European refugee crisis thread

[cmdrjones]

The natives usually don't fair so well when humans engage in mass migrations, we can ask the moriori, the native Americans, the people of southern india, the aborigines, the celts, the Carthaginians, and the Romans about all of this. Especially the native Americans, they are an ongoing social experiment in what happens when you allow mass immigration of a rapidly reproducing culture that is unlike your own into your territory.

The example of the Americas is invalid, the successful colonisation of that continent by Europeans was aided by the catastrophic population decline those regions suffered shortly before or as the colonists arrived. You might have noticed Europeans extended their tentacles to other parts of the globe too but didn't manage to spread as much or thoroughly there with the exception of Australia which was sparsley populated to begin with.
The Celts and Carthagians were subjugated in aggressive military campaigns by the Romans, who had sizable advantages in military organisation and capability, so unless you think the refugees will do likewise it's another invalid example.
None of your examples actually contain the conquest of a country purely by mass-migration. You're misrepresenting historical events for the sake of fearmongering. A Fuck You from the heart from me to you, asshole.

So Native americans never had more than two children per woman after say, 1500? That's new. The Europeans didn't encounter cultures that had on average less than 2 children per couple either, so why didn't the Asians or Africans stop having kids? I guess your counter examples don't really apply either.... I know how about we never compare anything in history that isn't EXACLTY like another situation somewhere else! I mean, there must be some differences in historical situations so we can just disqualify everything!
Your second to last point is true other cultures at least put up resistance to being replaced. It's almost as if they thought there was something about their own cultures worth preserving! Shocking I know.
Your last point is exactly backwards... I am pointing out that those propaganda videos and the sentiments behind them are being fueled by SJW morons in Europe and elsewhere that are cheerleading all of this.
If the leadership of these countries can't stand up to unarmed refugees, then they sure as hell won't stand up to the nativist elements in their own societies that WILL become more and more aggressive as the situation spins out of control.
The blood that has been spilled and that which WILL be spilled is therefore on their hands.

Tl;dr nigga, I wouldn't do that shit if I wuz you, that shit is five to ten! - Chris Rock

[cmdrjones]

ummm well if there hadn't been any European civilians there at all, then I don't see how they would've been replaced... what do you think the British Military was there to do?

Exactly my point. It wasn't people moving to Australia that killed the Indigenous people off, as some early encounters show relatively decent relations between settlers and local Indigenous peoples. It was the British Empire's policy of extermination, and the Frontier Wars that wiped people out. Maybe the conflation of violent expansion and migration makes sense in Confederacyland where there's apparently a colour based natural order, and our cultural/linguistic divide is coming between us.

My further point is, that if there had been NO white migration, then there would have been no replacement, slaughter or not... correct? They killed them in order to make settlement safe for white folks.

[Gandalf]

My further point is, that if there had been NO white migration, then there would have been no replacement, slaughter or not... correct? They killed them in order to make settlement safe for white folks.

They didn't kill "to make things safe for white folks." They killed because they wanted to expand the control of the British Empire over Australian resources. Hence the forced migration of skilled convicts along with free settlers to work the new lands.

So again, why conflate violent expansion with mass migration? As a counterexample, the mass immigration into Australia after WW2 was a wonderful positive for the country in that the community became more diverse, leading to the elimination of the White Australia policy. However, it was not violent in nature. While two ideas may on occasion work in tandem, to conflate them as you have is disingenuous.

[mr friendly guy]

Did the Confederate Patriot just say that the Carthaginians were wiped out because of Roman mass migration, as opposed to Rome actively sacking Carthage in the third Punic war, destroying the city and selling survivors into slavery. Really?

You're confusing tactics with strategy. The tactic was to destroy the Carthaginian capitol, the strategy was to enslave and destroy the Carthaginians as a people and replace them with romans, or romanised locals.

You're shifting the goalposts. Your original statement is that mass migration of Romans caused what happened to the Carthaginians in a comparison to the current flow of refugees into Europe. Lets have a look at it again.

The natives usually don't fair so well when humans engage in mass migrations, we can ask the moriori, the native Americans, the people of southern india, the aborigines, the celts, the Carthaginians, and the Romans about all of this. Especially the native Americans, they are an ongoing social experiment in what happens when you allow mass immigration of a rapidly reproducing culture that is unlike your own into your territory.

You admit that it wasn't the migration in and of itself, it was the Romans actions in destroying Carthage first. Which strangely enough is what I said. Funnily enough, you think this is somehow applicable to the European refugee crisis. I didn't realise the refugees wanted to destroy European cities for fear that Europe will threaten them again like the second Punic war, nor as an excuse to loot European figs economic products.

He could have picked the migration of Germanic tribes into Rome who caused the collapse of the Western Roman Empire because the Romans gave them big welfare checks. The funny thing is, he most probably couldn't figure out which part of my statement is true and which is sarcasm.

The German migrations were simply a sign post of an Empire passing along the road into history. Why did the Wesern Roman empire lack for said farmers and soldiers as Thanas so adroitly pointed out? They very well may have loved it when low wage laboring and Imperial legion staffing germans came straggling into their territories... right up until they didn't.

That's irrelevant to my point that the German migrations would have been a somewhat better historical analogy to the current crisis than your stupid Carthaginian one.

But again, your irrelevant points are amusing. I mean if the Empire was already passing along the road into history (and that's highly debatable given the Eastern Empire lasted way longer until the rise of Islam and the Crusades weakened them), then by your logic it doesn't really matter. So is modern day Europe "passing along the road into history?" Please answer that. This should be funny.

[cosmicalstorm]

Well you can put me in with Swedens foreign minister in predicting a collapse of the nation. What part of this do you not understand?

Swedish Foreign Minister claims the country is 'facing collapse' because of the mass influx of refugees http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ugees.html

You will note, of course, that (unlike you) the Swedish foreign minister isn't claiming that the country will be destroyed by foreigners and that they shouldn't take any more in, but rather that they are taking on a disproportionate burden compared to other EU countries, and he is asking that they do their part to take in refugees. I doubt you even read the article, though, since you'd rather use the headline as support for your terror of brown-skinned people.

Sweden will reinstate border controls tomorrow. Schengen no more?

Nope. The Schengen Agreement explicitly allows for countries to temporarily reinstate border controls, when the "control of an external border is no longer ensured due to exceptional circumstances", and I believe these qualify as that.

And, indeed, this isn't the first time a Schengen signatory has done so. Malta, Denmark, and Estonia have all done so in the past. And, in fact, Germany and Slovakia both did so several months ago in response to the refugee crisis (again, "exceptional circumstances"), and that hasn't resulted in the collapse of the EU, yet.

So, once again, you are spewing ill-informed alarmist nonsense without bothering to do basic fact-checking; and, knowing you, you will probably just ignore this post entirely and continue to regale us all with your wide-eyed xenophobic paranoia.

1. The same woman who up until this summer claimed immigration was a safe economic bet turned around 180 degrees in the space of a week and stated it would end with calamity. As I said before: What else did they lie about?
These people have spent a decade saying "Trust us, this is a safe bet, you are a nazi if you dispute the economic success this will bring".

They are also saying "Trust us, there is noooo way this will lead to any larger social disturbances of any form, we know this in advance because we know what we are doing, if you have any concern that simply makes you nazi scum".
Why should I trust them?

Also do note the condition of her statement, that the rest of the EU do their part. They are doing the exact opposite and there is 0 % chance of any other EU nation adopting Swedish or German rules.

2. Temporary? I don't think so. To be honest I would not be surprised if Merkel reopened the borders because she and some other leaders seem honestly confused, but I doubt it.
This is permanent. They will build the long dreaded fortress Europa.
No way they will ever go back to the past open borders policy, not in the foreseeable future anyway, but they need to say something like that to lube this idea up before inserting it.

[Jub]

Well you can put me in with Swedens foreign minister in predicting a collapse of the nation. What part of this do you not understand?

Swedish Foreign Minister claims the country is 'facing collapse' because of the mass influx of refugees http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ugees.html

Things never seem to say what you think they do.

25.000 is nothing. Sweden takes 25.000 once every 6.25 Days.

25,000 in months is still many, many times more than the 11,000 Harper was going to bring in over a span of years.

Sweden also gets these refugees naturally, Canada has to make an effort to secure transport for them and has a duty to only take in as many as we can house. There's no point in taking refugees from Europe and putting them in equal or worse conditions than they would face there. These issues ensure that Canada is basically capped on how many refugees we can reasonably take given the current state of affairs.

If things worsen I'm sure that our government will recalculate the equation.

[cosmicalstorm]

Canada has little obligation to do that. If they do it I hope they will pick women and children from refugeecamps.
The US has a lot more blame, their psycho destabilization of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya is largely to blame. They could use their war machine to ship thousands of people across the ocean.
They could also cease their fucked up foreign mid east policy.

Not that they will do any of this.

[Broomstick]

This is permanent. They will build the long dreaded fortress Europa.
No way they will ever go back to the past open borders policy, not in the foreseeable future anyway, but they need to say something like that to lube this idea up before inserting it.

You mean - they'll require that people go through customs prior to entering a country, passport/papers required?

You do realize that until this generation that was the norm? When I was in Europe that's exactly what prevailed - armed guards at every border crossing. OMG! The horror! And yet... Europe instituted open borders just a few years later. What was done once can be done again.

Canada has little obligation to do that. If they do it I hope they will pick women and children from refugeecamps.

Canada doesn't have to that, but they're really nice, generous folks so it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

However - your assertion that they should take "women and children" - what, are you advocating splitting up families, leaving the men behind? You don't think that would have a negative effect?

[Eleas]

This is a Matryoshka Doll of stupid.

1. The same woman who up until this summer claimed immigration was a safe economic bet turned around 180 degrees in the space of a week and stated it would end with calamity. As I said before: What else did they lie about?

You do realize that if honesty demanded such standards, that would brand you a compulsive liar?

These people have spent a decade saying "Trust us, this is a safe bet, you are a nazi if you dispute the economic success this will bring".

They have said no such thing. That's just an interpretation of their words. One that, being yours, is entirely without credibility.

They are also saying "Trust us, there is noooo way this will lead to any larger social disturbances of any form, we know this in advance because we know what we are doing, if you have any concern that simply makes you nazi scum".
Why should I trust them?

They are not saying this, or you would be able to quote them.

The rest of your screed is mired in the same hasty and unwarranted generalizations that pepper all your posts. Could you please, just for a moment, stick to such quotes and plans and motivations as also exist outside your own imagination?

[Eleas]

The Swedish blog Punschverandan has an interesting angle on the issue. I'll try to condense a few of his points into short, pithy paragraphs. The bold-facing is my own.

Today, though, I want to aim the spotlight away from tax evasion and racist rhetoric. What I'd like us to remember is a general principle which during the last couple of decades has grown into a mantra of sorts in public services, and which today is a strongly contributing factor to parasites like Jan Emanuel Johansson and Bert Karlsson being able to profit from the fact that we have a rise in the number of arriving migrants.

It involves a number of so-called "management ideas" whose basic gist is that public services should be conducted on a level comparable to constant starvation. They're known under names like "lean", "new public management" and a host of other drivel but basically boil down to one thing: pushing productivity to maximum and extracting as much profit as possible. In brief terms, it involves building a business so that it just about works under the most optimal conditions imaginable. Going downhill, with the sun and wind at your back, you will just barely get there on time.

When it comes down to it, the same thing is happening now. During the last decades, the government has sold out agencies and properties by the truck-load. Agencies and properties that'd really have been handy now on the arrival of a bit more refugees than we counted on. Because seriously, compared to the flood of immigrants during the middle of the 20th centuries, this is barely worth a footnote. The difference is that now, we have no public readiness left. All public services are teetering on the edge of starvation, so the barest effort has ludicrous consequences.

"Refugee chaos", "snow chaos" and last summer's "fire chaos" in other words are really an "NPM chaos" or a "lean chaos". It's not refugees, snow or even forest fires that cause the chaos, it's the fact that the public organization is malnourished and can do nothing beyond a bare minimum. When a bit of pressure develops, it becomes obvious we cannot operate public services via business practices in which failure is a realistic option. Should the influence of half-baked management notions harm a division of Toyota so badly that it cannot be repaired, you dissolve that department and lick your wounds. The public sector doesn't work that way. Our healthcare can't simply close shop.

Good points, and well worth the read. Bing translates it pretty well.

[Ralin]

Have you ever posted a single thing on this site that wasn't alarmist chicken little bullshit or bunk medical pseudoscience?

Seriously. As annoying, stupid, racist and sexist as Confederate Patriot often is he's still a notch above what amounts to a human RSS feed of "The swarthy foreigners are about to overwhelm European civilization!!!" drivel.

[K. A. Pital]

I must say a Europe of closed borders is a very unwelcome development, even if it was "the norm" before. I think that the greatest achievements followed when freedom of movement was not impaired - and this goes even for societies with tightly controlled population movement like the USSR or China, doubly so for nations of Europe and advanced nations in general.

In the end, it will be up to the citizens of these nations to make sense of what happened, why it happened and what to do next with the EU to ensure it succeeds. I must say my doubts about it succeeding have been primarily driven by economics, but now I see that the political situation is no less difficult.

As a stranger here, I feel that the situation is deteriorating - but not because of the foreigners, rather, because of the lack of a mechanism to integrate and properly use their talent for the best of all (including the immigrants themselves), and because social services have been repeatedly gutted by neoliberal governments all over Europe - at the same time the appetite for foreign military adventurism rose. Payback is coming faster than many thought.

Indeed, what Eleas posted is very true and I can see examples of this "lean" (sic!) approach all around me, though I am not in Sweden.

[Eleas]

Seriously. As annoying, stupid, racist and sexist as Confederate Patriot often is he's still a notch above what amounts to a human RSS feed of "The swarthy foreigners are about to overwhelm European civilization!!!" drivel.

I freely grant that. I also think this is more of an implicit bias than any sort of active malevolence. But that is also what's frustrating, because unlike cosmicalstorm, raving Foxbots are so obviously malevolent that dismissing them is practically automatic. You can be sure about them.

Not so with cosmicalstorm. This uncertainty -- i.e. constantly having to filter everything he's saying in order to ascertain whether he might, this time, have some small point -- is the reason for my testiness.

[Block]

Canada has little obligation to do that. If they do it I hope they will pick women and children from refugeecamps.
The US has a lot more blame, their psycho destabilization of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya is largely to blame. They could use their war machine to ship thousands of people across the ocean.
They could also cease their fucked up foreign mid east policy.

Not that they will do any of this.

So Syria and Libya are our fault now? Please explain how providing logistical support to other countries intervening in Libya makes the US primarily responsible. And Syria... No. You don't get to pin that on us at all. That shit has been coming for decades.

[Broomstick]

I must say a Europe of closed borders is a very unwelcome development, even if it was "the norm" before.

I agree. It's not the end of the world but it is a step backward. I definitely miss the previously open border between Canada and the US.

It seems to be a trait of hyper-capitalism that goods move more freely between countries than people do. I do think that in most circumstances allowing people to move freely is a better choice.

[Crown]

While the Bush Administration (primarily) and other US administrations share some measure of blame, we need to realise for the Syrians this didn't happen because of the Iraq war, this happened because their fucking crops failed and Assad is such a shit head when the people went asking for food he shot at them. If this drought is linked to climate change, and the prediction of the climatologists maps out and we get even more droughts in these areas in the future then the mass exodus of people fleeing out from that area will only increase irrespective if America is bombing a neighbour or not.

[Broomstick]

Indeed, as far back as the 1970's I remember scientists stating that a mass exodus from the Middle East to Europe was a possibility in the event of several types of events, essentially coming down to either agricultural failure or war or both.

This really isn't unforeseen, it's just as usual those warning of the possibility were dismissed as fools/pessimists/whatever.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wonder how much more prepared to receive so many refugees Europe would be had they been taking the possibility seriously since the 70's.

While you also have to address short term concerns, of course, lack of long term planning and failure to provide your country with a reserve in the event of a crisis are serious failings.

[cosmicalstorm]

You know Eleas I'm not fond of privatization and stupid cuts in readiness. I'm not fond of our paralyzed apartment building system either.
In the future, when Sweden begs EU for mercy I'm sure they will demand even more privatizations as a "reform package" in return for some measly help. (hey tapwater is still state owned!).

To be honest I don't see how those things change the end game of this story: Sweden is pulling 10.000 registered immigrants a week and probably 10.000 more who choose to not register.

Can you give a very short description of a system funded by Swedish tax payers that could accommodate such an influx over a longer period of time?
We are talking about a giant machinery capable of both planning, funding and constructing cities for 20.000 mostly young males once a week.

Canada has little obligation to do that. If they do it I hope they will pick women and children from refugeecamps.
The US has a lot more blame, their psycho destabilization of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya is largely to blame. They could use their war machine to ship thousands of people across the ocean.
They could also cease their fucked up foreign mid east policy.

Not that they will do any of this.

So Syria and Libya are our fault now? Please explain how providing logistical support to other countries intervening in Libya makes the US primarily responsible. And Syria... No. You don't get to pin that on us at all. That shit has been coming for decades.

The US sent 100 tomahawks into Libya and it is still providing rebel groups including Al Qaida with hundreds of TOW's. The US is also giving the biggest piece of shit country in the world Saudi Arabia a royal buttlicking on a weekly basis ensuing that they can continue to covertly fund these wars and operations with no fear of repercussions.

Obama should have stayed out of Syria or backed Assad.

Current policy means the meatgrinder will run until all the meat is dead or on it's way to Europe and Turkey.

A little Lol, it might be Russian PR but I think it was true considering the level of CIA-wailing that took place after the fact: The Russians only gave 1 hour of fore-warning to the American diplomats in Bagdad of the exact start of bombings because otherwise Americans would be calling their rebel friends and warning them.

[Metahive]

So Native americans never had more than two children per woman after say, 1500? That's new. The Europeans didn't encounter cultures that had on average less than 2 children per couple either, so why didn't the Asians or Africans stop having kids?

Trying my best to decipher your incoherent gibberish, so bear with me. Must be because Asshole is your first language.

The diseases imported by Europeans killed up to 90% of the communities they affected, with larger ones being hit harder than the smaller, more remote ones. The largest and most advanced native populations happened to be near and around the east cost, you do the math.

If the Huron and Iroqouis Confederations had a ten times as big population pool to draw from, how successful do you think the European colonies would have been?

I guess your counter examples don't really apply either.... I know how about we never compare anything in history that isn't EXACLTY like another situation somewhere else! I mean, there must be some differences in historical situations so we can just disqualify everything!
Your second to last point is true other cultures at least put up resistance to being replaced. It's almost as if they thought there was something about their own cultures worth preserving! Shocking I know.

Your example were stupid bullshit because both Celts and Carthaginians were subject to violent campaigns of conquest by a superior military power. So you comparing that to the poor refugees of today is obviously misleading and/or dishonest demagoguery.

Your last point is exactly backwards... I am pointing out that those propaganda videos and the sentiments behind them are being fueled by SJW morons in Europe and elsewhere that are cheerleading all of this.
If the leadership of these countries can't stand up to unarmed refugees, then they sure as hell won't stand up to the nativist elements in their own societies that WILL become more and more aggressive as the situation spins out of control.
The blood that has been spilled and that which WILL be spilled is therefore on their hands.

Do you know what the most galling thing about rightwing hatemongers is? This constant unwillingness to actually stand by your hatred and own it. No, the responsibility has to be always shunted somewhere else, best on the subjects of said hatred because actually acting like an adult human being and owning your own decisions is so goddamn fucking hard. You and your fellow brown-shirted hatemongers are nothing but a bunch of ugly, slimy, yellow-bellied toads. Even flies refuse to move when you come near a piece of dogpoo, that's how little respect you command and still more than you deserve.

Also, remember when you promised rivers of blood if people touched the Traitor Flag? Well, I that hasn't come true. Do you know why? Because rightwing hatemongers like you are such fucking cowards and bullies. You only go against targets unable to resist and only dare to do stuff that has at least a 110% chance of success. Taking risks is for adults, not for perpetual juvenile dipshits like you.

Tl;dr nigga, I wouldn't do that shit if I wuz you, that shit is five to ten! - Chris Rock

"Er aber sage ihm er könne mich am Arsch lecken" - Götz von Berlichingen, Ritter von der Eisernen Hand

[Metahive]

Small clarification to the above, the east cost native tribes were the most numerous and advanced of the northern american continent. The Meso- and Southern American parts housed of course even bigger native cultures.

[cmdrjones]

So Native americans never had more than two children per woman after say, 1500? That's new. The Europeans didn't encounter cultures that had on average less than 2 children per couple either, so why didn't the Asians or Africans stop having kids?

Trying my best to decipher your incoherent gibberish, so bear with me. Must be because Asshole is your first language.

The diseases imported by Europeans killed up to 90% of the communities they affected, with larger ones being hit harder than the smaller, more remote ones. The largest and most advanced native populations happened to be near and around the east cost, you do the math.

If the Huron and Iroqouis Confederations had a ten times as big population pool to draw from, how successful do you think the European colonies would have been?

I guess your counter examples don't really apply either.... I know how about we never compare anything in history that isn't EXACLTY like another situation somewhere else! I mean, there must be some differences in historical situations so we can just disqualify everything!
Your second to last point is true other cultures at least put up resistance to being replaced. It's almost as if they thought there was something about their own cultures worth preserving! Shocking I know.

Your example were stupid bullshit because both Celts and Carthaginians were subject to violent campaigns of conquest by a superior military power. So you comparing that to the poor refugees of today is obviously misleading and/or dishonest demagoguery.

Your last point is exactly backwards... I am pointing out that those propaganda videos and the sentiments behind them are being fueled by SJW morons in Europe and elsewhere that are cheerleading all of this.
If the leadership of these countries can't stand up to unarmed refugees, then they sure as hell won't stand up to the nativist elements in their own societies that WILL become more and more aggressive as the situation spins out of control.
The blood that has been spilled and that which WILL be spilled is therefore on their hands.

Do you know what the most galling thing about rightwing hatemongers is? This constant unwillingness to actually stand by your hatred and own it. No, the responsibility has to be always shunted somewhere else, best on the subjects of said hatred because actually acting like an adult human being and owning your own decisions is so goddamn fucking hard. You and your fellow brown-shirted hatemongers are nothing but a bunch of ugly, slimy, yellow-bellied toads. Even flies refuse to move when you come near a piece of dogpoo, that's how little respect you command and still more than you deserve.

Also, remember when you promised rivers of blood if people touched the Traitor Flag? Well, I that hasn't come true. Do you know why? Because rightwing hatemongers like you are such fucking cowards and bullies. You only go against targets unable to resist and only dare to do stuff that has at least a 110% chance of success. Taking risks is for adults, not for perpetual juvenile dipshits like you.

Tl;dr nigga, I wouldn't do that shit if I wuz you, that shit is five to ten! - Chris Rock

"Er aber sage ihm er könne mich am Arsch lecken" - Götz von Berlichingen, Ritter von der Eisernen Hand

#1 I can ignore this nonsense for precisely the same reason I compared the Korean Slave kingdom to the Southern Confederate Slavocracy: Namely that it is intellectually valuable to compare two things which are similar on the surface in order to draw conclusions about their differences. For example: the Celts AND Carthaginians WERE subject to violent campaigns by a superior force and were subjugated and suffered varying level of ill effects.... the modern Europeans are now suffering an invasion by unarmed refugees and failing to deal with it.... now, what conclusions can we draw about the modern Europeans as compared to the Celts and Carthaginians?

#2 First you'd have to show that I'm in favor of rightwing hatemongers, so I can ignore your entire second paragraph. Let me put it this way, who is responsible for violence breaking out, The party who initiates violence or the party who makes violence inevitable?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -live.html

oops.... so what kind of spices would all like with your crow?

[Metahive]

See that part where I said you don't deserve respect? Therefore instead of me replying to you, please imagine me spitting on your face and kicking you in the balls a few times.

Hope you enjoy. I for sure would.

[madd0ct0r]

Crown.

1)that link should be in the Paris thread, not here
2) as of 0953 mgmt, the latest in that article is a USA official saying the passport is fake
3) are you suggesting refugees make this inevitable? Because that simply does not make sense. All previous attacks predated the refugee crisis and afaik used domestic terrorists who had grown up in the country. That was the case for the UK attacks.

[Crown]

Crown.

1)that link should be in the Paris thread, not here
2) as of 0953 mgmt, the latest in that article is a USA official saying the passport is fake
3) are you suggesting refugees make this inevitable? Because that simply does not make sense. All previous attacks predated the refugee crisis and afaik used domestic terrorists who had grown up in the country. That was the case for the UK attacks.

¿Que?