 Concerning populism, very important things. You defy populism in your speech with right populism. But there is left populism in Europe, for example, Cinque Stelle, Five Stars, or Podemos, or... That's why I said the left-right division is... No, that's absolutely... There is populism, I think, that is very interesting and to liberal tendency. It's not only something purely negative, it's a kind of chance. If we will regard populism at something of the old, of the resurgence of fascism or leftism or Stalinism and so on, so it will grow. We need to understand that phenomenon as critical. Maybe it is the birth of a new form of critical theory, not left, nor right, beyond left or right. So I think that populism represents in the United States as well because Trump is populist president, Putin is absolutely populist, but he is not right nor left, neither left nor left. So I think that populism in the United States, in Russia, in Europe, represents something more than we think. Maybe we educate populism to speak with populist movement, to understand instead of demonizing it. Because now liberal discourse is populism is growing, that is new danger. We should find the way how to resist. But maybe we need to make a kind of dialogue with populism. So maybe include and not exclude populism in our democratic system. I have to report to you that in the United States, at least, populism is the exact opposite of critical thinking. The exact opposite. Populism in the United States and elsewhere from what I read, but I know the populism where I live, is essentially the politics of emotion and of high emotion, and it places an almost mystical faith in the wisdom of the people. Now one of the things, wait, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no. There is nothing what's so ever new about populism, and there is nothing what's so ever new about the mystical faith in the wisdom of the people. These are very old ideas, and in my view very old mistakes. Because one of the things that history shows... The Kabbalah tradition is the greatest achievement of human spirit. My friend, I have studied the Kabbalah my whole life in the Hebrew language, and I'm here, and I have to tell you that it has absolutely nothing to do with the wisdom of the people. What history shows is that the wisdom of the people frequently becomes justifications for terrible crimes, and that what passes as the wisdom of the people can lead directly to evil. And the American system certainly, when the founders wrote our constitution, they considered populism. They called it direct democracy, and they ruled it out in favor of representative democracy precisely so as to make possible deliberation and rational consideration of the issues facing the country. Maybe there's a little default there. Well, so far so good. Well, no, but I have to also say at the point when we were discussing the idea of democracy, now, coming from Afghanistan, we have been at the graceful receiving end of American democracy in the form of two disastrous, faked elections. And two presidents and a mafia system at the end of the day. There is very little fate in the idea of what is American democracy. It's been put into challenge as well in Iraq, for example. In the list of things that you cited, and I agree with you in terms of going back and trying to understand the internal forces of this, don't you think it is also about time for us to go back and understand what is the American democratic, political democratic system, making a distinction, because as well being a Canadian, our form of practice of the democratic political system is rather different, and there are some safeguards put in place against what exactly you described in terms of the takeover by the populists. But in America, it is the force of the material, the powerful, and the sort of capital economy that has corrupted somehow the political system in my view. But I'd like to hear what do you think internal forces that are... Well, quickly, two things. First, as an Afghan, you can thank both Russia and the United States. They both have destroyed my country greatly, yes, thank you. Not you per se, but your armies. Second, and again, I think Leon's exactly right. Two things that are happening. One is the system that was designed was designed in order to favor deliberation, to avoid the passions of the moment. But for the reasons that I suggested earlier, we are now being overtaken by the passions of the moment. The unbridled flow of information creates so much pressure now on decision makers to make decisions immediately, to just react, to just do something, to just act, that that process of deliberation is taken away. And that's one of the greatest dangers, I think, that we face. But the truth of the matter is, for all of the challenges that we have now, we have self-correcting mechanisms. And we've gone through these periods throughout our history. We went through McCarthyism. We went through McCarthyism. We went through the 1960s in the turmoil there. We've gone through a series of challenges, a civil war. But these self-correcting mechanisms usually ensure that once we've managed to get everything wrong, we eventually get it right. So right now, we still have a strong, functioning, independent media that calls truth to power. We still have a strong, functioning, effective judiciary. They're very, very courageous when they deal with local stories, but not the same when it applies to international. No, but I'm just saying in terms of our own positions, right? And I still believe in the resilience of those systems, despite the fact that unfortunately, we seem to have right now a president who's taken a page out of the book of other leaders in going after those very sources that check the power of any one power center. Tony, about those media in the United States of America, I respectfully disagree with you because nobody reads them or watches them anymore. We know as a result that Facebook took over and that Mr. Putin knew how to use Facebook to create, quote unquote, his fake news. And Alexander, in the interview you gave to our newspaper, which by the way is a very good newspaper and more people should read it, you were in favor of getting Trump into power and I cannot connect Kevin Trump, in your view as president of the United States of America, with your idea that every nation or civilization will stick to its own idea. Why is it that Putin, certainly you did not leave America alone? Why interfere in elections? So our dream is that America lives alone the world. Leave the world alone. Leave the world alone. So if America will concentrate as Trump promised on itself and will try to make it great again inside, that's the only dream. So we could help America to return to the greatness without us, without the other world because in Trump we have remarked the third party, he was anti-establishment candidate. He was a kind of trickster going against traditional Republicans, traditional Democrats and that was a kind of voice of the silent majority of American people that has chosen something else that American elite interventionist, imperialist, hegemonistic wants. So that was the hope for us. Maybe after coming to the White House we are a little bit disappointed by Trump but nevertheless we still hope because he tries now to understand where he is. So that is the first step and that is promising something. Maybe finally to the end of his presidency he will understand something in the inner and external politics but now he has stopped at least negative agenda of the United States of America including in the Middle East. So we are grateful to Mr. Trump because he has left us a little bit alone. That was precisely, he was blamed for that by Levy, by Bernard Levy. So I agree with his analysis but from the other point. Now I understand the freedom that you are talking about. Freedom from the United States. Yes, exactly. The United States will consider leaving the world alone when Russia considers leaving the world alone. As an Afghan, I would say please Russia and please America leave the world alone. I agree with you. Hold on one second. Hold on, let me explain that. When you get involved, no, let me explain that. When the power and superpowers get involved in proxy wars and in advancing their own interests. Whether it's at Afghanistan, whether it's any of the other countries around the world or whether it was in the 70s, Latin America. The problem with that is if you want to help the Middle East, Afghanistan do it through humanitarian help, do it through medical help, do it through educational help but leave your armies and militaries aside because they create disastrous results and we have seen it a few times. We have seen it repeated and I agree with a previous debate earlier in the first round table where the idea came about. I think it was Yvonne who said just because we have advanced so technologically we are under some kind of an illusion that in terms of our human advances we have also achieved something great but I think there has been a regression. Technologically, a lot of advancement has happened and we're all talking about Facebook and the rest of it but in terms of the development of the humanist thought in terms of the development of democracy in terms of the development of even liberalism and the idea of intervention, non-intervention we are still a stack in a century behind and no further thinking and development has happened unless we are really willing to invest in that and bring our humanist thinking and development of our human thought to the level of our technological and scientific achievement the countries involvement in other countries militarily are going to produce more disasters and Afghanistan is a particular case in a study and I encourage people to go and actually look at this history of the last 30 years where I grew up in that war fought against the Russians I was a radical Islamist and I moved to the West and I'm also skeptical of the American foreign policy involved in all of the region so as an outsider to both of these I would say we need to rethink and re-evaluate internally our own system