Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Will Romney have the ability and the courage to do to Barack Obama what he has done to Newt Gingrich?

I am not a great admirer of Newt Gingrich. He has indeed had a bad personal life (although not as bad as is often claimed), and he says nice things about dreadful people (“Teddy” Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, “F.D.R.” and so on) which is hard to take from an historian. So I can understand why, for example, Glenn Beck can not stand Newton Gingrich.

However, it is not his real flaws that have defeated Gingrich – hardly anyone went to vote in Iowa (where Newt was well ahead – till he suddenly was massively behind) or in Florida (ditto), saying “what Gingrich says about Teddy Roosevelt is totally wrong – I can not vote for a man who says nice things about Teddy Roosevelt”.

Newton Gingrich was defeated in Iowa and Florida (and Florida really is as important as people say it is) by a TIDAL WAVE OF SMEARS.

In Iowa Gingrich ran a “positive campaign” (all about his plans for a 15% flat rate income tax and so on) and was well ahead – till suddenly a vast wave of millions of Dollars of “negative ads” hit him over the head.

And in Florida he was hit over the head again – by the most expensive Republican primary campaign in the State in history. Gingrich was outspent between 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 (depending on how one calculates it).

And what did the ads say?

They said that he took money from Freddie Mac (will actually it was his company, – but sort-of true so far), and then at once the ads used the words “charges ethics violations” (as if the ethics charges were about the Freddie Mac contract – which is not true, the ethics charges were BS smear campaign similar to what the left did to Sarah Palin some years later).

And then the ads end with “resigned in disgrace” as if Gingrich had been guilty of all these (undescribed) “ethics charges”, and had then resigned. Actually he was innocent of virutally all of them (and the thing he was “guilty” of was absurd – saying he was Speaker of the House when he went to give some lectures at a college and HE WAS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE) and did not resign the Speakership till YEARS LATER.

So the ads were, basically, B.S. – but they WORKED.

They were on all the time – millions upon millions of Dollars (thanks to Goldman Sachs and so on – for, inspite of his wealth, Romney does not fund a lot of this campaign) and Gingrich could not compete (no great finanical industry support for him, the plan to audit the Federal Reserve, put the Wall Street credit-money junkies  into a panic).

O.K. Romney has won by big money and a smear campaign – but that is not my point.

My point, my question, is as follows…

Does Romney have the ability and the courage to do to Barack Obama what he has done to Newt Gingrich?

Well Romney lacks the ability – he will not be able to outspend Obama in the way that he outspent Gingrich.

The Obama forces will spend at least a BILLION Dollars on their campaign. They will reverse the money advantage that Romney has just had. And the “Progressives” (the early 20th century American Progressives were often what were called in Europe “Fascists” – but the modern ones are dominated by Marxist doctrines), will lie without shame about Romney. Expect to hear lots of tales about Mormanism and so on – they will be lies, but that DOES NOT MATTER (does anyone think that the “mainstream” television stations,  i.e. all of them bar Fox News, will call the Obama forces on anything they do? actually, of course, they will help Comrade Barack and co as much as they can).

And the courage?

Will the Romney forces have the courage to tell THE TRUTH about Obama in the way they dishonestly SMEARED Gingrich?

Will they run ads about Barack Obama’s life long Marxist associations and background?

His many years of active friendship with terrorists such as Mr and Mrs Ayers? Remember the Weathermen organization was still murdering people as late as 1981.

Will they run ads that show the material in such books as “Deconstructing Obama” (which shows, amongst other things, that Bill Ayers is the real author of “Dreams From My Father”), and “Radical In Chief”, “The Manchurian President” and “Red Army” – all showing Comrade Barack’s life long far left activities.

Will the Romney forces even run ads about Mr and Mrs Obama’s (and their friends and associates) financial corruption?

Will the material in such works as “The Case Against Barack Obama”, “The Culture of Corruption” and “Gangster Government” be made into television ads?

Will the Romney forces show true passion, true HATRED?

Or will it just be more boiler plate from milktoast Romney – such as we had yesterday.

“President Obama was elected to lead, he has chosen to follow, and now he should get out of the way”.

What the bleep does that even mean?

Does it mean that Barack Obama has been inactive as President? If so it is not true and (more importantly) not effective – because the things he has done (wild “Stimulus”, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, having Bin Laden killed, having lots of other enemies killed, and so on….) are too well known to pretend he has not done anything.

Of course it is a bit difficult for Romney to attack Barack Obama on POLICY (as Romney is the only Republican candidate who does not even want to get rid of the Department of Energy – and then there is the little matter of Romneycare, and Romney’s support for the “Stimulus” and so on…. and Romney can not really attack the Credit-Bubble Federal Reserve either, as he supported its antics), but he does not have to waste everyone’s time with silly nonsense about Barack being inactive.

However, I can hear the political consultants now….

“You must not hit President Obama with tough ads and specific charges – as that would be RACIST, and people like Barack Obama as a person, and his nice family…”.

The same advice that these people gave to JOHN MCCAIN in 2008.

So we are likely to see a campaign that it is a massive financial DISADVANTAGE (not the massive financial ADVANTAGE that Romney has had all his life), and a campaign that specializes in weak, meaningless, waffle. Rather than hard hitting charges to make people STOP “liking Obama as a person” – by exposing him as the scumbag he is.

It is possible that Romney campaign against Obama will not go well.

And, please people, do not mention other candidates against Comrade Barack – these “other canidates” have vastly LESS money than Romney has (let alone the Barack Obama forces have), and will show no more courage in putting on real negative ads (with real HATE filled charges) than the Romney campaign will.

Remember ads about policy DO NOT WORK – otherwise Gingrich would have won Iowa (he was ahead when the ads were about policy – then they turned negative and he was destroyed).

What works is spending LOTS OF MONEY on negative ads that are HATE filled (designed to inspire hatred and contempt for a person – this works even against a person who was previously liked, see Florida).

In the case of Barack Obama the charges would actually be TRUE – but I very much doubt that the Romney campaign (let alone any third party candidate) will have the courage to run them. Fear of being called “racist” by the media will prevent that.

Oddly enough there was one man who might have had the courage to run ads denouncing Barack Obama as the Saul Alinsky style scumbag that Barack is.

Newton Gingrich – who, for all his faults (which are all too real), actually has some courage (some old plain grit) to stand up to charges of “racism” from the media. But he has just been destroyed.

Now we must all “rally round Romney” (to fight Comrade Barack and the Red forces – with their plan to utterly exterminate, sorry “fundementally transform”, the United States and, indeed, the West as a whole) – but rally round with little hope.

21 Comments

  1. fake says:

    Thank fuck for the two term limit.

  2. MickC says:

    What the US does internally is entirely its own affair.

    What it does overseas is what concerns me-and I don’t see Obama as a man to start any wars. Which is just as well because Dave would have us into it to prove he’s a world leader -even tho we have no men, no equipment and no money.

    The Republican lot seem far too gung ho for there to be a peaceful life-shooting off sixguns at rallies may be fine for the US electorate (and btw, I support gun ownership) but the mindset shown by that scares the livings out of me-Dubya all over again.

    Obama best (for the UK) of a very poor field.

  3. Andrew Duffin says:

    Your heading comes under the category of “Questions we can easily answer”

    And the answer is “No”.

  4. RAB says:

    Obama best (for the UK) of a very poor field.

    You have got to be joking Mick C. It is almost unbelievable to me that Romney is the best that the GOP can field against Barry (as seems almost certain now after Florida) but if Barry wins again we are all fucked.

    Barry is a closet Marxist (not so closet either, for those with eyes to see. Paul has been shouting it from the rooftops for years now) who actively hates the country he has been elected to lead, and 80% of the people in it.

    He wishes to change the USA from what is left of free market Capitalism, and individual freedom, to the European Socialist Statist model that we in Europe enjoy and revere (sarcasm alert) so much.

    He is actively already destroying the Constitution and circumventing Congress so that it is now all but useless an ineffectual. He is giving autocratic powers to the Executive Branch that should never be surrendered, and if the cunt gets 4 more years, kiss goodbye to Western Civilisation as we know it.

  5. Kevin B says:

    To answer Paul’s question: No. But on the other hand, the nasty ads in Florida were nothing to do with Mitt. Thanks to the workings of America’s weirdly byzantine election laws, they were the work of some totally separate PACs which poor Mitt has no control over whatsoever. So maybe some PACs will get down and dirty with Obama while the Mittster keeps his toga clean. Not as satisfying as watching Newt tearing into Barry, but about all we’ll get.

    As for which flawed vessel we should put our hopes in, Obama or Romney:

    A) What RAB said,
    B) Libya, Yemen, drones shooting Hellfires left right and centre,
    C) The dreadful suspicion that if things ain’t going too well electorally for Barack in September, the citizens of Tehran might suddenly notice a lot of cruise missiles zooming up the street while the skys above darken with bombers, and
    D) Until Barack Obama is gone, the economic recovery will stutter. Business, (by which term I exclude the corporatists like Immelt and Buffet and their ilk) will not expand since they simply do not trust government, and rightly so. And until they do, the world economy will limp from crisis to crisis.

  6. MickC says:

    Barry won’t start a war-money on it. He wants his legacy to be peace and prosperity (okay probably socialistic type)-not more dead soldiers coming home.

    And he certainly won’t attack Iran-that surely would screw any chance of oil prices staying low(ish).

  7. Bod says:

    I wouldn’t be so certain that Barry won’t indulge in a bit of warmaking – you can ask the Libyans about recent foreign policy. ‘Kinetic policing’ or whatever the term-de-jour will be for launching attacks on sovereign nations seems to be quite as popular as it’s been for a while, and to the extent that the POTUS (who happens to have a Nobel Peace Prize, no less) will avoid war-war, there’s very little evidence to suggest that ideologically, he’s any more opposed to blowing up a Pashtun wedding party than his predecessor.

    Not starting a war is a great idea, as you run up to an election, until something pops out of the woodwork that needs a distraction *fast* and a bit of saber-rattling often diverts the proles’ attentions. The problem at the moment is that at some times, a bit of bellicose chest-thumping escalates VERY quickly into a real shooting war.

    A nation that moves a Carrier Task Force (or is it two now) within deployment range of the Gulf of Hormuz may in fact be ‘merely signalling’, or may have aggressive intent. I’m not sure mere wishful thinking is going to have much effect.

    When the GAO just happens to release numbers that show to the hoi-polloi that all the loudly-trumpeted ‘economic growth’ was actually worse than anemic, indeed, the only growth in employment has been in state employment, it must be awfully tempting to blow stuff up, especially if you’re obsessed with protecting your legacy as Clinton was.

    And there’s precious little evidence that the current administration gives a tinker’s cuss about the price of oil. They’ve done everything they could to suppress any hope of a fall in price per barrel, largely because the measurement of economic inflation has been so compromised that all sectors of the economy that rely on energy prices have been expunged from the formulae.

    Steadily rising energy prices are of no concern to Washington, indeed, it’s grist to the propaganda mill that we need more windmills and solar panels. A sudden upward shock would be a problem, but Saudi can be relied on to pump more, even if their actual pumping capacity isn’t being disclosed. All it takes is a quick flight to the UAE and some appropriate bowing and scraping.

    Obama’s base has no problem with blowing foreigners up, if a reliable donor of public largesse is in the Oval Office. Note how quiet the anti-war protest groups have been. To believe that they’re anything other than democrat party shills is either willful- or stultifyingly profound ignorance. The masks have been off for years, and still the vast bulk of the electorate believe there’s something fundamentally different between the parties. Then 2008 came along, where there actually was a discernable difference between the candidates – and look what happened.

    The only difference between the average statist-fuck democrat voter and the average statist-fuck republican voter is who they want to see get it in the neck and why. To believe otherwise is to have lived in denial since at least the 1970′s and maybe the 1870′s.

    Anyway, back to the topic. If there is a difference between Obama and Bush at this point, it’s that Bush was considerably more forthright about why he was dropping cruise missiles on the heads of brown people. To the extent that Obama’s unwilling to do it, it’s because he has to consult with Hillary and in doing so has to deal with someone whith more testosterone than him, and it’s easier to just avoid the issue until it’s too late.

  8. Ian B says:

    In the general sense, it doesn’t much matter I think. Steve Jobs used to tell a story about how when Gil Amelio took over at Apple, he said, “this company is like a ship with a hole in the bottom and it’s my job to steer it in the right direction”.

    [audience fall about with laughter]

    The current political classes in the west are all trying to steer the ship in various directions as it sinks lower and lower, and none of them have a fucking clue. So it’s not much use backing anyone. What does matter though is that nobody totally fucking deranged gets the Presidency, so that excludes Gingrich. The man’s a psychopath. He wouldn’t be safe as commander in chief of a backyard barbecue, let alone the US government and armed forces. Seriously, this is the “anyone but Gingrich” election.

    It’s kind of like a choice between Barney The Dinosaur, Pamela Anderson, a golden hamster, and Adolf Hitler. None of them are going to be any good, but the first one off the list has to be Hitler as a foregone conclusion.

    Oh, and as to that nasty Mr Romney with his terrible “attack” ads, let’s remember that the Psycho started it with the “Romney is a capitalist” crap. Gingrich’s attitude is that if he doesn’t get to be president, nobody else is going to either. Seriously, the man’s a total loon.

    So, for the record, since Ron Paul can’t possibly get the nomination, I think I’d be for another Obama term too. At least that has a chance of avoiding a war with Iran. As to him being a communist, ho hum. He’s just following a path America has been following for a very long time. The Constitution is a dead letter, America is a managerialist social democracy, like the rest of the West, and most of the “socialism” we’re all currently suffering is sourced from there anyway. It strikes me as strange; there’s this conservative thing where every time it’s “this is the last chance to stop socialism, one more step and we’re there, we’ll end up like oh noes the Europeans” narrative. They’ve been there for fucking decades. At least since the Progressive Era. It’s the biggest bloody government in the world.

    So, it’s an election for an elected dictator of a social democracy, like everywhere else. That’s all. No biggie. Just don’t want a crazy man in the job; hence, no Newt.

    And talking crazy, what’s with the names? Newt. Mitt. Tagg. Sarah Palin’s kids Track, Trig, Trog, Bristols, Snap, Crackle and Pop. Americans didn’t used to be called all these bizarre names. What happened there? What is that?

  9. MickC says:

    Ian B,

    Yes, to your above comments, particularly that Ron Paul should be the GOP candidate-but ain’t gonna happen.

  10. Lynne says:

    I wouldn’t trust any of ‘em with a fart in a paper bag let alone the presidency and that includes The One. I wouldn’t employ any of them as public lavatory attendants. They’re all mad as a box of psychotic frogs with tap dancing sea urchins rammed up their jacksies.

    Shit, more buoyant than a hydrogen filled ping-pong ball.

  11. PeterT says:

    A possible option would be for Ron Paul to threaten Romney with a third-party run. To avoid it Romney would have to make some serious commitments to Paulesque policies on the Fed etc, and maybe appoint Rand Paul as candidate for VP. Romney cares enough about winning to find it in him to placate the libertarian wing, such as it is, of the Republican party. Gingrich would just tell Paul to foxtrot oscar.

  12. Edward Lud says:

    Ian B, a similar point is made in Money by Martin Amis (1984? ish?). There’s a character called something like Spunk Davis, I think he’s a screen actor. Anyone the protagonist comments a propos this name that “Americans don’t get it, they think it’s cool”. But there’s another strand of American name as well, identified by Mark Steyn: the type of American name where you can’t tell which is the Christian name and which is the surname. Those I quite like, you know the sort of thing, Brent Mark, Tweed Scooter, Apple Tango, and so on.

  13. NickM says:

    I think it’s a bit of an American tradition. A lot of it came from immigrants in say the early C20th choosing English names for kids without quite getting how it fitted with their surnames. So the mother of an American I know went to school with an Arthur “Art” Kraft and an Ophelia Tushmann. Her Grandmother who had brought the family into Ellis Island was a Frances “Fanny” Doktor. But hey this sort of mis-match happens all the time. I went to school with an Adam Pratt (A Damn Pratt) and a Antony Paul Ling who for whatever reasons preferred Paul to Antony (or diminutives thereof) and therefore he was truly A Paul Ling – and he was. Also have a guess what the first name of the father of the footballers Gary and Phil Neville is? If you said Neville then you win the prize!

    Of course if you really want insanity then it is ‘slebs to look out for. I think in a very strong field Paris Hilton is truly bizarre – there obviously having been a Paris Hilton in the bricks and mortar sense before her. I may change my name to Nuneaton Travelodge.

    But seriously. Until very recently I thought – I assumed – Mitt was short for Mitchell but it isn’t. His full name is Willard Mitt Romney. I have no idea if going by Mitt helps or hinders but it sounds daft to me. Willard Romney sounds much more presidential.

    Anyway, screw Ron Paul. It’s time to send out for Wonko the Sane!

  14. Ian B says:

    My sister went to school with a boy called Bradley Gammage, which still makes me chuckle just to type it. I can’t believe it wasn’t deliberate.

  15. Paul Marks says:

    The Romney supporting SuperPAC is run by people who used to work for Romney (worked for him only a few months ago).

    And Romney has “form” on this – his campaign in 2008 was dirty (even by the low standards of politics).

    As for what MickC and others say about Barack Obama.

    I only wish you were correct.

    Sadly you have not done the background research – and do not have the information.

    I hope that does sound nasty – it is simply the truth.

    I made a similar mistake myself.

    I heard of Barack Obama in 2004 (the speech for Kerry at the Dem Convention), but I did NOTHING to do any background research on him.

    By the time of 2008 came along I (like many others) was left totally unprepared – I had no idea that this man was part of the Cong movement (which he is).

    As for the idea that the destruction of the United States does not matter.

    If America falls the rest of the West can not stand (in my opinion).

    And talking of future elections (if Obama wins in 2012) rather misses the point of what the Centre for American Progress (and so on) have planned for early 2013.

    For example, Congress will become irelevant.

    It is unfortunate that the world faces this evil (and Barack Obama is only on individal in a movement that is Legion), but the world (not just the United States) does face it.

  16. Edward Lud says:

    Then of course there’s the whole Tyson B. Rottweiler III thing. It is kind of sniggersome, when I’m feeling supercilious. But then I remind myself that Americans also unselfconsciously hang their flag outside their homes, and proudly sport political bumper stickers, and those things seem to me to be part of a worthwhile tradition, so I berate myself for being terribly Sir fFarquhar Pratt and British about it.

    Paul Marks, did you, btw, read Steven Schwartz’s review of Deconstructing Obama on Amazon? He takes issue with the quality of the analysis underpinning the claim that Ayers wrote Obama’s bookie wook and he does so in a manner which I found credible (I haven’t read the underlying text and so cannot comment further).

  17. Ian B says:

    Paul, I hate to have to be this blunt, but, on the “if America falls” thing-

    If any country is responsible for the fall of the West, it is America. Who invented political correctness? Who invented and promulgated the racism narrative that prevents any reasoned discussion of border controls? Who started the drug war? Who unleashed Second Wave feminism on us? Who controls the Western Discourse? Who?

    People have really got to get past this idea that the USA is what its Constitution claims it is. America is the leader of the Anglosphere, and the Anglosphere is the progenitor of Progressivism. “If America falls”? It fell a very, very long time ago.

  18. Kevin B says:

    When I was in the RAF we had a Squadron leader Robin Bastard. He didn’t muck about with any of that B’Stard crap either. He was a straight up Robin Bastard.

    One thing about American names. When illiterate immigrants got to Ellis Island and were registered by semi-literate immigration agents, there were some interesting transliterations and transpositions, so some of the strange names come from those circumstances.

    Ian B, yes, the anglosphere, especially the English and the Americans, are responsible for all the troubles of the world. The Germans, for instance, or the French, say, had no contribution to the rise of progressivism, and civilisations throughout history have had no problems with prod-nose bastards seeking to impose their twisted morality on their fellow citizens.

    Apart from all of them.

    It’s the same argument as the militant atheists put forward about how religions cause all the wars and deaths and famines etc. It’s people who want to boss the rest of us about who cause the grief, not this or that religion or political movement or geo-political grouping.

    The job for those of us who seek a modicum of liberty is to try to restrict the power these cunts have over the rest of us, or, more likely, survive the crash when all their schemes go belly up and it’s back to everyone for himself.

  19. Ian B says:

    I think the point Kevin is that every civilisation/society has its own style of tyranny the is rooted in its specific cultural values and history. I’m not saying that the Anglosphere is repsonsibel for all the world’s troubles. I’m saying that the particular dominant form of collectivist/authoritarian/tyrannism what have you is our one, not somebody else’s. Like, Nazism was Germanic, and the form of communism in each country it took root in was different and culturally specific.

    Our one is rooted in a mixture of puritanism, romanticism and an ethos of charity and good works, with a healthy dose of millennialism. So the point is that America (and Anglosphere in general) isn’t succumbing to some foreign, exogenous thing. It’s a thing of our own devising, whose roots you can trace all the way back to the English reaction to the Reformation, and a set of counter-reactions oscillating back and forth ever since.

    One thing it tends to do is suck in ideas from elsewhere, modify them to an Anglosocialist form, then spit them back out again; so Environmentalism for instance has strong germanic roots, but their form of it was striding through the eternal forest singing Valderee Valderaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa and killing small furry animals, all very outdoorsy and fascist. It takes the Anglospheric reformation of it by incorporating the Puritan spirit, and the Millennialism (a particularly strong thing in America; we’re always a day away from the Apocalypse) to get modern Greenism and its “use less toilet paper to save the planet” stuff.

  20. Paul Marks says:

    Ian – I was not unaware that (for example) Frankfurt (as in the Frankfurt School of Marxism – rather than Frankfurt Kentucky) is in the United States. You are aware they invented the concept of “Political Correctness” are you not? America is indeed filled with P.C.ism (where is not?) – but it is also filled with resistance to P.C.ism.

    Most bad things in American academia (and its effects on wider society) United States have a European (normally Germanic) root. However, it is true that some German trained American collectivists (such as the infamous Richard Ely – mentor of both T. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) believed that collectivism could go further in the United States (in some respects) than it could in Germany – as, in Germany, there was a longer history of tradition and custom to be destroyed.

    The Nazis seemed to prove Ely to be mistaken (that traditional limits on building a “new society” [i.e. really to destroy civil society] would prove more easy to destroy in Germany than in the United States) – but the recovery of civil society in Germany (especially in certain parts of Germany – such as Bavaria) has been impressive.

    Germans do have an advantage of knowing what they face – and not just on such things as the true origins of such terms as “Political Correctness” (which very few English speakers know), but even in terms of such things as architecture.

    For example, if someone says “you can not rebuild things in a traditional style – it would be against the spirit of the age, it would be a pastiche” – a British person (or an American) is likely to nod at this display.

    A German might just say to turn round and say “you are just using Hegel, and not even in a way he would approve of, – who cares about the SPIRIT OF THE AGE”.

    So the fact that the philosophical roots of a lot of this stuff (from box like buildings to femminism) are German is a double edged sword – double edged as a German speaker may just know what the philosphical roots of these things are.

    And once you know the source of something – it, somehow, seems less impressive and unchallengeable.

    As for law – the United States still has the First Amendment. So at least people can not be crimially punished for their opinions – in most of Europe (and so on) people are punished for having racist (and other) OPINIONS and …..

    Ditto with such things as private firearms ownership.

    And with virutally everything else.

    All freedoms are under attack in the United States – but there is also resistance.

    There does not tend to be “push back” in most other nations.

    But my point was actually a more basic one.

    The United States is the largest country of the West (overwhelmingly so) – with the United States the West really is not very impressive or powerful. It fact it would prove rather easy to crush.

    As for the West standing without the United States – I hope you are correct. But – see above.

    Edward Lud.

    I have not read the review you mention.

    But I have read both books (Deconstructing Obama and Dreams From My Father) – I am also familar with both the work of Mr Obama and Mr Ayers.

    And Dreams From My Father seems (in part) like the work of Mr Ayers.

    However, if it is the work of Mr Obama – the section on Indonesia alone (which is written in classic agitprop terms) would be enough to indicate what Mr Obama is.

    As for Jack Cashill – I would trust his judgement on all matters with the exception of natural science (which he knows nothing about – but thinks he does) and certain questions of ethical philosophy (not his own personal ethics – but matters of formal philosophy).

  21. PeterT says:

    Less seriously, flicking through a graduate year book from university I found a boy whose parents surname was “Head,” and thought “Dickon” was a wonderful name for a boy.

    I think Paul is correct on this one Ian – the USA is the only place where there is serious resistance to collectivism. If Obama wins next year civil war is not impossible. That alone is reason enough to support ‘the candidate best suited to beat Obama’.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: