B. U. G. S.

This anti-White says,
Kyle Chambers 29 seconds ago

Goodbye BUGS, I DARE you to actually challenge me to a live debate.

Please do, so a 14 year old may successfully refute your claims.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSs5akno8P_djrNKE8KpmxA

http://eyeslevel.zxq.net/privotfredriktranscript.html
http://www.enar-eu.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=15736&langue=EN

ENAR
Michaël Privot Director

+3222293579 michael[at]enar-eu.org
Languages: French, English, Arabic, Turkish

Michael started as Networking and Campaigns Officer in the ENAR team in January 2006. Previously, he worked during four years as FNRS Research Fellow at the University of Liège (Belgium). He also has several years experience in community building of Muslim communities in Belgium and Europe, as well as consultancy on related issues. He holds a BA in Oriental History and Philology (Islamology), a specialisation in Comparative History of Religions and Arabic (Damas), and a PhD in Languages and Litterature[sic]from the University of Liège (Belgium). Michael became ENAR’s Director in March 2010.

Privot: How are you doing?

Moderator: Doing well.

Fredrik: Doing fine.

Privot: Ha ha. OK good.

Moderator: OK. Uh-I’m going to go ahead and start off with the introduction. Today we have Michael Privot who is the director of the European Network Against Racism, an organization which considers itself the voice of the anti-racist movement in Europe. To learn more about European Network Against Racism, you can visit the link that accompanies this discussion. On the other side, we have Fredrik who is a concerned Scandinavian citizen with an alternative viewpoint. We’re going to start off this discussion by allowing each person to give an opening statement. Michael, would you like to go first?

Privot:(:39) Yes thank you very much, Kevin. I would just like to start by thanking you for making this debate possible. I think it’s very important that all sectors of society are able to have a peaceful and respectful discussion even so if we are from very different angles and from very different opinions. I would just like to make the following statement: following the initial TV interview of mine that sparked this discussion, where I was questioned about issue of anti-white racism. And I was making the point that anti-white racism in western society majority white societies is simply a fallacy. The fact is that it triggered a lot of questioning and a number of hate mails as well, but I think that I was not portrayed in a good way. Of course main thing what I said but I think that my discourse is needed to be a bit more elaborated. I will try to make it to keep it short. But just to say that anti-racism as it’s own concepts is untruth(?). And of course this is highly ideological. I mean, it’s engaged in a type of society that you want to live with. And, therefore, it’s a major side of ideological battle. Every single concept of anti-racism has been discussed and is still being discussed. And, therefore, it’s no longer that this concept of anti-white (ed. says “anti-right”, but I believe he means anti-white) racism is being emerging very recently, let’s say, over the last five,ten years is being a bit more spread within the debate. And I think it’s very important that we recognize that, of course, in any kind of society there are different types of hate. And definitely within minority communities in western societies there is hate shared towards white people. But this cannot be equated as racism. Racism is about a power relationship. It’s a theory uh, not only a theory but a way to analyze power relationships within societies. And it’s not possible to equate the oppression, the discrimination that minority communities of all sorts, I mean, not (only?) about color, race but also about sexual orientation, about disability, about age whatever you want are facing in a specific society with the hatred that a small group within those societies are having experiencing or expressingtowards a people from the majority society. So it’s extremely important that we keep these things clear for the sake of the debates and that we understand where we are. And so we, from an anti-racist perspective, we see as this new anti-right (ed. anti-white) racism as extremely dangerous in the sense that the bottom line argument is just to say “well, yes whites are racist towards black, but blacks are also racist towards white, so, I mean, everybody’s racist at the end of the day, every thing’s (??????ing) everything. And, therefore,unless black are not trying to correct their racism there is no point for us whites to change things on our side as well” negating the fact that, I mean, white people in western majority white societies are the people in power. And, therefore, they have the bigger responsibility to try to shift the power balance within society. So this is the bottom line of the argument. And while I wanted to make it clear that the fact of negating the issue of anti-right (ed. anti-white) racism in western societies, does not mean that we negate the fact that yes, indeed, there is some hatred towards white people from different ethnic minority people, for example, and I would stop it at here.

Moderator: (04:51) OK, Fredrik?

Fredrik: Yeah, uh, well, I have kind of a different view, but I will start with it now. The way I see it, you know, what we have today is a policy of immigration into all white countries and the immigration is only forced upon white countries. If Senegal wants to close their borders tomorrow, they are not going to be accused of racism or Nazism. And Japan is homogeneous. So it’s only white countries that must have immigration and must have multiculturalism. The goal, to me, seems to be to mix together only in white countries. Saudi Arabia and Japan are not being forced to become a blended humanity. Only white countries are forced to do this. So they push these policies by using a lot of nice sounding words-    for example, hope, equality, and diversity, solidarity, or freedom. It sounds very nice to talk about freedom in order to get immigrants into the country. I hear it is said things like everybody should be free to choose to live wherever they want. But once they have gotten a lot of immigrants into the country, (???) a problem because we whites are actually, we actually use this freedom to run away from this fantastic multicultural society. This is what is referred to as white flight. Once they’ve gotten a lot of immigrants into the country, the anti-white mentality continues. They stop talking about freedom, and start talking about forcing integration. This is so that they get the non-whites into white areas. After they have done this, they start to promote intermarriage and assimilation. This is when they start to demonize people who are against intermarriage, calling them racist or Nazis, and then they talk about a brown future. And after I have said all this, they appear not to understand why we call them anti-white. So as a summary, what’s happening, the way I see it, we have immigration into all white countries. Immigration is only forced upon white countries. The next step is to have integration where you use free will as an excuse. If this doesn’t work, then integration must be forced. The next step is to promote intermarriage and demonizing people who are against it while saying that a brown future is inevitable. They claim that everybody is going to be mixed. But in the real world, it’s only forced upon white countries. This leads to a world without whites. On the other hand, a policy that will result in a world without Jews or blacks would be called genocide. But when it happens to us white people, it’s very often described in nice words like a melting pot or diversity. So, again, if one supports a policy that leads to a world withoutJews or blacks, it would be called genocide. So if I oppose this development, I’m very often labeled a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. So they say they’re anti-racist, but what they are is anti-white. And that’s why we say that anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. So this is how I look upon the situation. It might differ from you. So do you have anything you want to say?

Privot: (08:13) Probably plenty. Huh huh I guess as much as you have to say about what I said. So how do you proceed? Should I try to bring a few arguments with regard to..

Fredrik: I guess you kind of disagree with what I said.

Privot: Yeah, I do disagree with what you said for sure. I think, well, I mean, there are many things that you said on which we can go.And probably this will come back to some of the arguments that you’ve been saying in the throughout of the debate. I would start by saying that I’ve been reading some of the literature of what I would say your movement. And I’m a bit surprised in the sense how what strikes me as the narrow approach that is taken to look at, for example, the phenomenon of immigration. And that’s why I’m a bit puzzled by the classification that you do and how far you understand whiteness. For example, I mean, if we look at the migration flows within the world and look at the proportion of migrants within, I would say, Europe. I mean, this is the place where we most are apparently so let’s take it as a things might be a little bit different in the United States, but not that much. If we look at the population of Europe which is, if we take all Europe, geographical Europe, there is something like 71,000,00 migrants, right? Which is extremely interesting is that from those  71,000,00 out of 800,000,000 so not even 10% of the population, we have nearly 70% of the migrants are white from the different countries of Europe that are moving to another country. So the bulk of migration within Europe is aboutwhites moving to another white country. So the real tiny part of the migration which is from people with another ethnic background, if we take all whites ethnicity if I can say in one single block, is really a few million people in Europe. And, therefore, it’s extremely difficultfor me to understand how this can threaten, I mean, the disappearance or to make a whole ethnic group or ethnic groups disappear by getting into marriage. And I have this was my first point. Maybe the second point I would like to make is also about how you understand anti-racism. I’m very surprised how I find myself (???) I’m trying to defend being portrayed and specifically aboutintermarriage. I’ve never seen anywhere that marriage is intermarriage and racial marriage is forced on anyone. I mean, yes, of course, there is a discourse about a blended society and where I mean people are mixing and this is part of it. But there is a difference between having some sort of positive discourse about the fact of mixing each other and the fact of forcing people to intermarry which is something I’ve never seen any kind of anti-racist literature.

Fredrik: (11:59) I can address those points. First off, when you talk about the number of immigrants and so forth, well, in America it’s,you know, statistically it’s official now if the present trend continues, whites will be a minority in 2042. A nd, you see, whites will be a minority in Britain in 2066. So, we see the trend, and it’s the same trend in every white country. So whether it is also moving white people into Britain, white people will still be a minority in some day case(?). So we see the overwhelming trend is more and more non-whites, and less white people. And, of course, this leads to a world without white people in the long run. And that is what it seems to beanti-racism is all about. It’s not anti-racist, it’s more anti-white. And when it come to the point you make about marriage, well, the typical anti-racist, as I see it, promotes intermarriage and they also condemn people who are opposed to it. So then they talk about the brown future. So it seems that their intent is to get rid of white people just by the policies and what they support. You know, more non-white immigration we will be a minority, that’s the trend. And then assimilate. A nd then well first of integrate and then assimilate then talk about the brown future. So, I mean, that just how I see it. The number of white people moving from Germany to France or whatever doesn’t really have anything to do with white people being a minority which is now official in places like Britain and the United States. So, for me, it seems like all this anti-racist talk is just anti-white. It is about more non-white immigration or essentially anything that leads to less white people.

Privot: (14:10) Well, what I see personally is I think there is a kind of a and again I’m it’s- I would like to come to the issue of demographics. But I think that the point is that Europe, whatever how however you see it, is is majority predominantly white. 90% white. So, I mean, even by the most depressing statistical demographic forecast, this would never change by 2050, right? There are different things for that. The first is, of course, I know that there are some people playing with statistics that like to do some scaremongering. And they base their analysis on the fact that (???) (???) (???) migrants from different, say, non-European countries tend to have higher birth rates than European societies which are more or less stabilizing but around 1.9, 1.8, 2.0, 2.1 child per woman, right? Which is, roughly, around the renewal rate if I can say. And, so, indeed, you there has been in the past in the 60’s and the 70’s,even 80’s when a first, say, the first potent wave of migrants from non-European countries came into Europe. I mean, they were coming from countries they were just beginning or had not even begun their demographic transition. As you might know, the demographic transition in any country is linked to the alphabetical (ed. literacy?) rates or the level of alphabetization in a country. So once the population, the female population in any country is reaching 50% of literacy rates, or alphabetization rates, the demography is the number of children per woman is completely falling down. And this is being proving it (???) (???) some kind of truce right? Is being proved all over the place as far as statistic goes. I mean I (???) suppose a person can treated one in this translation tradition where Britain England and France and it was around their own revolution in the 17th century for Britain and the French revolution in 1789. So we have a long history of seeing this. And we see this happening in all the countries, right? So it is very interesting to see that about in a few countries of Africa that are now reaching this level of alphabetization. And then you see the curves that are just going down. And you can see this in all middle eastern countries where the birth the number of children per woman is exactly the same as in Europe, right? So which means that, yes, indeed, past experiences of migration might have created the kind of the fear that the migrants come and have a higher number of children. But this is absolutely not true for the second generation which is here. And definitely not true any more forthose migrants that are coming here. Because, in most of their countries, they have gone through the demographic transition. So which means that, at the end of the day, the catastrophic numbers of people or birth rate of migrants that would kept the same over the generation is absolutely untrue. And, therefore, the forecast, the dramatic forecast for 2050 needs to be completely revised. So there is definitely something that needs to be taken if we want to have some sort of serious discussion there. So and I think and I would like justto comment on another point on the issue of whiteness. I think this is  something that definitely that you have to look into and which I think is making your claim a bit weak. Because if you look at which kind of whiteness are you talking about. Whiteness that is defined in the United States is not the whiteness that is as it is defined in Europe. So how far can you apply really the United States to Europe? Because, if you look in Europe, I mean, people as Spaniards, Italians, Czech, Greeks, are considered as white right? But if you look at the massive the migration trends in the United States specifically, it comes from down south most massively. And how far do you consider these people as white or black? That’s the whole issue and is complicated (???). You could say “well, if people from Spanish(???) in Europe are white, you could argue that those (???) Spanish (???) if we can in many instances from South America are alsowhite”. So the issue of whiteness is also could be a bit complicated, frankly, you see what I mean? And there, I think that there is also something inconsistence in the claim that, well, actually white people are just getting lower and lower in terms of numbers. How do you get whiteness?

Fredrik:(19:15) OK well people that call themselves anti-racists have no problem identifying white people when it comes to talking about slavery, discrimination, racism, and so on. They have no problem seeing who is white and who is not white. And in America and my country people say, well, an area is too white we need more diversity. So everybody knows who is white. But it’s very convenient when you’re trying to get less white people to sort of pretend you not know it. So but I clearly see that people who talk about multiculturalism and so forth know who is white. So when we talk about racism, discrimination, slavery and so forth. The second point there, in America, as I said, it’s 2042 the whites will become a minority. And if that’s scaremongering then, well, first of all I see the trend, you know, less white people, more non-whites. And, of course, the government statistical uh statistics say the same thing. You know, they confirm the trend I’m seeing. Which you know so that we supposed that the American government including the British government is trying to scare people. And it’s some kind of conspiracy to scare people which you know, well, if you that’s what you think you can think so.  But so it doesn’t seem like it’s more non-whites, less white people. And then, we have integration, assimilation, and this trend continues. Now, the low birth rate, for example, and this point you brought up with I don’t remember exactly what it was.But if you go to Japan, you will see they don’t have this number of immigrants. They don’t have all these third worlders going into their countries although they are highly developed societies and they have low birth rates. So this thing is not being used against the Asians or the Japanese. Because as I say for me I see that anti-racists are not anti-Asian, they’re anti-white. So this argument is always used against white countries, but not Japan for example. So that will be it.

Privot:(21:41) Um well I it’s interesting exactly because this argue exactly one of the points that you made and on which I wanted to come back. I’m still doubtful about the issue of whiteness, right? Because you cannot define white. You know when you see it kind of isthe approach. Well, yes and no and because how we use it whiteness and blackness are also categories that are there to understand(power?) relationships, right? So it’s not that clear cut. To the extreme you can see that you can be white in the society and black in the society next door because there is a completely different type of (power?) relationship, right? So I think that the question is not it’s notjust the que- about me trying to escape defining or getting into. On the contrary. I mean it’s important to understand what you are talking about. And it’s extremely difficult. So if white people are in the United States, you know, people from British, Irish, French or, you know, Western European descent only all right? OK that’s, you make a spe- you specify you’re (British?) to talk about whiteness as a whole. I mean, it’s extremely difficult then to draw the line and say OK those people are just a, I mean, a not white. I would just mention, for example,  we it is very interesting when you come to the issue of whiteness. Recently, I’ve been confronted to to the case of descent peop- children of migrants of Italian descent in northern Europe, right? So, for decades and until very recently they were considered, so called, you could say call them blacks, right? So, they were the foreigners the people that were not willing to integrate in Belgium, France, UK and the Netherlands and so forth you know? And with the change with the European construction and everything where, well, say all Europeans equates to each other. And when the discussion about migration is turning into a very different type of chorus. And when you have all this discourses about the clash of civilization and so forth. So, from any one day to the other those people, I say from Italian descent, that they have loved (ed. or did he say lost?) their own identity as being a minority in other European societies as being the oppressed from (?a sudden?) they become the oppressor. From (?a sudden?) they move from the minority to the majority. From the dominated to the dominant. And some of them really cannot stand that. It’s completely questioning their identity, right? So I just want to highlight this to see that those elements are relative. They are not genetic. It’s about social perception, it’s about construction. So, I mean, I’m happy to go into this discussion and I think that definitely this is something that’s not for me (?perfectly?)clear in how you articulate you discourse. And I think that for me this is also a weak point in what you say. Because it is very contextual.And that you cannot just apply whiteness. It is too underlying (undermining?) what you are trying to do (as?) anti-racists. So, that’s one thing.

(24:59) On about Japanese and I think that you talked about Arabia at some point when did you (???) (???) your speech. Well, no I would say yes we know that Japan is a racist society, right? There is no point in that. There they are anti-racist organizations like mine and others in Japan that are trying to get the society open and so forth. And in all the countries I’ve been to in the Middle East and in we have many members and connections with organization in different countries of Africa in different Asian countries and so forth. So there is a vibrant civil society over there. There are people that are convinced by equality by human rights and they are trying to open up their societies because they see that their own societies are also (?insiders?) and that there is racism over there, too. And that migrants inthose countries are also rejected and so forth. But, I mean, we have also to be honest and recognize that if we are proud in Europe and in America and Australia say the west by and large to have developed those values those rights as (?pinnacle?) of our civilization, right? That’s, you cannot expect the same kind of mobilization in most of the other countries where the struggle for life I mean the basic right to life, access to water, access even to decent job and to be able to raise up your family is still very much a priority. I would say that in(???) I know it’s a bit provocative but anti-racism in that sense it’s a bit like a luxury, right? But they do exist. They are those organizations that do tremendous work to change their own societies. So you cannot say that anti-racism, by and large, is about only for whites and to open white societies and so forth. There are anti-racist organization working in all countries that I can know about. And they are trying to open up their societies as well. And we’ve seen like Ivory Coast that has been developing all through discourses about the Ivority as they call of people. We have a racist legislation in most of the countries, right? But there are people fighting for it. So I think it’s just also a matter of time when those societies will be able to have the same discussions that we have now. And I’m sure we’re gonna have discourses similar to yours saying well it’s all about our Arabicness or blackness or Asianness or whatever you want to call it that is being threatened by this flow of migrants of people from outside. They want to intermarry and so forth.

Fredrik: (27:50) When it comes to whiteness, as you say, well, as I have just pointed out, I mean, people say that only white people can be racist. And when they talk about racism, when they talk about slavery, when they talk about these things, they see who is white. And, I mean, you can of course go into the DNA and so forth. But, generally, no one who is white and I see that people see that all the time.So, for me, it’s more like an excuse to try to say “well it is very hard to see who is white and if we just blend together, I mean, white people aren’t really dying out because we don’t really know who is white in the first place.” So I see that more as an excuse. When it comes to Japan and anti-racism, the pressure that has been put upon let’s say in Germany after WW2 compared to Japan after WW2 you see it’s completely different type of pressure. The pressure of bringing in third world immigrants has been put on white countries non-communist (???) after WW2. But, you see, the trend in white countries that’s where the debate has been, that’s where the pushing has been, that’s where the immigration has been of third worlders, not in Japan. If it had been to Japan, there would have been much more there by now. And that might go back to more general that you might see sort of so-called anti-racists talk about when I push them on this point that they sort of want to mix everyone in the world. They want to mix Asians with black people and white people and everything. Which then goes back to, well, what about diversity? If we’re going to mix everyone, wasn’t diversity a strength? And, if you’re going to mix everyone to become equal, where’s the diversity? I mean, it seems to be sort of what you really want is to argue for something that leads towards less white people or no white people. (You) don’t seem to be so interested in diversity, for example, if you want to mix everyone, there’s no diversity. I could, of course, I don’t disagree with diversity. I could say we can have a global sustainable diversity where you have white people in white countries, you have Asians in Asia, and so forth. But that kind of diversity would leave a future for my people that would include white people in the long run. So, I guess it’s not that kind of diversity you want to have is it?

Privot (30:41) Well, no I mean I think, well, we can have a very (?cifical?) debate I mean in the sense that, no, I mean, you mean the diversity, I mean, in my organization and we are representing here hundreds of organization in Europe. I mean, we, for us, diversity means- is a fact of life. It will blend in some ways; it will not blend in others. But, there is no willingness to force people to blend, to say, to intermarry, whatever. And of course we do recognize that for diversity you need to have diversity OK? So, I mean, if all people become just the same at the end of the day, there is no point in that. The case for earth is that, well, ethnic diversity is just a kind of diversity. There are many other aspects of diversity and this will never die as long as there are human beings on earth. The question is, I mean, in a reverse question that you can bring is you know why is it that, I mean, Asians or blacks or others would be so chained to intermarry with whites? Because at the same time, I mean, if we if you took from just racial perspective all right? Is not mine but I mean just as an hypothesis right? So, I mean, as you can say and I know from people I mean contact from minority communities you know? I’m in contact with people they are they count (call?) themselves like 50,000, 60,000 remaining people of their ethnic group. So, we are not talking about the still hundreds of millions of whites people around the world. So, when even in those situation, they know that probably within two or three generation their ethnic group will have disappeared, right? So, we are going to lose some sort of diversity in that sense. But I don’t feel they’re, well, some share this I’ll say this fear of just getting diluted, right? Some others not it’s OK this is a fact of life. Diversity will appear somewhere else. All right? So what is more concerning for me and I just think first we don’t advocate for having all people from all mixed together and then you are just all the same. So that’s the first one. The second one is why, I mean, it’s also frightening from any kind of ethnic group to get lost in dilution, right? So it’s not only a typical white phenomenon. To say, well, we are just going to be mixed and we are going to lose our whiteness. You can have black people feeling just the same and Asiansfeeling just the same. So, I mean, it’s not that people come here just for the sake of intermarriage and (be happy people all around us?) I mean that’s not true. And I would say that most of the people around the world are rather, I mean, clinging to their to their ethnicity their group and so forth. And we think that, yes, why not as long as you don’t prevent people from your own group to intermarry. And you don’t break the life and you don’t this is just finding the right balance between that. And I would just like I would just give you the ability to answer now. But I would like to come back on the pressure maybe later in the conversation that you said about white countries having to receive migrants after WW2. I think that definitely a key argument that we need to discuss.

Fredrik: (34:15) Yeah, well, first off, what I see is that the we have white countries and we must have immigration. If we oppose immigration, non-white immigration, we are called racist or Nazis. And, of course, racism is outlawed in several countries. So, for example, my opinion that I express here today will be considered racist by a lot of people. A nd some might say, well, you should ban it. So there we have the kind of pressure. And, then, you do have a lot of non-white immigration, of course, as people see and as some government make statistic on. As I said, you know, Britain will be a minority white in 2066 according to the official statistics. I mean, the year doesn’t matter and if it’s long into the future. But, you know, I care for my people also into the future. So, this is what I see happening. And then, as I said in my opening statement, forcing integration for example in areas too white the government says it’s a problem we need more diversity meaning we need more non-whites. Then you have white people around with non-whites. And they are hoping and in that circumstance to promote intermarriage and then just like let take care of itself and sort of promoting a brown future.And so it seems like they are continually arguing for something that leads to less white people. And, as I said, this pressure has not been put upon Japan. And even if it were put upon Japan, it will still lead to less white people if you did this to other people as well so…

Privot: (36:15) Well, OK yes. I mean, that’s all definitely two, well, a few things here. First, we, let’s not go into the discussion about free speech but this is a completely different conversation. And I think that the parties are able to speak in a totally civilized way totally fine for me. The second, the thing is about having non-white people be encouraged to go to white areas. I mean, on a discourse about integration. I’m- it’s interesting for me that I- integration was (???) to happen by itself. Now we are talking about forced integration for instance. And I guess you read the press and you see how minority people feel so bad about being forced to integrate. So it would be interesting to hear your position about integration with the people that are now here that are citizen of the countries and they would never go back. I mean, so getting rid of them is not a solution. I mean, it’s first impossible to do. So how do you see that? I mean, so that would be interesting. So how your (points about integration?) that are seen as a result as a response to the rise of intolerance in the country. So that’s interesting. And the thing is-

Fredrik: Could you repeat that the question?

Privot: Yeah, it’s I’m you seem to be very critical about forced integration, right?

Fredrik: Yes.

Privot: Forced integration in most Western European countries is a result of policies meant to counter the rise of intolerance. And at the same time you feel and you read how much people with an ethnic minority background are well do feel bad and are concerned by the fact that they are forced to integrate in other societies. So, I mean it’s interesting to say that- well, who finally wants integration, forced integration as you say-

Fredrik: I can address that point if you want to-

Privot: I’m just making a couple of points and then if you can answer. And then the question is about, OK I don’t think that there is a state policy, right, to push people to intermarry. I don’t see how we can sustain a claim with official documentation unless then you resort to conspiracy theories. That’s the point. I mean, yes there are policies to make all neighborhoods are more mixed in a way to try to ease(?physically?) a number of deprived neighborhoods. OK, that’s one thing. But making this as an argument to say what actually this wants to be, this wants to be to intermarriage, this I have no evidence whatsoever of that. So, I would like maybe your views on those two elements about forced integration policies that are (?apparently?) by the one and about yes this forced intermarriage that you see as I understand as a state policy.

Fredrik: (39:20) Yes, I can address that. Now, the forced integration thing is that we have all this non-white immigration. And, the consequence of that is that white people are moving with other white people, that is white flight. And white people, apparently, want to live with other white people and preserve themselves. And that is viewed as racist, white people trying to preserve white people. So the state implements anti-racist policies which is forcing non-whites into those white areas. And remember now, they’re not talking about freedom. Now they’re not talking about that now it’s forcing. And then they promote intermarriage. They don’t force intermarriage, of course, but having non-whites around whites, I mean, they hope that there will be intermarrying because that will lead to less white people. Then they condemn everybody who opposes intermarriage as I said you know racist, Nazis and so forth and they talk a brown future. So, I mean, I’m looking at their intent, not necessarily specific policies. But then again is specific that they force integration after talking about freedom and so forth. So, I don’t really-yeah. Do you disagree with this here, or what–?

Privot: (40:41) Well, I know. I mean, I’m still very skeptical about what you say. I mean, I mean I would be happy to see any kind of official documentation of that because you cannot judge an intent. And I mean, the violence that is done on people being forced to integrate might appear as violence. At the (as to?)- what is felt by white people of, say, the people that you represent or the groups that you represent that, I mean, I mean. Yeah, I mean it would be interesting if a starting point for a discussion would be the similar type of violence that those groups feel of being forced to integrate to each other, right? Because as much as you feel that white people being sent to specific neighborhoods is a violence to them as they don’t want, it’s the same for people from an ethnic minority background to be forced to go into white areas where they know it will be difficult for them to live in. And, they will not feel welcome and so forth. I mean, I just would like to say also that (???) people I mean often which is the missed point in the discourse but that I think that seeing your approach to things you might agree with that is that if people go -and I talk about ethnic minority people- tend to come to gather together in specific neighborhoods in all major cities and so forth, is not often a question of choice. It’s a question of necessity, right? And this is at a different level, of course, because you find a network of support with people from the same community. It’s better if you have it’s right on hand rather that have to drive for three hours with you car. But second thing, and so most importantly, if people do come together in any kind of community based living, and this could also be whichever other grounds not necessarily ethnic minorities,it’s because people get together because they feel that the society is failing to protect them correctly. Therefore, the only protection that you can have is within your community. So I think that it’s a broader questioning about the ability of the states to protect all it’s citizens and non-citizens. Say basically all the residents. And make sure that anyone can move to any place in the country and be sure not to be harassed, be sure not to be threatened, be sure not to be beaten up. And I think that’s, this is something of real concern. So I think that many of ethnic minority people would like to move in other areas be able to set up and settle where they want to settle in a nice house where they want to live respective to their needs rather than being forced by the (???), by the society to live in often crappy areas because it’s where also the house are not (???), where the streets are not (???) because these are not voters. So basically, I mean, the majority society or the politicians do not want to put money into those areas because it’s not a priority for them. So I think that this is something that you have also to keep in mind in any kind of discussion.

Fredrik: (43:47) I agree that people probably want to live in nice houses. But what I’m looking at is as I said, I mean, we have non-white immigration and then it’s being- and then white people move away which is white flight and then the government have forced integration and they talk about the brown future. So they said this is tolerance, they say it’s diversity, they say this that and the other, but the end result is, you know, we’re moving in a direction that leads to less white people, specifically. And, that has nothing to do with tolerance, has it? Or respect of differences or all these nice kind of words being used there. So, I mean, it all seems to boil down to less white people. So I don’t-

Privot:(44:39) I mean, this is why I completely disagree with your analysis. I mean, I understand what, say, this feeling of being an ethnic minority somewhere. And what is very interesting for me, and this is where the changes (???) we need to look at at history at different points. For me, it’s what you’re expressing and I’m not putting any kind of value judgment on this is really- and the question for me is how we go about this. As a the feeling of white people that are losing power. I mean, you can say whatever you want, I mean, basically that the supremacy of the white race has been built on racism and making a difference between race. And, of course societies are changing. Maybe western societies are mixing a little bit quicker than others. So this needs to be (???) (???) discussed when we see the mobility of people in Asia, for instance, or like Indonesia. It’s extremely mixed societies much mixer than- much mixed than the much more mixed than Western European societies. So, yes, this is part of, this is the fact of life. But what I see very much, and this is how we analyze as (?anti-racists?), yes, indeed, whites are realizing that they have to cut he cake in more pieces because there are more people asking for a share. Ok? And it was easy to neglect and to ignore this for the past couple of centuries. But now it’s not possible any more. So there is some sort of readjustment phase. And this can lead to the feeling that you have. And I think they can be legitimate. I mean, well, things are changing. And, then, yes we has our areas we (???) people in a certain way we had a some (???) and even say a racial kind of (?millstones?) around us and signals and guidelines and this is fading away. OK, this can be threatening and I fully do acknowledge this. And this can lead to really very strong sentiments. And I say, again, and this is where I disagree with how you see things and you probably sure disagree with what I say. But, I mean, if we cannot please understand that our respecting point of view and I can table in and factor in my analysis what you just say which is a world view that has a right to be said even if I-

Fredrik: (47:13) How do you think Jews would feel or black people would feel if you had a policy that would lead to a world without Jews or without blacks? Don’t you think Jews would call that kind of anti-Semitic?

Privot: Again as I think that, well the problem is that you can’t compare. And I’m just not saying you can’t compare because they are Jews blacks or whites. It’s uh we can’t compare because we are not in the same kind of relationship and not the same kind of world as this happened in the past. I mean, you cannot-

Fredrik: How do you think they would feel?

Privot: Well, I think that they (???) in the past and it’s still very vibrant, right? So, that’s why I say I understand from using my- an ethnic minority kind of perspective about the feeling you have, right? And how you can look at the world with those types of glasses. However, I fully disagree why you come to wear those glasses to look at the world. That’s my point, right? So I, my further point would be: you have the full right to look at things that way. But- and this is where the anti-racism would be- is that it does not give you the right then to (???) people, to choose their lives, to move to another place. To try to do a good life however they want to do it. To move around or, you know, to intermarry if they wish to from your own ethnic group or any kind of other ethnic group. You see what I mean? This is where I see the difference between yes you have the right to say this. You have the right intervene into the public discussion to say this is how we feel, this is how we see society and so forth which is legitimate. OK? And I understand the reason why you can, well,from my perspective you are getting to that point. And the fact that based on this, you might take policies that are indeed racist at the end of the day because you base your analysis on a race perspective. And if all human beings are equal in rights and ability, it doesn’t work. You see what I mean? So that’s our anger.

Fredrik: (49:20) Going back to being free to move wherever they want, I mean, this forced integration bit kind of doesn’t go along with being free to live with who you want.

Privot: Yeah. I agree.

Fredrik: So, yeah, but if I were to start an organization in the neighboring building to you in Brussels, do you think I would get any government funding? Or what do you think would happen? Do you think that this view would be just accepted as “well it’s great that you have people being pro-white?” Or how do you think those views would be heard? Or what do you think would happen? Because I have a strong suspicion that so-called anti-racist people would kind of not tolerate this what I’m saying.

Privot: No we uh definitely we would be fighting it. Very honestly.

Fredrik: Because I also want to, I want to see a world where the white people also in the future and you might not have that view.

Privot: No, no I (???) respect this view. This makes sense. And my view is I don’t think that your view would ever, ever, that’s my point. I don’t think that whatever happens, I mean-

Fredrik: OK so you think that the present policy would not lead to any white? OK? So that-

Privot: I think that you, I mean, when I first responded to one of your colleagues that wrote me an e-mail after they saw me on the television and I just say I don’t share your world view. I think it’s extremely pessimistic, right? And if not my temperament and it’s nottemperament the nature of the people I see around me and everyone working across Europe. So I’m sure that in one, two hundred, andthree hundred years there will all be, still be white people and that’s it and there will be people with different types of colors and there will be of course many, many more mixed people, right? That’s reality. But I don’t think that any point in time in the future that we might see and we don’t know what the future will be so, I mean, even mankind might disappear if we go on with our stupid unecological policies in the long run. Maybe no one will be ever there to see if there is only mixed people around. But I think my point of view I mean as anti-racist is that we don’t want people to intermarry whatsoever. This is not the point. We are also against forced integration of any kind, right?

(51:55) And, what we want is people to have free choice to marry with whom they want, to build their life with whom they want, to move where they want. And then that’s it. And if you can agree with that, and we can agree with that, we can have our different world views, try to work in different ways and trying to be respectful of that. And this is where we see, we just draw the line. And I would disagree with you with the fact that those views that you are supporting do not receive public funding. There are organization, there are political parties all across the EU that receive quite considerable amount of public funding and that are supporting the views that are, one way or the other, maybe indirectly, but it comes around from the same kind of matrix if I can say of yeah (???) the matrix (???) that way. So I don’t think that you can also have this as much as we say to ethnic minorities stop victimizing. You have also to stop victimizing and saying that you don’t have any access to anything. It is there, right? Maybe with difficulties as much as many other minorities have extreme difficulties to get to any public funding because they are perceive as (?civity?) or whatever you can say. So that,that’s also something where you might (debate with?) yourself and try to put a picture of what is actually happening in our society-

Fredrik: (53:17) Well, I mean, my views being viewed by a lot of people are called racist. And (???) racism sort of puts the pressure on you. And I think you know this very well. And I, you know, it’s a funny thing because I hear that from what I’ve discussed with so called anti-racists which I think is just anti-white. I see this, you know, some people say that white people won’t die out so we don’t need to do anything to prevent it. Other people say it’s inevitable. So we don’t need to do anything to prevent the inevitable. So, I mean, I see just, you know, those two kinds of views. And I also see that white people will be a minority and supported by the policies that you promote. So do you support more non-white immigration or you support integration, you support this?

Privot: We do support migration wherever it comes from. So, we support free movement of people wherever. So if this leads to migration, OK. So, I mean, permanent migration, so be it. I mean, for us it’s not as issue. On the contrary, I think that we gain in not being in silos. I mean, I think that history is amply proven in different from what we can know from history of course that societies thattend to be turned inwards, they just tend to die because you just (???) (???) stop the ideas of creativity and whatever it is that you want to say. So, I mean, and this is how life goes. My question is what, how, what do you have so much to fear- and this may be the bottom line question- of not having any kind of white people any more? Like not having any blacks or Arabs or Asians anymore. I mean if you look at thousand year in the future, probably, I mean, no, none of the ethnic groups that we see today will be there. Other ethnic group might appear or whatever. So, what (crosstalk) are the fears that you see? I mean, is there something so specific. (crosstalk) What is more important? Is it more important that the genes that you have? Isn’t it the culture, the civilization, the values that you are putting forth? Because we live by the values, we don’t live by our genes, do we?

Fredrik: (55:39) Well, I mean, you could say the same question to Jews. I mean, you know, why do you choose care if you die out? I mean, why would you care so much about that? That might be considered sort of anti-Semitic. So if you put it around, it doesn’t seem so good. I mean, black people, you know, who cares if there no black people there? Can’t you just die out? And then you said, well, it might be that there will be no more white people in the future so that a great possibility. Than again earlier you sort of said that white people will be here forever. But now you saying that there is a great possibility that there will be no more white people. So the(crosstalk) policies we have leads towards less white people. And I think you support those policies that leads to less white people. So-

Privot: (56:32) I’m not supporting policies. I think that this is where I think you are lumping things together. I mean, you are just talking about hypotheses. My hypotheses on which I am working is that in the next few decades or hundred years. I mean, whites are no way to disappear, right? In any way disappear. In the long run, in the one thousand year, we don’t know. So, I mean, none of us will be there anyway. And, maybe, race categories will completely be irrelevant and other categories will be there also that men can fight each other, right? What we are is anti-racist. We are not trying to say that uh, we are not trying to diminish the number of white people on the earth. What we just want is just equality and that people can just do what they want. Full stop. I mean, if you as white want to marry withwhite, OK, so be it. But the consequence then as much as we don’t have to prevent you to marry with someone from the same group than you. You don’t have to marry if only to someone to marry (???) marry or whatever make a couple with someone from another group, another culture, another language, another religion, whatever you. And this is where then we have a difference. And this is where you’re (???). If we go down the line of your logic, and then (???) you would become full power in a country you would like to implement the policies that are meant to defend, say, a white pure, well, a white group, whatever, it would lead ultimately to racial,ultimately to racial policies. And this contradict the fact that all human be-

Fredrik: (58:20) It will lead to what?

Privot: To racial policies. Of segregation, or whatever. See what I mean?

Fredrik: So you’d rather have white people disappearing?

Privot: No, no, no that’s not the point. It can be- it’s not the point. It’s not a willingness of white people disappearing. It’s a question about equality. So if you posit equality for everybody, at the end of the day all groups are (???). All groups could eventually if all people are mixing together, which I think will not happen for (???) any kind of near future. But take as this, as an hypothesis, right? And all people will intermarry, there is no racial group at the end of the day. So all people and all groups are disappearing. So what? Is it the end of mankind?

Fredrik: (59:05) No, it’s the end of my race.

Privot: Yeah, but why race is important? In any kind of sense? And you could say for any group as you said. Black-

Fredrik: Every group you wanted to do away with you could ask that question.

Privot: Yeah, no, absolutely.

Fredrik: The Jews too. I mean, why is it so important for you Jews to continue to exist? Can’t you sort of force you to integrate with someone else?

Privot: We have to accept if a group wants to exist and to perpetuate a certain question of life. And I mean about the Judaism it’s a very complex question because there all (???) (???) culture, religion, ethnicity and so forth. So, it’s a very specific kind of group. Anyway. But even the question is OK. So what in the future? I mean, you cannot know. So, but we can understand from a one hand people have, might want to be protected, right? And if you look into what’s happening in Europe, let’s take this. I mean, the fact that Jews want to be protected does not go against any other group, does it? As the same right, if whites want to get and just marry themselves and have their own neighborhood and so forth as long as it’s not a state policy, right that prevents people on the ground of their race which is something completely constructed. And as I, we earlier in the discussion how do you define race, right? Come back to this. If you start putting in place those policies, then we have really an issue. Because, it means that you start excluding others from the enjoyment of rights, and that’s where this becomes a problem from an anti-racist perspective. But not on the fact that, by free will, people wants to stay together. And they don’t have an issue if someone from any kind of other group joins them for a while, then leaves, comes back, whatever.

(Crosstalk)

Fredrik: (1:00:59 ) It sort of goes back to what I was saying earlier. That you talk about, I mean, I hear all these politicians talk about nice words, freedom and so forth. Yet we have forced integration. I don’t see anti-racists protest all of this forced integration. I rather see they support forcing integration and complain when something is too white. And this is just what I see. And this is trend, I mean, see we’ll be a minority not in some thousand years but white people in America in forty years or thirty years and in Britain in 2066. And this is trend all over. I mean, so talking about equality and so forth, well it leads more non-white immigration that is the pattern we have withthis “what if.” So, maybe confusing here. We’re talking about all kind of stuff-

Privot: It’s not an easy. It’s very difficult. I do agree with that. The point is, is not about just getting nice words. The question is OK what if white people are a minority? What’s the point? What’s the problem is that? I mean, is there anything written in the soil of Europe or America that this needs to be white only population? No, I mean, white people came here longer ago than new people coming here. So, who has the, there’s no kind of you know (???enic) genetic right to (???) into a certain part of Earth. Full stop. And then, that’s how it is. So what if whites become a minority? I’m trying just spell out what’s the issue is. (crosstalk) (???) of an ethnic group which is so vague that how do you- is it just about color? But then, I mean, I said to a certain extent it is also irrelevant. So how do you circumscribe your group? I mean, if you remember the dark side of history. I mean, Nazism was not considering Slavs as whites. OK? It was completely inferior ethnic group. But now they are part of the same white people, right? So you see that the boundaries of whiteness are constantly- and other colors- are constantly being redefined. It change from one country to another. It’s different between Europe and the United States and so forth. So then there really a question here. So if even they become minority, so what? That’s the point. What is the question that we can raise here? And then the question is about in this world of, yes, of values, I mean, definitely, I mean, we… as long as you posit equality- and this is one of the questions that I want to ask you- are you positing equality of all human beings whatever their ethnic group? From what I have read from you it’s not very clear. I mean, doesn’t go too much into those kind of details. But if so, so, I mean, is the question of race interlinked with culture? Clear as well? So I’m sorry I am getting a bit confused, sorry. Maybe just-

Fredrik: (1:04:14) Yeah equality, yeah. I mean, as I said, I mean, I think that every race should have an equal right to preserve itself. I think- and that includes us white people. But there are- that’s what I see. They talk about equality and the result is more non-white immigration. So-

Privot: Yeah, but I mean as much as the white, what do you do with the white emigration, right? You know this recently in the last couple of years there have been more white people leaving the UK than non-whites coming into the UK. How do you say about that (???)? What do you do with that?

Fredrik: That’s white people moving out. What I’m talking about is white people-

Privot: That’s my question. I mean, a white person that is leaving the UK to get another life elsewhere it’s migration as well.

Fredrik: Of course, it’s migration. (Crosstalk)

Privot: (???) So white are migrating as well. So how do you table this. So people are moving in all directions, basically. So that’s, that’s the one thing. And so you –

Fredrik: Why do you think so many white people are moving out of where-

Privot: Like migrants from, say, Africa or Asia, might be coming to Europe or the United States or Australia to have a better life. There are white people just moving to those place because they think they can have a better life elsewhere. That’s it. And that’s fair. I mean, that’s just normal that’s part of it’s a fact of life. Most people just want to stay in the place or around the place they are born in, or they (???). And there is a percentage in every group of people that want to go to find another life that is suiting their dreams. That’s part of mankind, it’s always how people have been doing. (Crosstalk)

Fredrik:(1:06:07) Just what I feel this sort of that, I try to bring this to more bigger picture where you have, as I say, we are being a minority first off as a trend to not being here. This seems to be forced. It’s no about, you know, Poles moving to Ukraine or Germans moving to Sweden. That won’t make white people a minority. So people move wherever they move. But it sort of. The general thing is that non-white immigration into all white countries. And if you post that you’re called a racist, Nazi and so forth. So it’s forced on all white countries. As I said in my opening statement. Then, this entire policy leads to less white people. So, you know, you talk about migrating and so forth. But, yeah, that’s just the policy I see. So-

Privot: Well the question then I think, you know, something I wanted to come back about World War Two. In your view, tell me, who put the pressure to get migrants after World War Two in Europe?

Fredrik: Well, they started talking about getting rid of races and Nazis-

Privot: Because I would like to, in your analysis, who is responsible for that?

Fredrik: Who is responsible for opening up the borders?

Privot: No no you said after World War Two and I would be even more precise within the 60’s for European countries. Who has been the drive for getting non-European migrants in Europe?

Fredrik: (1:07:58) The ones I would describe as anti-whites. Ones who call themselves hippies or anti-racists or-

Privot: No no no. Not at all. (Laughs) And this is where, I mean, I think that there is a big issue in your analysis as well. The policies of migration have been put in place within the 60’s and the 70’s specifically by the conservative and the liberals. OK? Not by the leftist progressive liberals and I say liberals it’s economic liberals, right? So people from the center-right to the right of the political spectrum. They were key to get migrants here. Because they did not want in the 60’s and 70’s invest into their companies into their, how do you say, companies and renew the tools and everything. I mean it was at the end of the golden (?30’s?) where the enterprises were justgetting old and so forth. And they preferred to import cheap labor rather than to invest into the tools. So it’s politics that were driven not by the left progressives, but the right conservatives all over Europe, right?

Fredrik: I agree with that.

Privot: (1:09:17) OK. And then, they just (???) anti-racists wanted definitely part of this movement to be honest with you. And the anti-racists came afterward to try to deal with the issues that were starting to cause. They just wanted to go on to import this cheap labor.And then men, human beings, came not cheap labor, right? And then and they were absolutely no clues about how do you deal with that? How do you manage that? How do you help people to access language courses? And as long as people were just working and(???) (???) (???) it was absolutely fine, right? So I think it’s interesting to look at who the responsible people are and where this is coming from. Because then you can see OK this is all about economics. This is all about people wanting to make more benefits rather than invest. And this is why this completely different in Japan. In Japan, they didn’t do that. They kept investing in tools and building on their own population. I think it’s racist, OK, but this is the choice they made. In Europe, it was completely different. And you cannot blame the anti-racists for that. To be very honest. (Crosstalk)

Fredrik:(1:10:26) OK. Yeah. The conservatives and liberals, I mean, there’s sort of a- if you ask a conservative is racist, he will say of course he’s against racism and is for multiculturalism.  And it’s the same underlying major assumption in both conservatives and liberals. Left and right. So it’s the same world view. It’s sort of the right way of the anti-whites tend to use economic arguments. Say, well, we should open up our borders because we’re all equal. You know, they use the same type of language to get more immigrants into the society. Left tends to use more humanitarian reasons for getting non-whites into the country. But if you take those two against each other, I mean, what is humanitarian about taking highly skilled Africans into a white country? There’s nothing humanitarian about that. And then again, having a lot of refugees here is not economically beneficial. So but they’re always arguing for more non-white immigration. But, yeah, that’s both sides. I mean, I’m not saying that conservatives in power aren’t anti-white. Of course they are. They have the same underlying mentality as the left wing.

Privot:(1:11:41) Yeah, uh, well, the thing is that now you have created a number of, I would say, the same kind of class social class that led to forced, that led to opening up to that was asking for cheap labor migration in the 60’s and 70’s. The same number, the same kind of people are supporting now this what you can say the real populist far rightist causes. So there is definitely a contradiction here. Now so how do you explain that? Because, that’s really very strange that at some point thirty years ago, I mean, those people say “No we don’t care we just want cheap labor. We don’t care about the (???).” And it was not because they were anti-white or simply they didn’t even consider those people just human beings first, right? And then now a cluster of them is supporting, how could I say, anti immigrant and I would say- yeah racist types of policies. You can say pro-white that’s racist types of policies. So, I mean, it’s important as well that you have an historical perspective of how things has been developing. And then you cannot do some thing thirty years back and then thirty years after complain and say, well, “The others did it.” And when the first responsible are the people that are also now in for supporting a number of movements that are definitely at the borderline racist if I can say-

Fredrik:(1:13:17) OK. Well, I mean, the conservatives supported immigration, well, it’s based upon the same type of arguments that we’re all equal, you know. So doesn’t matter-

Privot: To be honest, it was not about equality.

Fredrik: We’re all equal. So we can bring in non-whites-

Privot: They wanted cheap labor. People that (???)-

Fredrik: Yeah, they used a lot of different excuses, of course. Cheap labor is good for the economy.

Privot: Yeah, I agree with that.

Fredrik: So you have the conservatives saying it’s good for the economy. Then you have anti-whites on the left saying we need to, you know, take care of refugees. So two sides are anti-white saying different  things. And I think that the conserv- the people calling themselves conservatives more and more now see things differently. They might see the result of what some of them were supporting and they don’t like it. So they turn away from it.

Privot:(1:14:23) Yeah. OK. Well, I think we’ve been I know if there is anything you want to add. I think that we’ve been having a respectful conversation, I guess.

Fredrik: Yeah I hope so.

Privot: Yeah, so I would, if, I know it was not what- with a final statement that of course I keep on disagreeing with you on the fact that anti-racists are anti-white. I think that’s definitely not how we approach things. And it’s rather about people being equal and enjoying rights and the same opportunities in life. And it’s not meant to be any kind of ethnic group because then we would contradict ourself and the very root, of roots of what we believe in. But I would say it was interesting for me to hear what you said. And, yeah, that was a thank you for making this opportunity possible for two opposite ends of the spectrum to discuss in a respectful manner.

Fredrik:(1:15:35) Yeah, well, I mean, as you say, you would contradict yourself if you were anti-white that is true. But I still see it this way. I did, you know, using nice words and end result is more non-white immigration, more integration. And talk about freedom and yet it’s forced. So, well, I guess we’re still not agreeing here.

Privot: I think that we at least agree on the fact that forced integration is not something that we are looking for.

Fredrik: Have you had any campaigns against it?

Privot: Yes, I think one campaigns to be. But the many migrants organization, many anti-racist organization are, yeah, having campaigns against the integration tests and all those kind of stuff. Integration measures that are trying to force people to a certain set of values that are never clearly defined. Not, yeah, about forced integration yes definitely. But I have not heard about (???) campaign Europe wide that would bring this stuff forward. But many organization are trying to really go against the national or the regional level depending who is responsible for those kind of integration policies to say, well, yes, of course, people newcomers need to know which kind of a dustbinbag you have to use, or how you have to sort your, you know, your dustbin or that you have to learn about the language, that you have to know the language of the country because it’s just as a matter of survival. And so everybody would agree on that. But for the rest in terms of integrating into what? That’s something that  is very much question. So I think that at least on this point we would agree thatforced integration is good for, isn’t good for anybody.

Fredrik:(1:17:41) Problem is it’s too white and forced integration. So-

Privot: OK? Do we leave it at here?

Fredrik: Yeah.

Moderator: OK, well thank both of you for coming by and doing this. Appreciate it.

Privot: Thank you, Kevin. Well, maybe another time.

Fredrik: Maybe another time.

Privot: OK. Wish you a very nice day. Bye.

Moderator: Bye-bye.

Fredrik: Bye.