goodby europe hello chaos
Europe's migrant crisis has been the biggest in modern history, prompting stark divisions along political lines. What prompted the crisis? Where is it going? Today on the Truth Perspective we welcome back ex-diplomat J. Michael Springmann to talk about his new book, Goodbye, Europe? Hello, Chaos?: Merkel's Migrant Bomb. Springmann argues that there's more to the crisis than meets the eye. Mass migrations are not random. Historically, they have been engineered to target both the source nations of the refugees, and their final destinations.

Join us at 12-2pm EST (4-6pm UTC, 6-8pm CET) as we discuss the origins and purposes of the migrant crisis, the polarization of Europeans, who bears the ultimate responsibility, and where we go from here.

Running Time: 01:33:58

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript of the show:

Elan: Hello. Today is Sunday, August 13 and welcome to the Truth Perspective everyone. I'm your host Elan Martin and with me in the studio today is Harrison Koehli.

Harrison: Hello everyone.

Elan: We are very happy to have back with us today J. Michael Springmann, an attorney and former diplomat with the US State Department. Mike is a seasoned veteran of US politics and geopolitics. His views and research are greatly informed by the years he spent in Germany, Saudi Arabia and India in diplomatic service. Last fall we had him on the show to discuss his book Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts that Rocked the World and today we'll be discussing his new book Goodbye, Europe? Hello, Chaos?: Merkel's Migrant Bomb. Welcome back to the show Mike.

Michael: Well thank you for having me back. I'm quite pleased that I can speak to you and your listeners and tell them a bit about the new book.

Elan: It's a fantastic book. As we were saying briefly before the show, it goes out into all kinds of directions cited with a lot of research. If you think you have a grasp on the issue at hand, the migrant crisis in Europe, think again. It sprawls out into all kinds of different directions.
But before we begin discussing your book, I thought for our listeners it might be interesting to get a recap for those who've never read Visas for Al Qaeda or who might not have listened to our interview with you last fall. So I'm wondering Mike if you can just briefly mention those main points and things that you discovered that are crucial to the points that you make in your book Visas for Al Qaeda and then we'll move on and discuss your new book a little bit.

Mike: Sure. In a way Visas for Al Qaeda is a precursor to Goodbye, Europe? Hello, Chaos? It showed what the United States did to create international Muslim terrorism starting with the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. I had been assigned to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia as visa officer and found myself in a really strange situation because I'd been told by the American ambassador at the time, Walter Cutler, before I left Washington, that my predecessor had created such problems for the embassy in refusing visas to the servants of rich Saudi women and I thought this was really strange and he was telling me something but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what it was. When I asked the guy who was the Saudi desk officer, the fellow who followed events in Saudi Arabia for the State Department in Washington about this, he just said "Oh well, Cutler, he's just a queer duck."

Well when I got to Jeddah I found that I was being told to issue visas to people who simply didn't qualify for them. You have to show you have ties to your home country or to the place of application that is strong enough to pull you back from the United States once you go there for a visit or tourism or seeing the Grand Canyon, or maybe concluding a business deal or something like this. You needed things like a job or a business or family ties and so on. I would get people that wanted to go to a trade show in the United States but couldn't name the trade show and had no idea in which city it was going to be held.

Elan: Right.

Michael: And I kept asking about this. I said "Well what's going on? Tell me what's going on here", I was simply threatened with "Either issue the visas or you're going to be unemployed." Well it wasn't until I was unemployed and back in Washington that I learned from the journalist Joe Trento, that these visas that I was refusing and questioning were visas for recruits for the mujahideen for the war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. These were people who were being brought to the United States for training. They were people who were sent to US military facilities, generally on the east coast, usually in North Carolina and I couldn't narrow it down really more than that.

But in the process of researching the book I found that there were recruiting offices in every state in the country, including one in Washington, DC. There were 52 of them! And that's as far as I could get with my research. Nobody could tell me, even the guy who wrote about them originally, this guy Peterson I think. So I looked at this book and started researching and based what I had written on efforts to find things out about what was really happening through the Freedom of Information Act. I'd filed two lawsuits in all, some 20 years apart, trying to get the documents that I used listing the names of the people who had applied for visas and which I had refused and then had written down "reversed by order of J.P. Frears, American consul general."

Well somehow they disappeared. They were shredded after I left and all of the copies I had made were shredded after I had left and the state department claimed "Oh we shredded all the documents" which was not the case. We issued about 40 or 45,000 refusals or denials to applicants over the course of a year and generated a lot of paper which I had seen in the piles had never been actually shredded or destroyed and when I wanted to know "Okay, the State Department says you shredded these documents which I know to be there because my predecessors had never shredded any of them, tell me who did it, when they did it and what was their position."

The state refused to answer. The first request was shut down as a threat to national security, which I still find amazing. The second request was shut down by a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court so I think we know where that was going and why they really shut it down. I was looking at something - you've got to remember - they wanted to keep quiet about.

But in the course of doing the book, I divided it into chapters on Afghanistan, Iraq and on Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria showing how these same guys that we had recruited for the mujahideen years ago were being rebranded and recast as Al Qaeda and then as ISIL or ISIS or IS or Daesh or whatever you want to call them, but it's the same crowd of fanatical Muslims that the Americans, Saudis and Pakistanis had recruited, trained and supported all these years. At one point I had the opportunity to speak to Colonel Anthony Shaffer who is now retired from the army and also to former senator Mike Gravel, Democrat from Alaska, and when I asked both of them "Are these the same guys that we had in Afghanistan that we're fighting now in Iraq and wherever?" They said "Yeah, it's the same crowd. It may not be the exact same people. They might have aged out over the years but it was either that or the people they'd recruited and trained themselves."

So it's going on. We've got a cadre, an Arab-Afghan legion if you will, of people who are good at shooting things down and blowing things up and who are very good at destabilizing and overthrowing governments. This happened very notably in Libya. Look at what happened to Muammar Gaddafi. They had the highest quality life of any country in Africa thanks to oil wells and they had free medical care. They had free education. They had loans interest-free to people who wanted to get married and form a household and build a house and so on. The Americans didn't like that. He was a socialist. He was going his own way. He wanted to make Libya the preeminent country in Africa and that apparently conflicted with American designs on the continent.

Elan: Right.

Michael: We've seen this happen in Syria. It's been turned into another wreck of a country like Iraq and it still has a functioning government but the Americans and the European allies and the Arab-Afghans and the Saudis and the Gulf countries, notably Bahrain and Qatar and United Arab Emirates are doing their best to print passports for terrorist. They supply them with weapons. They supply them with education and training and so on. So it's a long road and it's the same people running the show and I don't see an end to it unfortunately.

Elan: So Mike you're saying that you found this US government infrastructure for facilitating the movement of jihadis across the Middle East and when you confronted the government about this they tried to stifle the investigation and stonewall you and it points to US complicity in destroying countries via these proxy jihadis that they've allowed to move around.

I guess from there we can begin talking about your new book and I think a good place to start would be with the discussion of weapons of mass migration which was a book or paper written by Kelly M. Greenhill. As you describe in your book, there is actually an analysis of how mass migration can be used politically to destabilize governments that the US government would like to see destabilized. So there's not only this negative by-product of starting these proxy wars of aggression against governments that are not complying with US policy, but there's also this knock-on effect of facilitating the movement of very large numbers of people, most of which are coming from the Middle East, North Africa, parts of south Asia, into Europe and destabilizing countries in Europe. That's in her paper discussed and described as a way to exercise a certain amount of control over these countries in Europe.

In any case, if you can discuss her book a little bit and the thinking that is behind this type of analysis, I think that may be a good point of departure for the rest of your book.

Michael: Sure. Kelly Greenhill wrote this thing and published it roughly seven years ago around 2010. She goes into great analysis of some 64 examples of using mass migration as a weapon; everything from the Haitian boat people crisis, the rafters, the boat people from Cuba, Korea for example trying to destabilize North Korea by encouraging the population to leave. She goes back and forth with some analysis in detail and it's remarkably hard to get through. It's in English but it's in very academic English and Kelly Greenhill has a lot of academic background. I don't know how many degrees she has. I'd have to look at the book to tell you. But her biography shows that she has ties to all of the establishment schools like Harvard and Yale. She's in with the national security apparatus in most of these organizations, with DARPA even in fact and one point. When John Kerry was a senator she worked on his office on capitol hill.

But the basics of what she writes about is, you destabilize one country by forcing or encouraging its population to leave. It weakens them. They lose the doctors, the lawyers, the Indian chiefs, the capitalists the people who put up the money for investment. You get rid of the workmen. You get rid of the students who are learning how to study a foreign language or computer science or teaching or medicine or whatever, and you drive them out. You make sure that they can't possibly live there, they are in desperate straits and they have to go.

Then you have the target country that is forced to accept this wave of migrants who generally don't have any connection with them whatsoever. In the present situation you've got people with an entirely different cultural background. You've got people with entirely different religions, languages and educational levels and what happens is you've got a country trying to absorb them. What do we do with 50,000 migrants in Munich for example? We can't house them except in the sports stadium and they either lie on the cold ground or we get an air mattress for them but there aren't 50,000 air mattresses in all of Munich.

So you've got these housing costs. You've got education costs. You've got to teach them a known language. There isn't a pool, for example in Europe, of native Dari or Pashtu speakers and of course the migrants don't necessarily speak the language of the host country that they're being driven into. You wind up with people there who don't speak the language, they have a different educational level. They are moving from a rural, agricultural society perhaps and are not the high technical workers that you might need in, for example, Europe, where you have a high tech economy and you need people who understand computers and precise measurements and optics and things like this.

Then you've got the other issue which is the split between the natives; the people who welcome the new people. They say "Oh they're these poor people" very much like the United States where you have an inclination for years to say "Well all of these people from south of the Rio Grande are fleeing persecution and destroyed economies and revolution and tyrannical governments. It's our duty to take them in." Well you also have the people who say "Well wait a minute! Who decides who gets in? Who decides what we do with them? We are in control of our country, not them. We get to decide."

And then you have this split between these two branches of the native population and you wind up with frustration and fights and battles, physical, mental and political, between the newcomers and the two branches of the natives who can't agree on what they want to do. You've got uproar and chaos and so you have people that don't like where they are, can't go home again, presumably, and then you've got the people who don't know what to do with them and don't know what to do with each other because they're not sure who should control the country and which direction the country should go.

Elan: That's a very big part of the issue here. I do want us to get back into that in a little bit because this has implications that are far-reaching in terms of what these mass migrations are doing to societies in Germany and perhaps what they're even designed to do.
Getting back to Kelly Greenhill for a moment, you said that she is actually part of the national security apparatus. She's not only been part of higher education - so called - in the US but has held all of these high-powered positions in various places including John Kerry's office for a time you said.

I'm wondering Mike if you can just speak to how influential her thinking is? Is her paper weapons of Mass Migration kind of an afterthought or do you think that people in the defence industry and Washington and lobbyists and think tanks have actually looked at it and said "Hey! This is actually a good idea! We can achieve some geopolitical objectives by following through on this. Let's see how we can implement it."?

Michael: Well exactly right. That's the thing. I think it's a pattern or a cookbook or a guidebook on how to destabilize countries in using migration. To begin with, you've got countries that have to face what she calls hypocrisy costs. They say they've signed treaties, conventions, on migration, immigration and asylum and refugees that spell out what they have to do when somebody crosses the border and says "I need asylum because I belong to a particular religion, tribe, ethnic group, family" or whatever and there are very specific categories and people have to be given asylum. People know how to exploit this. They've got this tension, this hypocrisy cost, "While we cite these conventions we have to take them in" and people say "Well to hell with the conventions! Who's country is it?"

But in the case of Greenhill, she for example had been an associate professor of political sciences and international relations at Tufts University, a Research Fellow at Harvard, at the Kennedy School of Government. She's got a PhD from MIT, more degrees from Harvard and Berkeley. She's held fellowships, again at Harvard, at their Institute for Strategic Studies and she's worked as a consultant to the Ford Foundation which is often tied to the Central Intelligence Agency. and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, a defence program analyst for the Department of Defence and an economic policy intern in Kerry's office.

So she's in tight with the movers and shakers and the issue of her section on Korea as one of the analysis points of the book shows there were various non-governmental organizations and religious groups that thought it would be a great idea to change the government of North Korea like the governments in eastern Europe had changed after the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So they thought "Well we can drive these people out and encourage them to leave and go to China, to go to South Korea" and that failed because the Chinese said "These are economic migrants. They're not asylum seekers." And the south Koreans for example, said "Well yeah, we'll help them. They're our countrymen" but then when they started getting a bunch of criminals coming over the border they decided "We can't help what we've got already. Why should we encourage more?" And that is the essential model for what's been happening in Europe in the last couple of years.

Harrison: Maybe we can get into some of those specifics, about what has been going on in Europe because just reading the news you see what you've talked about, the two polarized viewpoints on the whole crisis. On the one hand you have the people who reject it and don't want the immigrants there and see them as criminals and economic migrants and people just living off the system and on the other hand you have the people who will want to welcome all refugees and provide a safe home for all these people fleeing from war zones, etc.

But you bring up some stories, facts and statistics in your book about how this actually works, what actually happens when you have millions - because I think the number is more than one million even in a year - of migrants from different countries coming into a totally new culture. What happens when that happens? Maybe list some of the side effects or the consequences.

Michael: Well the big side effects have been a tremendous boost in crime. It's gone to staggering proportions. The most outrageous example was the one a couple of years ago with the New Year's Eve December 31st, 2015 when you had in Cologne a thousand of these migrants attacking women who were packed into crowds in front of the railroad station square and in the square across from the cathedral. They robbed them, they groped them, they stole money from them, they took their cell phones. They tried to rape as many as they could.

And this happened all over the country to a greater or a lesser extent and the government and the police played it down. The Lord Mayor of Cologne for example's her reaction was "Well you women really should keep an arm's length from strange men". And of course the question came back "Well in a crowd of thousands, how are we going to do this?" The Alternative for Germany party, the main opposition group in Germany now that's opposed to the European Union and the wave of migrants came up with a poster of a beautiful girl in an evening gown holding this huge revolver at arm's length and the caption underneath read in translation "Yes we've checked it out and arm's length is real security. Henrietta Reker is right".

But the police did nothing on that New Year's Eve but a week later when Pegida) Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West), a rightwing group opposed to migrants staged a large demonstration in the same place, the police rolled out water cannon in January and sprayed them with it. They couldn't have done this the previous week. So it's questionable.

Harrison: When this first happened, this story, I had trouble discerning what was fact and fiction and what was overplayed in the media and what was underplayed, so I wasn't sure which side was making an issue out of it because if you look at both perspectives, each has a motive to make up news, right?

Michael: Right.

Harrison: On the one hand you'd have the motive of the people on the left who would want to downplay these kinds of things and say it's fake news and on the other hand you'd have an impetus or a motivation to exaggerate or make a story out of something to make the migrants look bad, to make people more upset. So at that time I wasn't quite sure which was which but it seems like over the last couple of years that there have been way more stories on the increase in crime. I think it would probably be a gross exaggeration to say that all migrants that come into the country are rapists or criminals, but just the fact that there might be a higher percentage would be enough to make it to the news and make it a noticeable issue.

One thing that I wasn't familiar with was an analysis of statistics you give that when you have an age group that is predominantly male then crime goes up. It's like a statistical correlation. When you have a group where 70 or 80% of that group are males and there aren't enough females to balance out the equation essentially, then you will have more violent crime and more rapes, etc. So you point out in the book that if you look at the statistics that have been released on the migrants, what are the percentages? Something like 70-80% are young men, right?

Michael: Yeah, they're all under 35.

Harrison: Right, so naturally you would have a higher percentage of crimes just based on those population numbers. So in that sense the people on the right are correct in raising this kind of issue. They may be wrong in the way they frame it because it's not necessarily because they have brown skin or something like that. You'd have this with any population coming from a different culture to another in those statistics, as predominantly young males.

But on the other hand you give a couple of anecdotes of your experience in India and Saudi Arabia. I was wondering if you could just give us your thoughts on what you encountered about the viewpoint when it comes to women when you went there?

Michael: Oh yeah. Well in Saudi Arabia I was told before I went at the Foreign Service Institute, the State Department's educational arm, they had a section on area studies where you learned about the country and the attitudes and the politics and the culture. One of the things that stuck in my mind from one of the teachers was he had said that essentially Arab men believe that there are two kinds of whores - paid whores and free whores; that is women who voluntarily go out with men. In a culture where marriages are arranged and sexes are kept separate from the time they get to be 8, 9 or 10 on, this creates problems when these people are set down in a culture where things are a bit more permissive and things are a bit more relaxed.

In India I remember a Christmas party I gave and I invited some of the neighbours, one of whom was one of the Sikhs, an elderly gentleman, and I had various people from various embassies around town plus people from the American embassy. I had a bunch of secretaries there. A couple of them pulled me aside at the end of the party and said "Look! The guy over there is absolutely something. He's groped us both and the guy's absolutely shameless!"

So you've got a culture clash and Europeans don't know what to make of it. They haven't travelled for the most part to a lot of these places except perhaps as tourists and you've got the people who have been forced out of their homes by the American forever war and they're pushed and guided in fact by the intelligence services and George Soros and a lot of large companies among others, into Europe, herded into countries that can't absorb them and have no idea how to handle them and you set up this tremendous culture clash.

Elan: Maybe we should talk about that for a moment because in your book you make mention a few times of this kind of infrastructure that's been built and supported by Soros and his central European university in Budapest. You also discuss how the company Cisco has created a wifi cell phone way of helping migrants to track paths into Europe from various places. So they're getting all kinds of help by these NGOs, by the Open Society Initiative of Soros. Did Soros read Greenhill's book? Is he partly the author of it? He seems to be a kind of guiding figure, a leading figure in facilitating this whole mass migration?

Michael: Yeah. You're a guy in Syria, in Damascus where the average monthly wage is $50 but somehow you acquire a cell phone or an iPhone that can connect with the internet and can be recharged and can guide you on your way to Europe. You don't go to Saudi Arabia. You don't go to Israel. You don't go to Egypt. You don't go the Gulf countries like Bahrain or Kuwait or United Arab Emirates or Qatar. Suddenly you're going to Germany and you have no ties of religion, no culture of experience with those countries in Europe but somehow you're on this path, using your fancy cell phone to guide you since you don't have topographical maps.

You go and you recharge it, you hook up to a wifi network that Soros has helped set up, that Cisco systems has helped set up and has worked with companies or NGOs that have been given lots of money, such as Mercy Corp and Nethope, that have ties to the American government that have been working for years in conflict zones created by the American government and who in fact some who have been jailed as espionage agents by other governments.

So you've got this organized migration. You don't just wake up one morning and say "Well I'm in Kabul so I'm going to go to Dusseldorf and I'm going to walk all the way. It's thousands of miles and you have nothing at the end of it and you have nothing but what you can carry in your own two hands yet somehow all of these people manage to get supplied, manage to get fed, they manage to have water and they know how to find the right trafficker to sneak them across the border in whatever country, what it costs, how to find the guys, what languages they speak. I mean this is not something spontaneous! But it's billed as that and the media, the press and the radio and television never address any of these issues.

In fact there's just been a flap in Germany where this woman in the West German Radio had said that she had been pressured by the government to give the proper responses welcoming the migrants and couldn't question any of this and when she wrote internal memos and asked internal questions about this, wasn't this censorship, wasn't this managing the news, they retaliated and she just about lost her career.

So this is what I sort of suspect was happening and mentioned it in the book and this simply proves it, that the government is working hard to bring these people in and will stomp on anybody who dares to question it. For example Twitter refuses to advertise my book because it's classified as hate speech. I'm not quite sure how the cover of my book and my website and a statement saying this explains the migrant tsunami is somehow hate speech.

So it's a well organized production with interpreters from the Budapest University that Soros is running and has a lot of trouble with the Hungarian government which doesn't want the migrants, doesn't want quotas imposed on them and says everybody is entitled to their own way of life and it's a fine way of life in Hungary and a fine way of life in Germany but not everybody in the world is entitled to that. Not everybody in the world can walk across the border and claim that as their birthright. But in the case of Merkel who's putting people in jail and fining people substantially for questioning this, for criticizing the migrants, it's another story.

Elan: That seems to be part of the psy-op, that if you're in any way critical of how this is occurring, you're somehow racist or bigoted or anti-migrant or you have no compassion and they're really wielding this through the German media as a sword over people's heads. "Don't even think this way or you will be punished and labelled and ostracized."

So a few minutes ago we talked about the demographics of the migrants and the percentages of them that would be young people who would be more likely to commit crimes, if at all. The flip side of this would seem to be the discovery of various newly sprung cells of jihadis that are training or found training at various places in Europe. You describe this in your book as well. What you seem to be pointing to is the fact that on this wave of migration are piggybacked these cells of jihadis that are being sent in and organizing and training in Europe too. How much of that would you say is by design in the sense that you describe in your book Visas for Al Qaeda?

Michael: I think it's design. I think that what's happened is the situation described in Goodbye Europe are a follow on to Visas for Al Qaeda. The issue is you created these people and then you needed to do something with them and in the case of the situation in Europe, they are doing something with them. They see Europe as a threat to American domination of the world and they're afraid of a European Europe rather than an Americanized Europe. They figure if they can send these people in and disrupt the economy, disrupt the political system, then you've got a win-win situation for the Americans. They've introduced these jihadis. They've created cells. They've had people that were caught not by the German internal security services or by the federal criminal police, but by people who were among them and they peached on their compatriots and reported them to the authorities.

So it's a very organized kind of thing and they've found groups that are all over the country. They've been brought in with fake Syrian passports created by Qatar and who's to say the French would choose to print the Syrian passports prior to 2011. They could well be producing these things under the table and they have had statements saying that "We found terrorists in Syria making passports that are almost as good as the real thing" and you sort of wonder how they can do this in the middle of a war zone where you don't get enough to eat, where you don't even have time to pray but you can make fantastically perfect modern passports.

So it's a real organized thing. RT asked me at one point "We think there's some 5,000 terrorists that have been slipped into Europe in this migration". I disputed the number but I said "They're definitely in there. They're really a bunch of people who have been guided and trained and educated and they've all been moved into Europe under cover of legitimate refugees or legitimate asylees."

Harrison: One of the things I wanted to point out from the book that really stood out for me that I hadn't really considered is that you point out that in ordinary refugee crises, when there is a problem in a certain country what you tend to see happen is that the refugees tend to congregate or be put in bordering states. So there are refugee camps set up with the ultimate goal of the refugees returning. But that's not what we've seen with the wars in Iraq and Syria, Libya and Somalia. What we've seen is this mass migration across a lot of countries into the heart of Europe. To me that suggested, okay well there's something more going on with this then. I think it's probably a combination. There is a kind of spontaneous nature to a lot of it but there's also the organized bit that then give a shape and structure to that spontaneous movement.

So you have these routes set up. You have NGOs set up at various points to provide wifi and cell phone rechargers and to let people know who the human traffickers are, where to go, who to talk to, so the entire infrastructure is set up and then anyone who wants to leave the country for whatever reason now has this whole thing set up for them so that they can make their way to a country that openly wants to welcome them, like Germany. Merkel basically said "We'll let you all in".

I think even on both sides of the debate they don't really tend to acknowledge how organized it actually is. On the left it seems to be that everyone sees it just as a real refugee crisis and these people just need somewhere to go and that's the end of the story. They won't get into the role of NGOs. They won't get into the geopolitics of it and the possibility that there's some level of control and that this is a weapon of mass migration, like you said, where it's designed to not only destabilize the origin country of the migrants - in this case it would be the Middle East and North Africa - but also the destination country and these would be Germany primarily but also other European countries. So I just wanted to point that out and see if you had anything to add to that.

Michael: Well you pretty much shaped the main points. I guess the only thing I can add is that a lot of this information came from Sylvia Garamack who wrote the foreword to the book and who had worked in what used to be Yugoslavia and had seen this and saw how they had actually put up refugee camps next to the countries that the refugees were coming from. As she said, if you have refugees from Syria you put a refugee camp in Syria some place or you put it in the country next door. You don't put it in the middle of central Europe or in northern Europe. And that's what's happening.

You've got people flowing from Sub-Saharan Africa now. You've got people coming from the Middle East and almost anywhere, moving across the Mediterranean, moving up through the Balkans, going as far north as Sweden. And you've got tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and they just don't get there from Syria or Libya or Mali or someplace like this without a lot of help. Somebody pays for this stuff. I read when I was doing research, that it's $2,000 from Mali to cross from Africa into Europe! Well that's two years salary for an average Mali fellow. So who gets the money? Do they save it all up? That's scarcely hard to believe and nobody questions this except for one Swiss journalist come publicist where he said "They're not asking questions." They're doing exactly what you said. "They're painting over it, they're looking in the wrong direction and saying this is not calculated. This is not directed. But all of this is a situation we have to deal with and all these poor people have to be helped."

Well what you help them by doing is stopping their wars. You stop bombing Syria. You stop bombing Iraq. You stop the soldiers being sent into Turkey by the Germans or into Iraq by the Germans or into Mali by the Germans. You stop the French from sending their aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle, into the Persian Gulf to bomb Iraq and Syria. This is what you've got to do. You've got to help these people get home, rebuild their countries and educate them there, put them up in prefab huts if you have to, but take care of them at home. Sending them to Denmark with two wives and a dozen children and then get permission for the third wife and eight more children to come doesn't work especially if the guy claims he's too sick to study Danish and he's too sick to work.

Nobody looks at what's really happening. It's trying to put a band-aid on a chainsaw cut without realizing the chainsaw is still cutting.

Elan: It really is the elephant in the room. Stop these regime change wars, these humanitarian interventions, so called, and you won't have millions of people leaving their countries for Europe or other places. Mike, the subheading of your book is Merkel's Migrant Bomb and I wonder if we can talk a little bit about Angela Merkel because you point out a few interesting facts about her that I didn't know about. She is a particularly manoeuvring politician. Let's just say that she's very political. She was able to pull ahead of her mentor Helmut Kohl in the 1990s. She has a background in East Germany where she was working with the Stasi, the intelligence agency there which was particularly oppressive and she claims that she was only working as the minister of culture or part of that.

In any case, she does have a veneer of left-leaning or progressive politics and policies and yet she seems to be steering the country to the chaos under the veneer of trying to help migrants. I wonder if you can just speak a little bit about her and where her allegiances lie and what it is you think that she is trying to accomplish.

Michael: I don't think her allegiances lie with the well-being of the federal republic of Germany. She swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution and support the well-being of the German people and so forth, but the issue is when she was living in East Germany, she was born in West Germany but had migrated with her parents to the east when her father who was a minister in the Lutheran church created the East German version of the Lutheran church, one subservient to the communist party. And in return he gets special benefits like cars and trips abroad and education for his daughter who got a PhD in physics.

She was the person who was engaged in agitation and propaganda with the communist East German youth movement. She claimed only to have turned down the Stasi state security recruitment attempt but people believe that she was very close to the East German government and to the communist party. At one point she was quoted as saying that "If we're going to reform East Germany it won't be reformed in the western model." So you see how much of this is still in her mind I think, that it's a command economy and you will do what I tell you and you will do what I think is best for you.

She's been described of course as the mother of the nation and this helpful nice person but a former aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said she's a ruthless politician. It was Helmut Kohl who made her his protégé and she managed to get him out of the party and out of politics by somehow bringing to the attention of the press that he had all this underhanded, fraudulent money in slush funds and dirty double-dealing in finance. She claims not to have done it but somehow this inside information came out and she was the closest insider to Kohl. The same thing with Lothar de Maizière whose son is now her interior minister. He was in line to take over the Christian Democratic Union, her party. Until his ties to East Germany came out he had been the last East German non-communist head of governments and he had been tied to the Stasi, the state security service. But bang! that was out and then suddenly the only person to head the party was Angela Merkel.

So what she's getting out of this I think is one, she's reshaping a command economy in her own view and trying to impose it on all of Europe and that's just part of it. I think also she's got this idea, as far too many people have, that the way you deal with the aging population that needs more social services is not to encourage the birth of more children of German babies, but to bring in outsiders like they're doing in the United States, to do the work, to sweep the streets and mow the grass and collect the garbage. She sees this as a way of pumping money into the system but economists don't believe this. One fellow believes it's going to cost Germany a trillion dollars or thereabouts to deal with this influx of more than a million outsiders who have to be trained and educated and brought up to standards. So what she's got in mind doesn't seem to square with reality.

Plus in the background, I think she's absorbed this idea that Peter Sutherland who was involved in the United Nations Migration Office, who said that Europe is too multicultural. We need to bring in more outsiders from different cultures. And you had this bench politician, Diederik Samsom who persuaded Mark Rutte, the Prime Minister (of the Netherlands) to work out a deal with Merkel that was cooked up by Gerald Knaus, an Austrian think tank head, to create a system where they would bring in 250,000 migrants a year or maybe as many as 500,000 from Turkey and alter the cultural landscape of Europe. They believe that they can bring these people in and you can wipe out the concept of a German or an Italian or a Spaniard and you will simply have a continent filled with people with different migrant backgrounds, not nationalities.

So far this seems to be working. According to an RT report, something like 22% of Germans today now have a migrant background which was not the situation when I was there and was not the situation just a few years ago.

Harrison: On the one hand it works but on the other hand it's not working because it's not working in the way that the politicians say that it should work, right? Like you said, it's debatable whether the economic angle works because it seems that it might actually cost Germany more to support all of these migrants as opposed to them actually making enough money to support the welfare system for the aging population in Germany. And then whether the multicultural aspect works or not, I think that for the people that support multiculturalism as an ideal, the way they picture it is a bunch of different, unique cultures living in harmony and that doesn't seem to be working either as you can see just by looking at the news and seeing the reaction to what's going on. So from that perspective I'd say it's not a success.

Michael: Exactly right. And the thing of it is and what nobody seems to realize is that not only are you destroying European culture and the different concepts of Germany and France and Sweden and Switzerland and Austria, but you're also destroying the cultures of all of these migrants. You're taking them out of their own culture and you're essentially saying "Your own culture isn't going to work anymore. Forget about it. You've got to become a German or a Swiss or an Italian or a European and you've got to forget Arabic and Pashtu and Dari and you have to forget the history, the thousands of years of the Middle East and optics and philosophy and medicine and become Europeans and totally close the door on your own heritage. And that is a tragedy that nobody seems to realize, that they're harming the migrants as much as they're harming the Europeans.

Harrison: I'm curious Mike. From your perspective what kind of migration do you think works? What should the process be to actually have it be as conflict-free as possible?

Michael: Well along the lines of what the Canadians and the Australians are doing. You set standards. If you want to immigrate, you can do that but you need a certain educational level. You need a certain amount of income. You need a certain language skill. You don't just simply walk in the door and say "I'll sweep the street until I learn how to do something better". They target people saying "You can come but you bring something with you. You bring something to the table. You bring an engineering degree. You bring skills in telegraphy. You bring skills in shipbuilding. You're a computer whiz. I don't know.

But you don't come here and live off of us. You bring something to the table. You bring money with you. We don't want to spend money teaching you Italian or Spanish or Swedish. We want you to have a grasp of the culture and a grasp of the language and have a certain educational level and a certain amount of money in your pocket before you walk across the border. And that's not happening in Europe. This guy Sutherland in fact said "We don't want to bring in the highly educated, skilled workers. We want to bring in everybody."

Harrison: Another angle that I tend to think about when I think about the issue is to think about my position. So if I were to move to another country how would I approach it. Say if I were to go to Russia. From my perspective, if I were to move to another country, I would learn the language and want to be able to integrate to a certain degree in that country. And if I choose to go to another country I'd probably have reasons for choosing that country like I like the culture and I want to integrate to a degree into that culture. I'd still consider myself at heart a Canadian.
That's where I'm from, but I wouldn't expect to move to another country and just continue doing everything the way I did it in Canada.

I would learn the language and the culture and basically try to adapt myself to that. I think in the case of a lot of asylees or people that really for a good reason have to or want to leave the country they're in, I think there might be some conflicting motivations there in that regard. But at the same time you'd think "Okay, I have to leave my country and I'm entering a new country so what do I have to do to fit in there?"

But with the migrant wave, when you have a million people or hundreds of thousands of people coming at the same time, it doesn't seem that that's really a factor. Or at least that's how it appears from the outside. What can you say about the particular migrants that have been going into Europe? What's their attitude towards moving to another country?

Michael: Well on the inside what you've got is demands for segregated swimming pool hours, segregated exercise club hours because they want the men and the women separate because that's the way it's done back home. The more conservative types are scandalized in their view at the scantily clad German teenage girls on the streets. It's gotten to the point where women on the street who are not accompanied by men are harassed by some of these migrants because they think they are free whores because they're out on their own and doing their daily chores.

This doesn't work. This creates more problems and you wonder sometimes, with all the feminists in Europe, why they aren't rising up in open rebellion against being told you can't go out of your house without your husband or your male relative being with you, demanding that you cover your head, you dress not the way you want to dress but according to the way somebody else wants you to dress so that they are not offended. It's getting to the point where in some of these schools where they have Christmas celebrations, they're forbidden to do it because most of the people in the school don't celebrate Christmas.

So people are saying "What is this?! We can learn about somebody else's culture but when they come here they want us to join their culture, not the other way around!" That creates incredible amounts of tension. I remember reading somewhere in one of these towns, the Muslim boys wouldn't sit at the same table with Christian girls in the lunchroom in the school. So it's astonishing because my Arabic teacher and a TV producer in Beirut that I know say in the Middle East Christians and Muslims celebrate each other's' holidays. But in Europe it's not happening. They're walling each other off. The Christians are here and the Muslims are there.

Harrison: So ironically multiculturalism seems to work better in the Middle East.

Michael: Yeah.

Elan: Mike, you make the point in your book that the German security services, the BFV, the domestic version of the FBI it sounds like, has been doing a very poor job of keeping track of people who they know are likely to commit terrorism, who have ties to various terrorist organizations.

Harrison: Criminal pasts.

Elan: Criminal pasts. At one point you mentioned that the Chancellor's office submitted and the Bundestag, sweeping authority for security services to spy not only on foreigners, but on German citizens. It reminded me quite a bit of what we're seeing in the US, vis-à-vis all the legislation that came after 911 and the curtailing of rights in the US and mass spying. I wonder if you think that this migrant crisis is also facilitating some kind of totalitarian movement among Merkel and her cadre of politicians. Is there something like that that we're seeing in Germany right now that can be comparable in some ways to what we've seen in the US in the past 16 or so years?

Michael: Yes, that's exactly right. They're putting more controls on people at airports, putting more investigations of legitimate travellers. They're working very closely with Homeland Security in the United States, the FBI and the CIA and they are doing their best, for example, to control already controlled firearms on the continent. In Germany, as I mentioned earlier, are putting controls on who can speak out and where and if you don't speak the right way you go to jail or get fined and it's not the Alternative for Germany party or this Pegida outfit or Marine Le Pen's Front National. It's the establishment. It's the centre or the leftist/centre governments that are giving more rights with fewer restrictions to the external and internal intelligence services that the German external service for example, can now monitor telephone or email or electronic communications if they think there is a reason to do it and it doesn't matter whether there is a citizen on one end of the wire or not. They're going to do it.

The same thing hold for the internal security service which is essentially like MI5 in Britain. It's the domestic version of the external intelligence service so that they're watch birds and it's their job to see what's really going on in the country and in Germany for example, the BFV is paired with the German criminal police. They also have their political influence in the state governments yet somehow this guy that crashed the truck into the Breitscheidplatz Christmas market in Berlin last year, well he was known to the government. He had been followed by the internal security service. He had been on an American no-fly list. He had been quoted as saying he wanted to get an AK47 and do something in Germany and the criminal police had picked up on this.

But the Justice Ministry said there just wasn't enough to do anything about this. After six months they decided they would drop the investigation and then he drives a truck into the crowd and then they suddenly said "Well I guess there is enough now to issue a warrant for his arrest". But somehow he left Berlin, travelled through Germany, probably travelled through France, went into Italy where he had been before in jail, and was killed in a shootout very conveniently, in Milan. So it's astonishing!

There was another case of this Afghan who raped and drowned Maria Ladenburger, a medical student in Freiburg in the southwest in Germany. He had been jailed in Greece for trying to throw a young woman off a cliff he had been following. Then they commuted his sentence because he was so good and he skipped parole, came to Germany without papers. They couldn't get rid of him because they had no place to send him and then he caught Ladenburger bicycling home from a party from medical school and raped and drowned her.

You wonder, are these people really that stupid, that inefficient?! This is Germany! This is a country that's had a long tradition of security and dealing with foreign powers yet this goes on. And these are only the top of the iceberg. This business of Ladenburger murder, the Afghan migrant had been known about for some time and the rape and murder had been kept undercover and they had a lid on for two months until it hit the social media until then it hit the print media and then all of a sudden people were starting to ask questions.

I had a friend in Germany who wrote me an email about this saying that this was absolutely awful and between this and a couple of other rapes and murders she didn't want to listen to news anymore because it was so depressing.

Harrison: Mike could you talk a bit about what you think about the rise of the rightwing response to this whole situation, the rise of the right essentially?

Michael: I think that it's a direct result of this welcoming of migrants no matter what. The press tries to play it up as "Oh the rightwing is lost. Marine Le Pen wasn't elected President of France" but she got one-third of the popular vote. They made such a production of Macron getting an overwhelming majority for the French parliament but it was the largest abstention of voting in the history of France. So people didn't vote for him.

They just simply didn't vote period. In Germany for example, the AfD (Alternative for Germany), which is a farther right party, is being attacked right, left and centre by Merkel and the establishment because they're asking awkward questions. The party that began just about 2003 are already in most state legislatures and are poised to join the federal parliament with the elections set for about September of this year. They hate them. They attack them at every opportunity but they're getting votes and from what I've seen of their websites they all hate Angela Merkel and what she's done with this migrant wave.

Pegida is a little bit farther right but they can get 25,000 people into a demonstration in Dresden against the migrant crowd. So the Germans simply don't look at this and when they do look at it they send the police out in droves. In Cologne last New Year's Eve they sent police into the area. They had controlled access to the area around the railroad station and the cathedral. You had identity cards checked. They were checking people on the trains because there was proof that they were using their cell phones to organize another demonstration in Cologne and the police boarded the trains, demanded identity cards and took a fair number of people prisoner and held them and investigated them which set off the Greens and some of the left parties saying "You can't do this" but they prevented another New Year's riot.

But again, is this a foreshadowing of the future? Will they do what they're doing in America; increasing control so if you go down to the Washington Mall for the fireworks on the Fourth of July, on Independence Day? You've got police controls on what you can bring in. You can't bring any alcohol. You can only take certain containers. You have to be x-rayed. You have to be patted down and then you're permitted to go onto the Mall and sit on the grass.

So they did this at Cologne. They put up high resolution TV cameras all around. They checked identity cards. They had a massive police presence. This is unfortunately what Europe may be coming to, following the American example.

Elan: A couple of days ago in the US in South Carolina we had a very interesting thing happen. There's been a current trend of certain state parks around the country, wanting to take down the statue of General Robert E. Lee who fought in the Civil War and represented the Southerners who were ostensibly pro-slavery. His story is quite a bit more complicated and nuanced than that. He's also kind of a symbol of integrity of the South. He advocated unification and reconciliation after the Civil War.

But all that aside, what's recently happened here Mike, I don't know if you heard about it or not, another statue is going to be taken down of his in a park in South Carolina. This was done by the state legislator. It seems to be informed by this movement of leftist, politically correct so-called progressive thinking and it created a backlash, a reaction among right-leaning people here who protested, who were called white supremacists - and maybe there were a few people who were racists among them - but that was a title given to them by the Southern Poverty Law Center which you mention in your book as well in a different context.

So what we had here was this big leftist reaction against this more right-leaning group that was angry about the statues being brought down and there's this greater divisiveness here in the US that seems to be reflected by a similar divisiveness among the left and the right that you mentioned earlier in places like Germany where you're either accepting and liberal and helpful of migrants or you're considered a racists. So I'm wondering if you see both phenomena here and in Europe as connected in any way?

Michael: I do. In the United States Americans are not good at history and they seem to think if they can get rid of the statue, somehow that changes history. You really wonder about them and you really wonder about their sanity sometimes. If you want to talk about Robert E. Lee or some of the other confederate leaders, if you want to talk about them, talk about them! Say this is what they believed in, this is what they thought, this is what they said and things are different today. We think this way and we think that way.

But to pull the statue down to precipitate race riots, to tag people as extremists, as racists, as hate-mongers, as white supremacists, distracts people from the real issues of the economy and of politics and the inability of both political parties in the United States to grapple with reality and do something about the lack of healthcare, to do something about pollution, to do something about crime, etc.

And the same thing is happening in Europe. They're not talking about dealing with what kind of country are we going to have? What kind of controls are we going to have on our citizens? How much freedom of speech will we permit? How much government intrusion into our daily lives will we permit? It's just like the United States. "We think that this is what's best for you and you will accept it or we will paint you as a fanatical, rightwing Arab Adolf Hitler" or you name the current demon in politics.

Yeah, I do see that this is happening and I really think it's organized. I've had people tell me that "Oh, it looks like George Soros is doing this in the United States. He likes to fish in troubled waters to make some money out of it." Generally he puts enough money into bringing the migrants into Europe with iPhone apps at the Central European University in Budapest that you think he's into something.

I really wonder about Soros. People keep saying he's the monster but they can never tell me why and when I researched Goodbye Europe? I found out what he was doing and why. I realized that yeah, he is trouble. I saw an article in the paper just the other day about how in Baltimore, Maryland, the largest city there, they've had tremendous race riots and great civil unrest for the last couple of years and George Soros' Open Society lo and behold, is operating in Baltimore. I think if you put two and two together you're going to get four and not five.

Harrison: Mike, I want to ask maybe to look in your crystal ball for a second. If in Europe we see the further rise in some of these rightwing parties, first of all I want to let our listeners know if you think that's kind of a necessary reaction. But then I want you to give your best and worst case scenarios for the future based on something like that happening.

Michael: Well I think there will be more movement on the right. It was just in Austria that the farther right candidate of the party there lost the ceremonial position of President of Austria and it was done pretty much on the basis of manipulating his viewpoint. He was painted as a Neo-Nazi because his party used a type of blue that was similar to the colour blue that the Austrian Nazis used in the 1930s.

So what I've seen is they may well make a comeback and this time around the party may take the Chancellorship which is the real political power there, the Prime Ministership. In Germany they're moving farther to the right and the same thing in France. They keep painting Macron as a wonderful guy but more and more people are questioning what he's doing. He had no real background except that he had been economics minister and had attacked Labour and created riots all over France with his draconian policies trying to cut income and working hours.

So I think they're going to move to the right. I think the left is bankrupt. The left has based its whole policies on welcoming migrants with no concept of what to do with them and with no concept of what's causing the migration crisis to begin with. The constant warfare in their countries is they've been de-housed, de-culturalized, destabilized and destroyed. So I think that Europe is going to move farther to the right.

Now how far to the right I don't know but I think there's going to be more tension as the right gains power and as more stories come out about government policy to control information like the West German Radio journalist who ran into all kinds of problems with the government because the government-controlled news media said "Well you have to do what we tell you and you have to shape the news the way we want you to because after all this is a government-controlled station." They're going to stop this. They're going to go to more alternative news sources I think. And I just see continued tension until there is some resolution of this migrant situation and it's going to get to the point - I don't know whether you're going to have street battles but you're definitely going to have some political battles and how long Merkel will be able to sit on this and control it I don't know.

The alternative in Germany for example, is this Martin Schulz who is doing very well in the opinion polls and generally it's a choice of him or Merkel and either one means more of the same because he hates the Alternative for Germany party as much as Merkel does because they challenge the migrant view and the absolute control of the European Union over German internal politics and the economy. I think this will happen also in France.

It's happened somewhat in Switzerland. The Swiss have blocked the migrant wave there and they're trying to overturn this. They're a group of people with deep pockets funding the "Let more migrants in" movement. In fact one of the guys, Hansjörg Wyss is very close to Hillary Clinton and the democratic party in the United States and has contributed lots of money to them, as I see it, illegally.

In Austria again, the right may bring it off this time. It depends on who controls the news media and how many lies and in what form they can tell. So I see nothing but trouble for the future in Europe.

Harrison: Yeah. So what policies do you think can be put in place to deal with the migrant problem, especially for the existing migrants that are there, the million plus that are there right now?

Michael: What they've got to do is take the money that they're using for NATO, take the money that's being used for the budgets of the NATO countries and instead of using it to further the forever war against Arabs and Muslims, to take this money, stop the wars and send these people home again to their own country, to their own climate, to their own culture, to their own religion and educate them. Put money into teaching them foreign languages. Put money into teaching them to do something more than shovel dirt or to sift sand. Get them to where they can become useful, functioning members of society. Take the money and help them use it to help them repair the destroyed waterworks, sewage treatment plants, factories and so on that the Americans and the Europeans have destroyed.

In the case of legitimate refugees, legitimate asylum seekers, well, use the money to investigate them to make sure they're not somebody who's been slipped a passport by Saudi Arabia or Qatar or one of the American cat's paws and do something about them. But this business of open-ended migration doesn't work anywhere in the world. Unless and until you can do something about helping these people help themselves, you're going to wind up with millions of disgruntled, dissatisfied people who don't fit into any society, let alone their own since they're being forced to forget their society. As Kahlil Gibran said, "If you forget your heritage then you have no heritage".

So you've got to go back and put an end to the wars and use the money used to further wars to do something to help these people that have been driven out of their countries. Rebuild the countries. Create a martial plan. It's been done before in Europe when Europe was destroyed in 1945 and Germany became a powerhouse 10 years later in 1955. So I think there's a precedent for this and I think they can do it, but you've got to change the political viewpoints and that's the hard part.

Elan: Maybe one last question for you Mike that you touch upon in your book. There is a desire on the part of those in the US who would seek to have global hegemony, to keep the economic and political relationship between Germany and Russia to an absolute minimum and this has been played out in the form of Merkel constantly accusing Russia of not helping the eastern region of Ukraine to keep to the Minsk Accords. It's even gone to Merkel accusing Russia of interfering with elections. In any case, how do you see the whole migration bomb, if at all, being connected with this desire on the part of the US to suppress Germany's relationship to Russia, if at all?

Michael: Well exactly right. Forcing Germany to digest millions of illegal aliens with no ties to the country whatsoever is one way of weakening Germany. Germany is the strongest country economically west of Russia. It's a country that has a great deal of education, technical resources and so forth and if you united those with the Russian natural resources that they have in great abundance, you would form a tremendously powerful alliance and that would probably take in the rest of Europe and you would have a European Europe instead of an Americanized Europe.

Merkel is taking a play from Hillary Clinton where Hillary Clinton raved and ranted about how the Russians threw the election, it was their interference that caused Donald Trump to win. The same thing is being repeated by Merkel and her intelligence chief, this fellow Maassen, and it's the same nonsense. It's "Well they're planning something. They're going to manipulate the elections by having another Cologne New Year's riot take place to turn the people against the government" and so on and so forth. The Americans are working really hard to destabilize this, to split them off.

They've got Ukraine which would have been a natural link between Russia and Germany. It's been controlled by Neo-Nazis for years. Part of the eastern region is split off and the Americans don't like that in the least. To keep the pot boiling the Americans are sending these road trips of armoured vehicles in the hundreds with thousands of American soldiers all along the borders of Russia through Czechy, I guess they're calling it now and Poland and the Baltic states and Romania and so forth. It's provocative. It shows the Europeans that "The Americans are here. The Americans have their weapons and the Americans are opposed to Russia".

A lot of people don't like this. They think it has too much of an opportunity for a World War I situation where one bit of violence precipitates a major war. They're concerned about the thousands of soldiers moving through Europe. The Americans have been in Germany for 72 years now and don't look like they're going home. Germany's a target now for all sorts of terrorist activity I would think because you've got the headquarters of the drone strikes sitting at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. You've got the Americans' Africa Command headquartered near Stuttgart (AFRICOM).

So I think that the Americans are endangering Europe really by their presence there and particularly Germany. Unless they can get the Americans out Germany will be divided, Europe will be divided and Russia will be pushed off to the side and hopefully they can bring about a revolution there and get rid of Putin. It's a real mess and I don't like the German attitude of blaming everything that's bad in their country on Russia.

Elan: Well Harrison do you have anything else that you wanted to add?

Harrison: No. I think we're good.

Elan: Mike, we really appreciate you coming on today and talking to us about your new book, Goodbye, Europe? Hello, Chaos?: Merkel's Migrant Bomb, a very interesting read, very informative and thank you so much.

Michael: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to come on. I think that it's marvellous that you had me out to talk to your listeners and I'm delighted and gratified. About all I can say I guess is you can buy it on Amazon as either an ebook or as a printed edition.

Harrison: Great. We recommend that our listeners check it out and go to your website. It is, is that correct?

Michael: That's right. And it has background on the book. It has reviews of the book and it has a link to Amazon.

Harrison: Great. Well thanks again Mike. We'll talk again soon and all of you listeners will hear us again next week so everyone take care.

Michael: Alright, thank you very much. I'm delighted to be able to talk to you.

Elan: Thank you.