BY Claudio Resta

2013: THE GLOBALIST COUP THAT TOOK THE CATHOLIC CHURCH... which deposed the conservative Pope Benedict XVI and substituted him with the globalist Pope Francis I

Apocalypse 13:

“Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, having two horns, like those of a lamb, but speaking like a dragon. (…)

15 She was also allowed to animate the statue of the beast so that that statue could even speak and could put to death all those who did not worship the statue of the beast.

16 He ensured that everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, received a mark on their right hand and forehead;

17 and that no one could buy or sell without having this mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.”

When, in February 2013, Pope Benedict XVI suddenly and inexplicably resigned, the Vatican central bank (IOR) had been excluded from SWIFT; with this, all the Vatican’s international payments were made impossible, and the Church was treated like a Rogue State (according to the American narrative), like Iran.

It was economic ruin, well prepared by a violent campaign against the IOR, confirmed by the opening of criminal investigations by the Italian judiciary (which never fails to obey certain international orders).

An unsustainable situation for a ”Multinational Company” that boasts 4,851 dioceses and 105 apostolic nunciatures (embassies) spread across all five continents of the world.

There are 455,839 parishes, missions, churches and other religious centers that own land and buildings of all kinds. dimension.

SWIFT (the acronym stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication): in theory, it is a global “clearing house”, which unites 10,500 banks in 215 countries.

SWIFT: The Backbone of World Financial Systems

In fact, it is the most hidden and unquestionable center of American-globalist financial power, the blackmail stick on which the hegemony of the dollar is based, the most powerful means of economic and political espionage (especially to the detriment of us Europeans) and the most fearsome means with which global finance crushes the legs of States that do not obey. The central bank of Iran, for example, by Jewish will, was excluded from the SWIFT network in retaliation against the alleged nuclear program.

This means that Iran can no longer sell its crude oil in dollars, that its credit cards are not valid abroad, and that no international financial transaction can be conducted by Tehran except in cash and clandestinely, in illegal forms. according to the international order: in 2014 the French bank BNP Paribas was sentenced by US “justice” to pay (to the US) 8.8 billion dollars for having helped Tehran circumvent the Swift blockade.

It was the threats aired against Moscow to exclude it from the SWIFT network in retaliation for the so-called annexation of Crimea – enormous damage to the country’s economy – that accelerated the implementation, by the BRICS hegemonized by China and Russia, of its own alternative clearing circuit to SWIFT, and operating in yuan and rubles, and not in dollars.

To escape the blackmail that Swift places on sovereign states.

The Belgian site Media-Presse (SWIFT is based in Belgium) in reporting the news of the alternative SWIFT launched by Beijing and Moscow on April 5, gave as an example: When a bank or territory is excluded from the System, as was the case with the Vatican in the days preceding Benedict XVI’s resignation in February 2013, all transactions were blocked.

Without waiting for the election of Pope Bergoglio, the Swift system was unlocked upon the announcement of Benedict XVI’s resignation.

And why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the very day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation?

Was it a pure coincidence?

Some historian will have to explain to us why a pope is picked up by an Italian Air Force helicopter, transported to Castelgandolfo (sort of Popes’ Camp David) and awarded the very little “canonical” title of Pope Emeritus.

Precisely these spectacular, globally televised methods and their anxious urgency sound more like a made in the USA Psy-Op rather than being consistent with Vatican protocol.

Much slower and more reserved.

These methods are reminiscent much more of 1974 President Nixon’s ouster after the Watergate affair or 2009 Angels & Demons final of  American film than that of a Pope abdication traditional antique protocol.

”Was there a blackmail coming from who knows where, (perhaps Soros, Clinton and Obama?) through Swift, exercised on Benedict XVI.

The underlying reasons for this story have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT intervened directly in the direction of Church affairs.

This explains and justifies Ratzinger’s unprecedented resignation, which many of us could mistake for an act of cowardice; the Church was treated as a “Rogue” State, or rather worse – because it should be noted that the dozen banks that fell into the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria “were not excluded from SWIFT” and continue to be able to make international transactions – and the Vatican finance could no longer pay the nunciatures or send resources to the missions – indeed, the ATMs themselves in Vatican City had in fact been blocked.

Benedict’s Church could no longer “sell or buy”, its economic life was on its last legs. Furthermore, regarding the terrible and irresistible (at least on a human and not divine level) pressures suffered by Pope Benedict XVI, there is also the hypothesis that the sword of Damocles was hanging over him at the time of an accusation for objective liability of the many cases of pedophilia of which then (and let me underline only then!) there was a big talk throughout the mainstream information of the many cases of pedophilia committed by men of the Church, and that is that the Pope resigned for a settlement agreement which would have seen his immunity in exchange for his abdication.Since the notification of an arrest warrant by the ITCCS (International Tribunal on Crimes of Church and State) was supposed then to be imminent.

A transaction to which the Pope would have agreed, I believe, always if his assumptions were verified, not in his personal interest, but in the interest of the Church and its good name.

So the Pope resigned to avoid arrest (link removed today: http://www.iconacon.it/blog…) Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation occurred under extremely strong pressures against the Church.

An expert such as Saura Plesio says: Ratzinger “never, he who fought against the prevailing Relativism, would have accepted “openings” on the gay world and on gender politics.

Never would he have prostrated himself to the “world” (and to globalism) like this Pope [FRANCIS], who competes with the prevailing secularism of the EU in creating a form of “sacramental divorce”, through “brief annulment”.

He would never have lent himself to the great Lampedusa antics carried out by his successor, which, moreover, is not even his territory, but of the Italian state.

The great globalist powers are in a hurry and Ratzinger was a clear obstacle, a slowdown on their lightning-fast trajectory.”

Professor Luciano Canfora, an authoritative Roman historian and Latinist, also suggests how hastily Ratzinger’s expulsion was implemented.

He noted in the motu proprio with which Benedetti justified his resignation with his age (“Ingravescente Aetate”) incurred in a series of Latin errors: elementary errors in the concordance of cases, enough to make a schoolboy blush.

Now, according to many, it is not plausible that Ratzinger could have made these mistakes. The text was written by others, probably, and he was dramatically sent away from the Vatican, by helicopter filmed worldwide?

And immediately after his passing, SWIFT unblocks Vatican transactions, reopens ATMs, brings the IOR back to the honor of the world.

They didn’t wait for Bergoglio [POPE FRANCIS] to be elected; the expulsion of the “white terrorist” was enough for THEM.

In the good and unattainable salons between Wall Street and Washington and London, they already knew that the conclave would give the throne to a modernist, to someone they could trust.

How come? Had the SWIFT sanction been coordinated with the “conspirators” in purple who, led by Carlo Maria Martini (a cardinal who asked for euthanasia for himself, it should be remembered…) had marked Bergoglio as their candidate for years already?

Was there an agreement between the conspirators with a strong external power, to which they are close in ideology?

But it seems to understand that Ratzinger’s resignation is – he was forced to step down from the throne of Peter under construction.

Was it a Jewish revenge for his juvenile nazi duty?

Ratzinger’s own behavior, apparently ambiguous in wearing the white robe and the title of Holy Father, can confirm this: he wants to give the signal to those who can understand it, without being able to say it, that he was kicked out, he did not leave voluntarily.

Now, just as a marriage is null if one of the spouses entered into it under duress, so will a Pope who renounces it under duress, and let it be known that he remains Pope….

In this hypothesis, the triumphal welcome that Bergoglio received in America, at the UN, from Obama, the standing ovations at Congress are very well explained – yes, why is a reigning Pope invited to the United States Congress?

This is very strange and unusual.

Washington’s relationship with the Vatican has always been bad to terrible; not only out of the Yankee Protestant hatred against “Popery”.

Now, they have become excellent.

The Pope becomes the United States’ willing mediator with Cuba, makes the “radical battles” his own, opens up to the new compulsory morality, in short, stops being the moral antagonist that “this world” detests.

This would also explain the astute management to gain the sympathy of the progressive media; and the brutal but precise “purge” that Bergoglio (with his council of the Eight) carried out in the Vatican, as if he had a long-prepared list in his hands.

His desire to dissolve Catholicism into a general, vacuous, secularized and worldly Protestantism…

Moreover, the Catholic orthodoxy of Bergoglio’s preaching appeared questionable from the beginning in the eyes of the most authoritative theologians: the 4 cardinals of the dubia… Dubia (in Latin: “doubts”) is the Latin term used to indicate a document signed by four cardinals (Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller, Joachim Meisner) following the publication of the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia by Pope Francis in 2016.

The cardinals, through this document and previously in private form, asked the pontiff for clarifications on the doctrinalia matter of the Church, contesting some points of the document, in particular those contained in the chapter. VIII and relating to the readmission or otherwise of divorced, civilly remarried, in communion with the Catholic Church.

Dubia require a yes/no answer.

Pope Francis felt he did not have to answer the questions contained in the dubia and from that moment the cardinals opened a public discussion on the topics addressed.

In July 2017, a group of members of the clergy, university and lay people, including the German intellectual Martin Mosebach, the former President of the IOR, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, they signed a document called Correctio filias (“Filial Correction”) dedicated to the work of Pope Francis. The twenty-five page document, made public in September after yet another failure to respond from the Holy See, criticizes the Pope, accusing him of having promoted seven heretical propositions in his words, actions and omissions during his pontificate.

Filial correction is a rare initiative throughout the history of the church: the first correction was made at the time of Pope John XXII, admonished in 1333.

Bergoglio enjoins Christians to welcome more and more immigrants, without limits, with total “welcome” and charity – Well: “With an official statement, signed by 28 different obediences (including 8 French and one Italian, the Grand Lodge of Italy), the Freemasons call on European governments to welcome immigrants, or rather to welcome more and more of them. Thus demonstrating a convergence of intent with few precedents not only among themselves, but also with respect to the new strategies followed by the member states” (Corrispondenza Romana, 11 September)....

However, the group of Catholic leaders cites new evidence discovered in emails published by WikiLeaks to claim that the conservative Pope Benedict did not actually resign on his own initiative, but was ousted from the Vatican in a Coup that the group of researchers calls it the “Catholic Spring”.

Soros, Obama and Clinton used the diplomatic machinery, political might and financial power of the United States to coerce, bribe and blackmail a “regime change” in the Roman Catholic Church in order to replace the conservative Benedict with the current Pope Francis, who has since become an unlikely spokesperson for the international left, stunning Catholics around the world.

Now the group of Catholic leaders has sent a letter to President Trump urging him to launch an official investigation into the activities of George Soros, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (and others) who they claim were involved in orchestrating the Catholic Spring that led to their goal of “regime change” in the Vatican.

Catholic leaders cite eight specific questions they seek answers to regarding suspicious events that led to Pope Benedict’s resignation, the first papal abdication in 700 years.

“In particular, we have reason to believe that ‘regime change’ in the Vatican is being engineered by the Obama administration,” the petition signatories say in their January 20 letter to President Trump.

“We were alarmed to discover,” their letter read, “that, during the third year of the Obama administration’s first term, your previous opponent, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other government officials associated with her, proposed a Catholic “revolution” in which the definitive end of what remained of the Catholic Church in America would be achieved.”

The letter includes links to documents and news stories that underline their claims.

First, it calls attention to the infamous Soros-Clinton-Podesta emails disclosed last year by WikiLeaks, in which Podesta and other progressives discussed regime change to remove what they described as the “dictatorship of the Middle Ages” in Catholic Church.

Regarding the Podesta emails in question, The New American reported last October: “Podesta, a longtime Clinton advisor/confidant and handpicked star activist of left-wing financier George Soros, revealed in a 2011 email that he and other activists were working to bring about a “Catholic Spring” revolution.

Within the Catholic Church, an obvious reference to the disastrous “Arab Spring” coups organized that same year by the Obama-Clinton-Soros team which destabilized the Middle East and brought radical Islamic regimes and terrorist groups to power in the region. Podesta’s email is a response to another Soros-funded radical: Sandy Newman, founder of the “progressive” Voices for Progress.

Newman had written to Podesta asking for advice on the best way to “plant the seeds of the revolution” in the Catholic Church, which he described as a “dictatorship of the Middle Ages [sic]”.

In their letter to President Trump, the group of Catholic leaders writes: “About a year after this email discussion, which should never have been made public, we find that Pope Benedict XVI has abdicated under highly unusual circumstances and has been replaced by a pope whose apparent mission is to provide a spiritual component to the radical ideological agenda of the International Left.

The pontificate of Pope Francis has subsequently questioned its legitimacy on a multitude of occasions.”

“We remain perplexed by the behavior of this ideologically charged Pope, whose mission appears to be to promote the secular agendas of the Left rather than lead the Catholic Church in its sacred mission,”

they say, expressing the thoughts of millions of Catholics around the world stunned by the left-wing ideology of Pope Francis.

“It is simply not the appropriate role of a Pope to be involved in politics to the point of being considered the leader of the International Left.”

They continue: “With all this in mind, and wishing well for our country and for Catholics everywhere, we believe it is the responsibility of faithful and informed Catholics in the United States to petition to authorize an investigation into the following questions:

– For what purpose was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis?

– What other covert operations were conducted by U.S. government agents regarding Pope Benedict’s resignation or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?

– Did US government agents have contact with the “St. Gallen Mafia mentioned in his memoirs published before his death by Cardinal Danneels”?

– International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended in the final days before Pope Benedict’s resignation. Were there US government agencies involved in this?

– Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was it a pure coincidence?

– What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton and others associated with the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion that proposed fomenting a “Catholic Spring”?

– What was the purpose and nature of the secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?

– What roles were played by George Soros and other international financiers who may currently reside in US territory?”

The investigation that the group of Catholic leaders is asking President Trump should interest not only Catholics.

George Soros’ ability to co-opt prominent political figures to support his radical plans for nation states is well known; but his ability to force “regime change” in the Catholic Church, a previously impenetrable institution from the outside, raises serious questions about its potential for global chaos.

The emendation of these regime changes and their punishments – ​​should begin immediately.

Thanks to Maurizio Blondet

In the end, paradoxically (but not too much), this non-orthodox and heretical Pope, according to many theologists, accuses of Schism today a traditionalist and very orthodox Archbishop like Monsignor Carlo Maria Vigano, former Nuncio (Ambassador) of the Holy See in Washington. Who defends his reasons and accuses the reigning Pope in the following letter:

https://exsurgedomine.it/240628-jacuse-eng

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/06/30/2013-the-globalist-coup-that-took-the-catholic-church/

NOTE THAT POPE FRANCIS IS FROM ARGENTINA...

READ FROM TOP.....

By Ian Aikman

An Italian archbishop and staunch critic of Pope Francis has been excommunicated by the Vatican, its doctrinal office has said. 

Carlo Maria Vigano was found guilty of schism - meaning he has split from the Catholic Church - after years of fierce disagreement with the pontiff. 

The 83-year-old ultra-conservative has previously called on the Pope to resign, accusing him of heresy and criticising his stances on immigration, climate change and same-sex couples.

Archbishop Vigano was a senior figure in the Church, serving as papal envoy to Washington from 2011 to 2016. 

In 2018 he went into hiding after alleging that the Pope had known about sexual abuse by an American cardinal and failed to act. The Vatican rejected the accusation.

Over time, the archbishop became associated with US conspiracy theorists, criticising Covid vaccines and alleging a "globalist" and "anti-Christian" project by the UN and other groups - both familiar conspiratorial themes.

On Friday the Vatican's doctrinal office said his refusal to submit to Pope Francis was clear from his public statements.

"The Most Reverend Carlo Maria Vigano was found guilty of the reserved delict [violation of the law] of schism," the statement said, adding that he had been excommunicated - or banished from the church.

Responding by a post on X, the archbishop linked to the decree that was emailed to him and said:

"What was attributed to me as guilt for my conviction is now put on record, confirming the Catholic Faith that I fully profess."

Archbishop Vigano was charged with schism and denying the pope's legitimacy last month. At the time, he write on X that he regarded the accusations against him as "an honour". 

"I repudiate, reject, and condemn the scandals, errors, and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio," he said, using Argentine Pope's given name.

Pope Francis has put himself at odds with traditionalist Catholics by making overtures towards the LGBTQ+ community, championing migrant rights and condemning the excesses of capitalism. 

Last year, he took action against another ultra-conservative critic, dismissing Bishop Joseph E Strickland of Texas when he refused to resign after an investigation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c84j07d0j92o

READ FROM TOP.

BY German Gorraiz Lopez

Former Argentine President Lionel Fernández, during his visit to Putin, offered him the possibility of being "the gateway to Latin America" ​​and, during his meeting with Xi Jinping, confirmed the membership of Argentina to the Belt and Silk Road project, which could represent a staggering $24 billion in investment for Argentina and the end of its pivot into the orbit of the United States.

This triggered alarm within the Biden administration, which expressed concern about the growing presence of China and Russia in the country and in particular the possibility that China would establish a joint military base with Argentina in Ushuaia in exchange for Chinese financial support to install a gigantic logistics hub in the province of Tierra del Fuego.

After being elected president, Milei1 announced a “Argentina's new foreign policy doctrine based on a special relationship with the United States” after meeting with the head of U.S. Southern Command, Gen. Laura Richardson, to discuss the establishment of a joint U.S.-Argentina base in Ushuaia that will control mega-container traffic through the Drake Pass.

This, coupled with the future installation of a British pseudo-scientific base in the South Shetland Islands, will ensure maritime control of the Anglo-American axis of a route which will be the alternative to the Panama Canal. However, the Falklands could be Milei's black swan, after his optimistic claims in which he did not rule out "to reach a long-term agreement with Great Britain similar to that of Hong Kong involving the return of the Falklands to the country", the appearance of immense oil reserves in Sea Lion would be a missile on the geopolitical waterline of Milei.

Thus, according to the English newspaper The Telegraph, who are "British local authorities in the Malvinas Islands plan to organize a popular consultation to extract 500 million barrels of oil from a well located 240 kilometers north of Port Argentino, in Sea Lion. Drilling and mining would be carried out by Israeli company Navitas Petroleum, which plans to extract 300 million barrels over the next 30 years, ruling out the possibility of Anglo-Argentinian co-government on the disputed islands.».

Milei is aware that if he positions himself far from the acceptable space for Argentine society and his decisions fail to move the cursor towards his interest, the framework could end up breaking. At this point, it would not be excluded that Milei takes the flag of the historic claim to the Argentine islands and thus reestablishes the old framework accepted by the vast majority of the Argentine population, a decision which could, however, trigger a new war with Great Britain. Brittany on the horizon of the next five-year term.

source: Algora-Blog via The People's Cause

https://en.reseauinternational.net/les-malouines-seront-elles-a-nouveau-au-centre-du-conflit-entre-largentine-et-la-grande-bretagne/

READ FROM TOP.

The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) advises the German Bundestag and the German government as well as international organisations on questions concerning foreign and security policy.

Javier Milei’s Ideology and Policy

Libertarian Populism in Argentina

Claudia Zilla

Javier Milei’s disruptive political style does not appear to have changed since taking office as Argentina’s president on 10 December 2023. He continues to behave, includ- ing on social media, as an aggressive, lone warrior leading a crusade. Milei’s government policies are largely in line with his campaign rhetoric. In July 2024, the govern- ment scored its first negotiating successes, pushing a legislative package through parliament and reaching an economic compromise with three-quarters of the provincial governors. While the economic prospects of Argentina still remain uncertain, many of the democratic advances achieved in recent decades are currently facing significant challenges.
Javier Milei was an outsider when he was elected president of Argentina. Born in Buenos Aires in 1970, he pursued a career as an economist, working for many years in banks and corporations before writing economic columns for newspapers. Later in 2016, he was thrust into the limelight thanks to provocative television appearances and lively social media activity. A frequent participant in talk shows, he emerged as a formidable critic of the country’s prevailing economic policies, initially targeting those instituted by the conservative coalition government under Mauricio Macri (2015– 2019) and subsequently those enacted by the centre-left administration of Alberto Fernández (2019–2023).

Milei began his political career in 2021, when he successfully ran for the National Congress and became a deputy for the city of Buenos Aires. Two years later, he won in 21 of the country’s 24 electoral districts in the presidential election. Milei’s voters span all social classes, with a noticeable over- representation of males, particularly those aged 16–24. However, his party and parlia- mentary base remains narrow. His electoral alliance “La Libertad Avanza” (LLA, The Free- dom Advances) was only founded in 2021. It holds 37 of the 257 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and seven of the 72 seats in the Senate. None of the country’s 24 provincial governors belong to LLA.
Milei cultivates a populist political style and espouses a libertarian-authoritarian ideology that is on the far right of the national political spectrum. His success as a politician can be attributed to a mix of national and international factors: He is both a product of the supply and demand within his country’s political arena and a part of the rising global radical right.

...

Although Argentina’s president enjoys plebiscitary legitimacy and the separation of powers remains functional, the government’s policies exhibit an authoritarian spirit that threatens the democratic advances achieved over the past 40 years. Fundamental reforms of the economy and the state sector are needed. However, an extreme form of competitive individualism is at play, which surpasses the liberal ideals of personal autonomy and an efficient state, veering towards social Darwinism and eroding community culture and the intermedi- ate public-social sphere.

The government points to the improvements seen in macroeconomic data, but the downside is the deterioration in the populace’s living conditions. It is unclear whether Argentina has bottomed out and a sustained recovery is imminent, or whether the economy will stagnate at current levels. The government’s approval rating, primarily reflecting respondents’ concerns about economic issues, declined for the second consecutive month in July, falling below 50 per cent. There still appears hope that Milei will solve Argentina’s problems. Yet, critical reports from civil society organisations, warnings from cultural and academic figures, and demonstrations against government measures are increasing. Against the backdrop of these different perspectives, the question arises as to what it would mean for the country if Milei were to become “economically successful”.

https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/comments/2024C37_Milei_Argentina.pdf

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

Argentine President Javier Milei has been accused of plagiarizing the hit US political drama The West Wing during his recent speech at the UN

According to the Buenos Aires Herald, Carlos Pagni, a journalist with the newspaper La Nacion, was the first to notice the “remarkable resemblance”between parts of Milei’s fiery address and the monologue delivered by fictional US President Jed Bartlet.

“We believe in freedom of expression for all. We believe in freedom of worship for all. We believe in freedom of commerce for all and we believe in limited governments, all of them,” Milei told the UN General Assembly on September 24.

“We believe that everyone should live free of tyranny and oppression, be that in the form of political oppression, economic slavery, or religious fanaticism. This fundamental idea cannot remain merely as words. It must be supported in facts, diplomatically, economically, and materially,” he continued.

Nearly identical words were spoken by President Barlet, portrayed by actor Martin Sheen, to his Cabinet members in episode 15 of season four of the show.

Pagni suggested that the speech was written by Milei’s adviser, Santiago Caputo, who is reportedly a big fan of The West Wing and was said to have made watching the show a condition for joining his political consulting firm. 

Created by screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing ran for seven seasons between 1999 and 2006, winning multiple awards, including three Golden Globes and 26 primetime Emmys. 

Milei, a self-described anarcho-capitalist who is known for using brash and sometimes eccentric language, has not commented on the matter.

Speaking from the podium in New York last month, he described the UN as a “Leviathan with multiple tentacles” that attempts to trample on the sovereignty of countries and impose a “socialist” agenda.

https://www.rt.com/news/605271-milei-accused-copying-west-wing-speech/

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.