[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good afternoon, please find a comfortable seat and before we begin i need to tell you that theyll be a book signing afterwards and its outside on table h and all the authors will be there with their books and let me introduce the speakers for today. The first speaker will be darrell pinckney, and then i dont know who wants to be the second speaker but we might as well do it in order. Yasmine el rashidi, the bottle of egypt, and important pieces for the new york review and lastly on my right, masha gessen who has written several books about russia, including the man without a mace, totalitariaism. We will be talking about immigration, theres so many different ways to address it. We will start with darryl. Oh, god, i cant ad lib so i will do something to read sorry. I dont know anything about immigration. You live with an immigrant, my boyfriend said but i think of you as englishman in new york just passing through, yes, im an immigrant just passing through. Its change showed me how racialized immigration is for me as a subject. Is there a distinction between company xenophobia and racism, maybe frightened or whatever but they wont be proceeding from priority. Elizabeth ordered council to promulgate an order to expeople black from kingdom because they had become numerous, because it because they were black or historians because they were nonchristians. Did black skin did mean nonchristian and muslim. What do we know about family tree . Bethoveen had a black grandfather. According to black journalists and amateur historians, late 1940s, rogers published on his own fourvolume work, race and sex arguing that theres no unpure unmixed race apart from japanese and look good had it done them. Roger started reading in libraries across europe and returned after the war and we wanted to demonstrate that the history of the world is that of people in motion, by degrading populations, we look in wake of population movement. In the past 25 years, 200 Million People are set to have left the country side in china for the cities and some of these cities didnt exist a quarter a century ago. For how long have we been reading about African Youth drown in mediterranean, how bad things may be back in societies where they came from for them willing to take the risks given what they know and heard Angela Merkel deserves the nobel prize. Jihadist terrorists attacks in europe as much aimed against them as europeans. Secular arabs, middleclass arabs, modern muslims, people trying to get away from the regimes we would also try to escape. I remember closed tunnels two years ago and trucks got backed up, hid themselves every place they could, channel 4 news from the uk interviewed one man who had been pulled from hiding place, the face obscured, the man answered that he was from aleppo, he was a teacher and taught shakespeare. Whats your favorite shakespeare play . Had to be interrupted. A friend in germany of catholic and unmarried woman in 40s tack me aback when she disagreed with me about merkels heroism, she said, it is very dangerous to have so many single arab men in the streets of our cities. I thought of the medal my boyfriend gave me struck in germany in n protest to frances troupes and occupation after treaty of versailles. Paris have had arab People Living since late 19th century. Europe doesnt have a muslim problem but race problem. Increasingly elderly societies of western europe, youth is being wasted, young men grow up excluded and policed because of race, because of the past, because whitens is the only form of wealth some of the people in the societies have. Greek youth immigrate to australia, portugues, young people have moving in significant numbers to angola. How weird, the Pakistani Community voted overwhelming for brexit, though many brexit backers were the kind of obnoxious White British antiimmigrant and the western hemisphere, literature of immigration has emerged. Bruno diaz speaks of the shadow of the United States in the dominican republic. Never mind Thomas Jefferson for once, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton had animus against german immigrants, percentage of the germans who came after the revolution of 1830 and 1848 were artisans. In the 19th century hardly any city did not have riots between old and new labor populations. Immigration as a subject and em greapts as voters to be manipulated have been factor in american political life. Won election in new york city in late 19th century, hall try today move polling day to jewish holiday. Its been true of american lives, one of the ways white immigrants is by subscribing by racial order of segregation. The chinese act of 1882 put stop to competition for jobs from chinese labors in the west. Celebrated by white poll cigses as conclusion to the indian problem. European immigration came to stop in world war i and white asians and escaping the rural life as mark once described. Segregation existed up north through Real Estate Companies and Bank Companies that established where blacks could live n1922 declared that japanese people were not caucasians and not qualify for citizenship. Talks about the fluidity of spanish or latin america identity, places where they would be thrown as black americans, cuban or south americans, that depended where you were. Tolerance was not necessarily found in black literature set in the west or the southwest. The great depression, casual deportation of mexicans almost as the discretion of whoever picked them up. But this time there were quotas of where immigrants could come from and we learned that religious persecution did not mean much to the u. S. Government anymore. The idea of america as a proud nation of immigrants was first made popular by john kennedy in 1958. One person as expatriot, someone who can assimilate according to the standards of an obsolete cultural ideal most white americans couldnt begin to describe, but too many people from elsewhere, specially working class too many, thats an immigrant population. What i find sad is that we all know this history, even on some level White Supremacists prepare to sue those who call them White Supremacists, Everybody Knows that we are a nation of immigrants, immigrants are good for the economy and the culture. What is depressing is not the subscription on the part of so many to old settler altitudes but i had not thought debates we read about as 19 or early 20th century political and social history are back having their custards last stand who did not think democracy would have to be fought for all over again. We are so spoiled, we thought it grew naturally with Everything Else we have going in our garden of good fortune. Thank you. Thank you very much, darryl. [applause] we can do three things, if either of you want to respond to darryls presentation, you can do so, if you have prepared remarks, you can do that too or i can ask you a question. One thing that i could perhaps proud you on is that theres, of course, a distinction in law between refugees and immigrants and one of the problems in europe, i think, is that the European Union has had policies on silence seekers who never really had policy on immigrants, do you regard yourself as immigrant or refugee . [laughter] so actually this will be an answer to your question and also a response to darryl. I am every year at the corporation of new york comes up with a list of great immigrants and they they published the list on july 4th in the New York Times and this year i made the list and i thought, you know, im a great immigrant. [laughter] i immigrated here once and then to russia, the practice makes perfect, im probably the best immigrant there is. But actually, i find, you know, this idea that immigrants are good for the economy and good for the culture very disturbing and thats, im tempted to say distasteful because, you know, the narrative that that america is a nation of immigrants, first of all, ignores people who were brought here involuntarily and people who were brought here indigenously opinioned america accepts immigrants because they are good and not because america is good. Theres a real hand in that because the very idea of giving refuge is not based on how much the refugees will benefit the economy or the culture, right, and the distinction between refugees and immigrants, i think, is problematic. I mean, its obviously artificial. The idea that political persecution can be meaningfully separated from economic hardship, you know, i think is absurd on the face of it, and i and i say those as great immigrant and also as somebody who came here on a refugee visa, right, and i got my refugee visa because a jew, growing up in the soviet union and there was the United States for many, many years afforded whats called a group status to to soviet jews because soviet jews were considered to be a politically persecuted group a priority which to me is sort of an interesting case because on the one hand it is certainly true that soviet jews were persecuted, soviet citizens in generals and, yet, and i remember, you know, jews in the late 1970s being the object on the one hand extreme discrimination and on the other hand extreme envy because we arent the only ones who could get because the world thought we were persecuted and that to me its an object in artificiality of refugee status. Of course, when we came here, my parents talked about as great adventure and all of their friends talked about great privilege and part of it has to do with the fact that refugees actually dont like to think of themselves as refugees, read about that in her cutting essay, refugees about how every jewish refugee from germany pretends to be ambitious future citizen of the country and lucky enough to be accepted and to be economic migrant which is much more aping. But at the same time it was a great privilege to be able to secure this refugee visa that wasnt accessible to so many people who doesnt face similar predicaments. We cant really deal with the migration crisis meaningfully until we address the meaninglessness of this distinction between refugees and my greapts. Thank you, i will say one thing which you might come back to, one of the problems that if you do not have distinction, happens in europe all the time, people have to pretend to be political refugees in order to get in and then that creates the impression amongst people who are against immigration that all seekers are liers, you cant live a living at home, they have to be politically persecuted otherwise they cant fit in the category of asylum seekers. This makes an even greater model of immigration policy. But i think thats actually one of the arguments in favor of what im saying which is that the whole distinction is meaningless. I mean, lets just sort of agree that most people will not want to leave their home, their friends, their families and everything they know just because they feel like it. Usually, theres some sort of extreme hardship that drives people to that kind of step which immigration of any sort is. And i think that that made the decision and should be sufficient to give them credibility. You dont have to you shouldnt have to pretend somebody something that youre not. Youre right. My great, great grandfathers immigrated from germany to england because they could get a better job and i wouldnt be alive if they hadnt done that. Yasmine, also someone who is trying to get papers here, its tricky, political persecution. Im trying to get papers here not because economically my life is going to be better, you know n ways i have a much more comfortable life in cairo but because of certain freedoms and comforts and if i stay in cairo, its not that you have to prove also that you are coming, if youre coming here for political reasons, you to prove that the persecution is severe and not that you cannot go back to your country, you know, because if you do, you will be, i dont know, be thrown into jail, but the discomfort is enough that theres an understanding that i want to have this possibility of this other life and, you know, i look at whats been happening with the muslim ban and, you know, i feel part of the problem with the system that its also completely arbitrary. Along with the facts, the things arent clearly defined in terms of refugees and immigrants and the various of that, its also completely arbitrary and i witnessed that being at the u. S. Embassy countless times and listening to these people, conduct interviews with people that might already have an immigrant possibly track visa approved. They still go through this intense, you know, rigorous questioning that may or may not from one person to another, you know, they may decide you to grant you the visa that you have been approved on the u. S. Side and they may not and i feel that that comes into the equation and on the other side of things you feel that when youre looking at immigration policies and when we are talking specifically of refugees, i feel it needs to be a bigger conversation. There also needs to be a conversation with the arab world, the question of the u. S. Accepting refugees and what the bounds of that bounds of that will be and the numbers that are going to be accepted, i feel that on our side also there needs to be, we dont have policies either, you know. There is no policy for accepting Syrian Refugees into i think it needs to the conversation somehow needs to widen to become more constructive, i think. What do you think of the following situation. Any of you could answer that which is political phenomena at the moment that at one hand there seems to be peculiar between corporate business minded conservatives, george w. Bush types, on the one hand, who encourage immigration because it means cheap labor which is good for industry and so on and in some ways a conflict between brand of opinion and people on the liberals on the left who are in favor of immigration because its racist, not to because it enriches the culture and so on and on the other side of the equation, you have people, conservatives, often people who used to be liberals who say, no, no we have to stand up for the whiteworking class. You live for the parts of the city where youre not confronted with social problems to deal with immigration and so on and you dont have to compete for jobs and so one has to the whiteworking class thats suffering. Is there an argument to be made for that or is it completely disingenuous . Well, i mean, now we are living at a time when, say, the level of immigration from mexico is at an alltime low, but this administration and anyone sort on its side is telling us, they represent a great threat to the job security of most white americans. That kind of sort of politics. I assume poverty is always political in one way or another, whether its mugabi selling votes for food, things like that and then we are living also in a time of tremendous upheaval that isnt being addressed by politics which is why many people dont trust them and why a lot of people dont know what to do, you know, we are sort of describing, talking in terms that no longer describe the world we live in and this rightleft opposition that you outlined is sort of one of them. Everything is sort of useless in this approach if the Administration Says one thing, you cant have the usual response. It doesnt sort of work anymore. So i think if anything looking at the world as everyone has a stake in what is happening might help us come up with new categories or new directions because its not going to work this way. Its not sustainable. Perhaps you shouldnt see it entirely in a racial manner either because one of the factors in brexit was that workingclass white people were not only white people, workingclass people were complaining about the fact that romanians and polish were coming to do the same job for much less money and drives them into unemployment. People talk about immigrants and refugees taking the jobs people there dont want but not all immigrants by the way are unskilled. You know, they come and they take what they can get. Some of them are doctors who are going to have to go through several years to be relicensed in the uk or in the u. S. I think theres a kind of resentment of metropolitan centers and consolidations of power on the part of a lot of people who feel let down by the promises of being good citizens. I think we are falling into this trap where the economic discourse on immigration and its difficultly coming from definitely coming from the right and what has been happening for a numbers of year is that the right says, immigrants are taking our jobs and the left says, no, theyre not, theyre taking their own jobs, they are doing a great job or theyre good for the economy, and that is a trap, right, because actually the correct response is those are not anybodys jobs and we are not talking about jobs, we are talking about human beings, right, and the argument for accepting immigrants is written on the statute of liberty and, you know, getting involved in the economic conversation enables introduction of trumps socalled Immigration Reform when steve miller said, those words in the statute of liberty are outdated or whatever he said and waived them off. Im sorry . Came later. Whatever. Irrelevant, obviously. Theres nothing in the rhetoric coming from the left that actually contradicts that because at that point i went back and i looked at hillarys, what hillary said in her platform on immigration and what bernie says about immigration in his platform and he said more interestingly than she did and his entire argument was true economic and basically said that we should be issuing lots of family visas because immigrants work better when they are surrounded by people they love, which give you the creeps. [laughter] kind of creepy. Thats the kind of thinking that ultimately enables what is contained in trumps Immigration Reform which is huge limitations on family visas for people who are here legally because well, maybe they can work just as well if theyre not surrounded by people that they love, right . Same thing about daca, we are talking thats a close true but no country could possibly afford to say we will have completely open borders, anybody who wants to come here can come here. No country has ever tried . [applause] no country has tried. Tst its unlikely to happen and very impractical. What would be the right policy to have that is both humane and practical and doable . Well, if i were to come up with a policy, i would start with sort of an imagination exercise in which we give up the idea that we have better claim to being here than other people do and try to proceed from that place and not start from the place where no country can possibly have open borders. Jobs are going, are being lost to that. So so its also, i feel there are so many contradictions in these policies and the rhetoric and everything thats being said on the part of the administration. Yes. I make mashas point in not saying immigrants are only good because they work hard and contribute to the economy and so on, but what should the criterion be . And if you say there should be no criterion and we just let everybody in, okay, thats one answer. But if were a little bit more practical about it, what should the criterion be for letting people for deciding who can come into the country founded on principles of pragmatism. Theres a kind of ideal, utopian city on the hill ambition implicit in the constitution that the best interpretation of law adds to it. I think sort of it goes to the heart of people who consider citizenship a right and people who consider it a privilege, and that sort of divides left and right at the moment. For black people, its very strange because in the early days of abolition the aim was repatriation to africa until a number of black people said, by the way, we built this country, so were going to stay. [laughter] and it sort of remained this kind of annoyance in black life. I can even remember when all the korean delis came to new york city and people would sort of say, well, we couldnt get bank loans to do this kind of thing. So i think it has to be really who gets here and why, because thats what americas supposed to be. Otherwise whats the point of us. I cant see any other reason. What do you think . Well, im the moderator. [laughter] i know, but [laughter] my job is to try and throw you questions spoken like an anglodutchman who lives in new york. [laughter] i mean, america for us is still the promised land, but [audio difficulty] to go there, but, like, the possibility of citizenship there has never been an option for anyone. Like, there isnt, you know, and so on the one hand i sort of, like i feel that nations have these kneejerk reactions at times to things, like really one reduces it. So theres a part of me that at moments understands, you know, that really rigid, extreme response. But i mean, i dont know. Its like i dont, i dont feel citizenship should be a right. I feel there need to be options, you know . But i also somehow feel like track records should count for something, which they dont at all. And you hear these stories of, you know, green card holders or immigrants who commit a tiny to offense of some kind that was somewhere in their past, and theyre deport based on that. I mean, its, so thats not no, we can all agree thats keeply inhumane deeply inhumane and unfair, but i think the way its been done so far with periods of bigotry and racism and peril and all that stuff, so far as i understand the United States and to some extent britain too is that the country was always held the right way to do it is to open your borders to have people who have persecuted and are in danger and so on and [audio difficulty] people to come in like the huguenots in britain who also contributed, people you need. But that doesnt work anymore because the scale of refugees and immigration and so on is now much greater and also because people are now compelled to move for different reasons. For example, Climate Change is going to create a huge pressure. In africa which europe probably wont be able to absorb if they dont have some kind of policy. And no european politician could possibly, even if they shared your dream, could possibly say, okay, were going to open our borders to anybody because theyd be, it would cause an enormous problem. So im still waiting to hear an answer. [laughter] look, you are the moderator [laughter] and im the, im the journalist here, so my job is to not to cre policy, but to criticize policy. Right. [laughter] well, maybe we can, maybe people in the audience have an answer to this. Yes. Do they need a microphone . Im not yeah. What darryl said about it being a global issue, i mean, i feel the problem maybe can only be solved if the conversation [inaudible] thats true. First of all, im wondering a little bit about the association with racism, which i completely agree in the context of the United States has been a reality for, you know, as long as its been the United States and well before that. However, i have seen firsthand what its like to be a zimbabwean refugee in somalia. Lets face it, there are more dimensions than race going on here. What i wanted to ask you all was the reason were experiencing something very, very different today is because of globalization, the globalization of the economy, the creation of e. U. And other mechanisms for economic advantage of mutualism and enhanced cooperation. But none of it anticipating what that means for opening borders and letting humans move. And the mobilization of humanity. You mentioned Climate Change. There are going to be other pressures, resource scarcities of all kinds, massive famines and other issues that will put pressure on this system of globalization. So we have this populism reaction against the globalization, we have the brexit reaction against globalization, but in the end, globalizations here to stay whether we like it or not. I happen to think its a great thing. And the problem is how do we push societies, governments and regional systems to recognize that a essential piece of the success of globalization is Human Movement and create mechanisms whether theyre your rhetorical question, what does a real immigration mechanism look like, or a much loftier set of real mechanisms put in place that say this is how you make choices about who has to flee because their island nation is now underwater or who has to flee because theyre now in the 15th year straight drought and no food has grown for the last decade. And we, we havent come to that point. And this conversation is not there. And i wonder if theres a way we can take us to a maturity point where we can talk about it at that scale. This is what i meant about going back and facing our history. The politics of immigration have played out in the United States in the same way over and over, and we need a new kind of politics about that. When i say politics, i dont mean something abstract, i mean human drama, and it means new people in politics and changing what is being said. The thing about race, think how long it has been with us in the way we know it. Were talking about 500 years. And so we tend to think, oh, no, that doesnt have anything to do with race because its so long there and deeply rooted. When you talk about zimbabwe and south africa or kenya small ya. Small ya and kenya somalia and kenya, youre talking about places that were profoundly affected by empire and the politics of race. And it didnt stop when they were no longer officially a colony or protect rate. It still goes on today. So i think that it takes sort of people who have never been involved before sort of taking over. And one thing weve learned is theres no such thing as not voting. Had the same number of black people voted in 2016 who voted in 2012 in milwaukee, detroit and philadelphia, this conversation would feel very different. Theres such a Movement Across borders, you know, and to go back to the muslim ban and that part of the conversation, you know, as an egyptian, as an arab it is so difficult for me to travel across my region. There are so many countries where i cant even apply for a visa. There is nowhere to go, there is no consulate to go to for me as an egyptian p to apply for a visa to go to dubai or kuwait or anywhere in the region. I have to be invited. I have to be sponsored to go there. And so when we arent, you know, and there is no we dont accept refugees, and were not dealing with the problems in our own borders. And so i feel that when you have a situation like that, you know, its the United States reaction on some levels for us sort of makes sense, you know . We cant even deal with our own people, and we wont even welcome our own people. And thats why i keep going back to this conversation has to shift, you know . It has to be stakeholders in this too, and were not right now. What role does culture play in this . Again, to play the devils advocate, President Trump and steve miller who, by the way, the descendant of [inaudible] to escape from pogroms in white russia now propose that immigrants should be able to speak english and have a certain level of education, so and so want to discriminate in terms of culture and education and so on. Now, what youre saying about the middle east im sure is true, but its also true to say that lebanon has taken hundreds of thousands of refugees from syria whereas the u. S. Government is still quibbling over a couple of ten thousands. Now, you could argue that its easier for lebanon to absorb many fellow muslim refugees from syria than it would be for a rural part of the United States. Should we does that mean we should take this into account, or should we say its inherently racist and so on to even consider the question of cultural background and whether itll fit in . I mean, i feel its inherently racist. And im not saying there arent refugees in lebanon and egypt, but theyre never fully, like, theyre never fully integrated into the system. There isnt a policy that gives them the necessary papers that allows them to eventually be whether citizens, you know, like recognized residents of that country. Like permanent residents in the way that you have here. And so, yeah, i think inherently there is that you cant take in that racist view, but i feel that perhaps the problem, like, if you could, if the view could shift slightly so that there is a more global conversation, perhaps some sort of solution could be found rather than this is the u. S. Dealing with it alone, and this is europe. I mean, its a globe its a crisis. I invite you to, all the way in the back there. Hi. Thank you. I think that we need to look at how International Capitalism operates in this situation. And that the movement of capital is not restricted, but the movement of workers is restricted and whos in control of that. I mean, thats part of the process of destroying peoples countries, and then they have to come to your country, and then they cant, you know, they cant survive. I mean, were in this kind of circular pattern because the people who want to make profits off of our labor, all of our labor are in control of how things operate and whos allowed to go where. Okay. [applause] maybe another question and then we can take a few at the same time. Theres somebody over there. Thank you. So running a little bit into europe, i was just reading the forthcoming book called i think it was go back to where you came from or some equally inspiring title, but it was looking at the sort of backlash against muslims in countries that had a kind of strong, progressive history denmark, holland. And he, he looks at the ways in which the left has sort of bled some of their voters towards the right, and he thought the rights saying we need to cut down dramatically on the number of muslim refugees coming in and the left either was saying its not a problem, this is part of who we are which didnt resonate very well with some of the folks who felt like there was a real problem, or they adopted some of the right, the right rhetoric to try to coopt some of those voters. And it seemed like neither one of those was working very well. And so while im also a fellow journalist and i have very low interest in nationstates and borders and im totally with free passage, it didnt seem like as i was having a conversation with some of the people who felt like theyre competing against or felt like their way of life was dramatically under attack, those comments would bounce off their forehead and land on the ground. And so i was just curious to hear what people thought. He didnt seem, at least at this point in the book, to have a solution. But in terms of especially in europe a way to try to counter the rise of these White Nationalist groups who i think in some ways are much more advanced than what were dealing with here. I mean, im definitely not an expert on the european far right. One country that ive been looking at a little bit can well, actually, one ive been looking at a little bit is sweden. And i think that whats fascinating about sweden to me, and its this sort of what felt there like almost an overnight turn against refugees, right . Sweden is a country in europe that has taken the highest number of refugees per capita. And has traditionally done that, basically since world warii. And then suddenly theres this huge backlash which happens against the background of unprecedented Economic Prosperity even for sweden, right . So the problem objectively [audio difficulty] you know, that refugees pose any kind of threat to way of life or any kind of economic threat or that people are blaming refugees for a common hardship p that theyre experiencing, right . The problem is one of perception, and its one of, and its each probably one of identity even probably one of identity, right . Sweden has thought of itself as a a humanitarian superpower in the wake of world war ii. And my guess,ing and this is a dilettantes guess, but my guess is whats happening in sweden is happening in many countries around the world for various reasons, that this is sort of the end of postworld war ii identity. Sweden doesnt need to be a humanitarian superpower anymore to be sweden. And so the backlash against refugees is possible. And where its possible, it will happen. Because, actually, it is unfortunately, you know, common and normal for people to lash out against the other unless theres a compelling reason. And usually thats a reason that sort of resides in the imagination that leads people not to do that. And i think coming back to this country, and this was not obviously policy, right . This is why im making an argument in favor of imagination, we need that here. We need a kind of aspiration to be better about immigration because the conversation about the economy or any other sort of, you know, pragmatic conversation is not going to get us there. I dont know, i think this is, i think, maybe where we differ a little bit. In answer to this question, i think people are more easily persuaded when you appeal to their interests than when rather than appealing to their better nature. In other words, we havent talked about the demographic problem at all. In some countries, many countries in the developing world japan being a very good example, but in europe too are having a serious demographic problem. Theyre getting so much older, and people are not having enough children, and they need immigrants. So the answer to people who say, you know, we dont want more foreigners is perhaps not to say, well, by saying that you are a racist which may or may not be true, but to say we actually need these people. Anyway, thats my to two bit my two bits. We have room for one more question, and then we have to draw it to a close. Near front. You have to wait just quickly, i heard you say that we are not stakeholders at this time. Were you speaking of egyptians or americans or both . Speaking of the middle east. I mean, a big part of the, you know, the refugee crisis or some of it is generating from the past five years and what has happened in these countries. And i dont feel that were stakeholders. Were not part of the conversation, were not looking at the possibility of policies, were not, you know, i feel that we need to be brought into the conversation. And perhaps we need to be pressured into the conversation. And thats not happening. I see. Thank you. And just as a subsequent question, im wondering feedback from the panel, as stakeholdinging goes, in your opinions what would be an efficient or several efficient ways for us to be stakeholders . I know that weve taken to the streets which is a wonderful way to start, but what else comes to mind in your opinion to be good stakeholders . Anybody, any ideas on stakeholders before we i think sanctuary cities are under attack, and i think that people need its a good idea to educate yourself about whether your city is a sanctuary city and what that actually means and how that can be supported and protected. Well, thank you very, very much for coming. [applause] the book signing will be on table h at barnes noble just outside the building. [inaudible conversations] island, britain, the brotherhood that helped turn the tide of war. Guest poland thought it was prepared but it wasnt. Nazi germany was the mightiest military behemoth in world