French translation here
The following text is the transcription by V.S. of a talk I gave in Stockholm on September 26th.
I feel a little awkward and nervous today, because I made the mistake of ignoring the warnings about Swedish coffee. I thought that I liked strong coffee and that it would be nothing. I feel like I’ve taken on a little too much caffeine, so you’ll just have to forgive me.
I want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank Frodi. I want to thank Daniel Höglund and Logik Förlag. I feel humbled that there’s a room full of people who are coming out to listen to me speak to them in a foreign language, or a language that is foreign to most of you. It’s something I couldn’t do myself.
The talk I am going to give today is called “Toward the Tipping Point” and it’s the base of a chapter for a book that I’m working on that addresses a need that Matt Tait was discussing, which is a book called The White Nationalist Manifesto. I have an outline of a book of about 30,000 words. Basically ten short chapters, so it would be about 100 pages in length. It’s my attempt to put our ideas in the simplest possible way that could be used as a kind of catechism, if you will, for people who want to come up with a set of basic convincing arguments for racial nationalism.
One of the questions that always gets addressed, whenever I talk to people long enough, is they’ll get a little impatient, and they’ll say, “Well, these foundational ideas are all well and good, but how do we get from an intellectual understanding of the foundations of racialist politics to actually gaining political influence and political power? How does that work? How does that take place?”
The answer is that there are two ways that we can look at being a dissident in society. One way is that we can assume that we are essentially alone. We’re just a small band of people, and our task is to persuade everybody of a whole raft of extremely shocking ideas, ideas that are shocking, ideas that are stigmatized, ideas that they’ve never been exposed to, and if they have been exposed to them they’ve been exposed to them by their enemies. When enemies present our ideas they can put a negative spin on them. When you envision that educational project it becomes very, very daunting. How do we change the way that our whole society thinks?
But there’s another way of looking at dissent, and I think it’s actually more accurate, and I think it’s actually more encouraging. That’s as follows: instead of feeling that all of history is against us and that we have to, like Archimedes, find a lever and a place to stand and shift the whole world to our position, I think we need to recognize that since our views are based on who we are, being authentic to who we are, and responding authentically to objective reality, that pretty much everybody in our societies is capable of believing what we do, and it’s not so much a task of stuffing them full of a lot of information as it’s going to be a task of getting them to own up to certain things that they already know, getting them to be honest about who they are, and honest about reality as it confronts us. Because who we are and the events around us argue for our position, and this little group of dissidents in this room, we should think of ourselves as just the first people to become aware of this.
We’re at the leading edge of a great storm. There’s a historical force that’s building behind us, and we are the ones who have become aware of it first, and that means that there will be many people following along. There are many people who are observing the same things, and deep down inside they are not comfortable with multiculturalism; they’re not comfortable with self-abasement; they’re not comfortable with parasitism. They’re not comfortable with these things. They feel somewhat inarticulate, somewhat intimidated. They don’t know quite how to articulate their feelings, and if they do know how to articulate them they are intimidated because the enemy, who controls our educational system, our political system, the media, and so forth, is working overtime to intimidate people and suppress these ideas.
So, we really need to break out of this box that they’ve put us in. Our thoughts have been boxed in. Our people are basically with us except for, I would say, a small number of people who are basically mentally ill. But they are always a minority in society. The trouble is that the mentally ill are basically controlling our societies now, and large numbers of people are going along with them passively or have been bought and been given incentives to going along with them, and sensible people like us and the people who have the potential to agree with us are basically silenced and intimidated.
The polls indicate in Sweden that 27% of the electorate now favors the Sweden Democrats. I don’t want to argue about the merits or demerits of that party, but it means that more than a quarter of the electorate are sympathetic to the sorts of concerns that we have. They’re not comfortable with being displaced in their own country.
I was sitting in the breakfast room at the hotel today, and there were 70 or 80 people in there at a time, and I was looking around, and I was asking myself, “Which of these people belongs to that 27%? There have to be people like this in every room.” They’re invisible. They’re intimidated. They’re not a visible majority yet. I think that to get to the point where 27% of the electorate is sympathetic to nationalistic ideas has taken decades of work.
Who in this room has been involved in nationalist politics for more than 30 years? How about more than 20 years? There have been people working at this for decades, and 27% of the populace is now somewhat swayed to your opinions. I think it could only be a matter of months before you get to 52% of the populace or 54% of the populace, because it’s possible after very long periods of slow growth for ideas to break out, for things to go viral.
One of the books that I highly recommend to people who are involved in radical politics is a book by an English mulatto, a writer named Malcolm Gladwell. He’s the son of a Jamaican mother and an English mathematician, and he’s quite a bright guy. In 2000, he wrote a book called The Tipping Point and the subtitle is How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. We’re a little thing; we’re a little group of people, right? We’re a small movement, and yet it is possible for small groups of people to make an enormous difference. And how is that the case? Well, he gives examples.
The book is very masterful at synthesizing and popularizing a lot of data in social psychology, sociology, epidemiology, and business and marketing studies. He talks about certain examples, such as: how is it that a certain unfashionable brand of shoes suddenly became fashionable? Or how is it that crime suddenly shot way up in New York City and then how is it that it subsided? The theory about why it subsided is quite blind, I’m afraid, to racial issues.
But he says that what happens frequently in society is things “go viral.” Ideas, products, whatever. One of the stock pieces of boilerplate that our enemies use to describe us is that we are full of “virulent ideas,” and virulent refers to how viruses propagate. It’s meant to be an insult. We’re like rats carrying the plague. But it also expresses what they fear. They fear that our ideas can become viral, and there’s a way that viruses propagate that’s astonishingly powerful and fast.
We’re all familiar with the bell curve and how certain natural phenomena distribute themselves on bell curves: height, intelligence, ethnocentrism, a whole host of healthy and unhealthy psychological traits. When you map them out there’s a bell curve with a large number of people in the middle and small numbers on either extreme.
We need to be as familiar with a model that’s called geometrical, as opposed to arithmetic, change. In nature, geometrical processes of change take place all the time. You find them in the study of diseases. You find them in ecology: suddenly algae will bloom in a pond, and suddenly overnight the pond has turned green, and then all the oxygen is sucked up by the algae, and then the algae dies. These processes take place all the time. And so I want to illustrate the distinction between geometrical and arithmetic forms of change.
Let’s say that you make a pledge today. All of you pledge that in the next year you are going to convert one person to our way of thinking. Now, you probably know 20 people who don’t really think like us, but that if you had a whole year to work on them you might actually be able to wrangle them around to our way of thinking. Now, imagine you do that for 10 years. After the first year there are 2 of you and after the second year there are 3 of you. After 10 years, you will have converted 10 people. Big deal, right?
Now, imagine that you add something else to the message. Imagine that you not only convert them to our way of thinking. Imagine that you convert them to the idea of doing the same thing that you’re doing. So, at the end of the first year there will be two of you, and then both you and your friend will go out and each convert another person. At the end of the second year the number will double. So, at the end of Year 1 there will be 2 of you, at the end of Year 2 there will be 4 of you, at the end of the third year there will be 8. It doesn’t sound like a great degree of increase, but as you multiply this out over the years by the tenth year there would be, instead of 11 who now believe as you believe, there will be 1,024. That’s the distinction between arithmetic and geometric progressions in numbers.
Remember, you would only have actually converted 10 people yourself in 10 years. Your workload wouldn’t increase. The only thing that has changed is that you’ve gotten everybody else to get on board with the same program, and if they do it at the same rate that you do it, at the end of 10 years there will be more than 1,000 of you as opposed to 11 of you. That’s an extraordinary change.
With each additional year the effects become even more remarkable. I have been a White Nationalist for basically 15 years. If I had started this process 15 years ago and it worked, I would have converted 15 people by wining and dining them and hand-holding and talking them through their qualms and fears. I can do that. 15 people in 15 years? I can do that. There would be a lot of dinners, a lot of long phone conversations, but I could do that. And if I had started that process 15 years ago there would be 32,768 of us due to my efforts and the efforts of the people that I talked to. But none of it would have happened without one individual making the first step. Every one of you in this room can be that one individual. At 15 years there would be 32,000. Five more years after that the number would be a million. You’d run out of Swedes very quickly if this were to happen, and that would be a good problem to have.
I was told that the reason why this meeting doesn’t have as many people as the one in April is that there were three nationalist events for Swedes to choose from this weekend. That’s a really good problem to have.
Already more than a quarter of the electorate is on your side. So, the question is how can this break out? How can these ideas move very quickly?
Geometric progressions in algae blooms, in trends, in diseases, have three things in common. First, they are contagious. Second, little changes often have huge effects by being multiplied or amplified geometrically rather than arithmetically. Finally, once these processes are afoot, widespread changes can happen very quickly.
Something contagious moves through person-to-person contacts, from individual contacts. This is very, very important. Why? Because the way that the system controls our minds is impersonally from above. Its messages radiate from the top out to many isolated individuals, and the more isolated we are from one another the better for them. Because it might be the case that more than 27% of Swedish voters actually agree with our ideas, but some of them are intimidated even by an anonymous poll.
There are examples from history. The most recent one and the most spectacular being the collapse of Communism where at the beginning of 1989 all the smart money was that Communism was going to be around for a very, very long time. It looked very, very stable and had an awesome apparatus of intimidation and brain-washing in place. There was very little overt violence anymore, everything was so under control. And yet all the smart people were unaware of the fact that in the privacy of the minds of many, many people in these societies they had seen through it and they were cynical about it. It was empty. The system was hollow and brittle. The only thing that kept it going was the fact that each dissident felt that he was alone. Why? Well, because he was too intimidated to speak out. People were just afraid.
We have a similar situation in the West now. There’s a great deal of soft intimidation that makes people who have dissenting ideas feel like they’re alone and feel like they are taking a terrible risk by expressing these ideas. Even though you know that objectively if you’re in a train car or sitting in the breakfast room of a hotel chances are that 1 in 4 people would be receptive to you if you started talking like we’re talking now. One in 4 people in that room might be receptive. You don’t know who they are, and you’re always afraid in the back of your mind that there’s going to be some horrible scene where some angry person’s going to leap up and wag his finger and call you names, and so you are intimidated and quiet.
So, how do you break out of that? Well, I want to propose something, and this is based on an unlikely source. A couple of years ago, I went to a funeral for a friend, and the person I stayed with put on cable TV, and this movie about Harvey Milk came on. Harvey Milk was a Jewish gay rights activist in the 1970s, and this biopic was made about him that won all kinds of awards, as you might imagine given the subject matter. It was very heart-warming for the PC crowd, right? But I watched it, and it was really a very useful movie about radical politics that had lots of lessons that can be applied to our politics.
The most important lesson was an event that took place in 1978. There was a ballot initiative in California that was sponsored by the religious Right, the evangelicals, to basically fire any homosexual who was a school teacher. We can’t have these people teaching our kids, right? And so this went on the ballot, and there was a campaign for and against it, and the polls looked very, very negative. Two thirds of the public was going to vote for this. So, Milk and other people based in San Francisco decided that they needed to fight this, and one of the things that they came up with was the following. They had the idea that the enemy media had portrayed homosexuals in a very negative way. (I guess that’s because they sent cameras out to gay pride parades and things like that.) They thought, “What we need is to be more visible as a group. We need to stop allowing our enemies to portray us the way they want to portray us, and we need to represent ourselves as a group.”
What they basically said was, “Everybody who is closeted has to come out, and they have to come out at the same time so it’s safer that way.” And so they basically did that on the assumption that it would be harder for the public to pass anti-gay legislation if members of the public, voters, actually knew a gay person, if they actually realized, “Oh my gosh, this person in my fraternity” or “this person who works in my office” or “this neighbor” or whatever “is gay,” then they wouldn’t vote for these anti-gay measures. They did this, and the proposition was defeated fairly soundly, and they attributed the defeat partly to this strategy.
The basic principle there was that if people actually have direct awareness of a marginalized group then the enemies of that group cannot portray them in a way that stigmatizes them and makes them haram, taboo. I think that what nationalists in a country like Sweden or in a country like France need to do is “come out.” You’re already a quarter of the electorate, but you’re an invisible group, and therefore your enemies have the power to control the public’s perception of you.
This is true in France. The average French person believes that supporters of the National Front in France are below average in their income and education, that they tend to be people who live in the rural areas of France rather than the cities. They tend to think of them as bumpkins, basically, and this is completely false. But this is a false message fostered by the French media. If the 20-some-odd-percent of the French electorate that was pro-National Front suddenly started representing itself to the public rather than allowing its enemies to do so, those public perceptions would change rapidly. An abstract, bogeyman image of National Front people would be replaced by concrete instances of admirable and decent people, neighbors, co-workers. Your veterinarian, right? The person you entrust your dog to. You can’t think of this person as a horrible fascist. You just can’t! This is the person who takes care of your dog when it’s sick. He bandages your dog’s paw. How can you hate this person when you know concretely who they are? And you don’t even necessarily need to know a person directly. You just need to know somebody who knows somebody, and if there’s just one or two degrees of separation between any individual in a society and a known “hater,” a known “fascist,” that changes public perceptions dramatically. I think that would be the way that it’d work in Sweden as well. I am proposing this to people I know who are in the National Front.
Certain groundwork needs to be laid for this. For instance, you need to find ways of reducing the risks to individuals if they do this. How would you do it? Well, it would be as easy as on a certain day everybody wears a Sweden Democrats pin. And it’s even more important to have people who are not Sweden Democrats who could stand up and say, “I am not a Sweden Democrat, but I support their right to be who they are. I support their right to be heard.” That is a psychologically very powerful thing. It’s often the case that people who are neutral bystanders, who will stand up for your rights, are just as important as people who are standing up for your party. If you have these people who are not members of your group, but will second your right to exist and legitimize you from the outside, that’s a very powerful thing. In effect, becoming a visible group is creating a large number of people who are willing to say that. “Yeah, I know some of these people, and they’re really nice people.”
Looking around this room, there are a lot of very nice-looking, well-mannered people. I’ve noticed that your table manners were very, very good. You read books. A lot of you probably have higher educational levels and better jobs than average people. But people don’t believe that about you, chances are. They certainly don’t believe that about White Nationalist types in the United States.
If you become more visible, all of a sudden you will change those perceptions, and you will be able to represent yourself. How to do that? Well, just make sure that if there are legal ways to prevent individuals from being discriminated against or harmed that the party has help in place so that it can come to people’s aid if they are discriminated against in the work place and things like that. That would lower the risk and therefore increase the chances that people would publically represent themselves. If there comes a day when you’re walking down the street in central Stockholm and 1 in 4 people is wearing a little party ribbon that indicates allegiance to the Sweden Democrats that is a complete end run around the top-down media control of people’s perceptions.
Again, viral ideas, viral marketing, anything that’s viral takes place through person to person contact. It is a very subversive way of undermining top-down centralized control. Another trait of viral phenomena is that small changes can produce huge effects. The small change of one of you resolving that you will follow the “program” I laid out. I hate talking that way, but let’s say that one of you today vows to follow the program that I laid out of converting somebody and giving them the impetus to do the same once a year. If one of you did that, just one of you, and it worked even half-way, even if you had a 50% success rate in terms of people actually following through and spreading the word, there would still be in 10 years’ time hundreds and hundreds more people that believe what you believe, and it only takes one of you to be really successful at this before things can break out and go viral.
Here’s another consideration that’s very important. I believe the system in the United States and certainly in Western Europe as well is working at almost full capacity to contain the ethnic awareness and ethnocentrism of White people. I used to think years ago that groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States were absolutely ludicrous paranoids who would come down with enormous pressure on people like a public official who makes an innocent off-handed, perhaps well-meaning, remark about race or Jewish power. Things like that. I used to think, “These people are so paranoid! They have a complete lock on the system. Why do they come at you with elephant guns blazing when some dog catcher in a small town makes an incorrect remark?” And after a while though I came to believe that no, they’re not paranoid. They’re actually quite aware of the situation, and they would be, right? We know that the political establishment in every country is constantly polling the electorate. They don’t release the results of these polls unless it’s useful to them. The polls that make them very, very afraid they bury deep down.
I came to believe that the power of the Jewish establishment in the United States in particular is an ocean wide and maybe a molecule deep, and they are working feverishly at about 99% of their capacity to keep our ethnocentrism, our patriotism, our awareness at about 1% of its capacity. Well, what that means is that we have a great deal of capacity for growth and they don’t. Our capacity for growing awareness is immense, because we are at such a low ebb right now, but their capacity for suppressing and controlling our awareness doesn’t have that much room for growth before they exceed their abilities. They’re basically in the red at all times. They’re basically working at about 99% of their capacity.
This is why they have to fervently jump on anything that seems threatening to them, because they realize that if they don’t, one small person poking their head up and getting the right idea could lead to a viral outbreak of ethnocentrism that they will not be able to contain and therefore they have to nip it in the bud. Basically, that’s the idea.
Forest fires grow geometrically. There’s a small fire in a park and many, many fire trucks converge on it to put it out. Seems like a little bit of overkill until you know how destructive a fire is once if it is not contained. Imagine if fires broke out simultaneously all over town. There aren’t going to be enough fire trucks to go and contain it. That’s the case with ideological control. That’s the case with the establishment’s power to keep us bottled up, to keep our ethnic awareness bottled up and ineffective. Their capacity to grow in containing it is far more limited than our capacity to grow in breaking out. If there is an upsurge that could overwhelm their capacity for containment.
Their containment policies all have this top-down pattern to them as well, and this is why person-to-person contagions between individuals which cannot be controlled is something that frightens them. They would like nothing better than for all of us to stay at home interacting over the internet or, better yet, watching television passively. They’d like nothing better, because that means there’s nobody else interfering with their ability to push their narrative and their message into our heads. They want us isolated. They want us alienated. They want us boxed up watching porn or the television news or anything that keeps us isolated as individuals, because once face-to-face interaction takes place that opens up the possibility of interrupting their top-down power.
I’m just putting this out there. Back in the year 2000, there was an amusing incident that happened to me. I became friends with a Bulgarian scholar who it turns out was an Orthodox monk. I was writing my doctoral dissertation, and he found out about what I was writing on and contacted me. We had this correspondence about philosophy, basically, and then it popped up that he was a monarchist, and he was very interested in the monarchist cause in Bulgaria. So, we got chatting about that, and I shared my thoughts with him about what the Tsar should do in Bulgaria. He wrote back to me and it shocked me. He said, “I have forwarded your comments to the Tsar!” Apparently, he actually knew the guy! But I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that. It turns out I was one person away from the Tsar of Bulgaria.
So, some of you need to forward my suggestions to the Tsar of the Sweden Democrats perhaps. Somebody is going to forward my idea to Marine Le Pen. I don’t know who it is, necessarily, but chances are that if you get these ideas broadcast out there you’re only one or two people away from people who actually make decisions.
One of the things that was most interesting to me about Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point was a discussion of a category of people called Connectors. Connectors are absolutely crucial for ideas to become viral. Why? Because they always propagate through person-to-person contact. That’s what contagion is. It’s something that moves from one person to another. Connectors are people who are connected to more people than average. If you can get your ideas into the heads of people who are Connectors there is a greater chance of getting these things to propagate to more people.
There was a study that was done by Stanley Milgram, who is a Jewish psychologist who is very famous for the so-called Milgram Experiment, which was supposed to demonstrate how authoritarian and passive and prone to evil White people are. I think the experiment is fraudulent. It seems very, very unlikely. But one of Milgram’s studies was he gave people in Nebraska – which, for those of you who don’t know American geography, it’s one of those states right in the middle of the country populated by “those people” that the coastal elites look down upon, bumpkins; it’s very provincial; they call it “fly-over country,” for the people who are flying constantly from New York to Hollywood and back. Everything in the middle is fly-over country, and Nebraska is right in the center of fly-over country ,and so there was probably some kind of agenda behind his choice of Nebraska. But Milgram decided to see how quickly through person-to-person interactions a person in Nebraska could get a piece of information to somebody in Boston. What could be a greater distance than from Boston to Nebraska?
The surprising result was that any given person in the provinces in the United States is on average only six degrees of separation — meaning five individual people who personally know one another — from any other person in the country. There are now 300 million people in the United States, and yet between me and any other person in the country on average there are only five people, but I don’t know who those people are.
Once I read this study I started making a list of all the interesting people, famous people, powerful people that I was one or two people away from. I had a friend who died about exactly a year ago in San Francisco who is a legendary example of what Gladwell would call a Connector, because he was very outgoing and he could relate to all kinds of people in very many fields and so he would just make connections. This guy was a very humble person. He was not a politician or a mover or shaker. I was two degrees of separation through him from Marlene Dietrich whom he had met years ago; Placido Domingo, because he was a musician so he met people in the music world; a whole host of people in the Broadway world that their names escape me. He knew a lot of people like that. I came up with a list when I really put my mind to it. It’s jotted down in the back of my copy of The Tipping Point of more than 70 famous individuals that I was two degrees of separation from through this single individual alone.
Then I started to look at other connections. I was three degrees of separation from Benjamin Netanyahu. Sort of a chilling thought, actually. I’d like to keep him further away, but I knew somebody who knew somebody who worked with him regularly. Kind of scary. It’s a small world, and some parts of the world I’d like to be further away and other parts I’d like to keep close.
But the point is those kinds of interpersonal connections are the key to contagious ideas. The more Connectors you know, with in many ways superficial acquaintances with many people in many different fields of society, the more potential you have for a viral outbreak of ideas. So, if you know people like this you might actually disdain them. We tend to be a little bit sour and introverted, I think, on the far Right. We tend to look down on people who have too many friends. I used to be that way. I used to think, “This person has entirely too many friends. He must have a certain lack of character.” What did Mussolini say? “Many enemies, much honor”? Well, the inverse would be if you’ve got way too many friends there must be something squishy about you. But it turns out that people like this are golden for politics, for political change. If there are Connectors among you, you need to treasure them and take care of them, because they can be very powerful.
So, what am I going to say to wrap this up?
I think that, first of all, somebody needs to get my suggestion to the Tsar about a national coming out day where nationalists in Sweden take control of their own visibility. This group is a very attractive face for marginalized ideas, which is why they want you to be invisible. So, increase your visibility. Perhaps by the means that I have discussed.
Become aware of the people in your midst who are strong Connectors and start using them to get your ideas across.
Try to find people who will second and legitimate your ideas even though they do not profess to believe them. There’s a very good example of this. There was a YouTube video that was commented upon at Counter-Currents by one of our writers, Andrew Hamilton. It’s an article called “Join the Dance,” and I recommend that you look that up at Counter-Currents. Basically, the was taken at a music festival in the state of Washington. There was some probably stoner rock band playing music outdoors, and there were all these people sitting around listening to it. There was some guy off in the grass all alone who started dancing, and people noticed him out there dancing, and a lot of them probably thought he was a fool. You know, “What’s he on?” or something. “What’s he doing?” But then a second person ran up and started dancing with him. And then at that point a whole crowd rushed in and started dancing. So, the key to that change was not the first person dancing. It was the second person. The second person legitimated the first person.
The distinction between a lone nut and a leader is the second person who joins in or the person who stands up and seconds your legitimacy. “This guy isn’t some nut on drugs. He’s out having fun and I’m going to join him.” Once that dancer was seconded by the first follower then he became the leader of a trend rather than just a lone nut. That’s an important consideration to have.
It might be the case that many people here might not want to avow yourself publically as a nationalist. Maybe it’s dangerous for you. Maybe you want to be a secret agent. But you could at least consider taking the role of a seconder. “Well, I don’t really agree with these people, but I think they’re saying something important, and, you know, I’m not comfortable in certain parts of Stockholm now.”
That’s all you need to say. “I’m not comfortable with these changes.” You don’t need to get anymore ideological or strident than that. I have found that by simply saying to people who are to all purposes quite liberal, “I’m sorry. I’m just not comfortable with that.” They’ll open up, and they’ll realize, “OK. Here’s a real person, and lo and behold I’m not comfortable with it either,” and they’ll start talking to you about it.
So, sometimes just being a receptive listener and not having actually to put a message out there is very effective for social change. You don’t even have to be super articulate. You can be the strong, silent type all you want, and actually as long as you make the simple overture of opening yourself up for frank discussion about things that are otherwise very sensitive you can lead change; you can make things possible.
So I would like to just end on that. Again I want to return to this idea that it’s very lonely to think that we have to change the minds of everybody in our societies. It’s very lonely. It’s very intimidating. It’s far less lonely and far less intimidating when you recognize that no, that’s probably not the case.
Our people are already on our side, and events are arguing in our favor. We’re just the first ones to be aware of it. We’re first in our awareness, and we’re first in our courage to face up to the facts. But the rest of our people are not that far behind. If you can get to 27% after decades of work, again, if you take the next step and increase your level of visibility I think that you can get to 54% in 6 or 8 months, because these things change very fast. Wouldn’t it be nice if you ran out of Swedes to convert to your ideas?