorism, but some other places that have it. What I found in my studies was, when you look at the register of hate indoctrination through propaganda, that's where you see the common element that seems to trigger this stuff. Yes, I've come to the same conclusion from a variety of talk shows we've done on the subject. And you can have thousands of years of history with people, they don't basically like each other, mind you. They go back, and they carry some baggage, but they don't kill each other. I think an example of that, tell me if I'm right in your analysis, is Bosnia. They lived together for hundreds, thousands of years. All of a sudden, they're killing each other. The same thing with Rwanda. They lived together for how long, and all of a sudden, they're killing each other. And the only explanation that works, the only common denominator is that propaganda and some third party, possibly a leader and autocrat, worked hard to make them kill each other. And what I wanna call it, just like they had for each other over the years, the baggage they carried was only an instrument that that leader would use to activate the genocide. Is that consistent with your view of it? Mr. Jay, we're looking at this through the same analytical lens. I think you're spot on. I recall you had a show, might've been two or three weeks ago with a gentleman who did a lot of the post reconciliation work in Rwanda, and you and he discussed that there was a tsunami of propaganda in the recent years before the genocide by the Kutu people against the minority Tutsi group which had a lot of the leadership and economic positions. Exactly right. Same thing in Bosnia. Slobodan Milosevic rightly declared a war criminal, I think in many people's minds, including mine. A lot of these have to do with power grabs and ways that politicians seek to advance their own and their group's aims by scapegoating another. And that's exactly what happened in Bosnia. And horrible things were done to the Muslims of Bosnia by Slobodan Milosevic's forces, inexcusable. And my book actually chapter, the first and second chapters get into this and they focus on the Bosnian example, the Rwandan example, and the Nazi Holocaust example, all driven by the same hate propaganda. Now what I did in the book that adds to this analysis that I don't think it's been done as broadly though some folks touch on it is, well, what's the psychology behind this? I'm sure you and your listeners recall one of the famous psychology experiments in the early 1960s by a fellow named Stanley Milgram, the Yale University. It's an amazing experiment, it's worth mentioning for a minute. Milgram took his laboratory subsistence and he said, we're doing a test of people's ability to learn and what affects learning, punishment, and so on. You're gonna give this guy over here the learner a memory quiz. And for any time he gets the wrong answer, he's hooked up to a little electric shock machine. Every time he gets it wrong, hit the button and give him a zap. And the next time he gets it wrong, increase the power of the zap. Now, this guy was just an actor and he was a very good actor. The test subjects didn't know that. And yet when this guy's screaming and utter agony, begging to be released, they kept increasing the shocks. And by the way, when Milgram announced this experiment at Yale, he had a bunch of psychologists of auditorium and said, how many I think they're gonna get up to two thirds of the way up and the guy's screaming. And they said, ah, 10 in 500 or something like that. Anyone who reached the top, nobody. You kidding me unless you got a psychopath. No, something like 67% went all the way to the top, like 80% or something like that, hit two thirds of the way up. The point of that experiment and several others that I cite in my book is, it's much easier than we would like to think to trigger the perpetrator mentality in ordinary decent people's minds. Especially when it's for a cause that you're saying it's for a greater cause. Then there's other psychic experience we throw in. All right, what if you do the Milgram experiment? But this time you have two groups and this is done by a guy named Al Bindura on California, right? He did the same kind of shock experiment, you know, if you mind a variation, but basically the same. And in group A, they pretended to have it that the microphone of the experiment managers was on. So the lab sources could hear them talking by mistake. And in group A, they'd say, these people, they're gonna have the shock too. They're primitive, they don't learn, they're rough human, they probably won't respond well. And then the other one, they're like, oh, these are very educated, refined people. Hopefully they'll do well. They probably won't do well with an electric shock. And the group B people, though, are portrayed as more bad and bestial. The shock levels are two to three times higher. All you gotta do is suggest those people who are responsible for our problems that we're blaming, they're bad people, they're evil. Boom, the desire to hurt them and harm them goes way up. These are the sad realities of human nature, psychologically demonstrated. And this is what hate campaigns do. Let's talk about human nature for a minute. It sounds like hate and the possibility of activating people to express their hate by killing others, including genocide is part, it's characteristic of the human condition. I think you alluded to that. It's a characteristic of humanity. It is in the DNA. This is not a happy thought, but it sounds like the more you think about it, the more you come to that conclusion. What's your thought about it? I agree with that, Jay. There's a fellow named Michael Waller at our college in New Hampshire who's done a lot of work in this. And he has a great book called Becoming Evil, talking about this process and the line that just stuck in my head after I read that was, in the end, these perpetrators that have mass killing, they're just not very different from you and me. And here's another fact that ties into that analysis. And this drove my thinking a lot as I was getting into this post-911. When you look at the nature and demographics of these people who are actually other perpetrators, there's been a lot of studies, especially after the Nazi holocaust, we all wanna think, and I certainly would rather think, oh, these are guys that just the social pass, a very small group unlike me and my friends and family. But it turns out they're not. They're all quote, ordinary people. There's a great book about that by a North Carolina professor called Reserve Police Battalion 101, Ordinary People in the Holocaust. They're all middle-class, working-class professionals who've been so drummed in with propaganda from Hitler that they bought into this. And the people actually did the killing on the ground. He did all kinds of studies. They're just regular folks. That's the scary tragedy to be, you know what? Four wanders, four arms. Now we know, we gotta watch out for this stuff. Yeah, that's so interesting. It's hard to do war trials that way. It's hard to do war trials against ordinary people. It's not that you wanna forgive them, but to understand them, you realize that they're not necessarily psychopathic criminals. That's right. And I thought about that because I never was involved in a war crimes trial. There are folks at DOJ have gone over to Bosnia, gone over to Rwanda and done this, and God bless them. You know, the way I work it out of my head is when the question is, were you guilty? Everyone who commits a crime does so under some degree of constraint, because we have pressures, we have losses, we suffer, we have needs for material goods to survive. So it's not that people aren't constrained and don't have tough choices when they choose to commit a crime. And especially in a situation like a genocide where the media is blaring down and you see all your neighbors running off to join in the killing. And maybe I'm talking too easy from my comfortable office, but even then you see that there are choices because you know what? There's still people who don't do that. We know from the Holocaust, not only were the people who didn't join in when they were blanketed with a propaganda, they in fact rescued people and hid them in their cellars in their basements. And there's a woman who studied this. I forget her name, a little bit Middle-AIDS memory there, but she is a great scholar. And she actually interviewed all, a bunch of people across Germany who've been rescuers of Holocaust survivors. She said, what's the common thing about them? And what she found most common was they all were raised in families that impressed upon the children from an early age. Everybody is a child of God, whether they worship the way we do or in some other way or maybe they don't go to church or synagogue or whatever. We're all children of God. We all deserve equal dignity. And that's just the way we live. And that was the best inoculation against the hatred for these rescuers. That's very interesting because there are some people who feel that religion is a common denominator for hatred. Yes. You know, religion, for example, in the Middle East, it suggests hatred. It suggests killing the infidel. So how do you reconcile that with the religion, the circumstances and conclusions about religion in this particular study? That's a tough and great question. And I suspect yourself and others who follow these issues have had these debates with friends where is religion the cause or is religion the remedy or maybe it's part of both? Does that depend? I've come to the conclusion that religion, this is going to be over simplistic. It's almost like a superpower. And any superpower can be used for extraordinary good but when misused for extraordinary evil, right? Because religion like propaganda, even though I'm not saying religion is propaganda, it creates powerful emotional attachments and criggers things deep in our soul. I tend to side with those like the late rabbi Jonathan Sacks and other theologians of all religions who say religion rightly understood is a power for good. When a religion is manipulated and misused, it can be a terrible power for bad. And I have two or three chapters about the Middle East on the book because you suggest there's so much of this happening in Middle East. It's really tragic. And my heart breaks for the people in Middle East too. I like to think they deserve the same decent life as anybody else should have, right? There was a fascinating development a thousand years ago in the Islamic world. It was called Mutazilism. And I started getting into this one. I really want to know, well, why does it seem like there's so much of this going on over there, less so than in other build democracies? Because I don't buy the stuff that well, the rise of Islam is geared to a terrorism. I don't think it is. I think the way any religions interpreted will push you in one or the other direction. So this thing I'm mentioning, the school of Mutazilism and Islam, if they brought, these scholars brought Aristotle and the Greek thinkers into Islam around the 10th and 11th century, just like Maimonides did in Judaism and St. Thomas Aquinas did in Catholicism. Rationalism, God is a rational God. When we explore the wonders of science, we're just exploring God's beauty and grace, right? And the Mutazilites were ascendant for a very brief time during the Abbasid Caliphate and Baghdad. They opened up an ecumenical academy called the House of Wisdom. That of the base was Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians. It was an amazing thing. But it was quickly shut down by the opposing party called the Asharites. And Asharism became the dominant strain in the institutional versions of Islam around the Middle East. Asharism was so contrary to this more Aristotelian form of religious faith that they even said, you should not study science because science leads to apostasy. Why? Science leads you to question. And this sort of close thinking to some degree and many parts of the Islamic world, there's a word for it in Arabic, which word I'm forgetting for the moment. Oh, itjihad, the closing of the gates of inquiry. They have closed. This was followed by some devastating political setbacks in the Islamic world, which led a lot of Islamic thinkers to adopt the Asharite version, which is, we have to be pure. We have to be more puritanical and purify the faith. That's the answer, not to open the gates to inquiry and Socratic understanding, et cetera. And so while the West was slowly merging toward these more open forms of merging inquiry science with faith and finding a way to balance them, many parts of the Islamic world are going down a much more puritanical path. And it's almost happenstance, but it had tremendously bad results in the present as we see. Many people trying to form Islam today are called Neo-Mtazelites. They're trying to bring this back. I on her Sierra Lea, the great emigrate from Somalia and Belgium, who came to America. She's talked about this. I have, no more, there's a gentleman by the name of Mustafa Akyol. He's at the Cato Institute and he wrote a book called Islam Without Extremes. And he tries to re-enter the Metazelite, Aristotelian version of Islam and bring it forward. So your religion can be a source when it's misused of great evil, but it's also a source of tremendous good when known rightly. You know, the dichotomy you describe actually sounds like nationalism versus globalism. Open mind, closed mind, isolation versus exchange. Very interesting. Now you talked about religion as a kind of a superpower, but these days it seems to me that the superpower that overrides everything is propaganda. And propaganda has become a form of art beyond anything we contemplated before. I mean, some people say here on the day after Easter, that Catholicism was a really good example of effective propaganda and it affected the whole world from then till now. But query, you know, the propaganda we have now with social media, the internet, the ability that Hitler demonstrated and other, you know, autocrats demonstrate, it's really extraordinary how they can reach people. Look at Putin. He's got the thing seamless and he's done this all within the last couple of years. You know, there was no view but the view that he tells them about over and over again on state TV. But my question to you is, you know, how does it work? Has it worked psychologically? How does it work sociologically? Has it worked in terms of changing the minds? And Hitler understood this because he taught it to them in school. The schools are such a sacred hotbed of, you know, of human thinking, of forming up humans. But query, how does it work in terms of reaching a population? I'm sure you've thought about that. Well, I think, and there are many good thoughts on this. One of them that appeals to me is that at the core of effective propaganda that drives people into hateful thinking and hateful acts is the us versus them dynamic. Some folks, theologians and philosophers call it dualism. There's only the good people of light on this side and the evil people of darkness on the other side. There is no middle ground. You may think you're in the middle ground. No, you're either with us or you're with them. And if you're not with us, you're with them and you should be killed. I know I quote him sometimes, hopefully not to access the late rabbi Jonathan Sacks from London who wrote a lot of books about this too. His last one was called Morality. But he wrote one earlier called Not In God's Name. They tend to explain the terrorist impulse and what lay behind it. And he integrates that with a fascinating interpretation of Genesis, the likes of which I had not seen before. And he talks about this us versus them dynamic. And he uses this phrase altruistic evil. What was done is, and mindfully, these psychologicals of things that the experiments we talked about demonstrate when you convince people that not only did the other people have to be killed, but it's for a good cause. And in fact, it's a noble, good and worthy act. And we see this and much more watered down fashion yet troubling fashion in our internet culture of today even in the States where it's no longer, I don't like what that guy says because I think that policy is gonna do more harm than good. No, it's, you think that way, you're evil. You're gonna be canceled, shut that person down, cut him out. And so I think that the us versus them dynamic, that dualism is hugely problematic. Natan Sharansky, the great Russian dissident who made his way out of Russia with the help of the US administration under President Reagan's presidency, he talks about the difference between fear societies and open societies, just like you say. He says, the test is, can you go into the middle of the town square and say the leaders of X, Y, Z are a bunch of jerks and criticize them. And if you can walk away safe, you're in an open society. If you're at risk for saying that, you're in a fear society. These leaders create fear societies so that in addition to the psychological triggers that act on us individually up here, you also have the tremendous peer pressure and fear of adverse effects because everybody else is doing it and you're on the wrong side. I remember how shocked we all were when ISIS lined up those four or five people in jumpsuits and on international TV, they decapitated them. I remember that and I thought to myself, this is a new chapter and that they would do this on international TV. They would do it so brutally and so publicly with pride, gleaming and I said to myself, part of his terrorism, part of his hate is a desire to show it. A desire to have some kind of acclimation approval by somebody out there or at least feel that you could be proud of what you have done. You want to do it in public. Is that an element in all of this, the sort of the feedback on the propaganda, if you will? Yes, it is and there are folks more experienced than me who follow the terrorist propaganda very closely. There's folks in DOJ and the national security agencies who do and some of them have written about it. That's messaging when they do that or that horrible thing when they decapitated Daniel Pearl on a videotape and distributed it, that is messaging. It sends a message in a lot of ways. It tells the young kids, you see we really are killing the infidels. This is the way to go. But it tells the people in the communities, you're either us versus them. We're coming for you next if you're not with us. It's very powerful. It also follows that phrase we hear sometimes about more, less modern societies and not meaning to be derogatory in a way but just a different cultural style, the so-called strong horse theory. There's a writer named Lee Smith who's written about the Middle East and he says, here people follow the strong horse. If you show that you're the strongest, toughest one in the room, that's the one people will look to and defer it to for leadership. And all this stuff is going on and all that propaganda is activating that stuff and that sensibility and not to jump, I haven't too much, but this is why one of my first recommendations at the end of the book is, we should be mapping and publicizing the sources and conduits and authors of this propaganda so we know what's going on. I mentioned Vladimir Putin. I mean, thankfully his propaganda has not worked against the Ukrainians including the Russian speaking Ukrainians who are fighting alongside their Ukrainian brothers and sisters, which is very impressive and moving to see, but Putin's media for years has been putting out, oh no, Ukraine is not a separate country. That's all made up. They stole this land from us. It's us versus them again. They stole the nice agricultural land. They stole our heritage. They are trampling on our imperial rights as mother Russia, imperial Russia. And again, the thing that's fascinating me is it's not clear that Putin's propaganda is even succeeding strongly in Russia. We've seen some incidents that have leaked out. That woman in the news who said no war when behind the newscaster, people have been prostituting in the streets of St. Petersburg, which is to say that there are probably different factors that determined whether the propaganda will work well or not. Probably in Russia, the failed economy, the fact that people aren't feeling good about the government probably plays into that but Putin's trying it, he's working it and there are enough people signing up and fighting for it. Well, with all that and all the psychological machinations that we know about and with the repetition of the hatred at the genocide, the obvious general success of propaganda to activate it. It's very important. I think we have to understand it and you've alluded to that. But how much do we know? This is the big question. I'm sure it's in your book. How much do we know about stopping it? Counteracting it. What can we do? It's really important that we get to this. I agree. It is then, as I said in the last chapter about what we can do to fight this, I laid out several proposals on several layers saying, I'm not the most experienced in this. I hope it's a trigger for other people who work these different angles to come up with even better solutions or refine the ones and critique them. It's a starter discussion in other words but I do lay out several. And the first layer is, as I said, the mapping, the documenting, the identifying and the publicizing. Not all dictators give a darn about their reputation when they wanna do something awful. But some countries do, name and shame. You put it out there. No, no, no, no. This isn't about so-and-so, there's people that are scapegoating what they're denying. This is about a bunch of people telling a bunch of lies that we've just unmasked right here. Read this, this and this. They are telling mass lies to a population cause evil and we need to oppose it. So we should expose it. Number two, we should then use the tools of public diplomacy. During the Cold War, there was a lot of interesting work done by America and its allies to try to get the news of the open society, the free society into places like the Soviet Union and China and other countries that were under totalitarian regimes. And- The voice of America. Absolutely. We need to rebuild the voice of America. It was largely defunded when the Cold War ended after the Soviet Union collapsed. We need to refund it and start doing the things we were doing then. There are so many ecumenical Muslim leaders out there who sadly our government has in some cases tended to ignore and they've tended to elevate folks of a more, somewhat more radical Islamist bent only because those folks have the megaphones and seem to be the ones to speak to, but they don't necessarily represent all Muslims at all. People like Zootie Jasser, head of American Muslims Tolerance, a wonderful man, served in the U.S. Navy, doctor, honorable guy, he's fighting for Islamic moderation and ecumenical theology. People like that should be on the new voice of America, broadcasting to the Middle East, people from the Middle East who want to rebuild a new kind of Islam. There was a meeting and the central university for teaching Sunni Islam around the world, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, a couple of two or three years ago. And they issued a manifesto saying, no one shall be deemed an infidel. The different religions have to live together. I actually think, I suspect anyway, that the horrors of ISIS made them realize this has gone too far. We know that the head of Egypt has been saying, Islam cannot be the thing that causes people to be scared in the bed at night. We need to have a different way to go about this. I think they finally bought into the phrase, Jack Kennedy used it as an honorable address. When you try to ride the back of the tiger, you sometimes wind up inside. And I think they're trying to reform this. That was a great phrase then and it's still wise now. And so we need to support the ecumenical Muslim reformers who deserve our support. And then we need to be more proactive. Even countries that we're allied with. And I respect there were reasons why America has an alliance with Saudi Arabia, even though we have some strong disagreements of some things they do, but they are trying to modernize, they've actually reduced their hate propaganda. Well, as the administration actually said to them, we'll work with you against Iran, but not if you're going to indoctrinate your people in the hatred that leads them to get onto planes with boxcars and come and kill us. Guess what? The Saudis reduce the hate propaganda. They're on the track to a much better situation over there. We should work with them. And those countries that don't go that way, well, sorry, you're not buying our F-16s. You either take that stuff off your media, stop training people to kill us before we're going to help you up. There's a lot we can do. My last area of inquiry, Hank, if you don't mind, you wrote this book and I think we're talking at a time really before Putin became Putin. And here every day we see the atrocities, the war crimes, we see the genocide unfolding. It's really fairly disgusting. And for the most part, the world stands by, we observe, we comment, but we haven't stopped it yet, still happens. And he doubles down, so it still happens more. Mike, my question to you, from all that you know and all you've written and all you've thought about, and your study of hate and genocide, your study of all the psychological implications, the human implications, what can be done about him? What needs to be done about him? Can you take someone who is using these superpower things like modern media, modern propaganda, and somehow neutralize him? I don't mean that in the termination sense, but in a conceptual sense, how do you neutralize his effect of activating hatred and genocide? And you point out it's a tough task when you've got someone in a dictatorial position over a geographical entity of a nation state. How do we get in there? There may be things we can do on the cyber front, certainly. I'm not deeply schooled in that, but there are people working on that where we can get into the cyber lanes of communication and come to them. It's often like whack-a-mole. You set down a site or pops up somewhere else, but you know what? Keep up the chase. That's a worthy investment. Or you don't know that China and Russia and Iran spends hundreds of millions of dollars on cyber people who attack Western centers of power. We should be doing the same thing against this propaganda. I do think that it's very hard to stop what someone like Putin does domestically within the country, but where we have more openings for influence, like in the Middle East, where we can, we should be, there we have opportunities to support alternative groups that are working from a moderation and more ecumenical approaches. And I'll say something that's maybe a little bit controversial among political scientists, but I've come to conclude this from empirical evidence. If you wanna be in a place where you're immune from possible genocides and terrorism, you wanna live in a mature liberal democracy. There is empirical evidence that no form of human association is more immune to that mass violence than mature liberal democracies. The minute you go into countries that are not like that, you have many more risk factors for genocide. Cause besides propaganda, which I listened to my book, I did one chapter on, so what are the other contributing causes? You know, this stuff is never a single cause. Corrupt governance, which generates rage against the governing authorities who are fleecing their citizens and starts this us versus them thing. Oppression, when people fear they can't vocally speak out in a fear society, well, they're gonna pick up weapons if they feel their backs are in squall, right? All these forms of bad governance, oppressive governance, corrupt governance, they tend to raise the threshold for the us versus them tensions and the propaganda that goes with it. And you'll see this happening around the world. So I do support in the longterm, not that we should be invading countries left and right and telling them we're telling you what to do, but we should be supporting liberal reformers around the world, which has always been sort of the American mission to some degree that we're the friends of those who believe in freedom. And it turns out in an age of weapons of mass destruction, freedom isn't just good for human flourishing, turns out to be the most secure guarantor against mass killing. Here, here, Hank, here, here in the sense that what you're talking about, the analysis you make could actually save the world. I don't mean to extend it that far, but it goes in the right direction and the lessons that you are learning and speaking about and encouraging other people to learn are really important in a time when we are at a pivot and inflection in terms of autocracy versus democracy. Thank you so much. Henry Hank Coppeld, a former federal prosecutor, joins us from New Haven, Connecticut. Really appreciate the discussion and your thoughts on the subject. Thanks so much, Jay. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.