Michael Crichton wrote a book named State of Fear in which he attacked the myth of global warming, pointing out that measurements of temperature change were not consistent globally, suggesting that instead local effects were responsible for warming.
The liberal establishment basically crucified him and he died of cancer a few years later.
However, as has happened with every one of his theories in his books dating back to the 1960s, Crichton was right. Check out this entertaining report from China:
Researchers have found evidence that the pollution engulfing China’s cities enhances the warming effect of cityscapes, raising the temperature by one degree Celsius. Writing in Nature Communications, they say it’s not the bigger cities that suffer the most, but those with the worst of a certain type of air pollution.
Cities tend to be hotter than countryside areas because of the Urban Heat Island effect—the density of buildings and the materials they are built out of absorb heat and radiation from the sun extremely well, but don’t readily release it at night, keeping the area warmer for longer.
As written here some years ago, the culprit in cities is most likely the vast amount of concrete used because it holds on to both heat and moisture unpredictably, and covers over natural regulatory mechanisms like earth and forest. Those tend to absorb water during the day and release it just before dawn, creating a natural cooling cycle.
In addition, heavy particulate pollution like that from car exhausts creates a kind of blanket over the city which increases its temperature. For a great example, examine Los Angeles: a flat plain in a large desert valley, it gets hottest when the smog serves as an insulator. After a rain, when smog is visibly reduced, the city is cooler and the air better.
Global warming is a proxy for human effects on the environment. As usual, humans have created a phantom problem that is smaller than the real problem, which is huge. The huge real problem is overpopulation, because on a finite earth, the more people we cram into it the more we exclude nature, including these regulatory mechanisms. People are terrified of that idea, so instead they are campaigning against actually functional appliances and non-electric cars, pretending that this pretentious course of action avoids a problem because it addresses one part of it.
As more evidence comes out which shows that global warming is a local problem, the herd will have a panic attack because then, the big problem will come into view. That problem requires us telling some people they cannot breed or migrate, which violates the Leftist feel-good ideal of equality, and will precipitate the downfall of Leftism as a concept.
The weak link in the chain of logic that supports minority protests against the majority, from Black Lives Matter to A Day Without A Mexican, is that beyond guilt, minority groups have nothing to offer the majority. It is this way in any society where a majority group, no matter what race, presides over minority groups.
If all non-whites vanished tomorrow — hopefully instantly repatriated without harm — what would happen to whites in America and Europe?
Our labor costs would go up, but we have millions of unemployed. We might have fewer doctors, but we would have far fewer patients. Construction jobs would go back to white guys. Cost would rise, at the level of what is paid, but would also fall as social welfare systems found themselves with far fewer recipients.
Would our cultural diversity perish? No, because we have museums and recipe books, and can do what others do. Would we lose vibrant diversity? Most white people seem to have fled it, except for the ethnic restaurants and kumbaya social events. Would we lose friends and neighbors? — undoubtedly, but most people socialize within their own groups.
In short, nothing would change after a brief adjustment period, and rising costs would be met by falling taxes and lower externalized costs from a failing social apparatus. Whites would lose nothing. Minority groups — assuming they were not harmed — would gain, as in their own countries they could live by the standards of their cultures, values and religions, and have something more important: pride in themselves and a sense of shared purpose.
This is the shrieking fear hidden behind these protests. Minority groups are not needed. We will carry on as we have always carried on, building nations and creating civilizations that fit us. Any momentary inconveniences would be offset by a restoration of our own pride and sense of command over our destinies.
What does this leave for minority groups? Only guilt: a type of projected shame on us for being prosperous and having built great civilizations. And what purpose does guilt serve? It is retroactive, and acts only to destroy those who wish to rise above the norm by artificially humbling them.
America and Europe are awakening to the emptiness of multiculturalism. We can cut our own lawns, make our own kebabs, and build our own houses. We would lose guilt and the lower social trust environment that diversity creates, and feel pride in ourselves again.
Leftism is a neurosis. Neurosis is a form of superstition. In superstition, people assign the wrong cause to an event. If it rains one day when people do a certain dance, that becomes the dance to invoke the rain. The superstition in Leftism is that success arises from universal inclusion.
Picture your typical small tribe or town. People are kept in line by rewards for doing good, and the threat of exclusion from a social group or society itself for doing bad. This contradicts the order before civilization, which was “everybody do whatever they want.”
Humans have an in-built engineering flaw: they see the world through their powerful brains, but in doing so, elevate themselves above reality. They share this viewpoint with other humans and, if left alone, will create a social construct of reality based on human desires, judgments and feelings based in the ego.
This creates conflict between the needs of society as an organic whole and the impulses of individuals. Eventually the individualists form a collective to demand “everybody do whatever they want” and create friction. Leftism occurs when the people back at home in armchairs decide that it is more important to eliminate conflict than resolve it.
The problem with this thinking is that it requires us to invert our method of perceiving the world. Instead of observing what is, and then constructing a thesis based on that, we must construct the socially-appropriate thesis and then look for data to support it — and exclude the rest. This simple idea breaks our thinking. This is parallel to our mental dysfunction of opting to eliminate conflict rather than achieve cooperative goals, which requires conflict with the in-built human engineering flaw (which the Greeks refer to as “hubris” and the Christians, “evil”).
Think of ancient examples of evil: Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden deciding that they want to be gods by eating the forbidden fruit, or Satan deciding to rebel against the order of God because it does not flatter Satan’s ego, or even the crowd before Pontius Pilate demanding the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as a scapegoat. It is the same psychology, and the same pathology, in each case: the ego wants to be in control of reality.
Humans have a default type of entropy within us. Much as every object in the world seems to desire to return to a state of chaos, humans desire returning to the “everybody do whatever they want” that existed before civilization. However, they also want the benefits of civilization, so they must find a way to compel others to provide them.
They do this with guilt. Instead of using direct compulsion through threat of exclusion, they invert this process too, and create a fake positive reward for doing good that casts those who refuse it into a bad light. Sort of like asking people if they are “for” peace, and if they say no, saying “So why do you love war?”
These guilt-based philosophies work through the notion of using “false opposites.” A false opposite exists when a binary state is imposed on a more varied field of data. For example, if you want people to do something, you define compliance as “good” and by implication, through the converse principle, everything else becomes bad.
The classic false binary is egalitarianism. It sounds good: make everyone equal, which is another way of saying “accept everyone” without regard to their contribution. This makes it more efficient to not-contribute but reap benefits than to struggle to contribute, which adds an unrewarded burden.
Naturally the problem with this approach is that it removes any sense of cooperation. People are now acting as free agents against society itself. This requires society to bribe the to participate, which they then do with less zeal for accuracy, leading to higher costs and lower quality for everyone.
As time goes on, the society expands into a pyramid shape, with many people at the bottom who need to be bribed and a few at the top who try to keep things together. This creates a form of legal parasitism that weakens the most productive and expands the population of low contribution individuals.
The people who give in to this impulse constitute a motley lot of civilization-eroders. Con men, snake oil salesman, pornographers, criminals, perverts, drug addicts, prostitutes, personal injury lawyers, glad-handing priests, politicians, carnies, canny salesmen, grifters, image consultants, lawyers, Communists…
All of them preach a simple message: reality is not what it is. Instead, what matters is the human world of good feelings. If you feel good, it is good, and you can ignore the consequences tomorrow of what you do today. There is another way, other than reality, and it consists of social approval for what you do.
This is why Leftism is hard to unpack. Its root is egalitarianism, which is a collective philosophy based in individualism. That individualism creates conflict, which gives rise to a superstition of pacifism. That in turn leads to an obsessive, pathological mindset that tolerates no dissent and grows like a cancer because it is socially unpopular to oppose it.
The opposite of egalitarianism is an insistence on order, through hierarchy, standards/values, goals, and aesthetics. This allows us to construct a tree of beliefs that shows the difference between egalitarianism and realism.
Put it to a vote. The “wisdom of crowds” will prevail.
People are unequal. Only some will be able to make this decision. The rest will outnumber them and a poor decision will be made.
We can educate the poor and make them normal middle class citizens.
Ability is genetic in nature. Every person is competent for only certain roles. Advancing them above these creates incompetence and devalues the economy.
“What we need is a system…”
Systems presuppose that people are equal objects on which rules work equally. A better way is to choose the best people and put them in power, allowing them more leeway so that they are not constricted by a maze of rules.
This object or idea is the most popular/best-seller/voted-for, therefore the best.
Most people are self-deluding and not really thinking about the consequences of their decisions. Therefore, they make unthreatening (shallow) illusions popular.
As these brief examples illustrate, the gap between human intentions (and the individualistic ego) and what actually shakes out in reality is quite vast. We live in a world of illusion, a consensual reality formed of individual desires as to what “should” be true, but based in the ego and not reality, and for that reason, everything we do fails — it just takes centuries to see how vast the failure is.
Soon, mainstream Leftist (Communist) candidate Hillary Clinton will make her speech attacking Donald Trump and the Alternative Right.
Her supporters will cheer even if she reads off the ingredients in a common breakfast cereal; for them, having the “correct” opinion is more important than fact.
What is certain is that Hillarious Clinton will attack a strawman. Her version of the Alternative Right will be that which flatters her audience, which has them as the virtuous independents attacking the evil empire instead of the reality that they are conformists cheering on the ideology which has led the West to failure.
Do we need to even hear her speech? Her fans do not; they care only about the symbol of being correct, and have long ago cast reality aside. If her many ethical and legal violations do not concern them now, it is because they do not care about such things; they only care about their ideology, like all zombies.
This is the nature of Leftism, which creates politics: there is One Right Way which happens to contradict reality, and all who want to be helped by the Leftist gang had better start repeating that narrative like robotic tape recorders. Everyone else is bad of course.
The Right does not pretend that it tolerates difference of opinion. It finds some things that work for the purposes of making a thriving civilization, and sticks by them; the Left advances conjectures about what might make people feel better, and chases a new one every week.
Hillary will not understand (or care about) the appeal of the Alternative Right. It can be summarized this way: our civilization is heading down a path to doom in the pursuit of equality, and we want an option. This means the destruction of all egalitarian ideas, including democracy, class warfare, pluralism and diversity.
We do not need to “justify” these ideas; our ideation is based in a knowledge of what works, as opposed to the feelings-based prevarication of the Left. We know how to make a thriving society; the Left wants to destroy this formula and replace it with one where mediocre, clueless people like Hillary Clinton are important.
There is only one way out of this situation, which is to crush the Left and deport all who adhere to it to Brazil. There, they will enjoy pluralism and diversity. Each side wins.
But in the meantime, we do not want our civilization — and our futures, and those of our children — to follow a historically-proven formula for failure in Leftism. Hillary will do anything she can to obscure this truth and paint it as some kind of emotional tantrum, but we know better. She is dead; we are life.
One thing about Western European descended people (WEDPs) today is that few of them have come to grips with the past. The massive loss, the sense of failure, the shame and the guilt.
We glaze over when we look at the battlefields of the two World Wars not because we are bored, but because it is simply too painful. So many good people ground up like the meat that goes into hot dogs, and for what?
WWI was a response to the rise of Leftism, and an attempt to balance Europe after the century of war unleashed by the French Revolution. This created fragile alliances which detonated in the First World War.
This in turn sparked WWII, which was a resolution of unfinished business, but unfortunately the Anglo-American elites and their allies in Communist Russia took advantage of the situation. Despite my many disagreements with Adolf Hitler, his intention was to create a non-Bolshevik Europe, which is admirable.
And now we fight little wars against the ongoing decay, in which few die but many are maimed, as we slowly bleed out our best so that the bourgeois proles at home can keep watching television.
Our daily energy is spent denying the shame, guilt and horror of living in a society that is in the process of dying. In the silent cemeteries of France, the dead agree.
Let us finally mourn this pass, and remove its legitimacy. All was error, originating in Leftism, which sacrificed our best for the worst impulses of the human mind. Let us finally accept the sadness.
And then, let us resolve to do better. To finally see the real enemy — individualism and its political form, egalitarianism — and stop chasing this path to doom.
Our dead ancestors are (at least) owed this respect.
Darwin said we came from monkeys, to use the vernacular paraphrase of his findings, but what he failed to mention is that we are still monkeys — just a complex variety that can talk, do equations, build stuff, drive cars and post on social media.
Monkey behavior seems to rotate around trying to seem more important than one is, so that one can rise in the troupe without having to demonstrate actual ability. Humans are no different: our game is to become socially important without showing actual skills in leadership.
Consider race. Most of our countries are ablaze with fear of terrorism, brutal crime, and social disorder. But the elites? They are camped out in gated communities. To them, “Immigrant problems? What immigrant problems?” is a sensible and logical response, because they face zero of the consequences of these problems.
When it comes to ethnic tension, humans quickly divide into two groups: those who can claim it does not affect them, and those willing to lose a little social cred because they mention that real problems are actually real problems. “It doesn’t bother me” is a way of saying that you are above the problem because you are above those who suffer it. It pushes others down and raises you up.
This is just more of the pretense, posturing and bragging of the human monkey. Christians sometimes call this original sin, or the knowledge that without self-discipline and purpose toward a transcendental goal, we are just talking monkeys with car keys. Such monkeys ignore the actual issue, such as the effects of immigration on civilization, and focus on the non-issue — their own gated community — instead.
When historians look back on this time, the 60% of the population that took over and enslaved or exiled the rest will be seen as a reaction against not just their own government, and not just Leftism, but this entire crazy attitude of ignoring the big picture to focus on the little details that flatter the individual. They will (rightly) see people who behaved that way as mental defectives.
Democracy fetishists like to claim Democracies will consistently avoid really bad leaders. They’ll readily admit to not exactly nominating Charlemagne for the presidency in recent US elections. But they’ll insist that the democratic rise of Hitler was far more of a Black Swan Event than the reigns of Roman Emporers Commodus or Elegabolus.
Strip away the shrink-wrap cocoon of ego-gratifying, jingoistic Whig History and we discover that at least six recent Amerikan Emporers could qualify as legitimate evil emporers who have materially and morally worsened the commonweal of the average decent American citizen. Today we describe the nefarious contributions of the odious FDR.
Follow the so-called “inside baseball” coverage of Amerika’s quadrennial electoral eructions and you’ll always hear some detestable, soul-sucking ghoul-geek like David Plouff or Karl Rove discuss how they intend to stack up the voting blocks. You get your Black Block,1 The Hispanic Block, The Women’s Block, The Working Class Block, The Evengelical Block, etc… Just slam all these people into equivalence classes and collect them and trade them with your K-Street friends. All the fascinating things that Hedrick Smith talks about in The Power Game. Politics as a self-licking dog-feces ice cream cone. Politics reduced to an evil, self-perpetuating vote-sucking machine.
So how did American Democracy become this soulless empire of political coalition building? It came to be that way because FDR perfected the art. The art then worked like hell. How well? So well that Franklin Roosevelt won in 1932, then in 1936, and 1940, and 1944. He has the dubious honor of having spawned his very own constitutional amendment which limits presidents to two consecutive presidential terms. In many ways he was the very architect of the cynical and manipulative political machines we so hate yet still see repeatedly grind their way into power.
As Amerika’s Proto-Putin, Roosevelt established the first wonk squad of professional electioneers. Dubbed “The Brain Trust”, these men worked on honing and messaging his message and increasing his appeal. His 1932 election campaign first introduced his idea of a “new deal for America.” By 1936, he had further honed his strategy and now concentrated upon locking in the “New Deal Coalition.” This INGSOC of emerging democratic socialism is described below.
Roosevelt had put together what came to be called the “New Deal Coalition,” an alliance of voters from different regions of the country and from racial, religious and ethnic groups. The coalition combined southern Protestants, northern Jews, Catholics and blacks from urban areas, labor union members, small farmers in the middle west and Plains states, and liberals and radicals. This diverse group, with some minor alterations, would power the Democrats for the next thirty years—and it was Roosevelt who put it together.
Like Orwell’s literary INGSOC, the system needed a controlled anomaly. It needed a Lucifier to scare the butts into the pews every Sunday. Orwell’s governing malefactors invented the imaginary Wandering Jew Emanuel Goldstein. Proto-typical socialist class warfare demagougery follows below.
Referring to “business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking,” FDR crowed, “Never before have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”
When faced with the honorable tradition established by America’s first president, George Washington, Roosevelt would not let a bunch of fuddy-duddy sticks-in-the-mud stand between him and the political power he worshipped.
In 1940, Roosevelt decided to run for an unprecedented third term, breaking the tradition set by George Washington that limited Presidents to eight years in office. FDR had been coy about his future for most of his second term, but finally told confidantes that he would run only if the situation in Europe deteriorated further and his fellow Democrats drafted him as their candidate. Nazi Germany’s successful invasion of Western Europe and defeat of France in the spring of 1940 took care of the former condition; FDR’s political operatives, especially Chicago mayor Ed Kelly, arranged for the latter.
So Franklin Delano Roosevelt deserves to go down in Non-Whig History as a malignant prince of Demotism and one of Amerika’s Evil Emporers for three reasons.
He perfected the black art of winning democratic elections by providing lists of gimme-dats to selected coalitions of voters rather than attempting the difficult and thankless task of developing, programming and selling an affirmative vision to solve the nation’s problems.
He perfected the use of scapegoating to divide the nation and motivate his coalition by turning them loose on an enemy. Politics was one step closer to war and one step further from high-minded philosophical disagreement.
Franklin Roosevelt’s disregard for decency and tradition as a safeguard against personal power-mongering greatly accelerated the trend of politicians never letting a crisis go to waste when it came to acquiring greater personnal fiat. His scheme to create more Supreme Court justices when they declared aspects of The New Deal unconstitutional was an authoritarian impulse that he fortunately backed away from. Yet the sense remains that he would have become Amerika’s Hugo Chavez if circumstances had facilitated him getting away with it.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have been merely the predictable result of democracy on its downhill slide into ignorant demotism. Yet he bears blame for exacerbating weaknesses inherent to our system. I indict his memory for using them to acquire more power for himself at the expense of both comity and commonweal. Curse the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was indeed an evil Amerikan Emporer.
1 It’s at this exact point in time when their individual lives no longer matter.
A mouse placed in a cage with a snake will first explore, sniffing the walls of the cage and then the snake. He will tense, realizing his certain doom. But then, something interesting happens: he acts as if the snake is not there, so that his last moments before the crushing strike are happy and distracted. Nature knows when to apply anaesthesia.
Humans living in modern civilization are staggering under this mental numbing as well. We know that all civilizations seem to go out the same way, and that its is perennially more popular than any other activity, and that the signs of our senescence are on the wall. Instead of looking the snake in the eye, we too go into denial.
The proof of this can be found in the refusal of Europeans to breed at replacement levels. Starting with the smartest, people look at the direction of civilization and realize that it is hell, and they would be raising their children to be imprisoned in hell, and that no matter what good they do the herd will destroy it.
As the saying goes, you are either ruled by the best, or oppressed by the rest.
Why is Europe in decline? It’s the misery, stupid: we have forced our best people to labor to support a vast undergrowth of not especially useful people who are constantly screwing up. As a result, instead of working four hours a day and then spending the rest of time growing our souls, we are trapped in tedium.
Western civilization has been dying out for millennia because of this. Long ago, we created hierarchy from those who were the best, and did what was right regardless of personal advantage. We gave them money and power because they did not seek those things, and would use them against the character of those faculties, meaning that instead of the slow degradation and decay brought on by greed and powermadness our leaders brought stability.
When your society works in reverse, meaning that instead of choosing our best and giving them money we find out who has the money (or popularity) and pretend they are the best, all aspects of society become miserable because they are no longer “about” their own purpose, but all are infected with the need for popularity, money, sex appeal, celebrity, disposability, drama, convenience and other transient and shallow attributes that drain away all meaning.
Modern society is an emotionally toxic wasteland which rewards the non-vapid with existential stress and depression. Idiots rule over us, mass tastes pervert culture, jobs are mostly unnecessary activity done from fear of poverty, and the dysfunction of our fellow citizens — which we are expected to subsidize — ruins everything good.
People forget that all human societies to date have self-destructed (with a smaller group that were outright destroyed by outside forces). What leads all of us down the same path to ruin?
A thinking human would find this question to be the only political matter worth worrying about, since civilization suicide is inevitable unless one finds a way to avoid it. That however is where the denial instinct kicks in.
Your average person seems like an oblivious nitwit who does not notice how much this society is a gigantic waste of time, but he feels it on a subconscious level. Unaware of it, he snaps into denial as a means of survival. He is simply unable to articulate what he senses and what it means, so instead he cruises on “feelings.”
The most normal aspects of this world are the most toxic ones. Everything we accept as healthy is toxic, and much of what is healthy is simply not mentioned or avoided. Only those who are too unconcerned with anything but a constant stream of their own experiences, distracting them from life, are happy here.
This is how every human civilization destroys itself: in the name of succeeding, it sets up a number of “systems” to manage its population, which take its best citizens from a role of enjoying life to one of serving like slaves those who cannot take care of themselves.
At some point, all of those societies become the same thing: you either serve constantly and become part of the elite, but then have no time for yourself, or you serve less and live in relative poverty. All of the smart people choose the latter and, sensibly, defer or decline to breed.
Over time, a vast wave of hollow and anti-introspective people outbreed the rest, and at that point, there is nothing worth saving in the civilization, and even its own citizens want it destroyed.
When watching excerpts from the recent Olympics in Rio, I was struck by the difference in physiques from the 1970s to today. The women of three decades ago were long and lithe and took on more difficult and graceful routines. In the following video, you can see the elegance and poise of the past.
The difference between today’s overly muscled globalist equal person and the relative health and strength of athletes of yore is alarming. The emphasis now is on power and strength, and today’s female gymnast does a mostly masculine performance that lacks any artistry. This shift from Western aesthetics to a rote repetition of stunts reveals how far the Olympics has fallen.
For example, Laurie Hernandez performs more dance moves, and has dutifully memorized and executed all of the “tricks” from the list of successful Olympic wins, but the routine does not hold together as anything more than a demonstration.
Along comes Aly Raisman, who displays more technical skill, but again her routine is more like a recitation of familiar patterns with no unity between them than a display of artistry and athleticism in union.
Media darling Simone Biles is the girl who is considered to be the best in the world and perhaps the best ever. She is short and stalky, rather ungraceful. Like the others, she embarks on a routine that is very jerky, having no real flow to the movements. Everything seems to be just a technical checklist to be gotten through to obtain the highest points.
Now compare those to Nadia Comeneci, a Romanian gymnast who scored the first perfect “10” at the Olympics in 1976. Notice the lines of her body as she performs compared to our current batch of athletes. They aren’t even comparable. This is a harder skill than all that power tumbling and is so much more aesthetically pleasing.
Setting aside the question for a moment of whether Christianity caused liberalism, we should look at what that notion gestures at, an underlying thought: Leftism functions as a replacement for morality.
When a society defines equality as its ultimate good, it creates a preference for equality before all other values. If a question comes down to a competition between inequality and murder, the crowd will want to crush inequality first and only then get around to murder, if at all.
This can be seen no more clearly than in the American presidential race. We know that the Leftist candidate has lied, left men in the field, hidden her activities through private email, and been involved with corruption. Now we see the true face of her campaign as it aims to censor the press:
“Now, we’ve had a conservative media in this country for a while. I don’t always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right to exist,” said the email from Clinton’s deputy communications director Christina Reynolds.
“Breitbart is something different. They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet. They’re a different breed altogether — not just conservative but radical, bigoted, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy peddlers who never have been and never should be anywhere near the levels of power in this country.”
The email continues, “It goes without saying that we have to beat these people. But I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again.”
For people in the grips of this delusion, beating back those who are not pro-equality becomes a goal that supplants all others. And so they are willing to do insane and immoral things, from the guillotines in France to the gulags in Russia to the reckless lawbreaking that has characterized the Clinton and Obama years.
They do not care that their candidate has done terrible things or plans to do illegal things. All that matters is the ideology, like the One Ring from Tolkien, which they view as their path to power. This is why they are zombies: they ignore reality and consequences so that they can keep the feeling of power, even if it is hollow.
When morality is replaced by this kind of substitute, it creates a feeling like addiction where the person in its grips feels good for simply having the right idea and beating back any competing ideas. This does not require them to actually do good, because it has redefined doing good as advancing the ideology. It creates a compulsive, consuming mindset.
And so our task comes down to this: do we want to be good, or do we want good feelings? Do we want to achieve excellence, or have a symbolic representation of having done so? Before we can make this decision, we must deep inside of ourselves want to strive for what is real and what is right, and history will judge by this decision.