Margaret Thatcher was right about Society

“There is no such thing as society, [just] individual men and women, and families . . “, she is reported to have said.

This is pretty much the basis on which western civilisation is organised. And that’s the PROBLEM, because we evolved to survive and “succeed”, not as individuals or single families, but as part of a larger society, i.e. tribe or nation.

What is referred to as “society”, notwithstanding its vital social importance, is in fact far more an “artificial human environment” (of niches, resources and markets), the self-exploitation of which, state and economy developed over the centuries to facilitate, mainly, but not exclusively, to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege (including academics, favoured professions, and everyone who is anyone in the media, politics, the church and business).

State and economy do serve us, of course, and we are all completely dependent on them, which deludes us into seeing this as their primary purpose, but in fact only as a shepherd serves his flock, which is not primarily for the flock’s sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern for a lost or injured lamb), but for his own and/or his employer’s sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for MONEY.

This is the core of my human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, approach to understanding human “society” and its ills, which I’m still developing on this and other blogs, and could do with some academic help in expanding upon.

Lebensraum for Immigrants in the West

“[T]he poor, unemployed and undefended of Asia and Africa who are looking for new places to live and work cannot be kept out of Europe indefinitely.”

This is quoted from a piece, “The souring of Turkey’s European dream”, by the left-wing Turkish author and intellectual, Orhan Pamuk, in today’s Guardian (Cif), that champion of “progressive” values and ideology.

In June 1941, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa in pursuit of Hitler’s desire to acquire Lebensraum for Germany’s expanding population in the East, a desire he’d given clear expression to in his book Mein Kampf, but which presumably many people didn’t take seriously.

Now, according to Orhan Pamuk, Europe and America should provide Lebensraum in the West for Asia’s and Africa’s still expanding populations.

He and his ideological brethren of the liberal-fascist left do not dispose over the modern equivalent of the German Wehrmacht, as Hitler did, so instead they seek to achieve their goal, not of a Germanised, but of a “post-racial”, i.e. post-European, West, through the power of the “moral high ground”, much as the Catholic Church in medieval Europe and Islam in Muslim countries today achieved their goals.

The threat posed by “Liberal Fascism” is here clearly stated, just as the threat of Nazi fascism was in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Yet few seem to recognise it or take it seriously. And those who do are dismissed and condemned as “racists”, just as opponents to religious authority were (and in some countries still are) dismissed and condemned and “non-believers”.

There is no such thing as an 'indigenous' Briton

This was the title of an article in Monday's Guardian (Cif), written by two left-wing academics specialising in native (indigenous) American culture.

They write that 

“articles on Comment is free about indigenous peoples [invariably attract comments which ask] “what about the British . . . why can't we be indigenous, [thereby] aligning themselves – surely unwittingly – with the nationalist myth-making of the far right.”

They go on to quote the sociologist and anthropologist Mathias Guenther: 

"Indigenous is a term applied to people – and by the people to themselves – who are engaged in an often desperate struggle for political rights, for land, for a place and space within a modern nation's economy and society."

This is a classic and illuminating example of how the liberal-(fascist) left suppresses all expression of ethnic, i.e. natural and spontaneous national, identity amongst its own, ethnic European, peoples, be we English, French, German, Russian, Poles, Italian, Irish, European Americans, Australians, or whatever. Only ethnic minorities are allowed to have, express and cultivate their own ethnic identities, while for white ethnic majorities the very same feelings and behaviours are condemned and suppressed as “racist”.

Only when indigenous Britons (who represent just a few of Europe's many – more-or-less mixed - indigenous peoples) have become a disadvantage minority themselves (according to current projections, probably, some time during the next century), “engaged in a desperate struggle for political rights, for land, for a place and space within a modern nation's [globalised] economy and society", will we become worthy of state concern for our “indigenous rights”, and of pity from “progressives” and the liberal left. Until then, calling ourselves “indigenous” is just plain “racist”.

People often speak, or write, about “playing the race card”, when in fact it is ALWAYS on the table, with these words written across it in thick letters: Race doesn't matter! i.e. is of no social or political importance, except for ethnic minorities, of course (who must be allowed to peacefully cultivate their own ethnic identities, for the sake of their own self-esteem and the “diversity” that enriches us all), and for evil white “racists”.

It's an insanity (of normality, and thus difficult to clearly recognise and grapple with), of course, but that is the reality we live in, which self-proclaimed “progressives” of the liberal left have succeeded in imposing on us, including conservatives, who are as terrified of the race card as anyone, although they tend not to embrace it with the self-righteous enthusiasm of true believers on the liberal-(fascist) left.

Why is the state (of which the liberal left are the most ardent supporters, ever keen to expand its powers) so concerned to suppress (by equating it with “racism”) all expression and cultivation of white, ethnic European, identity?

It is, I believe, because this represents the stirrings of a natural and spontaneous form of nationalism (the affinity of closely related peoples for each other), which, if allowed to develop, would challenge the state's own (false) claim to nationhood, along with the power that goes with it.

Celebrating the Sunturn

I used to have a first floor flat in Brunswick, Germany, in which the large kitchen window faced due east, and through which I often saw the sunrise, or noticed its position in the sky shortly after it had risen. It was here that I observed for the first time what my ancestors, without the distractions and bright lights of modern city life, must have been aware of at a much younger age: how the sun, in its rising (and setting, visible from the opposite end of my flat) wanders along the horizon from south to north and back again during the course of the seasons that make up a single year. In fact, it is this cycle which defines the year, from mid-winters day, when it rises at its most southerly point, back though the Spring equinox to mid-summers day, when it rises at its most northerly point, before turning back on itself and heading south again, through the autumn equinox and on once again to its most southerly point of rising, from whence the annual cycle beings over again.

We call them the Summer and Winter solstices, because at these points the sunrise stops wandering to the north or south and seems briefly to stand still (L. solstistium), before turning back in the opposite direction. I wasn’t a conscientious enough observer to actually observe it standing still (besides, at the time of the Winter solstice I was usually at home in England for Christmas, with no east facing window and other things on my mind), but I did notice, sooner or later, that it had TURNED. Thus, my decision to call it, as in German “Sonnenwende”, the SUNTURN, instead of solstice. Because that was my actual experience of this fundamental (for humans living at northerly latitudes, at least) natural phenomenon, which lies behind the solar year, the seasons we experience and the changing lengths of day and night, which I could really relate to.

Long before my discovery of the Sunturn, I’d had a problem with Christmas, because of its lack of meaning for me, as someone who didn’t believe in the Christian Gospels and was nauseated at its commercialisation. The principal purpose of Christmas seemed to be economic, indulging and encouraging the consumer mentality driving the unsustainable, growth-dependent economy plundering and spoiling our planet. On the other hand, I loved the “Christmas spirit” of peace and good will towards others, and also the way it brought my family together, which I lived apart from all year. There are also mountains of European culture and history inseparably associated with Christmas and Christianity in general, which, although I’m not a believing Christian, is still a very large and inherent part of my heritage and identity, both personal and national (i.e. as an ethnic European, since I no more identity with the mercenary, multi-ethnic British state than I do with the commercialisation of Christmas).

However, my ethnic European identity is not just Judeo-Christian, but also pre-Christian and post-Christian, stretching from the neolithic (including the builders of Stonehenge) to the present (including the those who put men on the Moon and created the Internet).

In ancient northern Europe, no one knew why the seasons changed and the days got progressively shorter and colder as the Sun sank lower and lower in the sky, as its daily rising wandered ever further south along the eastern horizon, until finally – hopefully! – it would stop, “TURN”, and begin to head north again. When it finally did, they knew the days would slowly lengthen, eventually getting warmer, bringing back the Spring and Summer, along with all their lives depended on.

That is why the Sunturn was so important to our ancestors They did not understand why it occurred, nor could they be sure that it always would. Supposing it didn’t, and the days went on getting short and colder? When their supplies of food ran out they would starve, if they hadn’t already frozen to death from the cold – or knocked themselves out by bumping into a tree in the perpetual darkness! They must have been fearfully aware of their dependency on the Sunturn, and prayed for its occurrence. What else could they do? When it did turn (and they’d need a few days to be sure that it had), they celebrated and gave thanks.

When Christianity came to northern Europe the bishops realised that there was no way to stop people celebrating the Sunturn – it was far too important a festival; but they didn’t want the natives (our ancestors) praising and thanking their own gods for it, so they declared it to be Jesus’ birthday and called it “Christmas”.

After more than 1500 years, and playing an integral role in the development of western civilisation, it is time for those of us with a more rational turn of mind to put the childish beliefs of Christianity firmly behind us, without giving up the rich cultural heritage (e.g. in literature, art, music and song) it inspired.

Let us return to our pre-Christian roots to stand in wonder at the Sunturn and all nature’s works, and also at what we have learned about them over two and a half millennia of European civilisation, so that we no longer have to fearfully pray for the Sun to turn and bring back Spring and Summer, but can be pretty confident that it will do so without divine intervention.

Let us use the Winter sunturn to connect with our ancient roots and cultivate an appreciation of what our ancestors achieved, not least by defying the Abrahamic god, i.e. the power-hungry priests who created him and would have kept their people in a state of ignorance (to facilitate their exploitation as a manipulable “human resource”), having God curse Adam and Eve for desiring self-awareness and of the world about them (“. . their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked.“), filling them with guilt about their dawning consciousness and awareness of their SINFUL human nature, so that they could keep them under their control, rather than allowing them to take responsibility for themselves.

Instead of feeling ashamed of our human nature, especially our sexuality and tribalism (now demonised as “racism”), we need to become fully aware of and take personal responsibility for and control of them. The modern priesthood comprises mainly “progressives” and “liberal-fascists”, who would keep us under the control of capital and our pseudo-nation state.

Instead of allowing ourselves to be herded into proprietary and mercenary states (posing as nations), whose primary purpose is to facilitate our self-exploitation as a human resource and market, let us organize ourselves, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into genuine, “natural nations”, not defined by citizenship and boundaries determined by the priesthood of a mercenary state, but by the natural affinity for and identity with one’s own PEOPLE.

And on that note, in the Christmas spirit of peace on earth, good will to all, supplemented by my own, more tribal, nationalist (non-global, -universalist, -statist) sentiment of love of one’s own (nation) and respect for others:

Why Globalized “Society” ?

The one thing that both the political left and right (i.e. capital) generally agree on is the inevitability and general good of globalisation.

A globalized economy means that capital has access to a global work force (both stationary and migratory) and to global markets, which translates into to increased returns on investments.

For the Left, globalisation means implementation of its ideology of a post-racial/post-European society, in which the despised (on the left, self-hating) white man (and woman) slowly but surely disappears from history into a global melting pot of a predominantly darker-skinned humanity.

Capital’s interest in the increased returns on investments that globalisation brings is readily understood, like capitalism itself, in terms of a predominantly mercenary motivation, but what about the motivation behind the Left’s ideology of a globalized, post-racial/post-European society . . . ?

Anyone who identifies with this ideology, whether consciously or not, and whether of the Left or not (both the Catholic and Anglican churches, for example, embrace much the same ideology), will, I’m sure, deny that it is an ideology at all, but simply an expression of their enlightened, “anti-racist” humanity, or of their Christian faith, which only evil “racists”, or uncharitable/unchristian souls, identifying with their own nasty European race, rather than with humanity as a whole, would oppose.

Thus, the Left and Christian churches see the creation of a global melting pot (often referred to as “multi-cultural society”), in which ethnic Europeans (the despised “white man”), presumably along with all other races or ethnic groupings, must eventually merge into a “single human race”, as a noble goal, on the way to which, the noblest of moral causes is to bring people of different races and cultures together in a multiracial/multi-ethnic/multicultural society, where, united by their common humanity, all will embrace each other to live in brotherly and sisterly harmony – amen. And if inter-ethnic relations are not as harmonious as they ought to be, that is because of an evil “racist” tendency, particularly amongst white people, to identify with their own race, rather than with multiracial society as a whole.

Which brings us to the real, largely subconscious, motivation (and moral imperative for mass immigration) of those who identify with this ideology, which is to claim the moral-high-ground for themselves in standing up to the evil “racism” which opposes it. Because, with the moral-high-ground comes POWER, social status and advantage.

In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church was sole master in wielding the power of the moral-high-ground (based on it being God’s representative on Earth and keeper of the key to Paradise), but with the decline in Christian faith, a power vacuum arose which other sources of moral-high-ground have been created to fill. “Progressives” and the Liberal Left are the modern equivalent of the medieval Catholic Church, their social status, power and privileges based on their claims to “moral superiority”: e.g. caring about others (rather than their own), “individual human rights” (over the interests of one’s tribe or nation), and of course, the ideology of “one-human-racism”, “colourblindness”, of “race-doesn’t matter”, i.e. is of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”.

Thus, in the final analysis, the interests of both the Left and of capital in globalisation boil down to same interest in POWER (social, political or economic/monetary), along with the personal advantages that go with it.

It is not my intention to demonise the Right or the Left, or the Churches (which is tends to be their favoured tactic, because so effective), but to expose their underlying, largely subconscious, motivations, which are not nearly as noble as they would have us – and themselves – believe.

And where does this leave us? Assuming that you are giving these ideas some serious consideration.

It leaves us in urgent need of a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, approach to understanding our own human nature and the civilisation (the social, political and economic power structures) it has given rise to.

The Importance of Being White

i.e. an ethnic European

List of Great Whites	List of not so Great Whites
Socrates Plato Aristotle Copernicus Kepler Galileo Newton Lavoisier Darwin Einstein Neil Armstrong (rep. Apollo Project)	Hitler Stalin Goebels Himmler Ian Huntley

One could extend both lists without limit, but I’m just picking out names most people are familiar with.

If my choice of words seems a bit punny and elicits a smile, that’s good, because this is NOT an exercise in white supremacy (as, of course, “moral supremacists” and statists will insist it is), but in white, i.e. ethnic European, awareness and identity (But that IS racism, they scream!).

No, it’s not, any more than the expression of black, native American, or any other minority ethnic awareness and identity is; although, if allowed to, it can of course lead to racism, as it most horrifically did in Nazi Germany. In part, it is fear of this which has resulted in the demonisation, as “racist”, and suppression of all expression of white (ethnic European) awareness and identity (although the most vicious Nazi racism was directed at their fellow Europeans). And the existence of groups of neo-Nazis and white supremacists is used to reinforce such fears, which are not completely groundless, but massively exaggerated, in order to intimidate and exert political control.

In stark contrast to the “multi-ethnic states” and “pseudo nations” all western democracies, in this age of monetisation and globalisation, have become, ethnic Europeans, despite having no state, or power, of their own, actually form a “natural nation”, which accords pretty well with the dictionary (OED) definition of a nation:

“A large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE” [my capitals].

Despite the massive pressure that I and everyone else in Britain and other western democracies is under to see the multi-ethnic STATE as our NATION, I find it quite impossible to do so, and the more I think about it the more I am convinced that it is nonsense and wrong – to give in to state pressure and intimidation by the moral supremacists, who occupy all positions of power in politics and the media and who, in contrast towhite, black or Islamic supremacists, are the real enemy within, because they currently have us in their statist iron grip.

I see ethnic European as my “natural nation”; my tribe as native English. So those who identify with the multi-ethnic British state as their nation, see me as a threat, who they thus demonise as a “racist”.

Only, I’m not a racist – any more than native Americans, or any indigenous people seeking to retain their ethnic identity, are. The only people I “hate” (and even then, not to the extent that I wish them harm), or feel “superior” to (which is how genuine racists are supposed to feel towards other races) are those members of my OWN race who would impose their moral supremacist ideology on me and everyone else, in defence of the oxymoronic absurdity of the multi-ethnic British state being a nation (Greek, ETHNOS, from which “ethnic” is derived, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION), just as the medieval church imposed its own moral supremacist ideology (its interpretation of the Gospel truth) on everyone, likewise demonising as evil anyone who did not comply, and for the same power-political reasons.

Today’s statist and moral supremacist ideology is based on belief in the none importance of race and ethnic origins, despite its obvious importance for an individual’s sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity.

Race and ethnic origins don’t matter, they say, and as far as our mercenary state and capital are concerned, they are right. But for anyone who wants a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity, they DO matter.

British Identity: an Ideology!

British Identity is based, not on the natural, spontaneous mutual affinity of its citizens for each other, on the shared ancestry, culture and history which characterises a genuine Nation, but on an IDEOLOGY.

The ideology of “One Human Racism”; of a “Global Melting Pot”; of “Colourblindness”; of “Race Doesn’t Matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”.

It is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which led to the horrors of Auschwitz, from which it is directly derived.

In the aftermath of the Nazi defeat, it was an understandable response to their criminally insane racial ideology to insist that “race doesn’t matter”, especially since the Nazis saw fundamental racial differences even amongst Europeans, which, without their twisted ideology, no one else could see. Europeans are not a pure race, or a single people, but a mixture of very closely related peoples, amongst whom traces of slightly different ethnicities can still be seen, but not disentangled. Thus, nationality was based not on race, but on language and/or territory organised as a sovereign state.

However, the dictum of “race doesn’t matter”, which works naturally well amongst Europeans, because of them being so closely related (racially, culturally, historically and even prehistorically, as evidenced by the relative ease with which any European can settle and integrate into any European society, as well as by the success of the American melting pot of European immigrants), was then forcefully applied to humanity as a whole: no matter how different an immigrant’s or asylum seeker’s racial, cultural or historical background might be – it didn’t matter! And anyone who suggested that it did was branded a “racist” – like the Nazis.

And this, despite the obvious importance of race and ethnic origins for an individual’s sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity: witness the continuing, spontaneous segregation – despite all attempts at desegregation and integration – of African (black) and European (white) Americans, and the “white flight” and segregation now characteristic of many European cities. Most people, whatever their ethnicity, naturally enough, want to live amongst members of their own ethnic group.

Yet our ruling elites are determined to impose a racial ideology on us (that “race doesn’t matter”) which goes completely against human nature.

The only alternative they say, is a return, via the inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid, to Nazi racial ideology and the horrors of Auschwitz.

We are forced to choose between these two extreme ideologies, just as in the Middle Ages, people had to choose between Jesus and salvation, on the one hand, and the Devil and damnation on the other, and, of course, between the institutions (the church, political parties, etc.) associated with them.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter: power politics and the importance therein of laying claim to the “moral high ground”.

It was through its claim to the “moral high ground”, as God’s representative on Earth, that the Catholic Church was able to exercise such power and influence in medieval European societies. Everyone, even the aristocracy, which exercised the power of the sword over society, had to “believe” in, or at least pay lip-service to, Church ideology, no matter how absurd (as most of us now agree it was and is). Now it is the absurd ideology of “race doesn’t matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazi, we ALL have believe in, or at least pay lip-service to – certainly if you want a job in politics or the media.

But race and ethnic origins DO matter, socially and politically, and the sooner we put the “moral supremacists” who currently dominate society (mainly through politics and the media), just as the Catholic Church once did, in their place, admit this, develop a sound understanding of it, and learn to deal with it – in a rational, humane and civilised fashion – the better.

The Great Philanthropy Con

“Barack Obama discusses philanthropy with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett” is the heading of a short article in today’s Telegraph.

I don’t doubt for one moment that both men mean well. Which is both a major problem and a source of hope.

Why is it a major problem? Because they are highly motivated, but just as misguided, in pursuit of their philanthropic aims, as they were in pursuit of their massive fortunes.

What’s motivating and misguiding them is the pursuit of social status, which of course is a very natural thing for “great apes” like ourselves to do. Only we are no longer in the natural, tribal, environment in which such behaviour evolved and was beneficial to individual and tribe survival and reproductive success, but in the very different, artificial environment of global civilisation.

Social status is inseparable from POWER. The more power an individual has, the higher their social status: thus its ability to intimidate and intoxicate, both of which are inimical to reason and rational behaviour. Power comes in different forms, but in the modern world by far its most important and versatile form is MONEY.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spent most of their lives intent on making as much money as possible, which they were pre-eminently successful at.

Once an individual has gained all the social status and recognition that successful money making affords, the only way of increasing social status and recognition even further (or of maintaining them at the most elevated level) is through philanthropy, i.e. spending a proportion of their fortunes on “good causes”, which benefit their TRIBE, which Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, judging by the projects they are supporting through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, see as humanity at large, whose most needy they want to help out of disease and poverty.

Significantly, this generally excludes ethnic Europeans like themselves, because they have no urgent need of their help, and because they don’t identify with them, but with all humanity, as their TRIBE, from which there is far more social status and recognition to be had. It fact, for ethnic Europeans to identify with their own race is considered evil, i.e. “racist”. So, to gain the elevated social status and recognition they desire they have no choice but to identify with some other tribe – and what more noble (and conveniently abstract) than all humanity?

What I’m trying to point out is the perverted (rationalised and unrecognised) Darwinian nature of all this, which, no matter how well meant, can ONLY lead – is leading! – to catastrophe.

Seeing all humanity as one’s TRIBE is considered the greatest virtue, while not doing so, if you are white, is considered “racist”. Thus, Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffet’s choice of “good causes”. Who doesn’t want to be considered virtuous and non-racist? And their vast wealth enables them to be far more so than others. They must be glowing with self-satisfaction: SUCCESS incarnate.

Only they didn’t see humanity, or any subdivision of it, as their TRIBE when they were MAKING their money. Then, society (largely comprising their own race) was first and foremost an ENVIRONMENT (of human resources and consumers), which they were intent on exploiting to their own perceived advantage, taking a much money from it as possible.

I’m not blaming Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for this situation. They didn’t create it, but have simply been eminently “successful” in exploiting it. And with everyone who is anyone praising and admiring them for doing so, how can they possibly doubt that they are two of the world’s most successful and virtuous men?

Social mobility = Survival of (advantage to) the Fittest

In response to the article, “A government in line with public opinion” in the comments section today’s Telegraph:

The welfare state was created in the aftermath of a 6-year struggle against Nazi tyranny which had united people as never before, giving them a powerful sense of shared identity, destiny and solidarity. No longer just a State, run by privileged elites for their own advantage, but with a genuine sense of being a Nation and a People.

My parents, who experienced the whole war (my father as a Royal Marine) would never have dreamed of “exploiting” the welfare state, but remained dedicated to “doing their bit”, “playing their part”, not just for themselves and their own family, but also for the country as a whole. To have been on “benefits”, for whatever reason, would have made them deeply ashamed. My father would drag himself off to work no matter how ill he might feel. They had the attitude one would expect from people who feel that they belong to a Tribe, a Nation, a People, a continuation of the solidarity they had felt with their fellow Britons during the war.

During the 70s, however, my parent’s, especially my father’s, attitude started to change, as wave after wave of Commonwealth immigrants poured into the country he had fought to protect against Nazi invasion. As my parent’s became an ethnic minority in their own street, they realised that the British State had betrayed them.

Their work, sacrifices, sense of nationhood and solidarity had been misconceived, misplaced and in vain. Having helped to save their country from the Nazis, their leaders had opened it up to mass immigration of people we didn’t even have a shared – racial, cultural and historical – European identity with. And anyone who protested – as my father did, to his union and local labour party representative – was told they were being “racist”. – just as Mrs Duffy was, more than 30 years later, not by a local activist, but by the Labour Prime Minister himself. Betrayed, over two generations, from top to bottom.

So it is no wonder that people have turned away from the left and its ideals of social solidarity, towards the right and its more individualistic ideals (of every man for himself); especially since it was the left, with its anti-white/anti-nationalist ideal of a colourblind, globalised (Americanised,) “post-racial”, i.e. post-European, society, which provided the ideological motivation for mass immigration and creation of a multi-ethnic society, alongside and far more important than the economic motivation, i.e. the needs of state and capital for cheap foreign labour.

“Social mobility” is just a rationalised form of “survival of (advantage to) the fittest”, reflecting society’s perverted Darwinian nature, which we are in complete, official and unofficial, denial of.