Ferguson Lover Is Avaaz (US Intel) Campaigner

The Neil Ferguson fiasco gets more and more revealing. While Ferguson is conventionally married (I’m not publishing his estranged wife’s name here, as she is blameless) and a father of one, his girl-friend (mother of two and wife of a SOAS professor) is in an open marriage, meaning hubby is OK with wife’s horizontal moves with like-minded nerds.

Well, so are we, since it’s none of our business how they do holy matrimony. We’re also not concerned with the hypocrisy of the sanctimonious weed Ferguson. We don’t expect anything else from the academic-government complex.

What worries us is that those forcing criminal laws on the population rather obviously do not take those laws seriously. They know the whole thing is bogus.

“Antonia Staats has refused to comment on the affair – but in the gap between her two nights with her lover she recorded a podcast describing her life in lockdown, and the impact it was having on her, her husband and their children.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8293057/How-Neil-Fergusons-married-lover-enjoys-perfect-family-life.html

The poor dear can’t find a nanny and is out of toilet paper. I’d suggest she use Neil’s charts, but they’re already full of it.

Why spotlight Staats? It turns out she is a climate-alarmist, anti -fossil fuel activist, and senior campaigner for Avaaz (a Hindi word that means voice).

Avaaz is a liberal-left outfit closely tied to US intelligence, a front for imperial interests.

Her husband Chris Lucas is related through his conservative grandfather to Douglas Bader of WWII RAF fame. His father is a Tory, a former lawyer, investment banker, and a conservation big-wig.

The suspicion is the leak of the affair came from that side. I wonder. Possibly Ferguson was torpedoed before too many questions about his funding and his ties destroyed the remaining rags of crediblity hanging off of his scrawny carcass.

All Covid-19 prediction models biased and useless: BMJ

The author of an appraisal of prediction models for Covid-19 diagnosis and prognosis published in the British Medical Journal on April 7, 2020 concludes:

“All 31 reviewed prediction models were found to have a high risk of bias, and evidence from independent external validation of these models is currently lacking. However, the urgency of diagnostic and prognostic models to assist in quick and efficient triage of patients in the covid-19 pandemic might encourage clinicians to implement prediction models without sufficient documentation and validation. Although we cannot let perfect be the enemy of good, earlier studies have shown that models were of limited use in the context of a pandemic,69 and they could even cause more harm than good.70 Therefore, we cannot recommend any model for use in practice at this point.

So, a quarter of a billion people will starve, and at least as many will be pushed close to starvation; global food production and industry will be crippled; and the university “experts” who provided the intellectual heft for this monstrous project are now proved to be bogus propagandists of the science-industrial complex.

This time, we don’t need “show trials” ala 2008, when the small-fry “fried” while the mafia dons walked.

Instead, I suggest a targeted campaign against the major scientific mouthpieces for lock-down, starting with Neil Ferguson. At the very least, his OBE should be rescinded and his faculty position terminated.

FIRE THE FRAUD FERGUSON.

Saving General Lee

From the Imaginative Conservative, a defense of Robert E. Lee by Stephen M. Klugewicz:

“Despising revolutionary social change and the rhetoric of the abolitionists, he hoped for gradual emancipation and shared with Abraham Lincoln a sympathy for the idea of colonizing freed African Americans in Central America or Africa.

Lee never purchased a slave in his life. The slaves over whom he had control, some 200, came to him through his marriage to Mary Custis, a descendant of George Washington. Lee became the executor of his father-in-law’s will. Though permitted by the will to free the slaves upon the elder Custis’ death in 1857, Lee deemed the slaves necessary to the financial recovery of the Arlington estate. He thus kept them enslaved as long as he could—the will stipulated a maximum of five years—freeing them in December 1862 on the eve of the Emancipation Proclamation’s going into effect. Again, Lee believed that his highest duty was to his family, in this case to their economic well-being, and this trumped his concern for the freedom of the particular slaves under his control.

In this, as in his paternalistic attitude toward blacks, Lee fell short of heroism. Of the bondsmen Lee once opined that “the painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race,” and he told a congressional committee after the war that it was his view blacks “at this time, cannot vote intelligently,” though he added, “what the future may prove, how intelligent they may become…I cannot say more than you can.” As Lee’s great biographer Douglas Southall Freeman writes, his “was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee’s class in the border states. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without ever having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage.”

is conservative views precluded him from, say, taking the extreme step taken by his relation, Robert Carter III, who because of his radical religious convictions freed all 500 of his slaves in 1800. It should be recalled that George Washington only provided for his slaves’ freedom in his will, and only after his wife Martha’s death (though she freed her slaves during her lifetime, as she feared they might kill her.) Lee thought enough of the prowess of African Americans that he was a proponent of enlisting slaves to fight for the Confederacy and thereby earn their freedom. This is also additional evidence that Lee did not consider the war a crusade to preserve slavery, as he was willing to give up the institution in order to secure the greater goal of Southern independence. In the post-war years, numerous incidents were reported in which Lee flouted the conventions of his class and daringly treated a black man as his equal in social situations.

Despite his flaws when it came to his views on race, Lee should be honored as a hero by all Americans and especially by conservatives. His classical devotion to the idea of duty has been mentioned. His resistance to the temptations of power also demands our acclaim. Much is rightly made of George Washington’s laying down of his sword at the end of the American Revolution to resume his status as a private citizen. Lee similarly passed this Tolkienian test when Abraham Lincoln, on the advice of General Winfield Scott, offered him command of all United States forces in April 1861 after South Carolina forces fired on Fort Sumter. Lee declined the offer, which would have gained for him the ultimate career goal sought by every West Point-trained military man.

We must remember that the alternative for Lee was NOT the command of the Confederate armies. He was not foregoing one offer of power in order to pursue another. Indeed, his home state of Virginia had not yet seceded, and at the moment he rejected Lincoln’s offer the most he could have reasonably hoped for was command of Virginia’s troops (an honor that he did eventually receive.) It ought to be kept in mind also that Lee was aware of the superior manpower number of the North and the superior resources of Northern industrialism; the prospects of Southern independence were far from certain. As with the American Revolutionaries, the noose seemed the most likely end for the leaders of Southern independence.

Even when Virginia seceded and war began, Lee did not immediately receive a high command within Confederate ranks. He was relegated to a desk job, serving as an advisor to President Jefferson Davis. He did not receive a field command until May of 1862, when General Joseph E. Johnston was severely wounded during the Seven Days’ Battles on the Virginia Peninsula. Lee then took command of the Army of Northern Virginia, but he would not be appointed commander of all Confederate forces until January 1865. This was a series of events that he could hardly have expected when he refused Lincoln’s immediate offer of power in 1861.

In addition to duty, Lee valued humility. He did not angle for promotion as he chafed at his desk job in Richmond. Rather, he humbly served President Davis, and even after being assigned command of the Army of Northern Virginia, his letters reveal that he always deferred to the prickly Davis. Just as Lee eschewed ambition, so he avoided avarice, turning down several offers in the post-war years to lend his name to companies in return for lucrative compensation. The idea of profiting from the selling of his name was anathema to Lee.

Lee embodied the Aristotelian ideal of moderation. As the deep South seceded in the winter of 1860-1861, Lee, stationed in Texas, was shocked when Texas voted for secession in February 1861; one witness recalled that Lee’s “lips trembled and his eyes [became] full of tears” when he heard the news. Lee voiced his resolve not to take up arms against the Union, “but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in defense of my native state.” When Virginia reversed its initial vote against secession in May 1861—in the light of Lincoln’s decision to make war upon the South—Lee made the anguished decision to resign his commission in the United States Army, concluding that despite his love for the Union, he “could not take part in an invasion of the southern states.”

Lee indeed despised war. Surveying the slaughter of Union troops charging his lines at Fredericksburg in December 1862, Lee commented to an aide: “It is good that war is so terrible. Otherwise, we would enjoy it too much.” As Richard Weaver has argued, this profound statement, “richer than a Delphic saying,” shows Lee to be a true philosopher. In the days after the smashing Confederate victory, Lee wrote to his wife: “What a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbours, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world!” This is far from the tone of a bloodthirsty martinet drunk on the intoxication of his repeated victories.

Twenty-eight months later, as mentioned above, at Appomattox Lee turned aside the suggestions of aides to continue the fight as a guerilla war. The social anarchy and protracted bloodshed that would result were anathema to the conservative Lee, and he prudently judged that Southern independence was not worth the price. Guerilla war horrified Lee because it would bring down the wrath of Mars more harshly on civilians. Indeed, Lee rejected the idea of total war that was developed by Union Generals Grant, William T. Sherman, and Phillip Sheridan, and embraced by President Lincoln. Lee was always careful to avoid civilian casualties. On the first campaign into Maryland in 1862, Lee issued General Order No. 72, which prohibited the plundering of civilian property and reminded his soldiers “that we make war only upon armed men.”

Robert E. LeeLee’s action in issuing this order can be contrasted with that of Union General John Pope, whom Lee had just soundly defeated prior to his foray into Maryland. Only weeks prior to Lee’s Order No. 72, Pope had issued his own order authorizing in Virginia the burning of private homes and the levying of fines upon civilians as retribution for guerilla actions taken against Union troops. More egregiously, in May of 1862, Union General Benjamin Butler, presiding over conquered New Orleans, had issued his infamous General Order No. 28, stipulating that “when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.” In practice, this meant that a female civilian who dared merely to display a Confederate symbol on her dress was liable to be raped by Union troops. Such atrocities did occur.

Lee’s dogged adherence to the traditional, Christian principles of limited war is even more impressive in light of the many atrocities that were authorized and indeed perpetrated against his own people by his enemy. Lee considered the protection of civilian life so important that, as the head of the detachment sent to capture abolitionist John Brown on the eve of the Civil War, Lee ordered his Marines to unload their rifles during their assault on the building where Brown had holed up, lest the hostages that Brown held be injured or killed.

Lee’s amazing self-restraint reflected the advice he had given to a young mother about raising her infant son: “Teach him he must deny himself.” The Christian Lee valued self-control as essential to proper behavior and indeed to personal and public liberty. “I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself,” he said in evaluating his military subordinates. Lee practiced what he preached. He had the rare distinction of being a cadet who did not earn a single demerit at West Point. He expected the same gentlemanly behavior from the young men in his care at Lexington, Virginia’s Washington College, of which he became president after Appomattox. There he reduced the college’s many rules to one simple rule: “Every student must be a gentleman.”

As his name and image, and those of his fellow Confederate officers, are removed from shops, schools, and museums across the country, it is ever more important, especially for conservatives, to speak up for Robert E. Lee. A man of military genius and personal honor, a defender of civilians and civilization, a champion of duty and truth, a model of humility and prudence, Lee was perhaps the last defender of the ideals of the Old Republic, whose greying glory was ground under the wheels of the New Order of the centralized, industrialized state that triumphed in 1865. Though he wore the racial blinders of his class and time, Robert E. Lee was a man of exemplary character and remains an excellent role model for all Americans and is indeed a worthy contender for the title of “Greatest American.”’

Tear Down The Lincoln Monuments Too

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” —

Abraham Lincoln.

So, tell me, when are the monuments to the sainted Abe coming down?

The Migrant Invasion of Asia: Pedo Rapist Huckle

A headline you will never see at any alt-right blog:

UK’s worst paedo faces 22 life sentences after raping 200 kids including baby in nappy.”

From age 19- 29, Richard Huckle, the grammar school-educated, church -going son of a British actress, posed as a volunteer at Christian orphanages all across Asia, while secretly molesting and raping some 200 or more children, ranging from babies to pre-teens. Huckle crowd-funded his crimes by selling a how-to manual on the dark web, where he bragged about his rapes on notorious paedo site, The Love Zone.

Huckle’s crimes are part of a tidal wave of  tourist/expat sex-crimes, perpetrated largely by males from Australia, the UK, Canada, the US and Europe.

This is the demographic that forms the growing market for the livestreaming of child-rape and abuse committed mostly against poor Asian children, many orphaned.

Now that’s a migrant crime wave you won’t hear about on Breitbart or FrontPageMagazine.

Obviously, I am not suggesting that white males are uniquely child molesters.

Anymore than any rational person would suggest that all inner-city blacks are violent or all Mexican or Muslim immigrants are rapists and jihadists.

But that is precisely what nativist sites on the right and sometimes the left consistently do.

If a pattern shows up, we are correct to point it out, regardless of ethnic sensibilities.

We are not correct to misinterpret the data to ascribe or insinuate unique biological propensities for crime to the perpetrators.

Keeping the big picture of elite manipulation in mind, we see a pattern of breakdown in all groups that follows the fault lines peculiar to their ethnic and socio-political history.

Western males have greater access to technology and more freedom to travel. They are also the product of  a culture that glorifies pornography and denigrates religious or social strictures against unlicensed sexual expression. They are the targets of aggressive feminism.

The combination might make the sexual exploitation of the weakest members of society more attractive to the worst instincts of some men.

The same holds true for the so-called migrant crime wave in the US and Europe.  Incentivize immigration with welfare; make it hard for legal, highly-skilled workers to immigrate and easy for illegal, low-skilled ones to; promote a culture of drugs, violence, and misogyny in popular culture; then throw in opportunistic interactions between criminal gangs and governments and you have a recipe for migrant crime- waves.

Race is not the cause, it should be obvious. It is culture, orchestrated from above.

If only white nationalists and black nationalists would see that.

 

Burqa Bans and Muslim Identification

Lew Rockwell makes a most peculiar comment:

Thousands of Muslims Protest Burqa Ban in Austria

I agree. Not only is it an offense against self-ownership, it’s a leftist attempt to hide the deliberate de-Austrianization of Austria. “

What? A leading libertarian activist claims that once the burqa is banned, you won’t be able to tell an Austrian….from a Muslim.

But here’s what.

Austrian is a type of nationality. Muslim refers to religious belief. The two are apples and oranges…or, more accurately, apples and cut flowers.

Two. Can anyone really tell nationality from an item of clothing?

Are there no French citizens in burkas?

Three. If, by Austrian, Rockwell meant “white” Austrian, well, a lot of Muslims from the Middle East are whiter than Europeans and a lot of native-born Austrians are dark-skinned, since they are second or third-generation immigrants.

Four. Even native-born non-immigrant Caucasian Austrians can be Muslims.

Five. Do all Muslims wear burqas? If the burqa were banned, Muslims who would have worn them, would still probably be identifiable as Muslims, from head-scarves, for instance.

Unless Rockwell really thinks that a ban on burqas means conservative Muslim women in Austria  will now be running around in shorts and tank-tops.

Does he really think that?

Rockwell is a smart guy.

So when I read such loopy arguments, I have to suspect some deeper agenda.

Banning the burka is a bad idea because it is a radical intrusion of the state into the realm of personal choice in an area where there is no valid community interest at stake that might conceivable justify some  voluntary compromise between individual choice and community interest.
A burqa could be a security threat, for example. In that case, the ban should be not on the burqa but more generally on any item of clothing that covers the face and body in such a way to make an interlocuter clearly vulnerable to assault in a limited number of  clearly defined public spaces.
But, in general, I think a ban on something that doesn’t obviously pose a threat to anyone else’s freedom or life is a bad way to go.

 

Is Steve Bannon A Crypto-Jew?

Is the czar of all things anti-Semitic and white nationalist in the Trump administration Ashkenazy  himself?

On the face of it, Steve Bannon sounds like an Anglo-Saxon name.

But this is the matrix and nothing is as it seems.

So I dug.

And I came up with this:

Stephen is of course both a gentile and a Jewish name.

But Bannon also appears as a name used by Jews at Jewish Genealogy..

Bannon is both Irish…and Semitic:

English surname used as a (mostly) male name. Anglicised form of the Old Gaelic Irish surname O Banain, which means “son of the fair-haired one”. This is pronounced BANN-uhn.

Jewish surname used as a male name. It comes from a Semitic root meaning “white” – coincidentally, the same meaning as the English/Irish surname.

[Lila: Nice touch that]

This is pronounced bah-NON.

Banon is one of the characters in the role playing game “Final Fantasy VI”.

Bannon’s Irish-Catholic working class background already makes him a natural ally of the Jews.

But the derivations of his last name added to his mother’s maiden name, Herr, makes me suspect he is more than just  a shabbos goy.

He is Judaic himself.

Wikipedia:

Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia, to Doris (neé Herr) and Martin Bannon, a telephone lineman.[26][27] His working class, Irish Catholic family were pro-Kennedy, pro-union Democrats.

Bannon’s mother’s name Herr is both High German and Ashkenazy and means lord or master or one who serves the lord of the manor or gives himself the airs of a lord.

Avatanyu.com lists it as a German-Jewish name.

The “white nationalist anti-semite” Bannon is yet another Khazar fraud redirecting popular anger away from the Khazar/Israeli elites and toward soft targets  – third-world immigrants and Muslims.

 

Steve Bannon’s Anti-Indian Immigration Policy

From The Economic Times:

US President Donald Trump’s executive orders restricting entry into the country and reports of curbs being planned on foreign students and workers are worrying Indians at colleges there. Others are reconsidering plans for higher education in the US considering the hostile reception that awaits them. The president could scrap a measure that allows some students to stay on in the US for three years after getting their degree, it’s been reported by Vox.com and others.

“I was looking to use that as a runway to set up a technology startup,” said the MIT student cited above. “Doing it in one year will be incredibly hard. It complicates things for those who want to pursue entrepreneurship.”

That worry is despite the fact that those from MIT, especially PhDs, are highly coveted by employers and tend to get annual pay upwards of $90,000 after graduation.

Optional practical training (OPT) currently allows graduates with

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) degrees to stay in the US for up to three years after graduating from college. Curtailing that period will hurt the plans of some 165,918 Indian students in the US with about three-fourths of them being in STEM programmes.

Possible changes to H-1B visa rules and key Trump aide Stephen Bannon’s apparent antipathy toward South Asians are also preying on the minds of students. “

 

Of course, faux “anti-Semite” Steve Bannon  is actually an Israel-first voice of the  kosher-led alt-right .

 

Others of his ilk are Jared Taylor and the American Renaissance and Paul Gottfried at Lew Rockwell.

Bannon, a former military/intel operative and graduate of spy-laden Virginia Tech – is the new instrument of the Khazar elite’s war on India.

This is very much in keeping with the elite cabal’s fear of being out-competed by Indians.

On Wall Street, in the aftermath of the 2008-09 collapse, this fear led to the take-down of minor Indian wrong-doers on weak charges of “insider-trading,” instead of the investigation of the Khazar financial mafia that perpetrated global financial mayhem.

At elite campuses, it has led to a sustained policy of discrimination against Asians, especially Indians (for instance, see this brave article by one Jewish writer), who, where the playing field is level (for eg. at Caltech and other elite STEM institutions), have regularly outperformed Ashkenazi Jews.

Now,  via government policy, the “uppity injuns” are being set straight.

Steve Bannon, who poses as a white gentile nationalist, is a Khazar  hit-man whose job is to make “white Christians” look like the primary “anti-Semitic” axe-wielders rather than a golem of the Jews, and make dumb Indians believe that the Khazar mafia is their best friend and only protection against racist white gentiles.

This follows the false-flag playbook, wherein terror attacks are always carried out by Muslims who shout “Allahu Akbar” repeatedly and carefully leave behind passports and ID cards in visible positions.

Most of the Islamo-lone-nuts turn out to have intelligence backgrounds with  Western agencies.

Likewise, Mr. Bannon, whose immigration policies are ostensibly about “protecting American jobs,” is in reality attacking Indian tech companies, start-ups,  scientists, and students….continuing the attack begun by the left-liberal wing of the globalist cabal some years ago.

Note, however, that the soon-to-be-unloaded students were (and still are being) eagerly solicited for their hard-earned money in promotions run all over the Indian papers.

Consider also that the Indian rupee has weakened by five times in the last decade, ever since India became a “friend” of the US and Israel.

Some friend.

Moreover,  Indian salaries are far lower than US salaries, so the sums solicited are a far greater proportion of the savings of Indians than they are of Americans (who never pay full price in any case).

But that has not stopped drooling British, Australian, and American universities running their pimping ads.

I would strongly advise students suckered in by the ads to use some of their tuition money to hire as vicious a legal attack-dog they can find and go after the universities for fraud, misrepresentation, price-gouging, price-fixing,  discrimination and anything else in the law-books.

Make them pay.

Then, let Mr. Modi take a page out of his so-called friend (read, master) Trump’s book and BAN American, British, and Australian universities, companies, and workers in India.

If Modi wont’ do it then it’s time to ban Mr. Modi and boycott everything Anglo-American or Israeli-made or bred.

If we are going to have economic war, let’s have it.

No open borders for STEM students? Then no “open borders” for Foreign Direct Investment, Walmart, Amazon, American and Israeli tourists, NGO’s,  American agribusiness, Google, American porn and Israel-run drugs, which spew across borders too.

And sayonora to all those retired Americans, Aussies, Brits, and Europeans – NEVER called migrants – parking their well-cushioned and often bare bottoms on beaches and 5-star hotels in third-world countries, living like the royalty they never were in their own countries, running drug and sex rings, preying on native children, bilking the tax man at home and in their “adopted” countries (who didn’t invite them),  providing cover for Western intelligence, if not aiding and abetting, spying and stealing from native businesses and native culture, while inveighing against them.

Those are never MIGRANTS, are they?

That’s never a MIGRANT invasion, is it?

What is colonial history but the story of Europe’s migrant INVASION of the rest of the world?

Deport the lot back to their countries, I say, and take back the US, Australia, New Zealand, South America, while you’re at it.

Let’s send back ALL the immigrants, not just some.

Then let’s see just how “over-populated,” “crowded” and “third-world” the West will look.

That is, if it can function at all, minus its immigrants.

 

 

 

I Was Wrong About Trump

I was wrong about Trump.

Not that he isn’t a shill for the financial cartel and another face of the elites. Yes, he is all that.

But I was wrong that the election was just six of one, half a dozen of the other.

So far, at least, that’s not been the case.

All the goody-two-shoes bombing-for-their-own-good of Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, apparently qualified Obama as a “decent” man and great president to our liberal brethren.

Comes Trump who hasn’t bombed a soul but merely – and quite sensibly- wants to keep out refugees from countries that are considered enemies of the US, and the caterwauling can be heard around the solar system.

What? You think a sovereign nation has the right to determine who enters its borders and wants to keep out people who might – quite justifiably in my opinion – want to sock it to Americans for what’s been done to them?

You madman, you!

And that wall. Sure, it’s a boondoggle. But then what isn’t?

Not that I personally am in favor of stopping Mexicans crossing the border to work illegally.

But along with workers, come gangs, revanchist groups, gun-running, drugs, and sex-trafficking. And subsidies to illegals that have bust the budgets of border states.

A virtual wall would be more efficient and cheaper, but I personally prefer concrete, if for nothing more than the symbolism of a Great Wall Of Mehiko.

True, I will no longer be able to dreamily plot routes that avoid passport checks – a favorite hobby of a frequent traveler. Sailing across an unmanned southern border  will soon be an impossibility. I dread to think of the logistics, the dust thrown up, the flora and fauna diving for cover.

But all leaders have their follies and the ancient Egyptians probably hated the building of the pyramids as well.

Let Trump have his.

Meanwhile,  there’s the whole LBGTQ project struck right off the official website; the climate-change agenda erased; funding withdrawn for US tax-payer subsidized abortions; Obama care reversed (at least somewhat); the massacre of Christians in the Middle East an actual thing in the news….

I am not naive enough to believe all this doesn’t still conceal another chapter in the globalist agenda.  It does.

But common sense and the people who pay the bills have just made a come-back, short-lived, as it may be.

I, for one, am grateful.

Now, about FATCA…