THE PHASE-CHANGES OF MARCH 5: 'THERE'S A RUMBLING, A RUMBLING, LIKE THE PRE-SHOCK OF AN EARTHQUAKE'
On March 5, 2004, Lyndon LaRouche addressed a weekend cadre school of the Australian LaRouche Youth Movement, which was held at Anglesea. Mr. LaRouche was welcomed by Doug Mitchell, a leader of the LYM, who moderated the question-and-answer dialogue which followed the opening remarks that are transcribed here. It was the first Australian LYM dialogue with Mr. LaRouche.
DOUG MITCHELL: So, last night, when Bruce [Director] gave his presentation, he put a title on this cadre school: "Ending the 'On the Beach' Mentality" here in Australia. It would be interesting, to see if you got something to say about that. But, it's a pretty historic occasion, to have you address a cadre school, and I think I'll just leave it over to you.
LAROUCHE: Okay. Okay, now we have a very interesting day, today, in Europe and the United States. It's been building up over the past days, but it hit today, that in the wake of the Super Tuesday, that's this past week, primary elections, there has been a significant phase-shift, not only in the election process in the United States, where John Kerry, the Senator, and I are the only leading candidates who are still in the race. There are some others, who are in there for delegates; not for nomination.
There is some tremendous turmoil, in other issues:
For example, you take the case, which has caused much comment in Germany. You have the head of the IMF, who is sitting on top of the poor Argentines, and he was suddenly called back, in a sense, to Germany. That is, he was notified, that he was being appointed the President of Germany, to succeed the present President. And the fellow got on his plane, and left there, dropped the IMF, left his IMF post, and went back to Germany! The comment in Germany is, that Horst Koehler was getting out of the IMF, while the getting was good!
We have similar things like that: We have Greenspan, is mooted to be on the ropes, that Bush wants him fired. Gordon Brown, of the United Kingdom, is being mooted as a possible successor for Koehler; and similar kinds of things are going on.
What you have, is a general turmoil, around the world, which indicates that we're on the edge of a phase-change. You have the gyrations in the relationship between the valuation of the dollar and the euro, and other things of that sort.
In terms of my own experience, the response to me, is suddenly, greatly improved, inside the United States, in the media, and so forth, in terms of contacts, people I'm talking to, and that sort of thing.
So, there is a phase-shift in world affairs. And this obviously reflects one thing, among others: And that is, that this shebang, this present world monetary system is on the way to the burial grounds. Exactly which direction it will take, where the undertakers will lead it, and so forth, is not yet certain. But, it's obvious, there's a phase-change.
You've got two things, that are going on politically, internationallyespecially, in the United States, but not just there. You have the neo-conservatives, these are the extreme right-wing animals, like Richard Perle and so forth; and contrary to the statements by some, that Richard Perle is not out, the fact of Richard Perle's withdrawing from his position with the Bush Administration, is a part of the same process as the withdrawal of Conrad Blackthe man who was the moneybags for many of the neo-conservativeswho is in trouble all over the place, because they're sort of tired of his sort of funding of neo-conservatives.
This coincides with something else: Not only is the Bush neo-conservative phenomenon in troubleand I probably must take the blame for a great deal of the suffering around the Bush camp, and othersbut, the perception is, that the Bush sort of right-wing is not really going to work. It is not going to "carry the day," so to speak. And therefore, the right wing of importance right now, in the United States, is situated in the Democratic Party, on the Democratic side!
In the Democratic Party, we have a major conflict, between two views, in which my view lies in there, somewhere. You have one view, which is typified by the circles around the former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, which recognizes the severity of the present international monetary-financial crisis, as very few others of that generation do. (Oh, he's not actually a Baby Boomer; he's a little bit too old for that.)
But, then you have, on the opposite side, you have the group around Lazard Frères, who has a pro-Schachtian position. And if you haven't been told this already, Hjalmar Schacht was the man who, for the Bank of England chief, put Hitler in power in Germany, in 1933. And he is famous, not only for that, but as the Economics Minister of the Nazi system, and his policies, his economic austerity policies, are those which are associated with Nazism, the way Hitler came to power. These policies are not only popular with the outright fascists, or the obvious fascistslike the neo-conservatives around the Bush camp; like the Richard Perles and the Conrad Blacks, and so forth.
But, there is also another variety of fascist, as there was during the 1922-1945 period of the fascist heyday in Europe: These are the left-wing fascists, and they are typified by the Lazard Frères crowd, which was, during that period in European history, was very fascist, indeed. It's a hard-core Synarchist organization. Its typical expression in the United States, of that group, is Felix Rohatyn, an alumnus of Middlebury College in Vermont, where I had a funny experience some months ago. And he represents the pro-fascist economic policy alternative, inside the United States. His group, inside the Democratic Party, is moving to replace George Bush as President, because they say he's hopeless. But they have their own brand of fascism; and their commitment is to keep me out, at all costs.
What has happened now, is there's a shift in the situation. And some people in Europe have put it this way: Is that, Felix Rohatyn's crowd is incompetent. What they intend to do, what they're willing to do, will not fly under the conditions of the present world international financial crisis. It just won't fly. For example, one thing that Rohatyn and so forth will be dead against, is capital controls. Now, what is going to happen, of course, as the crisis hits with fuller forceand that can be in days; we're on the edge of it now: It can be weeks. It can be days. It can even be a couple of months or more. But, we're on the edge now. It is going to happen. What is keeping the system alive, is a hyperinflationary bubble of money-printing. In other words, a hyperinflationary process is keeping this bubble going, as long as the system will keep accepting the outpouring of this mass of money into the system, especially dollars and so forth.
It's going to come down: When it comes down, and if the world is not going to go "On the Beach" so to speak (in line with your discussion yesterday), then, there are going to have to be some changes.
First of all, we're going to have to put the IMF system into bankruptcy reorganization. That is, governments will have to take over, as they did during the immediate post-war period, when with the founding the original Bretton Woods system, governments took over, and the banks had to behave themselves, at that time. At a later time, up through 1989, there were changes. The Bretton Woods system was cancelled in '71-72. And in 1992, essentially, the Maastricht agreements and so forth, Europe gave up sanity, in terms of monetary policy.
But, we're going to have to go back to that. We're going to have go back to what was changed. We're going to have to put the IMF system into bankruptcy. Central banking systems are going to be taken into receivership, for bankruptcy reorganization. Governments are going to have to take control, of the business of generating and managing credit, credit of states. Under these circumstances, we're going to have to go back to a regulated system, of international trade and finance. We're going to have to go to capital controls: That is, governments are going to take responsibility for determining what our lawful priorities, in the flow of capital funds, and in what is allowable in the movement of capital funds. Because, in a crisis, we must manage, as you do in any bankruptcy.
Now, the Felix Rohatyn crowd, the Lazard Frères types, and similar types, are dead set against capital controls, or anything like that. They're dead set against protectionist measures. And protectionist measures are absolutely indispensable, for getting through the crisis that's coming on us now.
I represent that, but other people recognize, that this kind of measure, which I represent, must be usedthey may not agree with the way I want to use it, or the way I want to do itbut they agree, it must be used, under conditions of this kind of crisis. And, they can see this kind of crisis coming on, now. And they see that the magnitude of the potential blowout, is far beyond anything that would permit a Felix Rohatyn's policies, to be applied to the present situation. For example, if the policies of Schacht are appliedand that's what you're looking at, in terms of the debt collection operation against Argentinathis is pure fascism in economic policy: The IMF is practicing pure fascism in its support for these collection policies.
But, that's the policy that would be applied, to the interior of every country in the world!including Australia, of courseif these policies were continued. These are Schachtian, pro-Nazi policies. They may not call them pro-Nazi, but that's what they are.
So, there's a big fight about that. And the general opinion, among informed people, is that the Nazi-like policies, the Schachtian policies, which are associated with Felix Rohatyn's proposals will not fly, in this period, unless you want to have a general collapse of world civilization: a new dark age.
So, today, in the past couple of days, especially today, there's a rumbling, a rumbling, like the pre-shock of an earthquake. And that's what I was experiencing, during the course of the day, and overnight. There's a big change coming. And, I don't know what's coming. I think the monotremes of Australia will survive, but I wonder if some of the still more primitive animals, such as your local breed of neo-conservative, will also come out of this thing intact.
So, thats the nature of the situation.
Now, otherwise, on the subject of the youth movement: The key thing to understand this youth movement phenomenonand this is something that's become empirically significant, around the world, as in the United States, during the recent four years. About 40 years ago, in the United States, and in the United Kingdom, following the assassination of President Kennedy, and the ouster of Macmillan in the United Kingdom, as Prime Ministerit was a coupwith the first Harold Wilson government in the United Kingdom, coming along shortly after the ouster of Macmillan, and what happened with the United States, after Kennedy was killed, and President Johnson was terrified (at least on these questions), we went into the Vietnam War, Indo-China War.
At that point, there was a cultural paradigm-shift, in the generation of university age, those particularly who were going into universities, at that time. This presented a cultural paradigm-shift, away from an idea of a producer society, which the United States had been the leading example of, up to that point, and against technologyan anti-technology, post-industrial movement, of which the most colorful form was the rock-drug-sex counterculture. But the rock-drug-sex counterculture was only the most extreme, the most radical, the most carnival tent-show-type part of this process of cultural change.
During the past 40 years, the culture of the United States has changed, and of the United Kingdom. And this has spilled over, into continental Europe, especially with the '68ers. It spilled into Central and South America. So, around this part of the world, and other parts of the world, the generation now in their fifties or their early sixties, the so-called Baby-Boomer generation, all around the world, are dominated by a generational phenomenon. In other words, even if people are not smoking pot, and having sex with strange animals, they are still Baby Boomers, in the sense, that most of them accept the values, which are common to that generation. And the values which are common to that generation, are acceptance of the leading role of cultural policy-changes, which have occurred, during this 40-year period.
Now, what has happened as a result of this, over 40 years, the culture of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and of the United States, the Americas generally, has changed: It has changed to a post-industrial society. As a result of that change, and what goes with it, the present world monetary-financial economic system is finished! It's gone, to the point, it can no longer stand on its own legs. It is about to collapse.
Now, younger people, who were entering adulthood, during the recent four yearsthat is, going from adolescence to adulthoodlooked around them, and said, "What we are going through, is a no-future society. That is, what our parents' generation have done to us, is, give us a no-future society in which to liveand not live it very well, and perhaps, not at all." So therefore, you had a conflict between young adultsthat is, people who are young, but who think like adults; they don't think like adolescents or children. They think about their responsibility for being "mama" and "papa"; not being the children of the household, but being the parents in the household, or thinking in that direction. So therefore, they tend to be somewhat independent, and say, "Well, I'm not going to accept. I'm not going to Hell! I don't care what my parents tell me to do, I'm not going there. I don't want the place. I'm going to change things, if possible. I'm not going to accept no-future, as a perspective."
What you have, therefore, is you have a conflict, between the parents' generation, and the younger generation, the young adults. This is not a conflict of prejudice: this is a conflict of reality. The older generation is still clinging, to those values and habits of behavior and belief, which mean no future for humanity. The younger generation's conflict with its parents' generation, is not the usual kind of thing, of the young people quarreling with the parents. It's not "leaving the egg," so to speak. This is real.
The younger generation represents a potentially healthy generation, for turning society back, away from, a no-future society perspective. Whereas the older generation is embedded with habits: habits of thinking, prejudices, knee-jerk reactions, emotional reflexesall these things, which are againstwould prevent a future for the younger generation, and their children. So, this is the nature of the conflict.
Thus, under these circumstances, what is needed, is that the younger generation, while it may not know everything it needs to know, is instinctively right, in sensing that their parents' generation's valuesthe people in their fifties and their early sixtiesare wrong. They may not know exactly why they're wrong, but they know they're wrong, because the parents' generation is living in a no-future fantasy. And they know, that they've got to find their way out of this no-future end-game. That's the nature of the conflict.
Therefore, at this time, the kind of youth movement, which we've organized, in the United States, spread into Europe, and we have some seeds down there in Australia. This is absolutely essential, not to stage a generational quarrel, per se. The problem is, the older generation is habituated to those habits, those ways of behaving, which mean a no-future society. And therefore, young people must have their independence, which is their independence of the Baby-Boomer ideology. Because, if we don't get the world freed of the grip of Baby-Boomer ideology, the world is not going to make it, except plunging into a new dark age.
Therefore, the development of a young generation, which will lead their parents' generation out of madness, is the key to civilization.
This is not entirely uncommon in human history: That often cultures go down, not because they didn't have the magic elixir, or something of that sort; but, because they got into cultural habits, which in practice, led to acceptance of, or caused, a collapse of civilization. The Roman Empire is an example of a long process of decadence. Medieval European society, the so-called "ultramontane society," of the Welf faction, and similar people, is an example of that: That these cultural trends destroy civilization. They may not destroy everybody in it, but they put us into a dark age or a relative dark age, repeatedly.
So therefore, when you come to a dark age, the problem is not that a dark age is naturalexcept for accidents, natural accidents, which are beyond our reachevery catastrophe mankind faces, is imposed by mankind itself. It is not imposed by one or two leaders, usuallyvery rarely: It is imposed by the fact, that the majority of the population, has become cultural addicted to habits of behavior and thinking, which have led, over the course of time, to a collapse of civilization.
That's what we face, now, a collapse of civilization crisis. Not a mistake, which has to be fixed. Not a gimmick. You don't go to the store, and buy a new costume, and solve this problem. You have to go to a store, and get a new mind! A mind free of these cultural habits, which were developed with the Baby-Boomer generation, as the post-industrial, pleasure-society ideology, which has come to dominate Europe and the Americas, in the recent period. And, of course, has had not pleasant effects on the possibilities in Australia.
And therefore, the younger generationthose of us who are wise enough, will support the younger generation's efforts, to get out of this mess, and to lead their parents' generation, and others, under the pressure of crisis, into going back to ideas which worked. And building the future, by going back to the fork in the road, where they made the wrong turn. And make the proper turn this time, and get their reluctant parents' generation, to go along with the journey. Under those circumstances, there is no reason we should not come out of this crisis quite well, with a little suffering and hard work. But, if we don't make that change, there's no chance.
And therefore, in times like this, it is sometimes a generation of young adults which makes the turn.
Take the case of the history of the United States: If you look at the age, of the people who became the leaders of the United Statesthose who formed the Declaration of Independence; those who created the Constitution, and so forththese people were recruited around a fellow, a scientist, a leading world scientist at the time, Benjamin Franklin, who was influenced from Europe. Influenced by, in part, people like Priestley, in England; Watt, who was recruited by Franklin and Priestley, who developed the famous Watt steam enginein France, with the assistance of a great Frenchman, Lavoisier, who was killed by the French Revolution. By Leibniz's influence, directly, through his writings.
So, these young people, around the best ideas from Europe, grouped around Franklin, from the middle of the 1770s on, became a leadership, which created the United States. They were, with few exceptions, a youth movement. George Washington was not exactly a youth at that time; nor, of course, was Franklin, who died at a ripe old age. But, these guysthe Hamiltons, the Madisons, the Jeffersons, and so forththese were part of a youth movement.
Now, what you have to think of yourself, today, is being typical of youth who are making this kind of turn. You have to think of yourselves, as people who are reaching out to find the so-called secrets of societysometimes, the lost secrets of societywhich are needed to rebuild nations, rebuild civilization. And, you are acting in that way, and in that degree, as the conscience of your nation, and the conscience of civilization, to turn the world back to where we made the wrong turn, especially the wrong turn of the middle of the 1960s. In that way, we shall come out all right. Not perfect, but all right.
And, that's, I think, what you are implicitly doing.
Thank you.
LAROUCHE ON LOUISIANA RADIO EYES OPEN WITH TONY BROWN, MARCH 5, 2004
TONY BROWN: You are listening to Eyes Open, of course, as you've heard, the highest rated call-in talk show in the state of Louisiana, on the most powerful station on the planet. Yeah, that's why we are broadcasting, 70,000 watts of clear digital sound, to the tristate area of Louisiana, primarily, and Texas and Mississippi. Heard in every major city in Louisiana, with the exception of New Orleans. As far east as Woodville and Natchez, Mississippi, and as far west as Houston and Beaumont, Texas.
Tell you what, folks, LaRouche leads Democrats in itemized individual contributionsyeah, this is out of his camp. "Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche now leads all the remaining Democratic presidential candidates in the cumulative number of individual itemized contributions to his campaign, as measured by the Federal Elections Commission. This figure dramatically underscores the fact that LaRouche has a depth and breadth of popular support among ordinary citizens, far beyond his rivals." That, according to his campaign. "The FEC defines an itemized individual contribution as a contribution by a person who has given more than $200 to a campaign."
He joins us here live, right now, on Eyes Open, with me, Tony Brown. And the reason, folks here in Louisiana, that you haven't heard from Mr. LaRouche, particularly in this area, is because he says that some people are afraid of him, certainly the Democratic Party.
Good morning, Mr. LaRouche. Thanks for joining us.
LAROUCHE: Good morning. Good to be with you.
BROWN: Tell us exactlycertainly our listenerswhy does it appear that some folks, certainly in the Democratic Party and in the news mediaseem to be afraid of you?
LAROUCHE: Well, it happens to do with financial interests. There are certain financier interests who have known me very well, for more than 30 years. They know exactly where I stand on how to deal with the situation, in which the world is bankrupt, and the government has to choose between the poor, and the bankers. And so, the bankers, or the financier crowd, doesn't like me one bit.
That's not true, of course, in all levels of the Democratic Party, or of the people. But in that crowd, which controls a lot of the money of the country, I am not popular.
BROWN: Now, I wanted to advertise this, Mr. LaRouche. You said that our system here in America, certainly when it comes to financing and the economy, is held together with spit, not glue. Explain.
LAROUCHE: Well, we're now bankrupt, and poorer people, people in the lower 80% of income brackets, know it. Some people are deluded by the stories about the fabulous riches being made on Wall Street. But that isn't getting down to the people. We're losing jobs, we're losing everything. We're losing infrastructure, we're losing health care, everything is going. We're now in a depression. We're about to get the real "other shoe" dropping, where the crash comes on top of the existing depression.
That's our situation.
People go into a state of denial. People don't like to see a hopeless situation, so they will cling to the hope that things are going to get better, as long as they can. And then they get to the point that they find it's not going to get better, and then they shift their values, and they begin to say, "We've got to do something about this."
BROWN: I remember reading something about you last year, that you had stated that America's economy's primarily driven on an inflated housing bubble. Explain that.
LAROUCHE: Well, what happened is that, you have several bubbles, but one is the housing bubble. Is that the Federal Reserve System began using Fannie Mae and Freddie Macwhich deal with mortgage-based securitiesbegan using that to pump up the real estate market in certain parts of the country, as around Washington, D.C., spots on the West Coast, and so forth.
Now, what this has done, is driven houses, which are essentially shrink-wrapped plastic-covered, [hardly] better than shacks
BROWN: They call them McMansions.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, or something like that. And these things are going for $400 to $600,000 mortgage, or more.
BROWN: Ridiculous.
LAROUCHE: And people who can not afford to carry that kind of a mortgage are taking these places, because that's what they can get. Now, if this thing collapses, as it will, these people are in trouble, and if it goes down, all those things that are based on mortgage-based securities, go into a collapse. Like LTCM in 1998. Same kind of thing. It's leveraged investments; it becomes a big bubble; it's bloated. Sooner or later, one of these bubbles blows, and then all the bubbles, start to blow.
BROWN: Now, let me let my listeners know that certainly this is, I think, your eighth attempt at the White House. You are about 80 years old. Do you think that your tenacity, and your persistent diligence, whatever, pay off for you?
LAROUCHE: Well, sure. I've been right along, but I've been warning that this is coming. I've been campaigning, saying, this is coming, along with some crazy war policies of some idiots, and warning against it. I've always been right. But, people go to a state of denial. They say, "Well, no, he's wrong. It can't be true. They won't let it happen." The famous phrase, "They won't let it happen." Who's "They"? Well, that's a good question.
No, we've come to the point that it is happening. Now, people who've been up in the grandstand, cheering for the gladiators in the arena, are now finding out, they're the guy in the arena. And they have to start voting for themselves, not for some favorite movie star.
BROWN: Now, you say, the lack of interest you're getting the mainstream media, despite your grassroots popular support, obviously, from your campaign contributions, from the average Joe, so to speak, is evidence, and should raise questions about corruption in the media. Can you explain that for us?
LAROUCHE: Well, it is corruption in a sense, but let's call it for what it is, rather than just trying to describe it. What you have is the major media are controlled by major financier interests. These interests are not just U.S., they're international. These international financial interests are deadly afraid of me, would do almost anythingand they did try to kill me a couple of timeswould do almost anything to prevent my getting near power.
BROWN: Did I hear you right, Mr. LaRouche? You said there have been several attempts on your life? By these interests?
LAROUCHE: Oh sure, we have the case in 1973, goes back that early. The FBI memorandumWashington and New York. They have a plan to have me eliminated, by using the Communist Party thugs to do it.
Then you have in 1986, parked on my front lawn, so to speak, over 400 Federal agents, coming in, ready to shoot. And they would have come in overnight, except the White House told them to stop it.
BROWN: And you're saying that the reason why certain people are afraid of you, and it certainly seems that the government is, is because you're telling the truth here.
LAROUCHE: Well, it's more than thatthat's part of it. But the fact is that they're afraid of me. And they know that under conditionsthat I'm a sort of a Franklin Roosevelt man, in a sense. That, when faced with a crisis of the type we have now, my belief is, the government's first job is to defend the people, and the sovereignty of the nation first, and then deal with the claims of the bankers, later. That's whatthey don't like that.
BROWN: Yes, sir. Now, getting back to how much money you've raised so far for your campaign, approximately $6.7 million. Where is the money coming from?
LAROUCHE: From people, ordinary people. There are no big pockets. I don't have any trace of big pockets anywhere in my funding. It's all ordinary people.
BROWN: Now, why do you think you have such broad popular support?
LAROUCHE: Because I'm known for a long period of time, and despite the appearance that might be projected by the news media coverage of me, actually I'm well known in the base of the population, especially in certain layers. And they just, at times when something happens. Look, you know, we won a big election, state election, in Illinois in 1986. We've won a lot of elections. We won the Houston Democratic leadership for a while. So, we've had a lot of victories of this type. I am well known in the population. Not everybody, but a lot of people, and people know what I stand for. So, it happens, time comes, people come back to turn out to support me. Time comes, they're not out to support me. This is the way things go in life.
BROWN: Let me ask you this, Mr. LaRouche. Now, I was looking at CNN this morning, and I was looking at an advertisement that is currently running, I think on the Internet with President Bush. What do you think about the President's ads, which appear to use 9-11 images to get re-elected?
LAROUCHE; That is disgusting. It's disgusting, but look, from Bush himself, the poor guy is not, he's not our most brilliant guy. He's sort of an intellectually challenged guy.
BROWN: He's not the sharpest egg in the carton, is he?
LAROUCHE: No. He may smell a little bit, but there's no sharpness there. And he's been a puppet, largely, for people like Cheney's crowd. And that's been our problem. But he's nothing. He shouldn't be President. He's not qualified for dog-catcherI have that from the dogs, I think.
BROWN: And, by the way, let me ask you this question. You are going to be on the Presidential primary ballot here in Louisiana come Tuesday. What is your message to Louisiana residents?
LAROUCHE: That we are in a crisis. The financial system is collapsing. It's been collapsing for a long time. Now, we've come to the end of the trolley line, and we've got to decide what you're going to do next.
Now, what we're down to is this: You're down to only two leading candidates who are in the picture. Sharpton's still in, but he's in there for delegates, not for winning the nomination.
BROWN: That's exactly right.
LAROUCHE: So, therefore, what you're down to is two leading candidates.
BROWN: Let me abreast you of this situation: Sharpton is not even on the Presidential primary ballot here in Louisiana.
LAROUCHE: I know, in some cases. He has limited resources, what do you expect?
BROWN: Well, he didn't fill out his form properly, certainly according to the people down in Baton Rouge, and he didn't send a proper checkI think he sent a campaign check, and they needed a money-order. So, it was trivial, but in any event, I think he has a law suit pending right now, trying to get that corrected.
LAROUCHE: I talked to him on the way to Augusta, on the plane. We were both coming from Los Angeles to Augusta, Georgia. We just had some brief discussion on this sort of thing. And he also said openly at Augusta, what he stands for, what he's trying to do. And that's what he's doing and that's all fine. But he doesn't have much of a campaign machine.
BROWN: Well, I want to thank you for being with us this morning. And your final word to residents here in Louisiana, who'll be going to the polls on Tuesday?
LAROUCHE: We're going to have to fight. We're going to have to fight from now on, not only between Kerry and me, but to make sure we get the machine going, so that we win in November.
BROWN: Okay, I want to thank you for joining us.
|