While watching the video of efforts by left-wing thugs to disrupt Richard Spencer’s recent talk on affirmative action at Providence College, I was reminded of a conversation I had sometime in the late 1980s with a former member of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society who had been involved with the movement to oppose the Vietnam War since its inception circa 1962. He recalled how in the early days of the antiwar movement, protest organizers were thrilled if they could get fifty people to show up for a rally. To publicly oppose the war at the time was physically dangerous, and such rallies were always at risk of being physically attacked by vigilantes shouting epithets like “communist” at the protestors. If organizers of the rallies could get police protection at all, they were happy to have it. Not only were public demonstrations in danger of such assaults, but so were quiet and peaceful meetings of those who opposed the war held in church basements or on university campuses. Of course, we all know that the anti-Vietnam War movement morphed into a mass movement just a few years later.

So it is indeed ironic that half a century later it is those who challenge the established dogmas purveyed by the Left who similarly experience the disruption of their efforts to peacefully speak and organize, who become the targets of epithets like “racist,” “sexist,” or “classist,” and who are threatened with physical violence. Incidents of this type are exceedingly common. It is now widely known that conservative speakers on university campuses, even entirely mainstream neocon-friendly “movement conservative” types, are routinely shouted down and threatened by leftists. As most readers are probably aware, right-wing organizations outside the mainstream, such as American Renaissance, have endured even worse attacks. At times, simply attending an anti-illegal immigration rally can be all that it takes for one to become the victim of a physical assault.

A number of observations could be made concerning the demeanor and behavior of the disrupters of Richard’s presentation at Providence. One is the obvious fact that they are so certain of their own moral superiority and the nobility of their crusade that they feel ordinary rules of civilized discourse or common courtesy no longer apply to them. Another is that far from their image of themselves as enlightened, free-thinking rebels, they come across more like brainwashed zombies similar to members of the LaRouche cult or the Moonies I used to encounter selling flowers on the streets of Washington, D.C. years ago. Their level of intellectual prowess seems to amount to little more than thinking that merely throwing labels at people and ideas they find disagreeable counts as a valid refutation of the opposing viewpoints.

Judging from the hysteria of their reaction, one would think that Richard was advocating genocide rather than arguing for the fairly standard right-of –center position that affirmative action is a bad idea, a position that even some minority scholars and analysts hold. It is also rather difficult to see how Richard was arguing for “white supremacy” given that the data he was presenting actually showed Asians to be the top performers with regards to SAT scores. As Richard pointed out in his talk, it was he who was the moderate and the protestors who were the extremist nutjobs.

For the diversitarians, affirmative action is not merely a policy preference, but a sacred article of faith, like the Holy Trinity or the Immaculate Conception. Affirmative action is a political tool the liberal establishment utilizes to maintain the loyalty of one of its core allies and constituent groups, the black elite and the middle class professional sectors of the black population. Affirmative action is an entitlement used as a reward for political loyalty from these sectors. It is doubtful that AA is of much benefit to genuinely impoverished or disadvantaged blacks, many of whom do not even finish high school, much less attend college or obtain professional-level occupations. And as Richard pointed out, if the goal of AA was to help the poor and disadvantaged in the first place, AA would be class-based rather than race-based.

Indeed, “black conservatives” like Thomas Sowell and Elizabeth Wright have documented a myriad of ways in which policies implemented by the welfare state and civil rights bureaucracy that has meta-morphed in recent decades have severely undermined the organic economic, cultural, and family life of urban black communities, and contributed exponentially to the social pathologies often found in those communities. Likewise, the black libertarian economist Walter Williams has produced rather extensive evidence indicating the contribution of efforts at intrusive economic micromanagement to high unemployment rates among urban blacks.

Additionally, there is some evidence that black children who are educated in culturally specific Afro-centric schools perform much better than black children who receive conventional public schooling. The reasons as to why this is so are inconclusive but what is interesting is that the efforts of either conservative and libertarian black scholars like Sowell, Wright, or Williams, or of Afro-centrists with a nationalist or separatist outlook, are routinely attacked or dismissed by white liberals and the captains of the civil rights industry alike. Indeed, such people are often reviled by the Left. The obvious reason for this is the fanatical egalitarian-universalist ideology that has come to dominate the Left, an ideology that just happens to coincide with the political and economic self-interest of those who push it. It is an ideology that seeks a society where all resources are controlled and managed by the state and administered according to a spoils system the ostensible purpose of which is the imposition of bureaucratically-managed “equality.” The ultimate outcome of totalitarian humanism taken to its logical conclusion would be a totalitarian state organized as a kind of caste system whereby individual rights are assigned on the basis of group identity and group rights are assigned on the basis of the position of the group in the pantheon of the oppressed or on the victimological family tree.

Given these considerations, it might be apt to compare our present day lefto-fascist, stormtroopers-on-granola with the Red Guards of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The Red Guards were, of course, bands of youthful vigilantes who scurried about China during the 1960s smashing up cultural artifacts deemed “old” (e.g. conservative, traditional) and engaging in vigilante violence against persons deemed “reactionary” (mostly dissident intellectuals and those labeled “bourgeois” or originating from politically incorrect cultural or class backgrounds.) We see a similar though milder version of this today in the West today with attacks on expressions of traditional culture (like Christmas celebrations), historical artifacts considered to be reactionary (like Confederate Civil War monuments or streets named after Confederate generals), and vigilante actions against people given labels like “racist,” “fascist,” “sexist,” or “classist.”

I suspect that these “antifa” types, these Red Guards-on-tofu, would be every bit as murderous and destructive if the authorities would sanction it, as Chairman Mao did during the Cultural Revolution. We’ve seen hints at this already with the nonchalant attitude of the authorities towards threats of murder and arson against innocent people made by the Antifa in response to American Renaissance’s planned gathering in 2010. Plenty of other incidents have occurred where destructive or violent behavior by those claiming to act in the name of noble causes like “anti-racism” and “anti-fascism” have been overlooked or dealt with leniently by authorities convinced of the purity of their motives or restrained by political pressure.

The great irony presented by the Antifa is that despite all of their posturing as radicals and revolutionaries, they’re essentially doing the establishment’s bidding. The attitudes they subscribe to are not fundamentally different from those of the liberal elite overlords of the wider society. The Red Guards-on-tofu are simply a smellier, more ill-mannered, undisciplined, more in-a-hurry version of the liberal establishment itself. Wouldn’t it be an even greater irony if indeed the growing counterculture of the alternative right were to grow into a large influential movement as the leftist counterculture and antiwar movements did in the 1960s, with the Antifa and their ilk assuming the role of the “hardhats”?

 

When a chubby man in a Phoenix diner offered to buy me dinner, I had no idea of who he was or of the consequences of chatting with him for another hour. The internet rumours, the blogs, the newspaper articles, the phone calls at all hours of the day and night, the death threats, the mace, and more . . . none of it was on my radar screen. I had been driving all day and I was starving. Club sandwich, please, and hold the tomato.

I assumed him to be a customer of the diner who was simply curious about what was going on, especially as the antifa protesting outside had drawn everybody’s attention. It's not unusual to encounter curious bystanders while on a book tour. The result of that conversation was not one, but three, sleazy articles about me.

The man was a journalist, though he did not disclose it to me until afterwards, when someone confronted him. As it turned out, he had come at the invitation of the antifa.

Call me naïve (which I certainly was), but I tend to take people at face value. There is something about two-faced people that doesn’t compute with me. How could this person be so nice to my face and then turn around and write nasty articles about me? Did I really deserve that? I had been kind to him and remained courteous even after his admission to having engaged me under false pretenses. I couldn’t understand where the rabid hatred had come from.

Yes, David Irving is controversial and I was aware of that (though when I first got involved with him, my awareness of that was marginal), but until this point, his enemies had left me out of the fight. Some people might say I should have expected that not to last, but I was new to it and no one ever warned me of what I might be getting myself into. I don’t think I could have been reasonably expected to anticipate it given my limited knowledge of such matters at the time. And because I would never stoop to such tactics, the thought that someone else might do it, and do it to get to me somehow, never crossed my mind.

Eventually, I learned that almost all journalists are like this. Oh, a few I’ve talked to have been okay, but at the end of the day, most of them are subject to their editor’s demands. The story that gets printed is never the story you gave them in the interview. A sensationalised story sells better than a balanced story, after all. After David Irving’s emails were hacked, the UK’s Daily Mail ran a story on me (complete with my copyrighted pictures, which they had stolen and used without permission) based on snippets of these emails, which they twisted in order to create a story where there was none. Not once had they attempted to contact either of us for clarification prior to going to press. It’s just another example of how the media makes the news, but rarely reports the news.

It is thanks to journalists that the antifa came to know of me. They targeted me initially because of my association with David Irving. Because they had decided that they don’t like David Irving, they declared me guilty by association, playing judge, jury, and executioner. That I look “sufficiently Aryan”, as one newspaper described me (was it supposed to be an insult?), is apparently further evidence of my guilt. Were I a dark-complected Latina, like David’s previous assistant, I doubt they would had paid nearly so much attention to me. But my genes dictated that I be born with fair skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. Mea culpa.

As anyone else who has been the target of Left-wing hatred knows, it is more of an annoyance than anything. I am not easily offended. Posting on the internet that I should be raped and murdered does not make me cry myself to sleep at night. Leaving me voicemails saying that I am a “racist whore” does not drive me to overdose on Prozac. I roll my eyes and I move on. You see, I’m a busy person. Unlike antifa who are usually unemployed and unemployable, I don’t have time to sit around being offended. And I don’t have time to be offended on behalf of anyone else. The antifa, on the other hand, seem to spend their entire day feeling offended by the existence of people who think differently than they do, but who otherwise don’t bother them. I cannot imagine a greater waste of life, nor can I understand what motivates them to exist in a state of perpetual outrage.

The antifa don’t understand the real effect of their efforts to “name and shame” me. Sure, I got a few prank phone calls and I lost some friends, but that’s trivial stuff. What they have given me is a wider platform and greater networking opportunities.

By publishing my telephone numbers, the antifa caused me to receive numerous calls from fellow pro-white advocates who were concerned for my safety and well-being. I made several new local contacts and I expanded my network of friendly faces across the country. The phone calls I got from concerned strangers far outnumbered the ones I got from people who wanted to tell me they hate my guts even though they don’t know me.

By publishing my email address, the antifa also facilitated the involvement of several people new to the movement who write to me asking how they can get involved. Most of the time, I can direct them to someone in their area who runs an active group.

Additionally, by outing me, the antifa have made it easier for me to be active in the pro-white movement. I don’t have to worry about anyone finding out about me. This means I can take on a greater role in organisational and street activism. I can start an openly pro-white business. I can write articles and sign them with my real name. I can more easily network because people can Google me and know that I am genuine in what I do.

Had I not been outed, I would have continued my quiet existence and avoided any real involvement for fear of being discovered. I neither regret nor relish having been exposed. It is what it is and I can’t undo it. Yes, there are some things that are better accomplished by people who remain in the shadows, but there are also things better accomplished by people who have gone public. We need both kinds.

So this is my advice to anyone who finds themselves targeted by the enemy: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Look for a way to turn the inconvenience into an opportunity to help the movement. Do not be intimidated.

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, Jared Taylor’s 2011 American Renaissance conference has been thrown into jeopardy. Last year, it was former (current?) FBI agent Jeffrey Imm who provided the intel and various Internet “anti-fascists” who provided the bomb threats that scuttled the biannual event and led to a much-reduced rump AmRen gathering in Northern Virginia.

This time around, it was the Obama of Mecklenburg County, Charlotte City Council member and mayor pro tem Patrick Cannon, who browbeat the Airport Sheraton Hotel into reneging on its contract with Jared and AmRen. I doubt there will ever be justice for our side on this matter, but Cannon’s actions appear to amount to a flagrant abuse of his status as an elected official, if not an outright First Amendment violation. The antifa can’t believe that they didn’t have to lift a finger, as an elected official eagerly did their dirty work!

(My interview with Jared about the 2010 fiasco can be heard here. Matt Parrott has a wrap up of this year’s debacle here.)

I’ve recently become the executive director of The National Policy Institute. My first project was to create NPITV.com, which will web-stream events, like the AmRen conference, of interest to conscious European-Americans, as well as offer other programming that’s too hot for the mainstream media. NPITV was to debut by web-streaming AmRen 2011.

Everything’s up in the air at the moment, but I can assure you that, 1) I will be in Charlotte come hell, high water, and anti-fascists throwing bricks, and 2) NPI will make every effort to web-stream the conference, even if that entails broadcasting from an “undisclosed location.”

Samuel Francis defined “Anarcho-Tyranny,” which he saw regnant in most Western nations at the time of his death in 2005, as a political arrangement in which government does everything it shouldn’t with great vigor and exactitude (Tyranny) and everything it should with sloth and willed negligence (Anarchy).

Washington, DC, has more or less decided to leave well enough alone along the Mexican border, and yet will send military units to prevent mass immigration into Iraq. The European Union has declared its right to regulate the content of chocolate and imprison those accused of  “minimizing” the Jewish Holocaust, and yet if ever challenged militarily, it would be unable to exercise the most basic function of sovereignty.

And then there’s Toronto, Ontario: Canada’s financial capital, whose municipal government forbids by law owning Pit Bulls and positively encourages the homosexual lifestyle. This is a place I’ve called home for the past six months, and which this weekend hosted the “G20 Summit” of “world leaders.”

Toronto has mastered the Anarchy part of Francis’s expression. “Hog Town” was once a jewel of the Anglo-Saxon world. When I was a child, I remember hearing the city referred to as “the clean, safe New York” or “New York in the ‘50s” (that is, New York without the minorities.) Today, Toronto represents the most evolved case of state-engineered -- and historically incoherent -- multiculturalism on the planet: only 52 percent of the city is white, and it now boasts large blocs of South Asians, (more assimilated) Chinese, blacks, and Filipinos. No one knows who’ll ultimately win the demographic battle, but I have a good idea who won’t.

Canada has even had a little Tyranny, too (despite its reputation for down-to-earth goofiness.) Pierre Trudeau pioneered the promotion of “visible minorities” in the Great White North; his political following has been compared to “Obamania.” And yet when in 1970 the Front de libération du Québec began kidnapping politicians, Trudeau enacted emergency measures and began sounding like J.D. Hayworth:

Trudeau: Yes, well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of ...

Tim Ralfe (CBC): At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that?

Trudeau: Well, just watch me.

(The fascinating confrontation can be watched here.)

Canada has been quite welcoming to one and all from the third-world, as its quarter-century demographic transformation can attest. Whenever I re-enter the country, however, I usually begin sweating about the possibility of someone in the government reading my blogs, deeming me a threat to the nation, and ordering the border guards to hold me indefinitely in Diversity Training Gitmo. (I don’t think this is a case of overestimating my own significance; Anarcho-Tyrannies do ridiculous things like this.)

This past G20 weekend certainly had some of the “just watch me!” feel. Ontario reportedly spent upwards of 1 billion on security. And on Friday, the province revealed it had passed emergency legislation in secret that allows police to demand papers and search anyone -- for any reason -- who was within five meters of designated “security areas.”

By the end of weekend, close to 600 protestors had been arrested. Quite a sum, though as revealed in the television interviews of those released, detention life wasn’t too shabby: the camps were equipped with lawyers and counselors. Anarcho-Tyranny in action!

There was also a kind of Anarchy in the air that was more immediate than anything Francis described. I don’t exaggerate when I write that on Saturday, the city had begun to resemble the surreal, post-apocalyptic wastelands of The Omega Man or Cormac McCarthy’s The Road -- commercial activity was shut down, store fronts bashed in -- bands of black-clad “anarchists” roamed the streets smashing things with hammers and putting abandoned police cars to the flame -- groups of pranksters, literally dressed like circus clowns, cackled and danced -- protesters marched under a cacophony of flags, signs, and banners -- thousands of normal Torontonians (the ones who were brave or foolish enough to leave their homes) wandering the streets befuddled. (I was one of these.)

This scene was encircled by militarized police in riot gear, equipped with Plexiglas visors and Praetorian shields. I got the sense that things wouldn’t look too different if a nuclear device had just gone off somewhere in North America or a total collapse of the economy had just ensued.

We weren’t witnessing a disaster, of course, but the culture of the contemporary state -- which loves to put on billion-dollar “Global Summits” -- and that of the contemporary Left -- which loves to protest them.

The Left is variegated, of course, ranging from the suit-and-tie NGO “professionals,” who go on TV, to the unkempt, unwashed (literally), unemployable, universally ugly hangers-on, who schedule their lives around “the next protest.” Such Left People were able to turn the park just outside my apartment into a kind of Lallapalooza-cum-tent city-cum- fornication and defecation zone.

Most of the damage to private property was inflicted by another subgroup, labeled the “black bloc,” which would precipitously come out of the woodwork at opportune moments and start indulging in ultra-violence. (The phrase "black bloc" was unknown, at least to me, before this weekend, but by Saturday afternoon, it had become a dreaded household term.)

And despite the billion spent on security and the large number of arrests, the bloc didn’t have much trouble destroying Starbucks and bank storefronts, their preferred representations of, so I understand, Global Corporate Fascism.

One might presume that in the Dark Ages (Before Sensitivity Training), a cop who saw a “anarchist” dancing atop a flaming police car would grab the perpetrator by the scruff of the neck and rough him up a bit before the arrest. Again, welcome to Anarcho-Tryanny -- where the police are militarized and wussified.

Smashing up Starbucks is certainly pointless -- and fitting for the “black bloc,” whose “Fuck the System!” revolt amounts to a re-rerouted teenage rebellion against their parents. That said, the tens of thousands in damage they inflicted should be compared to the billion spent on “security” and the fact that most all shops in the financial district and Yonge Street area were closed, costing them untold amounts in lost business. Hosting, say, the Superbowl can be a bonanza (at least for hoteliers, restaurateurs, and t-shirt vendors.) The “G8 Summit” was, however, a pure loss of at least 2 billion for everyone in the region. The mayhem I describe in this essay would never have occurred if Obama, Merkel, Cameron & Co. had just decided to have a Skype teleconferece.

(And the price tag doesn’t include the actual programs enacted by the summit attendees. On Friday, at the more elite “G8” in nearby Huntsville, Canada promised 1.1 billion for “maternal health” in “developing nations.” As a good conservative, Prime Minister Stephen Harper refuses to support birth control in Africa … but he still wants to give the continent vast amounts of cash.)

Some rather hysteric Torontonians interviewed on television kept saying, “I don’t know what happened to my city”; others claimed that Toronto had “changed” utterly due to these events. (Since the coverage of the “peaceful protestors” had been universally positive, one must assume that the reaction was against the black bloc and armored police.)

But in fact, the G20 protests were entirely predictable and hadn’t changed anything. Much like the “avant-garde” art world has been engaging in the same high jinx for the past 40 years, the Baby Boom and Gen X/Y Left has been essentially rehearsing the 1968 protests in Paris and Berkeley ad nauseam for just as long.

One might call this political masturbation, or the Left’s version of Civil War re-enactments, but then leftist protest isn’t simply a subculture but an industry. (In this line, it’s fitting that the G20 protests overlapped with Toronto’s state-funded “Pride Week” (which actually lasts 10 days)).

Conservative critics could easily point out the glaring, amusing, contradictions among the Left groups. There’s the quasi-primitivist rejection of the goods of the marketplace, expressed by suburban kids chatting on cell phones and typing “status updates” -- along with their demand that these wicked capitalist goods be redistributed to the masses. There’s the pretense of “anarchism” by groups that also claim every person on earth has the “right” to housing and a “living wage.” There’s the flirtation with Muslim activists by groups staffed by lesbians, gays, and Jews. There’s the unending multiplication of contradictory new fragments and new “rights.” And so on.

But in pointing out the obvious, one misses the guiding threads that run throughout the Left, and which unite it in ways the Right could only dream of.

One of these is the embrace of the “inverted world”: that is, anything -- truly, anything -- that is anti-white, anti-European, anti-Christian (unless you’re supporting “social justice”), anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-meat-eating, anti-beauty (I’m not kidding), and anti-traditional family (unless you’re helping “working families” of labor unionists). Disputes between lesbians and Muslims will be settled after The Revolution.

(If you don’t accept the racial aspect of the Left, imagine going to the G20 and holding up a sign reading “Stop Boer Genocide Now!” Such a sentiment could be described as “leftist” in that it involves helping a small people oppressed by a hostile majority. But as we all know, sticking up for White Protestants in Toronto is dead on arrival. Indeed, it might get you arrested!)

The other thread that runs through the contempo Left is that all its groups seek to be recognized -- and, most importantly, funded -- by the federal governments they condemn as “fascist.” As I was passing through the foul-smelling, hippie-like gathering that had cropped up in a nearby park, I watched as a nerdy white girl took the mike and started complaining about how “the government doesn’t respect us.” Ontario apparently only gave her project -- for lesbians or labor unions or Palestinians or who knows what -- five grand in funding. (If only AlternativeRight.com were so abused by the authorities!)

The Anarcho-Tyranny state, in turn, adores these groups, as all of their “problems” can be solved by new federal initiatives. Every “radical critique of bourgeois society” is in practice an excuse to expand a bureaucracy. The state will never oppose the Left -- and never stop importing the Left’s favored third-world populations -- until this arrangement ends.

For a long time in Western history, a state would establish sovereignty by appealing to theology and natural order (e.g. “the divine rights of kings”), or, with the birth of liberalism, the need to secure liberty. (Carl Schmitt: “All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts.”)

The postwar world not only witnessed the triumph of the said “radical critique of bourgeois society” -- what Kevin MacDonald has identified, in its active, subversive form, as the “culture of critique” and Paul Gottfried, in its passive, decadent form, as the “politics of (white) guilt” -- but its institutionalization in education, big business, and, most of all, government.

The critique is the establishment. The culture it engenders eventuates in scenes like the one we saw in Toronto this weekend.

This weekend, hordes of "natural Republicans" and "family values Hispanics" marched on International Workers Day to demand more goodies from Whitey. Out in force as well were the anti-fascists, some of whom physically assaulted AltRight contributor Andrew Yeoman and other members of the Bay Area National Anarchists who were participating in a counter-protest. The Antifa even attacked women.

The Left is good people! :)

According to SF Weekly, BANA's attackers are being charged with felonies. Also of note, AltRight gets mentioned in the same article as an "extreme right-wing website." I'll count that as an endorsement!

Not too long ago, many mainstream historians were apt to depict the Nazis as sexual deviants. There's certainly no shortage of evidence supporting this view: the leader of the SA and Hitler's onetime rival for power, Ernst Röhm, carried on various liaisons with some of the working-class men who made up the "Brownshirts," and his indiscretions weren't lost on the Nazi's left-wing opponents, who attacked him in no uncertain terms. Röhm's penchant for buggery was, in fact, used as a pretext for his execution by the Nazi leadership during the "Night of Long Knives" of June and July 1934, though intra-party disputes were more decisive. Eugen Kogon, a historian and concentration camp survivor who wrote a 1946 volume detailing the system of Konzentrationsläger, paid special attention to the plight of gay men, who, according to him, weren't only treated more harshly than their peers but sometimes raped or offered food to perform gay acts by their Nazi tormentors. 

Much of this historiography likely informed the "fascist = pervert" meme found throughout European cinema of the '60s and '70s, most notably in Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salo (1975), based on the Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, and Luchiano Visconti's The Damned (1969), which features a famous scene in which the SS guns down Brownshirts in flagrante delicto. 

On 21 March at a demonstration in Bolton, Greater Manchester Police arrested 74 protestors from the rival English Defence League (EDL) and Unite Against Fascism (UAF). Most of the arrested were UAF supporters. According to the police:

"We have seen groups of people, predominantly associated with the UAF, engaging in violent confrontation...It is clear to me that a large number have attended with the sole intention of committing disorder and their actions have been wholly unacceptable...they acted with, at times, extreme violence."

A UAF spokesman responded with that organization's by now characteristic combination of aggressive assurance and petulant whimpering: "As soon as we arrived at the square we received hostility from police officers. We were certainly not the violent ones, we had come with the intention to protest peacefully against racism and fascism. However, the police stormed into our side of the square and started picking out UAF leaders and arresting them before anything had even happened."

I have never been to Bolton, don't like the look of the EDL and am not defending fascism. I also acknowledge freely that there are many on the left who are agreeable and fair-minded. But anyone who has ever seen self-described 'antifa' activists being, well, active will guess that UAF is being economical with the actualité.