The Dispatch Podcast - What Happened in France | Interview: Bernard-Henri Lévy

Episode Date: July 15, 2024

NOTE: This episode was recorded last week July 10, before the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. French public intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy joins Jamie on today’s episode to discuss the surprise rise of the far-left in the French elections and its implications for Western foreign policy. Plus: why BHL’s glad he’s not American. Agenda: —French antisemitism —How extremism is devouring the center —Why Jews must stay in France —The “made-up” question of migrants —Broken economic schemes —Why America actually won in Afghanistan —“Ukraine and Israel are two front lines of the same war” Show Notes: —Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld’s remarks on voting —Jeffrey Goldberg’s “Is it time for Jews to leave Europe?” —BHL’s “In The Footsteps of Tocqueville” —BHL’s “The Afghan Who Won’t Surrender to the Taliban” —Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls —Douglas Murray —Adam Gopnik The Dispatch Podcast is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and weekly livestreams—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispac podcast. I'm Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is Bernard Henry Levy. He is probably the most famous French political philosopher in America in the last two decades. He also is a commentator on international affairs. Wherever there is a war zone, you can often find Bernard Henry Levy there speaking about defending the good against the evil. He is probably best-known, in America for books like Who Killed Daniel Pearl, The Genius of Judaism, and American Vertigo, traveling America in the footsteps of de Tocqueville. We get into a lot of issues on this podcast, most importantly, or at least most relevantly, the French political elections that have just taken place. But we also talk about issues he cares deeply about Ukraine, the war in Israel, Gaza,

what he thinks of the American elections and much more. I think you're going to enjoy this podcast. So without further ado, I give you Mr. Bernard Henry Levy. Bernard Henry Levy, welcome to the dispatch podcast. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you for joining us. of us in America, even listeners of the dispatch who are more attuned to the news than usual, are only casual followers of French politics. And it's moments like this when we become a little bit more attuned. So maybe to begin with, if you wouldn't mind, maybe just give a recap of how you see what just occurred in the French elections from your perspective. In a few words,

because I'm not sure it is so important. More important is what is happening in Israel and in Ukraine. But in France, what happened in that half of the country is on the line of the worst populist parties, right wing and left wing, populist, anti-Semit, pro-Putin, and this is a little half of the country, divided into two. the party of Marine Le Penh and the party of Jean-Luc Menonchon. And we will get into Israel and Ukraine a little bit. But one of the headlines that caught my attention before the election was in the AP. It read renowned Nazi hunter in France advises Jews to choose the far right over the far left elections. Serge Clarksfield went on to say the far left party led by the unbowed party is a violently anti-Israeli with anti-Semitic overtones

and that he believes, despite its past history with Le Pen and its founding, that the far right was preferable over the far left if that was your option in your district. It also quoted you as disagreeing with him. How do you view that option? When you saw him come out and say that, how were you, what was your calculus

looking at this election between the far left and the far right? I don't calculate. I feel. First of all, the whole left is not anti-Semitic. A part of left, La France insomis, the unbode France, which is, in reality, bode. They are slaves, La France-Sumis, of, they are close to Putin, to Iran, to Syria, Bashar al-Assad. So they are the most bode of all parties, but they are anti-Semitic, these ones. This part of the left, this extreme left, today, is a real, proper, anti-Semitic party.

This is clear. And an anti-Semitism, which is not hidden, which is pure, which is assertive. On the other side, you have the extreme right who was a long tradition of anti-Semitism, a long tradition. They were founded. the party was created by former Nazis or French collaborators with the Nazis. They pretend to have broken with this tradition. I doubt. Myself, I doubt.

Why do I doubt? Because I know what is French anti-Semitism. It's a heavy thing. You don't get rid of that just like this, you know, by decision, by decree, by capitalism. by your decision of your political bureau. It is, it needs to get rid of a deeply rooted anti-Semitism, deeply embedded in your DNA. It needs a real work, a deep one, a deep work on yourself, a work of memory, a work of mourning, a work of remorse, whatever. This work was not doing by the extreme right. So, in other terms,

we Jews have the choice between an open anti-Semitism, which is extreme left of La France Sunamis, and a hidden anti-Semitism, and sometimes popping out in many circumstances of the extreme right wing, Marine Le Pen and Jordan Berdelah. This is, alas, the choice in the middle. We have a strong center block, who is still hopefully, thanks God. God, go running my country. The left, as you mentioned, you don't believe, is entirely anti-Semitic, but the largest party of that coalition, France unbowed, and excuse my pronunciation, led by Jean-Luc

Malichon, is that close enough? He himself has been accused of anti-Semitism, refuses to refer to Hamas as a terrorist organization. I think he did a rally before the election with a fellow party member who, who just the October 7th attacks has made statements referring to the Jews killing Jesus called French organizations arrogant, Jewish organizations arrogant. Have you met him and do you believe him personally to be an anti-Semite? I did not meet him recently, but I met him a long time ago. And I think he changed in the last year else. And I think he is an anti-Semit. It is not just

as French commentators often say, it is not just a calculation, not just a Machiavellian tactic. It is a really genuinely rooted and embedded anti-Semitism, not just a protest anti-Semitism. It's this man, Melancho, you'll spell it well, and he's, he's, this man, Melancho, you'll spell it well, and his guy is around, they are. You know, when you say that the criff, which is our IPAC, is the real master of French politics and threads the strengths of French politics, it is anti-symitism. When you say as one of his partners in politics, Mrs. Hassan,

when you say that the Jews in Israel train dogs in order to rape Palestinian, what is it, if not a fake news, which is pure anti-semitism? And there are many examples. Not only, of course, the facts of to refuse to name Hamas, terrorist, of course, the denial of October 7, but much worse than that. you have so many stories of pure, infuriated, angry, horrible anti-Semitism coming from that side. That's true. I did a little bit of a deep dive into what happens next in French politics, because I didn't know what would happen when you have roughly a third, not quite each equal, the left party a little bit more, a third of the seats in different parties.

I guess one of the option is a stalemate, some are, one option is for a coalition. Would you recommend that President Macron refuse to have a coalition with either the right or the left? Or how do you imagine this proceeding? I beg and pray President Macron not to accept any coalition with the anti-Semites of La France, of the France unbowed, for sure. They cannot be part of a coalition. It would be a shame to have them in the government. And same for the extreme right.

It would be a shame to have them in the government also, not only for the Jews, Jews, but also other minorities in France, also French politics in general. They are absolute amateurs. They are absolutely in the hand of Vladimir Putin and of the enemies of France, I mean the extreme right. And no question.

They have to be also out of the coalition. But there is much space in the middle. Between Le Pen and Melancho, there is a lot of people with whom President Macron can coalesce. You believe you'd be able to form a majority without having to go to the far right or the far left? I'm sure he can. I'm sure there is the possibility for President Macron and for France

to make, to build the majority without these two crazy, undecent, undecent, non-decent parties. Do you think that's what he's going to try to do? I suppose. I guess. I had a curiosity as an outsider who's kind of doing a deep dive in the last two days. How about the regular right? Why do they get so little support? It seems that they have somewhat more normal views.

Why are they, especially for someone who's center right in the U.S., why are they so weak? Why don't they get more support than they do? Not only good ideas, but they have great people. You have great decent people in the French. French rights, like in the Grand All-Party in America, you have still some no Trump people who are faithful to the best of the tradition of the party of Ronald Reagan and others. So in the same situation as in America. In France, you have a sort of plague of extremism, of populism, which is devouring,

devouring, eating the French right. And this devouration, this contamination, this plague left a few dozens, maybe 58 or 59, decent ladies and guys who are faithful to the inherited of General de Gaulle of Alexei de Tomville of the good right wing tradition. But they are overwhelmed by the huge tide, the huge. huge wave, as in America, of the crazy bullshit of the extremes. I want to delve into these issues a little later in the podcast outside of French politics. But within French politics, within this question of what happens next as they

relate to France's position on Israel, Gaza, as it relates to France's position on Ukraine, how does the election affect where France will stand on international affairs? It will not affect because France has a semi-a-way of governing which is relying for one half on the parliament and for one half on the president. And the half which is in the hands of the president is precisely foreign policy. foreign policy is a sort of reserved ground, domain reserved, a gated part of policy, which is under the responsibility of the president, whatever is the governing coalition. So, even if tomorrow, by bad curse, Macron had to call at hotel. Mattignon, Madame Le Pen, or Mr. Melancho, even in that case, which is the worst, he will keep for himself, he will remain commander-in-chief of the armies, and he will keep for himself

Ukraine and the Gaza, the war in Gaza. Speaking of Jews in France, I remember in 2015 in the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, now editor-in-chief, wrote a piece. Is it, you know, is it time for Jews to leave Europe, looking specifically at France. There was an article recently, Rabbi Moshe Seabag from this grand synagogue of Paris told the times of Israel that he thought that France has no future for Jews. What is your views of Jews in France? Is France become a place where if you were Jewish in France, you have to start thinking about another place to live? No, it's not time to live. It's time to live. It's time to find.

fight, time to resist, time to erect barricades, mental barricades, intellectual barricades, political barricades, but not to live. French Jews have in part built France. They are among the best architects of France, the Jews. Are they going? Are we going? Am I going to live and to let to those crazy, unalphabate, illiterate morons, anti-Semites, this great and beautiful country, no way, no way. This country is ours,

much more than theirs, you know. They are unfaithful to any tradition of France. The Jews are embedded with the 19th century, the French Revolution, the time of the kings, in all that Jews were in the center of the game, in the center of the architecture. They cannot leave the ground to this stupid moronic mob, impossible.

Let me ask you about immigration, which I think was an animating issue of this election and a lot of elections in Europe and in the United States as well. In the U.S., someone like me who's kind of a pro-immigrant right of center figure believes that immigration is good, had its concept that it's different in America than in Europe, or at least it's a common thought, because in America it's easier to assimilate into America because America is an idea? Is it an issue to assimilate into France in particular if you're an immigrant? Is it easy to become, be considered a Frenchman if you're a recent immigrant? Is that a difference in France? France is an idea to America and France are among the few countries in the world,

not just another country. France and America have in common to be based on a creed, on a creed. America has a creed. France has a creed. And to embrace a creed is difficult, but not impossible. It's difficult because you have to mean it. You have to want it. You have to embrace it really. But it's always possible. Number one and number two, it happens in France. The press makes its headlines about those who don't embrace the French creed. But the majority of the French, of the migrants in France, embrace the creed. Still now, still now. So is that issue, in your mind, in France, the immigration issue that rallied the far right

to doing better than it had previously done? Is that an overwrought issue? Or what do you make it? What is that, what should we understand in America of the issue of? immigration in France? You know, the, the country, the parts of the country where the pro-right-wing vote were the higher, the most high, the most high, were often parts where there is no migrants. I could call to many areas of France, where extreme right arrive beyond more than first,

first plus, and the voters never saw migrants in their village or in their town. So it's a fantasy very often. And by the way, in the big cities where you have a lot of migrants, they did not make such a good score on the extreme right. The left made a good score in the big cities. So the question of migrants is... really made up, instrumentalized, made like hot and high cream by the militants of the far right. Of course, all issues are issues, and immigration has to be controlled when there are laws

who have to be applied and so on and so on. it is not the main reason from far for this vote for the extremes. Last question about the election, and then I want to talk to you a little bit about Ukraine in Israel-Gaza. There have been, at least in the economic news in the U.S., the economic news stations, discussions of what happens if the left has a strong role to play in economic policy. I think France and Baud has talked about putting a 90% rate, on some income level, they haven't specified it, but in the past, that an income level was about $450,000 in American dollars, which seems like that might cause a lot of French capital

or French businessmen to consider relocating. Is that a worry at all? The economic toll this election might play on France and where some of French's top business people might end up deciding to emigrate elsewhere? Certainly. That's another reason why. I don't think that the extreme left will be governing France. It's unthinkable.

Their program is absolutely surrealistic. Has no sense. It's totally... It means suicide for the country. It would mean suicide for the country. And so would have had, by the way. the right-wing program, the Le Pen program, would have meant the same. And by the way, in the way, the two are very similar.

Their economic program are very similar, going out of Europe, raising up the lowest salaries without any way of making part of a general economic program. They are very similar. It's sometimes not noticed in the U.S. The far right in France is actually closer to a liberal leftist program in terms of economy in the United States. Economically, it is the same. And in foreign policy, it is the same also.

The two extremes set the same. Anti-America, anti-NATO, anti-West, pro-Putin, pro-Bashar al-Assad, et cetera, on main topics of economics or diplomacy, they agreed. And we might discover that, by the way, in the next parliament when the real issues and real proper laws come to be voted. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer

of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly. with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on Trust Pilot

and thousands of families already applying through Ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's E-T-H-O-S dot com slash dispatch. Application times may vary, rates may vary. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. SquareSpace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home

online. Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients, and Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having

to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Let me ask you about Ukraine, an issue that you care a great deal about. I believe you visited at least once, maybe many several times. Seems like it's somewhat of a stalemate now and also a question of how much the West will continue to support Ukraine. What do you think should happen next? What do you think will happen next in this fight between Ukraine and Russia?

I was not in Ukraine a few times. I spent most of my time, most of my time in the last two years in Ukraine. I made three documentary films and so on. So what will happen, I don't know, what must happen, I can tell you. What must happen is the victory of Ukraine and the defeat of Putin. If not, if this does not happen, it will be the worst case scenario for Europe and for America. If tomorrow there is a peace in the world and terms of Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, you can say bye-bye to Taiwan, and Chinese can say welcome to Taiwan, China.

So for the world, there is an absolute need of a victory for Ukraine. Do you think there is a path to victory at this point? And what is that path? The path to victory is weapons, weapons. Iron domes for the cities, which are not protected, which means close the sky, number one. You saw yesterday there were two children hospitals destroyed in Ukraine, two hospitals, and one of children in Kiev. This would not have happened if we had delivered since two years and a half the anti-missile patriot or whatever able to stop that, number one. and offensive weapons.

So there is an agreement at last, signed by President Biden and by President Macron and by other Prime Ministers and President in Europe, but now it has to be implemented. F-16 have to come. Long-range missiles have to be sent in emergency. It's urgent. Can I ask a more broader question?

I've been following your work since I was a college student in 2005 in the Atlantic. when you wrote the pieces on the U.S., kind of the second to Tocqueville. And I think, to your credit, you always are on the side of the West against dictators against evil. I wonder how you would respond, I guess, to what the critics might are, critics who would agree with you on the good versus evil aspect, but would say maybe what either the limits of American power or Western power, or take away the limits of the power portion.

Western attention, Western concern, Western ability to stay the course. And I would point to Libya, for instance, where we fight and then we leave and it devolves into madness. And even Afghanistan, after 20 years of fighting the good fight, you might say, leaving and then seeing the enemies come back into power. I guess to make it a finer point, you might be right in terms of good versus evil and what should be done in a perfect world. But if you take into calculus of the Western attention to these conflicts, much less ability to fight them, sometimes intervening without that support,

that long-term support to get the job done might be the worst solution than trying to find some accommodation with even evil. No, to find some accommodation with evil. is certainly the worst in moral terms in political terms in real politics terms

in terms of national defense for America for Europe accommodation with the evil is the worst because we prove to be weak and coward and without any word

doesn't mean anything Afghanistan for example is a good example of that because we did not only wage a war, as you said, but we won the war in Afghanistan. I know it well. I was in Afghanistan a few months before the retreat of America. I was there. I saw how with just a few thousands boots on the ground, much less, much less than in Australia, in Qatar or in Germany. you Americans with much less soldiers, you achieve the incredible goal to have the Taliban

going on the ground, the ladies to go unveiled in the streets, a generation of journalists to appear and to develop, and a civil society to be built. You, Americans, and the little us Europeans before, we made that. We were in the process of winning. It is not that we failed. I always see Afghanistan in the list of the failed wars of America. It's not true. This one, you won it.

Few soldiers, again, much less than everywhere else. In the last year or a year and a half, no casualties in the American troops. And a huge effect, a huge effect, on. society. I saw that. I could a few months before, I could circulate, I could go and walk. And from one city to another, I made a report, a reportage for Wall Street Journal. You can find it online. It was a really, it was going in a good sense. And suddenly, you had a Donald Trump plan implemented by Joe Biden, which result was a shame. for all of us and for all our friends, all our friends.

Before that, the Kurds, Kurds in Syria, this was Donald Trump alone, not Biden. Kurds in Syria, withdrawal of the American troops. Again, you had so few. What was the message? When a few American troops withdrew, it meant to Turkey, Bon Appetit, good. Good appetite, Mr. Erdogan. And before that, the Kurds in Iraq, who were our best allies in the area except Israel,

apart from Israel, our best allies, they shed their blood for us in the fight against ISIS. Same. We thought we did not need them any longer, and we washed our hands, go to hell. They made the referendum, and the state secretary of that time, Rex Tillerson, told them. do whatever you want, we will not support. This is bad policy. Bad policy. Accommodation, compromise, withdrawal,

cowardness, lack of power of world. This is the worst policy for a great power. Let me just play devil advocate for a second, not necessarily in my position, but as it applies to Ukraine. If Ukraine feels that they don't have the West's full support, and won't get more weapons and can't achieve a total victory.

Do you think it's reasonable for them to say at some point, you know, freeze the conflict where it is, or do they need to go forward and fight to the last man? Because, I mean, the death toll on both sides has been enormous. I will never say to anyone, especially a friend, go and fight till the last dead, certainly not. they are fighting for them and they are fighting for you and me for us so what I say is that we have to support them

if we stopped supporting them then it would be another thing but I will certainly not advise to a Masada strategy for the Ukrainians certainly not no no for the moment they have the moral

the political and the strategic support of their American lives, this support just has to be implemented and has to become concrete. So let's do it. Let's plead for that. Let me ask you about Israel. There is an interesting dichotomy that there are some people who, the same people who sometimes want to support Ukraine to total victory, want Israel to stop when they have a more likelihood of,

achieving total victory, then potentially Ukraine, given their strength versus their enemy. Why do you think that is those who want to see Ukraine achieve victory against the evil that is Putin seem to sometimes want to call Israel to stop trying to achieve total victory against what is at least as great of evil, if not worse, in Hamas? For the best, in the best case scenario, it is inconsistency. And the worst-case scenario, it is anti-Semitism. That's it. Unconsistency, because you are right, what we want for Ukraine, we should want for Israel, same.

It is two front lines of the same war. patriots and Israeli fighters are dealing against the same enemy, the same enemy. Hamas, Iran, Putin, this is the same axis. So it is totally inconsistent, not to understand that. And in many cases, I cannot calibrate. I don't know. It is pure anti-Semitism. They are fed up with Jews, fed up with Israel, fed up with Israel.

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Let me ask one final political question before going to a few closing questions, which are quick and I think fun. Do you have any thoughts on the American election coming up, Donald Trump versus Joe Biden? I think you just criticize both of their Afghan policies. What do you make of the choice

that America faces in a few months? It's the first time in my life, in my whole life. First time in my whole life when I would not like to be American. it's really a bad choice, really a bad choice. Biden has acted bravely since the last three years. In Ukraine, evident. He woke up suddenly after Afghanistan, after the first days of the war in Ukraine, when he gave a permit to go to Putin, suddenly he woke up. a great Biden appeared a great Biden for Israel also

at the end of the day the alliance keeps strong but he's very sad to say but he has obviously turned into a sort of Shakespearean king

wandering in his haunted castle unknown knowing sometimes apparently who he is and what are the stakes. And on the other side, Donald Trump, though he did a few good things, I cannot forget the Abraham Accords agreements, I cannot forget the American embassy in Jerusalem, but on the whole, at the end of the day again, he's the worst choice, one of the

the worst choices for America, very bad choice. Populist, pro-Putin, acting. I remember the images of him with Kim Jong-un, the chief of Korea, who were so childish and so dangerous for the world. So, first time in my life, I always dreamt to be an American, except maybe now. You know, I want to follow up on that before I go to the closing broader questions, because it kind of ties into our previous. You mentioned the Abraham Accords, which I also thought were great. And I mentioned earlier, and I don't know if I love the term I use, but the accommodation with evil. In a sense, you know, I think, you know, Saudi Arabia has, Saudi Arabia has had variations of evil forms of government. Maybe it's getting a little better than it once was. But in a way, isn't that an accommodation with, I think what you would see is not a nice form of government, an evil form of government? Of course, it is not Saudi Arabia. I know that it is, you have torture, political prisoners, freedom of speech, really harmed and so on and so on.

But what you can say is that Saudi Arabia is slowly or quickly, I think slowly, moving out from that, out of that. Saudi Arabia is not in a process of enclosing itself in its own bad past, but trying to stem out from that. And this is also another consideration you have to have. If you make an alliance with a country which is not your type, which is not your sort, which is not your family. It is a quote of Marcel Brousse at the end of The Research of Time Perdu. He said all of that for a woman who was not, who nete a mon genre, who was not my type. Okay. Saudi Arabia is not our type.

You Americans, us French. But it is stemming out of the cold, out of the dark, out of the worst, out of the worst, rather steadily. And this, I think that it is not a compromise with the devil to try to escort this movement, to help this movement, to accompany this movement. I think that's good politics. I tend to agree. Let me close with final three kind of fun questions. Can you point to three books that most shaped your worldview? Maybe Hemingway, for whom the bell tolls, this is the English title, I read it in French, for whom the bell tolls. For who the bell tolls in Israel, for us, French and American. For whom the bell tolls in Kharkiv today, for us. American and French, for whom the death, the bell tolls, when Kurdish, Syrian Kurdish are killed by Erdogan again for us. Is there a historical leader that you most admire?

Winston Churchill, for sure, so smart, so brave. And finally, just out of curiosity, what American writers do you, in political writers, do you read and like? The living writers, you mean? There are some American or English writers at this moment, whom I admire. On Israel, for example, he is not American, but he is living in America. Someone who did a real great job is Douglas Murray. We don't agree.

We don't agree on many other points. But on Israel, I must say that I can't wait for the book. I'm sure he's working on. I can't wait for it. It would be great, and it might be a game changer. I admire in America, for example, on other matters,

and even about France, an American writer who is Adam Gopnik. He's working in the New Yorker, And he's probably your best observer and specialist of European policy and of the special link, which unite you, U.S., and us, Europe and France. These are two names who come to my mind, but it's a difficult exercise because there are so many. Final follow-up, because I did think of Douglas Murray when I was about to interview today. And I wonder, do you see a little bit of you and him in the sense that he too goes to war zones?

I mean, he's always flocking to Ukraine or Israel Gaza for his commentary. And I think a little bit about, I mean, you always see you in Libya or various places. You said it, and we were together in Ukraine, by the way. We shared the one year and a half ago, I think, one year and a half, yes. when Kersen was retaken by the Ukrainians, we were Douglas and myself, I think, among the first foreign observers to enter into liberated Kersen,

and we were together, we shared the same fixers, the same cars, and we shared the same brotherhood on the ground. Henry Levy, thank you for joining the Dispatch podcast. Thanks, too. You know what I'm going to be. Thank you.