 All right, the four o'clock block here on ThinkTech on a given Tuesday. We have Peter Hoffenberg and Mark Dahlinger, both academicians, both historians, if you will. And in the middle, I mean, how strange it is in the middle of the Trump debate, Trump-Biden debate. Here we are talking about anti-Semitism and all the negative and hateful things that are happening in the United States. Gee, there is a connection, isn't there? Now, we're talking about the expression of anti-Semitism in the United States, part two. This is not necessarily the last part. There are more parts to come. So the first question, before we get into what's happened since part one, is what is going on in the debate here? Do we see signs of anti-Semitism in the debate, as you have seen it so far, Peter? So far, not explicitly so far. But there's certainly, I didn't get to hear the economics question. So as far as the COVID questions. It depends how far, and you know, Mark and I have talked about this, how far you want to push the anti-Semitic narrative or trope. But I don't think so far this evening that's been an issue per se. I mean, there are other examples clearly of what I would call anti-Semitism and those who have known it for years. And I don't think it's surprising that an individual who is proud of being a racist and proud of being a misogynist is also an anti-Semite. I mean, it's not as if those three don't go along in a lot of cases. But explicitly the 20 minutes I heard, no, I mean, I'm happy to talk with you and Mark about other examples. But it's just beginning and you haven't heard, for example, I haven't talked about Israel. I haven't talked about really explicit financial matters. All those sort of line fields, right, when you get to banking, et cetera. There are always references when it's foreign policy, the references. So we haven't heard those yet. Yeah. Okay. But we've heard them in other contexts. Mark, how do you feel about this? Agree with Peter? I always agree with Peter, but I'll say I haven't watched the debate yet. So I'll have to catch up on that. What we're seeing in this country is really the mainstreaming of what used to be fringe right-wing ideas. And we have a president who all of the time equivocates, and some of the time is coming out with classic anti-Semitic tropes about Jews in power, Jews in money, dual loyalty issues around the state of Israel, while able to cloak that with support he's getting from some segments of the American Jewish community and from the fact that, of course, his daughter and son-in-law and grandchildren are Jewish as well. So that makes the argument more challenging, or rather it really reflects the fact that American Jews are existing in a number of different places in American society simultaneously. All that said, in my work, writing and teaching on anti-Semitism, he is right from the playbook in the way that he is using stereotypes about Jews as a way to marginalize Jews and to empower those who wish to bring harm. Yeah. Let me go further, Peter, on this. He may win, right? By hook or quirk, he may win the election. He may stay in power. He may win tariff. It's quite likely. I'd like to say, at that point, it'd be a lame duck president, but I'm not sure that's the way he sees it. He feels that we owe him another term and maybe a life term. And so he may never, well, the likelihood is he'll never face another election, but he'll be president in that case. And my question to you is, you know, if he has these feelings of anti-Semitism, despite members of his family and all that, isn't it so that he will have an unrestrained level of power and his inclinations will be more visible if he is unrestrained? I think the answer draws upon Mark's excellent point that one of the things looking out today, and Mark put it well, that Jews occupy different places in society. Another way to look at it is, right, Jews are not monolithic. And so to help answer your question, I could see him continuing the ultra-religious argument, his appeal to religiosity, and that peels off Orthodox Jews who are pretty favorable towards Trump and the Orthodox community opposes the masks, et cetera. And that's not to pick on the Orthodox, it's just to recognize that their identification as Jews is a religious identification. And he's been able to, in his own mind, try to peel off people who make Israel what they think of as security for Israel, the number one issue. So to answer your question, I think Mark is absolutely right. Those are two groups right within Judaism, and it's not like they don't merge. I mean, I'm not going to speak for Mark, but I am a Zionist. It's just my vision of Israel is an open democratic society where the idea of exchanging airplane arrivals with the United Arab Emirates is not the key to a greater future, right? So we disagree there. But I would say that if two of his objectives are to feel like he is worshiped and to feel like he represents the religious truth, however he holds a Bible, he'll continue that way. And his vision of diplomacy is really putting into play real estate deals. I mean, he's last to a really real estate deals. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are basically real estate deals without paying attention to the tenants and without paying attention to a low income, low rent option. And I don't see those changing by any means. And so I think he doesn't care about, I mean, he really doesn't care. And again, I don't want to speak for Mark, so let Mark say this for himself, but he doesn't speak for, for example, my circle of American Jews who believe in Israel, but also generally believe in an open society and democratic rights who believe that people have a right to their own religion, but that's not to impose that religion on the public policy of others. I mean, we're kind of classic assimilationists folks and he's never, he's never going to appeal to those folks, which is why, you know, I would say and Mark can correct me that if he gets 20% of the Jewish vote, that's very good for him. I mean, I can't, I can't really see more than one out of five. Mark, can you, can you respond to Peter, but also in the process, can you answer my question, which is if he's unrestrained, if he becomes more a dictator, and I believe he will, if he's in for another term or a continuation of power over that works, he will, we will see more open anti-Semitism from him. Yeah. Well, first I'll say that I'm actually not confident he's going to win re-election and of course none of us knows in these terms and even the pollsters don't know, but that said, when I look at the midterm elections and the flip of the house and the way voter turnout increased there, and this is times five times 10 of the interest and the intent in the midterms. And I think the debate is all about getting out the vote, counting the votes. And that's what this election really is. And I think that our movement to the Postal Service and to voting by mail and the rest of it is really a reflection of the fact, I don't think we have too many voters who are going to be flipping one side or the other. The more people vote on whichever side is going to be the side that wins, especially in those seven or eight swing states. I have a different idea about, and it's kind of contrarian on what would happen if he would be re-elected. The notion that a lame duck politician has the ability to do what one wouldn't do because one has an election coming has never worked for Trump. He has done it all regardless. He has done it despite. He has never sought to represent anything more than his base the whole time. So in a weird, ironic way, we might see four more years of the same, which is to say if there is going to be an increase in antisemitism and all the other isms that would occur, there would be two antidotes. One would be yet another impeachment. And the second would be a 25th amendment by his own cabinet that he would have to fall into one of those two places in order for it to occur. And the interesting part for me, relative to the New York Times article that came out two days ago, which it looks like they're dropping piece after piece after piece. And now there's a whole lot more journalists that are going to keep diving deep into each of these. At the federal level, there's going to be issues. And there's also going to be issues at the state level where he does not have the power of the pardon. So I think that a reelection would be four more years of Trump being Trump. And now, ironically, because he's lame duck, probably the most intensive effort by his detractors to limit him in every way that they possibly can in terms of impeachment. Mark is a younger person than I am. So he's very hopeful and optimistic. And I hope you're right. My fear, though, is the beast has been unleashed. And regardless of what Trump does, we have the proud boys. We have the Charlottesville marchers, et cetera. So I hope that Mark is right. But my fear is in the history of social movements like this, is one's extremism has some kind of legitimacy. It's very hard to put the genie, and I'm sorry for the Orientalist image, and I don't mean it in a Western way. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. So I would worry, actually, less about Trump, but really more about even the issue of the mask is just unleashed kind of anti-government, anti-expertise. It's my freedom to get sick and get you sick. I hope Mark is right. I just see it as what we say here, it's tsunami. It's going to be hard to control it. And especially if Republicans, I think Mark is right, if Democrats can do better at the local level. But if state legislatures continue to be dominated in many cases by Republicans, it's going to be hard. So I guess my focus is less on Trump, but those people who, for one reason or another, either agree or worship or see him as a reason to do what they want to do, and you know if they're religious, magical thinking, if he were to lose, he's to become a martyr. And there's a new who says, I hope 110% of Mark is right. I'm just a little less, as usual, I'm the depressing old Jew, a little less optimistic, but I do hope he's right. I'll agree, actually, with Professor Haufenberg there, because if you want to get to the more painful truth, when Trump was first elected, the reaction of many white liberals was they were horrified. How could this possibly happen? I recommend the Saturday Night Live episode, the Saturday after the election, when you're getting sort of all the whites watching the TV screen and they're utterly horrified, and Chris Rock was a guest host that night, and the black comedians are totally unfazed by what Trump is saying, because this has been their life experience. So as Professor Haufenberg was accurately stating, this is more than Trump. This is the fact that one third of the country is giving these views 90% approval ratings even three and a half years later. So in one sense, our fear would be Trump. The greater fear is what he represents, because if Biden wins, he is still going to have to deal with a third of the nation, which is literally taking up arms with the apparent acquiescence of Trump in order to defend what they think America should be. I mean, we think of isms. It's Trumpism, and Trumpism will persist. And I think that it's pretty much a done deal about the Supreme Court. I can't see you're not winning the Senate. And so again, between Trump's four years and McConnell's 25 or 30 years, the entire judiciary, I think we talked about this last time, right? The entire judiciary has spent at least one weekend at a Federalist Society retreat. So you have this interest in connection where Trumpism in public is going to probably get a legal reaffirmation, which Supreme Court in the 6th, 3, is going to decide that when Thomas Jefferson sat down to write the original document, there was no such thing as an AR-15. I mean, that's the problem with this originalist argument. If you want to make the originalist argument, then you have to recognize that they had no idea about these issues. But I would worry that the extremism, that's not so dissimilar. You guys all know the tradition. If you appeal to the Nazis, you lose the discussion. So I'm going to willingly lose the discussion. It's not so unusual in compared to central Europe between the wars where the state was overtaken and there was an extremist party, and most those in the middle ended up losing. And they lost. And remember, the Nazis believed in the rule of law. That's one of the first things the Nazis did, right? Besides get rid of people like Mark and me from the universities, they appointed judges. They weren't fools. And the judges could turn a blind eye towards what the brown shirts were doing and it was protected by law. And that's the kind of frightening. And I'm not calling the Supreme Court necessarily the F word or anything like that. But in their originalist interpretations, I can see some consistency or at least allowing those folks that Mark and I just talked about to get away, legally get away, not be punished for what they're doing. It's a scary prospect. Mark, how close is the parallel with the rise of Hitler? Oh, thank you. I was going to take Professor Haffenberger and his expertise in that area and say that I tend not to like to draw comparisons between the 1930s and today. And I think you're right in general, definitely. I'm just. Right, because there's fundamental difference in the context and the structures of power. OK, having said that, there's a deeper question. And the deeper question is about American exceptionalism. How different is this country from other countries and other times and other places? For most of American history and in my field of American Jewish history, there has been a prevailing idea that American democracy, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution has created a framework of government that would never have what happened here happen. Any other place that's bad, you can go back to Nazi Germany as well. What we've witnessed in the previous few years, in the shock and horror by many people to see how could this happen here is the notion that it happens everywhere and it can happen here. And here's a deeper thing. It's been happening here for centuries. It's just that those of us, like the three of us in white male America, are not living it or seeing it that vividly. So yes, there are parallels. And in this sense, it's more a consciousness change among white Americans than it is an actual historical change and a notion that we somehow were always going to be immune from what so many countries in much of world history has dealt with as routine. What do you think about Peter's thought about violence? Whoever wins, they'll be in the street. I've seen video of armed skinheads. They look like militia. They're fully armed with uniforms and assault rifles. And then I've seen Black Lives Matter footage of African-Americans with similar uniforms, except it's Black. This is in Louisville right now. We are only a few weeks away from the election, and there is the possibility of violence. Will these groups be shooting at each other? Oh, my goodness, I'm an historian. I'm not predicting the future and certainly not on that question. I will say, of course, there's always a fear that there'll be violence from all sorts of extremes. That said, I think there's differences between violence as sporadic and disconnected to institutional power and the opposite. So what's worrisome is when the president of the United States is emboldening folks to be violent in order to advance a nationalist cause, which has that against sporadic violence. And sadly, we live in a violent society, and it happens as sort of one-offs in different places. It's about risk assessment. And I make a different risk assessment to different kinds of violence and the implications of each of the acts of violence also differs from one to the other. I would only add that in the case of most similar circumstances in history, the key actor has been the official armed forces. If you look at most major violent disruptions, the Soviet Revolution essentially began as a mutiny if the French army had not gone with the revolutionaries. The English army had not supported the overthrow of the Jacobites. In fact, if the American army had not suppressed Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion, and from what I can see, the armed forces outside of the small pickings that Barr has suggested, like guards of federal prisons or border guards, the Navy, army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard have no interest in inciting violence and supporting a president who does not abide. That's very weird. These are weird times. And Peter Haufenberg throwing out a cheer to the armed forces is strange as supporting the FBI. But these are weird times. And I would say to answer your question, I think Mark is right, there will be sporadic violence. I mean, we've seen it already. I don't think we should expect it to go away. I think it probably will get worse. But the notion that somehow the whole country or major cities are gonna become some kind of post-apocalyptic film, I find that unlikely. You were talking before the show. The only thing that scares me, and we're back to my old war horse, so to speak, is again, there are just too many guns in this country. So the guy or woman has got three kids and feels threatened is gonna reach for their gun. You know, a lot of these things, the idiot kid from, you know, 17-year-old, you know, he sure is entitled across the border, but what the hell is a 17-year-old doing with an AR-15? You know, and Louisville will be very different. If legally, Taylor's boyfriend could not own a gun, right? I haven't heard the NRA talk about, you know, his right to gun ownership, but he had right to own a gun and he had the right to defend himself against a force entry into his house. It's a strict second amendment, but I haven't heard the NRA talk, you know, they're not funding his defense. So they're simply too many guns. You spoke before we began on air about an event that took place involving what, a governor, and some right-wing, Michigan. Can you talk about that, and what does that tell us about, you know, the expression of anti-Semitism? Well, a couple of things, and Mark, please correct and add to me, that the background is the quarantine. And the quarantine was very strict in Michigan, and I mean strict in just a neutral way, right? Not good or bad, it was just things like barber shops, coffee shops, et cetera, were shut down. And a significant number of people in Michigan, which shouldn't surprise us, because upstate Michigan and upstate New York have more militia groups than any other state. So they're there, and they've been there a long time. They decided that this was an affront to personal freedom, another example of the deep state, sort of like Bundy in the West. But it's apropos of our discussion today, because the governor is a duly and properly elected Jewish woman. So it wasn't just a matter of militia. You know, they had the Nazi flags, they had the Confederate flags, and they publicly threatened to decapitate her. Physically decapitate her. Well, they threatened to, I mean, right. And I don't know enough about the law, but that seems to be the verbalization of a terrorist act. But I don't know enough about the law to say, but they expressed it publicly. And it was part of the congressional hearings at Barre, because the congresswoman from Washington, a South Asian woman, I don't remember her name, she talked about this, how this happened nearly simultaneously with the allegedly peaceful clearing out of the area, so the president could go to church, almost simultaneously. And she asked in a reasonable way, I mean, where was the federal government? The federal government wasn't protecting a Jewish governor who was threatened. And this is not the only governor who's been threatened. The Kentucky governor actually outside of the Kentucky governor's home, some white supremacists are hunging him in effigy. He's a white Christian governor. So I was just bringing it up in the fact that among the things that people are worried about anti-Semitism, the FBI and the AGL and the Southern Poverty Law Center have all admitted that white supremacy as an organized terrorist threat is right now the single most significant organized, expressed terrorist threat. And I sent you guys an article today, which I just finished about the connections between these guys and QAnon. And so we have 20 to 30 candidates who are spreading these kinds of white supremacists. So I was just introducing that before we discussed as something that worries me more than, for example, what some students decide to petition, just looking at the larger world. Well, we're going to Mark. What does this present to us? It seems like the skinheads, the ultra-right, the militia, they have put anti-Semitism more central in their agenda, doesn't it? I don't think it's been any more central than it's always been. I think ideologically it's been there. What has not happened before is a sense of legitimacy and that they have the capability and the public support to articulate it sometimes without their faces covered. You know, this is even before COVID in order to do it. The threat is not the ideology. That's always been there. The threat is the centralizing of the ideology. And, you know, as Peter said, the proliferation of high-powered weapons in civilian hands. And when you put that together with a federal government, which is encouraging this sort of thing, that is a translation for risk of assault and violence against Jews, blacks, women, LGBTQ named the group. Even if Richard Nixon, even if Richard Nixon had not liked MLK Jr. walking and he looked at the whites attacking them, I don't think he would have said they're good people on both sides. And that was a very telling comment. No, in fact, they're not good people on both sides. There may be bad people on the other side, that's true. But that doesn't mean that folks who are marching with 56 cent Tiki torches are good people. So I think Mark is absolutely right. It's a kind of legitimacy from the top. It's not even, you know, there've always been these problems locally. Local sheriffs, local electoral boards, local educational boards, it's always been this problem. But until recently, until recently you had to, you know, listen, you had to listen to the Nixon tapes to realize as virulent ideas, but it'd be pretty rare for him. And I take him, one of the old parlor gains in my family's dinner before my parents passed away was who did more damage to the US, the United States? Nixon, Reagan or Shrub, this was before Trump. And I've always helped Nixon. So to say Nixon, to compare Nixon is not an idle comparison for me. And it's just somebody who at least what shocks me and make me mark a US American story as well is a kind of narcissism. Like Trump just doesn't care what he says. And it just, for me as age 60, I don't think, even like Wallace tried to couch his terms, you hated what he said, but he tried to couch them. And it's this like eight year old narcissism that, you know, I'm just gonna say whatever, I'm just gonna let the id go. You know, I'm just gonna say it. And that, you know, that's surprising. No matter if that, you've marked those marks about modern American political history that I do. But that seems to always shock me when I hear Trump open his mouth. Mark, can we talk about the University of Illinois and the resolution by Black Lives Matter, which seems to be anti-Semitic? That was in Haaretz, the Israeli paper yesterday. And I wonder where that fits. What does it tell us? What is happening on American campus? That's a bunch of questions I actually haven't read it with Yom Kippur yesterday, I've been catching up on my news. The larger question though, about anti-Semitism, you know, first I'd have to read the details because there are lines between critiquing the state of Israel, being anti-Zionist and being anti-Semitic. And as you know, there's a huge debate on what the contours are between each of those three. There's a second larger issue with putting anti-Semitism into a race-based perspective. Saying black anti-Semitism or Black Lives Matter. Because the truth is Black Lives Matter is a slogan to begin with, it's a hashtag. And it's a belief, black lives do in fact matter. And if it turns out that someone believes that black lives matter, they will rally around the cause of racial justice and anti-racism work. Turns out there's a whole lot of different civil rights organizations that align themselves with black lives. Some of them have some people who are critical of the state of Israel's policies. Some who are anti-Zionist ideologically. And I'm sure there's a few who are anti-Semitic and from time to time, we'll insert this sort of language. A few years ago, there was a couple hundred words and a 40,000 word platform. These are not by definition representative. And the notion that we are going to be reductionist about assigning sort of anti-Semitism to Black Lives Matter or to the black community is problematic. Eric Ward, I was on a webinar with him and he said, in answer to this question, he said, he's done a lot of research on anti-Semitism. He's found a root of anti-Semitism. In every case, the cause is anti-Semitism. Whoever says it, wherever it is, whatever side of the political aisle, whatever race, it is anti-Semitism. And the quicker we focus on that, the more we'll be able to get at actually what's happening rather than oftentimes making it sort of a cover to reveal deeper narratives, which are actually going on around racial difference. Well, in this environment, I say political environment, social environment that we've been talking about, it seems to me that anti-Semitism is one of the things that is an expression of hatred and divisiveness in the country. And if you enhance hatred and divisiveness, and you say the skinheads are good people too, you're really saying you can have hatred. Let's do divisiveness. And that kind of environment where the president never stops anybody from this and encourages it with this kind of dog whistle statement over and over, then you get anti-Semitism in the package. It comes along with the ride. Do you agree? Oh yeah, absolutely. That's the, and here's where I have some hope in terms of race relations and the relations between white Jews and blacks. For much of the last 50 or 60 years since World War II, white Jews have enjoyed tremendous social mobility, which is great for the American dream, not great for proximity to communities of color or a sense of consciousness on what's going on with institutional systemic racism. What's happening now with white supremacy, which has at its core anti-Semitism and anti-black racism, is a sense that white Jews and blacks are in fact in the same boat in terms of in this political climate having to fight the same enemy. And here we can actually be marching side by side with more a sense of equality between the two sides, much less than the more paternalistic things that were occurring a couple of generations ago. I think that works if we deemphasize Israel. I think Israel, for both the Jewish community and the non-Jewish community, it's a little bit of a third rail. So I agree entirely with you. And I agree that there is a fundamental linkage, but I also see that those who want to divide or those who want to demonize on both sides often use Israel as the measuring. And that's been Trump's political insight to be able to peel off, to get the Adelson's and others to say that what really makes me a friend of Jews is to be a friend of Israel. And it's the responsibility of people like Mark and myself to say you can be anti-racist and you can be a Zionist and not to say they're mutually exclusive. So I agree entirely with Mark. I'm just thinking as far as political strategy, and this is not to pick on Black Lives Matter by any means at all. I think it's the other side as well, which has decided that the, years ago Mark, you're probably too young because you're a youngster, but this is the way that people used busing. Right, they used busing and affirmative action as a political leverage to try to divide what for want of a better term, I think you've captured sort of a popular front, new deal unity, or at least ideal unity. And politicians tried to use affirmative action and busing 25, 30 years ago. And I think that some understand that Israel is also. So I give the Trumpster some political credit. I don't know if he thought this through, but I think somebody recognized that if you make, you make Israeli issue, right? You're gonna be able to separate yourself from sincere people who see intersectionality. And I don't throw that term out. I think intersectionality and critical race theory are things we need to study, not dismiss the way of the administration. We may decide they're not particularly relevant in the end, but they're important to study. And I think those on the right have figured out that Israel is a good cleavage to exercise. So I agree very much with Mark. I just think we need to be cognizant. So for example, a college petition, in and of itself doesn't necessarily matter that much, but they may be mirroring other people who are using Israel. Yeah, if I could- One thing that comes out of this discussion is that a person who says, a Jewish person who says, I have a little concern about the future. I have concern about anti-Semitism growing in this country. One thing and another, you know, one third of the country seems to be in the wrong place on this. And I'm a little worried that the country is no longer as much a haven as it was for the Jews, say, after the war. So how is a responsible, thoughtful Jewish person living in this country? How is that person to think of this? It's not necessarily a level of concern, but maybe a level of thought or even a level of action. How does a responsible Jewish person deal with it? Yeah, I'll jump in here. First of all, I have two answers and they're going to appear to contradict, but they don't, right? The first is, of course, vote. That's first thing that has to happen. We have an election coming up soon. American Jews who are feeling the rise of anti-Semitism and feeling a greater threat now than in the last 50 or 60 years are absolutely right. And if they're going to fear there's going to be more anti-Semitism, I concur. And this is whether or not Trump is elected because once again, Trump has opened up to let us see what has always existed, but had been less empowered at the time. And this goes to the theme of Jewish vulnerability. When Jews can be killed, while they're praying in synagogue in the United States of America in the 21st century, we have a problem we have not seen in our history. And speaking of white Jews now, we are in a position of power and privilege and prominence across the social and economic landscape that makes us fundamentally different, believe it or not than 1930s Germany and to bring up that parallel, which is to say two things. One, the threat by white Jews when anti-Semitism is something that should bring white Jews into solidarity with black Americans and brown Americans like Latinx, for example, rather than into a sense of oppression, Olympics or competition. Because at the same time that we are suffering, we also have a greater opportunity to leverage the power we have in order to bring systemic changes. So I think the opportunity is to hold the complexity of being a white Jewish American, being vulnerable and powerful at the same time to play as we're working out our new political order. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I can be entirely well put, I would only add that I think we still have the obligation to call out anti-Semitism when it is expressed and to work on that to build a wider coalition, not divide people. But I think that American Jews also do need, they don't need to walk as if they're walking through a minefield and not everything is anti-Semitic. But as you say, if a gentleman with a military-grade weapon who's pissed off about immigration and thinks that Jews allow immigrants in, walks into a shul, okay, that's anti-Semitism. That's something that should be called out. And I think when the AME massacre occurred, rabbis got together and sat down with the minister. I think those happen at that level. But some of the lower-level anti-Semitism, I think it's fair to call out with the sense of I'm calling it out with one hand so that my grasp with you with the other hand can be stronger. And again, you're absolutely right about the danger of analogies, but we can look at the popular front of the 20s and 30s. And the popular front could include capitalist pigs and socialists and communists because the enemy was common, it was fascism. And today the enemy is common, it's racism and nature. That's a common, so I think Mark is absolutely right, voting of course, right? But also when you become part of a coalition to educate, I mean, again, I don't wanna focus on black anti-Semitism because I think you're right, Mark, that's an absurd term. But recently there have been several prominent members of the African community who have said things and then they've sat down with rabbis and said, look, I said the wrong thing. Seems to me that's a reasonable way to resolve an issue in public. Not to demonize the other person, not necessarily boycott them. There is a tremendous amount of ignorance. It's just old style ignorance and probably the existentialist crisis we're dealing with is what I would call the Homer Simpson principle. To be ignorant is good. That's really, that's for like the fundamental issues we're dealing with, right? To be ignorant, to think that the vaccine is gonna cause your child autism when there's no evidence, that's okay. I doubt that. And that's one of the real problem. We have a problem with the enlightenment project and we're not keeping anything that. I doubt you guys are gonna tell me. We have asked all the questions that need to be asked and we have provided all the thoughtful responses we need to respond with. For today. Yes. For today. I guess where I'm going is we're not done yet, are we? And how about doing this again? Okay, can I get commitment from you? I mean, if I lived in the Bay Area, I would have been with Mark. It's often a cycle. You realize you have a published endowed professor here in there. All right. Let's do it again. Mark has a chair. When the restaurant's open. When the restaurant's open. That is the Mount Selina. The only thing if, Mark, if your chair were in constitutional order, that would be a little bit, but he has an endowed chair, so. Okay, we gotta go. Okay. Peter, Mark, thank you so much. Thanks, guys. Stay safe. Everybody stay safe, be well. All right, bye-bye. Thank you. Bye. Bye.