 In the history of revolution by our friend Trotsky, he makes this claim that Russian. Your friend Trotsky. My friend Trotsky, also a Leon. It's because of the name. But he makes this claim that the Russian revolution will be the last revolution. But it is because at that time, he thought that that revolution would transform the masses into individuals, a united humanity which will cherish freedom and human dignity. So the final question is what kind of revolution are we waiting for? Should we working on to have this idea that we will have this free society where people can live in dignity and a united humanity? So let's make it around to this. A Helsinki revolution. I.e. a revolution which bases itself on what appear to be the desires of the majority of the population, which are not that difficult to find out. And makes a kind of, I mean, some of the desires and the hopes are unattainable. But nevertheless, to base itself on what the mass of the people want and not what in the past, all revolutions in Russia have been what the intellectuals thought the mass of the people wanted. And so I think such a revolution might one day occur. Option one. Michael. Well, first of all, the last revolution that Trotsky referred to, the Russian Revolution, I think, remembered the 100th anniversary 10 days ago. And we spent in Czechoslovakia our whole childhood learning about the great October Revolution. And gradually we discovered and we realized that first of all, it was not a revolution, but a military coup. Second, it didn't take place in October, but in November and said it was not great. So that's our experience. But there is some kind of a revolution that I could envisage and that Batslav Havel envisaged in his speech to the joint session of the US Congress. He famously said that the salvation of this world lies in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human humbleness, humility, and fast and foremost in human responsibility. And I believe that a large part of the current crisis is that the responsibility that each of us feels for not just for ourselves and our families, but also for people around us. And their destiny has disappeared to a large extent. Aleksandr, I am in favor of conservative revolution. I think that Seoul has roots. And the roots of Seoul lead to heaven. So a return to the roots, it's not necessarily a return to the earth, it could be a return to the heavenly motherland. And this return, because revolution etymologically in Latin, signifies return. And I think it's always possible because I don't believe in a linear time. I think the time is different. So I think that communist revolution was a bad one that was a very, very, very negative experience. And that was a kind of simulacrum of real revolution that was prepared in the beginning of the century. And the last word I would say that revolution should be humanistic because we are endangered to lose our human nature. And maybe in order to save it or to reaffirm it, we are really need not only evolution because evolution lives in some other direction, but real and serious and very problematic and dramatic at the same time revolution. Lelofa? I say a man, Franz Fenon, who is an Algerian, talks about how in a struggle is that we discover our humanity. So I would say a struggle for democracy, a struggle for understanding liberalism, for advancement of it. On the top of that, when it comes to questions of revolutions, one of the reasons why I have been against intervention from the West is that I wish for the Arab Muslim world to own their own revolutions, to be allowed to achieve a certain degree of maturity, that even if there is loss of life, which will be colossal at all points under dictatorships or without it, I would have loved to see the Iraqis would have liberated themselves from the hands of Saddam as I would have wished as well the same to happen in Syria. But not to shock people, but at this point in my life, after watching so much of the violence that is prevailing, the moment of crisis in the US, in Western world, in Asia, and everywhere else, I like the last revolution to be a nonviolent revolution. I would say I like to go back to Gandhi and try to find seeds of that thinking that we must have the time, the ability, and the tolerance to not resign to violence, not resign to military actions. And instead, at a time when everybody else is, I'm sure, calling for more power and more aggression, I would say it is upon intellectuals. I am a big believer in nonviolence, and I believe that will be the salvation of humanity at the end of the day. If we want to survive, we live in one planet hurt. It's a common home of all of us. And in order to save it, whether it's from environmental disaster or from military disasters, history has proven, looking at the old conflicts in the Middle East and all the other parts of the world, with all cyclical nature of everything, the ebbs and flow, we have to start a new way of thinking and reject violence as any means to achieve a civil human society. So for me, that would be the day. I may not live to see it. But like the notion someone thought of stopping slavery because it was wrong, not because we thought it would succeed, but because it was wrong. And I like to propose that in our educational system, we must start to talk about nonviolence as an ideology and try to understand and find means of actually implementing it. So as a thought, because it's the right thing to do to stop violence at all forms, and not because we may succeed, but because it's the right thing to do. I think there will be no end of the day. And I think there will be no last revolution. I think there will be no definitive climactic event. I believe in moral progress, and I believe in social progress. But I believe that this progress is neither linear nor irreversible nor incontrovertible. I think the struggle for this progress is unceasing, absolutely unceasing. And a step forward will provoke two steps back, and our children will still be fighting for some of the principles that we're fighting for now. And I'm reminded there was an important early 16th century Jewish thinker in Prague who once said, he said in a sermon on the subject of frivolity of all things, he said in a sermon that the human being, he said, may be defined as the creature that aspires to perfection. This is an old Aristotelian idea, nothing original. And then he said, but if the definition of this creature is the aspiration to perfection, then in such a creature, perfection itself must be regarded as a shortcoming and a flaw. That's what I said. I have to say, I think that defines very well actually our own national aspiration, which constantly falls short of the mark, but is then constantly working to achieve the mark, knowing that it's working to achieve it that is what we're all about, trying to create a more perfect union. And our union is profoundly imperfect and we're discovering frailties and vulnerabilities with it every day. A part of it requires coming back, as Leon said, to some first principles and reaffirming them. But our great realist philosopher, Ronald Niebuhr, said very famously that man and woman's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but their inclination toward injustice makes democracy necessary. And that's exactly, I think, something that needs to be reasserted. Look, you had a very interesting discussion also on the first panel and you mentioned Thucydides in the context of our Chinese friends. And Thucydides was also very famous for something called the Thucydides trap. That is the notion that as one country rises, it inevitably finds itself in conflict with the countries that it's overtaking. The one country, at least historically, thus far that's managed to avoid the trap was actually the United States. After World War II, when we emerged as the sole superpower, we could have done a number of things. We could have done what we did after World War I, which is retreat, come home. And then, of course, we had economic dislocation. We became protectionist. We had dictators rise in Europe. We became isolationist. And we wound up with a genocide. We wound up with a global conflagration. We wound up with an economic crisis that spanned the world. After World War II, we made another decision. Instead of imposing the power that we had over everyone else, we helped design a system in which, at least on paper, everyone had a voice and everyone had a vote. And it was counterintuitive because we restrained our own power. We bound ourselves to the same rules and obligations and others. And this was at the essence and the heart of enlightened self-interest. The result of this system was, for all of its imperfections, other countries did not bandwagon against us in the way throughout history they had when one power emerged. We had new markets for our products. That was the self-interest. We had new partners to deal with complex global challenges and new allies to deter and ultimately counter aggression. And that system, for all of its imperfections and the fact that apartheid lasted, colonialism lasted, not all conflict ended, nonetheless, wars between the great powers stopped. We haven't had any. There was a certain amount of stability and predictability and transparency that allowed other countries to grow and a global middle class to start to emerge. Hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty. And again, if you look at the very big picture at the highest level, the world, yes, not just the United States, the world over the last 70 plus years is healthier, wealthier, wiser, more secure and more tolerant despite everything we're seeing in this particular moment because this arc is not a perfect one. It's not linear, as Leon said, but it is in danger. And unless it's defended, but also amended to account for the fact that too many people do not feel part of the story, then it will fail. But then what will happen? Instead of a liberal world order with its manifest imperfections, we will have an illiberal world order. And the values that the liberal order order seeks to advance, democracy, human rights, the freedoms we were talking about earlier, the progressive norms that it tries to bring with it, protecting workers, protecting the environment, protecting an intellectual property. All of that will go by the wayside. And we'll have this multipolar world, but it will be, and there'll be an order and Russia will control its area, its sphere of influence. China will do the same thing in its, but it will be a liberal. And I don't think that's the world we wanna live in. Okay, the final word. Thank you, Tony. To you Shaik Rashid, the last revolution or because you're the leader of the Inara party, which means Renaissance party, what is the kind of Renaissance or last revolution you're dreaming about? I think that our world is developing in bad way, in false way. We see starvation in part of the world. We see apartheid cleansing sort of eradication of some people like what happened in some countries. We see hegemony, the superpower, dominate other peoples, and we see many military interventions. We have to, the world needs permanent revolutions, not one revolution, but to revolt starting by revolt against our self, our desires, our egoism, because disease needs real, reeducate people to struggle against their bad desires. We need to revolt against poverty in the world. There is disability between rich and poor, so we need revolution against poverty, against intervention military, we against any sort of a humanity. We have to save nature. Nature is in danger by the bad way of development, so we have to revolt, permanent revolution, as the Quran said, yai yuhannasu inna khalaqna kum imbakarin wa unta wa jaalna kum shuuban wa qabai li ta'arafu. All my people, we have, created you from male and female, not to fight each other, but to know each other. Thank you. Okay.