 Could we be less concerned about civil war here on history is here to help with my co-host Peter Huffenberg and our regular contributor, Dean Rosenfeld. Welcome to the show, you guys. Aloha. Thank you. So, you know, I guess we're focused on, you know, the statements that were made maybe a year ago that we're looking for a civil war and that out of the chaos there would be, you know, the red people on one side of the street and the blue people on the other side of the street, they'd be shooting at each other. That seems to have passed. Now we worry about coups and we worry about Lindsey Graham who needs attention where he suggests that, you know, if there's an indictment against Trump, there'll be violence. And some of Trump's other acolytes talking about violence, which is threatening in the sense that it's not reporting the possibility, it's actually sending a dog whistle out. But Gene has another thing that is arguably happening right now, which is even more scary. And I will let Peter Huffenberg introduce her and the scope of our show. All right. Thank you, Jay. Welcome, Gene. Regular viewers, 1.5 million of them who follow us will recognize you. But for the few who don't, Dr. Gene Rosenfeld is one of our local treasures. She has a doctorate in, is it officially history of religion or religious studies? Officially history of religion. And Jay and I who are always confused have asked her to come to talk about a variety of things, religion, religion in violence, religion in nationalism, and Jay who tosses and turns every night worrying about the next pogrom as asked Gene to think through whether civil war would be applicable or a replacement of the government would be applicable. And we're really going to turn to our expertise, particularly about hate groups. Just done a tremendous amount of research about hate and how hate might be transformed into more than just lone wolves, but actually a political system and maybe a political overthrow. So I will try to be as paranoid as Jay for the next 30 minutes. Let me turn to Gene and Jay, what questions do you have for Gene? Well, you know, history, of course, is dynamic. And if you say that at some point in time, people were talking about one thing, like the possibility of a civil war. You also have to build in all the dynamic changes that have happened since then and all the comments that have been made and the possibilities that it's all dynamic. And so can we talk about how this is unfolding with the complexity of our time and the complexity of American politics and what is appearing on the horizon now? So how has it changed since the insurrection? Well, there was fear right after the insurrection that, for example, on January 20th, there would be another uprising in the streets. And there was concern that because there had been an invasion of the government buildings in Michigan prior to January 6th, that this was going to be a national movement that would move out to state capitals, that did not happen. And some people then who were worrying about an actual civil war or insurrection in the streets, like Thomas Ricks, who wrote a recent article, felt that while we we've hit the peak of that threat, and now we're coming down the other side and that's not going to happen. But there is something more insidious going on and of greater importance, I believe, and we can look to history not too long ago for some clues as to what this might mean. And that is basically what I would call a political Litz Krieg. Which is, of course, Hitler's term for a lightning war. And I've always contended, along with other researchers of fascism, that what characterizes fascism rather than another political ideology is how rapidly it moves. It is action through time and it is rapid action through time. And we are seeing this right now. I don't know how many people follow the blog or news outlet Axios online. But Axios came out recently with two articles by Jonathan Swan on what is called Schedule F. Schedule F was a plan that was worked up by a small coterie of loyal Trumpists during the last year of his administration, which is a plan for replacing the civil service of protected bureaucratic offices, mostly manned by careerists, career people, experts and taking away their safeguards so that the next president, Trump, could come in and fire them all and replace them with his candidates. Now, they could do this with up to 50,000 people in the national security agencies, in departments of justice and state and other critical agencies of the US government that had to do with combating challenges to the democratic system. Now, you might ask, OK, that's fine. But if they fired 50,000 of them, where would they find 50,000 of their own people to put them in? That's what worries me. What has been going on, which is insidious, there have been meetings at Mar-a-Lago and near Mar-a-Lago of Trump loyalists who were in his administration, and they have basically drawn the line between those that were disloyal to Trump like William Barr and those that were very loyal to Trump, like Pat Cuccinelli and Jeffrey Clark and others, and they have said those that were very loyal and Trumpists on the outside have been founding NGOs whose job it is to find candidates to replace these 10,000 to 50,000 bureaucrats once a Republican Trumpist gets into office. And I'd like to say it need not be Donald Trump. It could be someone who agrees with Donald Trump. What's happening is what happened to the Republican Party. We've all witnessed this, that in the last few years, the Republican Party leadership has been basically removed if it wasn't completely loyal to Trump and Trump loyalists have been put in charge. So the Republican Party has been hollowed out and has become the POT, the party of Trump. This is what they're thinking about doing now. They're planning actively to take down what they call the deep state and their great replacement theory to use their own phrase about the replacement of the white race is to put in place all of these candidates. There are several organizations, all with different acronyms that are working hard to have a list of candidates that is acceptable to the next Trumpist president. So this is what I would call a political blitzkrieg. It's taking place under the radar screen of the media and the news media right now. Axios performed a service and Jonathan Swan and his co author are still working on this story. Of course, there are many non-Trumpist political grassroots organizations and think tanks that we have that are working to counteract this, what I would call ultra rightist or ultra nationalist push. But what they're doing is extremely characteristic of what happened in the administrations Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. And this was prior to World War Two, when they basically got rid of anyone who disagreed with them and replace them with their own loyalists. Now, let's just take a moment and think about what Gene has said. Holy moly. You know, I've seen indications of that little piece here, little piece there, and he's done that in the past. And you can see the effect of it in the federal bench. Peter, your thoughts? My thoughts are, I haven't read the piece as I apologize, Gene. Can you explain a bit the mechanism, though, because their civil service, the federal bureaucracy has its own protections. People can't be willy nilly fired from civil service positions. So how do the authors that you read envision this actually proceeding? I mean, I've no doubt that it's in the thought process, if thought is going to be applied. But the mechanism in the federal government, I'm talking to you as the son of two civil servants, has its protection. So are we talking about the top positions? Are we talking about the rank and file bureaucrats, all of whom have protections? So how is this going to actually play out? There are two levels. One are the young, motivated, new employees of the legislature, you know, and the agencies who are recruited from college campuses and the right wing organizations called turning, such as Turning Point, among the universities, and especially universities that are more Christian oriented or have factions that are more ultra-rightist, that level. And then the middle level, which generally is never replaced and goes on to lifetime appointments in these agencies and careers and are protected by civil service. But there are bills in Congress now that agree with Schedule F. Schedule F is a legislative plan cooked up by Stephen Miller and others in the last year of the Trump administration that furnishes the material for the writing of bills that would be passed in the House and Senate, that would strip away these protections and allow the next president to make a political blitzkrieg move to take out these people and replace them. The upper echelons, the higher, the higher members and officials are generally those that are replaced anyway with an incoming administration of a different political philosophy. That hasn't changed. It's this broad middle level of people that would. So it seems to me the crucial to use your blitzkrieg analogy, the crucial tank or the crucial Yulker, is this legislation. And what is the status of this legislation? Who sponsored it? I don't know specifically, but I do know that I believe one of the bills to protect against this has arisen in the House that is not is under consideration in the Senate. So Democrats are aware of this politician. This is why I think that President Biden made that speech. I think there's more than just his meeting with a few historians in the White House to caution him about a second American Civil War. I don't think those historians really talked in terms of a civil war to speak of. They were talking about the violence that will accompany a radical change in our government because there will be blowback for that. And it will probably be physical violence, but that's not the same thing as a civil war. That's resistance. Well, can you talk about what would happen? What would happen to you and me and us? If the bureaucracy were replaced, what would happen? Nothing initially. And the thing is, people are having their will. The will pulled over their eyes right now because millions of people have signed on to the white nationalist goals under the great replacement theory without even knowing that they've done this because most people really don't know very much about civics or American history. They don't the pathology of American history, the mythology, but they don't know the actual history. So we're easily deceived. And by the time we wake up, this Blitzkrieg approach to this type of ideology will already have happened. And what will happen then is that people will be fearful and the next target will be, of course, to abolish all free news media as is what has taken place in Russia. So we can see the progress of this. Even if you haven't read history, just look at Russia under Putin and you see a kind of a similar program going on. So you mentioned that it doesn't Trump doesn't have to be there for this to come to fruition. It could be another Republican. Do you think that if the Santos the Santos wins in 2024, he would carry on with this plan? I fear him more than any other politician in America because he's smart, he's dedicated, and he has no scruples. And he's very ambitious. What would it be possible? Let's see, I got it. I got to do year counting here. As long as the Democrats control Congress, these bills are not going to get through. So the plan really requires control of Congress as well as the president. That's why voter registration is a key part of this suppression. This whole plan doesn't work really without voter suppression. By the way, Joe Biden, when he came into office, knew about Schedule F. The plans were there. Trump did intend to continue in office and still that. The plans were there. Joe Biden canceled it. And then there is a Democratic bill to oppose it. Now that lasts only as long as you have Democrats in the legislature and, to some extent, Democrats in the administration. And given our history of the baton, the changing of the baton between two teams and now these teams being in deadly opposition to one another. That's like it's going to be a different kind of relay race. Wow, it's still sinking into me that this has a fair chance of success if the Republicans win control of the House, the Senate. 2022, it'll set the stage for a Republican president in 2024. And then we'll have all the pieces together, whether it's Trump or DeSantis or whoever. And I have trouble imagining how that would affect the country. But one thing is clear is that it would no longer be a democracy. You know, you said that, you know, the press would be neutralized somehow. First Amendment would be neutralized, maybe not only on the freedom of speech, but on freedom of religion and the Constitution would no longer be effective in so many other ways. And then, of course, that set of circumstances inherits the federal court problem that we have today right up to the Supreme Court. And the perfect example of that is Judge Eileen Cannon in Florida, who ruled for a special master when she had no idea what that means or what effect it would have, except that it would, you know, benefit Trump. You know, I fear that we are already on the way. If you try to imitate Trump and his friends and you had a, you know, a blackboard, a schematic out there, timeline, if you will, you would see just from this discussion that we're on the way here. We're not that far off from critical inflection points leading to exactly what the Axios Articles was saying, Jane. Well, what's really interesting is if I began to read other things, too, apropos of all of this and one of these little side things is just watch the admiration for Victor Orban in Hungary. He has changed his country's institutions and we saw what happened in Belarus. So this is the the way in which things are going and Republicans are basically not Republicans anymore. This is very important for the American people to understand. We're not dealing with a Republican Party. The Republican Party has been overtaken by this virus. This virus is, to some extent, with all of the judicial appointments of Trump has infected the judicial system. I saw today that the Justice Department has decided to appeal Judge Cannon's decision, which is, I think, the right thing to do because she is clearly an example. And what they have done is clearly an example of how their government would operate. They put people who are inexperienced but very loyal to Trump. This is the main thing in this political ideology, loyalty to the leader, whichever leader. And once she was put into position after he lost the election, she was put there in Florida precisely for them to single her out as someone who would test their case. And her job was, of course, to go along with it. It's so so appealing it to a panel, which also has Trump appointees, but is more numerous is the right thing to do because, yes, the virus has infected the courts, but it's not as far along as it can be. Now, the Eleventh Circuit is pretty far along. It's very conservative. And the probability is they will affirm her decision. Sorry. And then if it goes to the Supreme Court, the probability is they will affirm her decision. So I think we I think we have a big problem. You mentioned before, Jean, that somehow this all leads to blowback, pushback and violence. How does that work on a sociological level? In America, particularly, we're talking about this ideology as it functions in America. This ideology is very well known. It was created in the 20th century and each country employs it according to their country's traditions and symbols and ideas. But the way it works in America is we have a proud history of resistance and human rights and civil rights. We are the flagship for that in the world. And to some extent, Biden's foreign policy is hitched to the star of democracy throughout the world, as is that that is also the flagship for legitimate Republicans, most of whom have left the party by now. And so we share this. It's a bipartisan thing in America. And what it means domestically is that the American people wake up one day and even though millions of them may be deceived, the majority of the silent majority will understand that they don't have any more rights to speak of unless they're loyal to the leader. They will push back and they will push back in a variety of ways. Anything from Antifa, which is opposing in the streets to, you know, to lawsuits or legislation or anything. NGOs or local resistance groups. I mean, think of the French resistance, for example, they have a proud history of liberty and equality and fraternity that they organize their resistance based on. So you see, that's what I mean. It's not a civil war. It's a different phenomenon in response to this resurgent ideology that was created in the 1920s and 1930s in Europe. You know, funny thing is that the steps that this chapter F or whatever is are taking are all legal. They're all legal. Yes. You can't. I mean, aside from some of that, you know, business about false electors and all and, you know, the insurrection had it been successful. But these appointments of judges, these bills or lack of bills in Congress, it's all perfectly legal. And so these guys are getting to a immoral, undemocratic result, the result of which the democracy is essentially destroyed by legal means in large part. And that's, you know, kind of brilliant. Eileen Cannon is brilliant. There's nothing to say that she was wrongly wrongfully appointed or confirmed. It's just outside the norm. That's all. And she's unqualified. But then, you know, there are judges that are not all judges are qualified and she's loyal. How can you prevent that? How can you stop her? And how, you know, how can you reverse her? You're not going to impeach her. She will not be impeached, even though she should be. And the other thing I wanted to ask you about, though, you mentioned Victor Orban, you mentioned Vladimir Putin, you mentioned, you know, the World War Two despots. But right now we seem to have, as you said, a resurgence, OK, in this kind of right wing, autocratic government where people are being fooled by demagogues. And we seem to have it in a lot of places all at the same time. Why, Jane? Well, it's very interesting why we have trends that are global, but we have them consistently. And one of the most creative and brilliant theories about this was created was was put in place by David C. Rappaport, who is now in his 90s and has come out with his final summation of his lifelong work against terrorism on the four waves theory. And we get waves. For example, in the 1960s, we had a new left wave that turned violent, particularly in Europe, with the red brigades and with the weather underground in the United States. We have kind of a mirror image today in a ultra right wave. In fact, David is contemplating. I've already decided that it is a fifth wave. He's contemplating calling this a fifth wave of terrorism. And it's a generational theory that is based on evidence, unlike the generational theory that the Trumpists have embraced and Steve Bannon has embraced. This this is called the fourth turning. And I'll talk about that another time because it's what has motivated people like Stephen Miller. It's an extremely romantic, you know, romanticism when it's extreme becomes fascism. So this is a fascist myth that the generational theory that's scholarly and that David has come up with explains that there's kind of a contagion about ideas that run around the globe. They do show global international expressions. And right now what we have is a global international expression of the subversion of democracy by these ultra nationalist Messiah like leaders who change the institutions of their country by using the legal system. They're very smart. Hitler did this, by the way, he came to power completely legitimately, even though he was a minority chancellor. And then he quickly took charge of the levers of power. But he went through multiple elections to achieve what he achieved nationally, which was national recognition so that von Hindenburg would turn to him when the Weimar Republic, which was very sick, broke down irretrievably. And so we see that the Trumpists and I'm not going to call them Republicans, the Trumpists have or the MAG of people or the America first movement, whatever you want to call it, they have perfected this in America. And it's happening in front of us. But I don't see the political intellectuals, the public intellectuals and the opinion writers they haven't seen the comprehensive shape of this yet. And it takes some historical grounding in recent history with the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, the movement in the 1930s of Mussolini and that to really kind of get the underpinnings and recognize what's going on today. Those are the parallels, not the American Civil War. Yes, I can see absolutely. But, you know, by the time the people who can fully appreciate this, appreciate and write and think and talk and try to change public sensibilities about it, it may be too late. It may already be pretty late. So Peter, you were saying before we have to vote. We have to vote like our lives depending on it. Is that the only option? Well, I would say that's an important option if we follow through the logic that she is very carefully represented. The crucial separation of powers matter will be Congress. So it seems to me that for this to work, the side that we haven't really talked about is a systematic voter repression, a systematic voter repression, which is completely in keeping with white. I'm going to use the term some Christian nationals, not all Christian nationalists in this way. But clearly, this is going to take a legislative action which would require a majority, even a simple majority. So states like Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, right, if they if they all go Democratic, this plan cannot go into operation. If, in fact, they go Republican, this is a kind of plan that could go into operation. So it seems to me that voting access is absolutely critical. The second comment, which I think is more of a civil war without bayonets is I don't necessarily see the pushback against this in the streets. I see the pushback against this from the blue states. I see that we've already seen the California legislature in the state of California take measures against Trump, et cetera. So I see them are splitting, not a formal secession, but I see the Republicans having difficulty recognizing that their states' rights are the low fruit and quite clearly states' rights could counter much of this. I guess the only question I would have and comment is like with Hitler, we give Hitler a lot of attention at a Nazi party, a lot of attention. We don't talk about people behind the scenes. And I think in many ways, the Republican Party is hoisted by its own petard. It may made a compact a long time ago with Nixon's white strategy, even commensurate Republicans. Republican Party made a marriage with the Federalist Society and you can talk about Trump appointees. But remember, all Trump appointees are vetted by the Federalist Society. So I think our conversation needs to step back a little bit and see Mitch McConnell's role here, which has been ever since bought to entirely redo the federal system, the federal judiciary, not just the Supreme Court. I mean, we know by the time, I guess the Supreme Court, right? It's almost too late. We're talking about lower courts and we're talking about what's going to be a very interesting issue with the program that Gene has suggested and Federalist Society doesn't really care about race. They don't really care about Christianity. They don't really care about abortion. They care about money freeing up capital of center price. They care about not allowing workers their rights. So I can see if there's going to be a civil war at some at some point, the distinction between making a lot of money and fascism doesn't necessarily make a lot of money. I see that as you want to talk about an inflection point. I see that as a crisis. I mean, is this really going to be a Republican Party of the Federalist Society, which is to make money, or is it going to be a Republican Party, which is going to try to. Appeal to people's emotions in the face of what will be declining incomes and gross inequality. So you want a civil war? Yeah, I'll give you the 18th for mayor of Mars. This is going to be a social civil war, because they're going to do nothing about inequality, which is getting worse and worse. But, you know, Jean, we do have time marching on. It's been, you know, six years since Trump hit the presidency. It'll be two years more before there's another election. There's a lot of young people out there who are, you know, growing, thinking, maybe. Can they save us? We there's two things going on. There's young people who could save us. But there's also a lot of young people that have grown up under the aegis of new institutions and new universities and new schools that are largely Christian nationalists. And they get these kids very young. I happen to know there's some actual cases of it. They get they get them in elementary school with after school activities and promises of pizza. And well, this just sounds like Germany in the 30s. Well, even so, it's not mixing milk and meat with the pizza, right? Now, we could go to Italy, too, but informally, there are a lot of things happening in the United States at the local level. We're great organizers there. I don't know how many 501 C3s there are in the country. But the Southern Poverty Law Center made a rather ominous comment in one of its recent intelligence bulletins. And that is this. In twenty twenty one, there were fewer hate groups, anti-government groups and neo-Nazi groups than there were in twenty twenty. But hey, still be concerned. Why is that? That is because so much of this has gone mainstream. And is the Heritage Foundation, for example, right now is going Trumpist. And there are a lot of institutions that are changing and going Trumpist. So they, you know, you have these informal grassroots, kind of irregular militia type things happening. But hey, if it goes mainstream and that's Trump's contribution to American history is to bring it mainstream, then you don't need all of this. In what role does human citizens United play in all of this? At the time it came out, I said, this this case is going to be so profoundly damaging to the country. That's a tough one, Jay. I mean, the the most extreme left wing. Free speech people. Did not disagree with the decision. I don't I don't I mean, we could have a whole session about that. That do you think that this United contributed to Trumpism? Is that your claim? Well, to the to the shift, the hollowing out of the GOP to the replacement. No, I wouldn't I wouldn't give the GOP a pass. I think this discussion of somehow, you know, there are a lot of people in the GOP. Mitch McConnell has been in the GP for 40 years. He's not doing anything to stop this. So I think we have to be really careful. There are a lot of folks who are I mean, Johnson, Senator is traditional. Lindsey Graham was a traditional Republican, right? A lot of there are many words to define. Yes. And some of them cannot. The FCC will not allow us to to express all of them. But I think we've got to be really careful. This is the Republican Party and people Republicans will say, well, it's not my party anymore. Are they they watched and they games? You know, shrub, shrub Bush expressed a lot of Trump business. So I think that your argument that citizens United created Trumpism, you know, Citizens United also opened up the floodgates for Democratic money. The Democrats have raised more money since Citizens United. This year, the Democrat Senatorial Committee is raising much more money than the Republicans and the Tory committee. So I think we've got to be careful about where we place the blame. I mean, you want an honest response and it's a painful response that much of this is the election of an African American president. This country was not prepared for that and not to blame a lot of any means at all. But if you look and Jean can correct me, but look, the calendar calendar is pretty clear. One of the reasons these folks went mainstream and one of the reasons these folks were willing to express themselves was let's use the R word for what it is racism. You know, when I was a kid, Jean, my mother would say to me, you should thank God every day that you were born in this country. This really, she did. This is the greatest country on earth. And that was my mother's generation. She said, and really, you know, instilled a kind of patriotism in me. But these conversations, especially in light of the fact that five years ago, we really weren't having these conversations. We weren't looking into the more the way we're looking into it now. I'm afraid my mother's view was short term. And then when you look at the sweep of history, the country, you know, will not necessarily last forever. We may be in a completely different place, politically, sociologically, economically going forward. So I'm really setting you up for your final comment here today. About these matters. Yeah. So summarize what you'd like to leave with people. OK, G. Well. Nobody can tell the future. And if you study the past, you realize you never know what's around the corner. You can look back and say, well, they prepared for this, but this is what happened instead. But there are always pro-dromes. And there are always things that suggest and that the problem is, is, is fixating on what factors are going to rise to prominence. They all look equal in the present time, but there are certain things that are more important. And so those of us who study the past can say, I'm going to focus on this, this and this in the present because that is what has blindsided people in the past. And maybe we're always fighting the last battle, but I'm going to go back to the beginning of the 20th century. What happened then? We had the first World War and it was the first in history. And I think it was the most apocalyptic battle that has ever occurred in history. And it's often been ignored because of the Second World War. And Americans really didn't die as much in the First World War. But then what happened? We had a pandemic. And then after that, we had the rise again of the Ku Klux Klan in response to immigration. We kind of have that going on now. And then what happened after that? We had the Great Depression and we had World War Two. The way in which these kinds of philosophies operate. And I'm speaking now, not a Schedule F, the Republican plan, but the F word, fascism, how this happens is that they become entrenched and then there are rumblings of discontent because people don't like it. So then they go into a war, a nationalist war, as Putin has done, he's chosen war in Ukraine. We could do that. Or alternatively, before this thing coincides and comes together and becomes a government change, a blitzkrieg, a political blitzkrieg, we could be engaged in a global challenge from another superpower that would bring us together. And this would die down again and go underground. So either one of those things, unfortunately, depend on war, which we're all trying to avoid. I hate to say that the cure is worse than the illness, but sometimes that's what it takes. Feels like that. Peter, you get to close and thank Gene. I'm not a little fussed thanks to Gene. I guess we can't drink vodka anymore. I need something else. I'm just reminded of Baldwin, like I always am, to your comment about greatest country and Gene's concern about war. Look, America is maybe more than any other society other than Brazil or India. As Baldwin said, it is becoming. It is constantly a process. And notice your mother of blessed memories term. Greatest, right? We just happen to have a low bar right now, but my response is deep concern with what Gene has said is that the facts on the ground do not lie. In the next 25 years, this will become the most multiracial, multi-cultural country, society, nation in the world. And almost regardless of the Republicans, what the Republicans want to do, regardless of what the Trump Trumpists want to do. That's a fact on the ground. And that fact on the ground, we have in Hawaii a little mini lab that's going to drive history as much as anything the Republicans can want to do. And that's part of becoming America. And in that case, I think we should look and make sure we don't make the mistakes India does and be very careful what Brazil is doing. But to me, more than China, which is relatively homogenous compared to the US, those are the societies I'm looking forward to studying. Gene, as always, I am impressed with your knowledge and your analysis. Unfortunately, you've got me a little depressed. So I hope next time we come back, we can talk about something else. I had thought when I turned on in 1155 that only Jay had this paranoia, but yours is an informed paranoia. It reminds you of Satchel Page, who said, don't look back because somebody might actually be running towards you. You remind me very much of the great Satchel Page. So Gene, thanks as always. I'm sure we'll call upon you again. Maybe something pleasant, right? Like religious sacrifices or something like that. I do worry about war. As you know, it's something I study a lot and I see ramping up conflict with China, which will not be war, but it'll provide the cultural and economic cohesion, right? We're not gonna go to war with China, but all the things you said about the functioning of a war do I think not so much put, right? We're not literally gonna go against Russia, but I do worry about our relations with China in light of what you said. And that will have a cure, which will be very painful because that will increase anti-Asian sentiment here, anti-Asian American sentiment. We're out of time, Peter. We're out of time. Thank you both very much, Gene. Thanks as always. Thank you, Gene. Welcome to the family. And early Lashnatovat, everybody. Jay, thank you very much. Aloha. Aloha, everybody. Take care. 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.