Fear and Hatred - Books for Our Time
A Review of Two Recently Published Books Dealing with Extremism
Two books – recently published – deal with Right Wing Extremism in New Zealand. Both have been inspired by the 15 March 2019 terrorist massacre in Christchurch. The terrorist’s right wing antecedents demonstrated part of the problem. The failure of the various security services to focus upon extremist activity on the Far Right was another. The Royal Commission that followed the Christchurch massacre pointed to this shortcoming.
These two publications attempt to redress that problem by making available information on the activities of Right Wing Extremists in New Zealand. One of the books – A History of Hate: The Radical Right in Aotearoa New Zealand – looks at the historical antecedents of many of the tropes that are visible in today’s Right Wing Extremism – although the focus of the book is on the Radical Right - and its development up to the present day. Its content comprises a series of essays by a number of different authors.
The other book – Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile Underworld of Extremists by Byron C. Clark covers much the same territory at least as far as contemporary Right Wing Extremism is concerned but is told from a different perspective.
Clark’s book is anything but objective and he nails his political colours to the mast at the end of the book. He acknowledges that his political radicalisation took the left-wing route. He joined a socialist group at the age of 18. There was distrust of the state and its counter-terrorism powers and the group to which he belonged decided to raise money for a militant group in “occupied” Palestine. Clark tries to excuse his involvement by suggesting that he believed that the Palestinian group had put down its arms and hastened to add that Palestinians never received any money.
Clark complains that members of New Zealand’s Far-Right claimed that he gave money to terrorists but one wonders whether or not he considered that by working with a Palestinian group he may have been involved in a flavour of Anti-Semitism which the Left is only too swift to attribute to the Far Right. We have seen, however, from Jeremy Corbyn’s difficulties with the Labour Party in the UK - difficulties that continue - that Anti-Semitism is not the exclusive preserve of elements of the Far Right.
As if this was not enough, the absence of objective analysis becomes clear as the author becomes the story and much of Clark’s discussion deals with his own experiences of Right Wing Extremists. It seems difficult to imagine that if one infiltrated an extremist group that one would not expect some antipathy when it turned out that the infiltration had nothing to do with actually subscribing to the group’s ideology.
Clark uses this as examples of violent tendencies on the part of the groups he infiltrated but the threats – if that is what they are – are more by innuendo or inference rather than a direct threat of physical consequences. Clark seems to fall into the trap of hyperbole from time to time as his own fears – the book is aptly titled – become his narrative.
Another reviewer has described Clark’s book as “unreadable” and certainly the style is turgid. Much of the text is taken up in quotes sourced from websites or other material with little analysis or discussion. Clark seems to assume that the quotes speak for themselves, but sadly they add to the incoherence of the narrative he is trying to put across. It seems to me that as a “researcher” - for he certainly is no scholar - he spent too much time watching obscure videos and reading anonymous posts of people whose ideas were so extreme that they could not be given any credit. It seems that the lengthy quotes that proliferate the book are designed to pad his word count and certainly there is no analysis of the content. Rather it is just “put out there” and it is left to the baffled reader to work it all out.
One area where Clark is singularly deficient is in his discussion about the “sovereign citizen” movement. I have had a number of interactions with people who advance what could be broadly described as sovereign citizens ideas so my interest was piqued by this chapter. I was disappointed.
A careful researcher in the area of sovereign citizens would have come across the Canadian case of Meads v Meads [2012] ABQB 571 – a decision of Rooke ACJ. In a lengthy (188 pages) judgement the Judge discusses the background to and the various flavours of what could loosely be described as sovereign citizens or as the Judge described them Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA).
Sovereign citizen activity or more correctly pseudolaw has persisted in the USA for at least 50 years and US experience strongly suggests that the promises of being able to ignore the state, get free money, and to live as you please, have an enduring appeal to certain persons. Interest in pseudolaw increases in times of social and economic distress.
In Canada, although there is a small cadre of those who advance pseudolegal argument those who do so are the subject of public derision. However OPCA ideas will probably endure to some extent, hosted by marginal anti-government communities. Some pseudolaw appears to operate as magic and Clark quotes Andrew Geddis who suggests this. The suggestion in fact comes directly from the decision of Meads where at Para [80] the Judge observed
“OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted.”
Clark’s researches (if they can be called that) into the sovereign citizen phenomenon in New Zealand would, if properly done, have uncovered a number of cases in the High Court where pseudolegal arguments have been advanced. One such is that of Tamihere v CIR [2017] NZHC 2949 in which Palmer J made the following observation
This proceeding was filed by the applicant as "Tamihere: Robin Noema Hughes", who wishes to be known as "Marshal Robin", "the Living Man". He styles himself as a Diplomatic Federal Marshal to the independent Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi and as unemployed of Tuakau. He filed judicial review proceedings, challenging decisions by the District Court, that made various exorbitant claims against the judge and opposing counsel which had no basis in fact or law. I strike out the Statement of Claim and dismiss the proceeding. It discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
For a more recent discussion of the OPCA approach see Richard v Richard John Beresford c/- Registrar General of New Zealand [2023] NZHC 500 wherein the plaintiff sought an order of the Court that he be declared dead. I acknowledge that this decision post dates the publication of Clark’s book and demonstrates that sovereign citizens are an irritant.
Clark attempts to locate what he describes as the Sovereign Citizen movement within the Right Wing Extremist framework primarily because its language has been invoked by Billy Te Kahika, Liz Lambert and Kelvyn Alp. There is a suggestion that sovereign citizens may move from what Clark describes as “paper terrorism” to a more violent kind.
He closes the chapter with an observation from Disinformation Project researcher Dr Sanjana Hattotuwa who has made comments in a Stuff article cited by Clark. Indeed a note of hysteria seems to creep into Dr Hattotuwa’s commentary as he imagines possible threats that have not eventuated and for which there is no supportive evidence.
“What are we talking about here? We're talking about kidnapping. We're talking about what we call kinetic offline harms, that if you resist, they may be emboldened to take you into custody, and God knows what that means. So I think that we’re looking at a very, very serious development here that you can't just laugh away.”
Both Clark and Dr. Hattotuwa seem to treat the sovereign citizen movement and the off-shoots of self proclaimed sherriffs and paper terrorism as a relatively recent phenomenon. It is not. It is a fringe school of thought (if it can be called that) that has been around for some time and has more nuisance value than anything else. It is not part of a Right Wing Extremist fringe. It is not laughable and indeed is rather irritating. It is anti-authoritarian and that is really as far as it goes.
Clark’s book sub-title is misleading. He is not writing about extremists. He is writing about Right Wing Extremists – or at least those whom he categorises as extremists. Left wing extremists and those driven by religious ideologies barely get a mention apart from a chapters on Hindu extremism (Chapter 17 – Hindutva in Aotearoa), Far-Right Catholicism (Chapter 6 – Deus Vult! The Far-Right and Catholicism) and the Christian Right (Chapter 7 – Tyranny and Evil: The Christian Right) He refers to right wing politics and the Far Right in the first chapter but his text is devoid of definitions. This allows Clark to roam where he will across the spectrum of right-of-centre activity.
His purpose is clear. At the end of the first chapter he says
“As well as attempting to uncover the murky world of the alt-right in New Zealand, this book is also about the scaremongering used by the alt-right to recruit vulnerable New Zealanders to their campaigns of hate and fear. By reading this book, I hope you will have a better understanding of the underground of alt-right activists in New Zealand and what they are capable of. We ignore them at our peril.”
With respect Clark uses the tactics of scaremongering and fear in his so-called expose of extremism in New Zealand. Indeed his entire book is driven by a subjective approach to his topic. Because the book is as much about Clark as it is about what those he is examining say, readers can see the development of Clark’s obsessive thinking and near paranoia. His book is aptly titled.
Clark’s book comprises 23 chapters. They are not lengthy and cover a range of areas of what Clark considers Far Right or Alt-right extremism. The usual suspects are present – Action Zealandia, Far Right Catholicism, The Christian Right, QAnon, Advance New Zealand, Voices for Freedom, The Outdoors Party, Counterspin Media as well as a history of white supremacism in New Zealand and a discussion of right-wing thinking imported with immigrants from South Africa and (Zimbabwe) Rhodesia. He closes with an account of the 2022 Occupation of Parliament grounds and what Michael Wood, a Labour Minister, referred to as the River of Filth.
The conclusion that Clark draws is that the rise of the alternative right and the related conspiracy theorists has been driven by fear – of immigrants, of Islam, of the power of Government or global entitles such as the UN or the World Economic Forum.
He suggests that the rise of the alt-right has given us something to be afraid of. Yet he ignores the fact that at the beginning of the Covid pandemic the Government obtained the co-operation of the public by weaponizing fear – fear of catching the disease, fear of dying, fear that there would not be sufficient hospital resources to cope. And by generating that fear the Government was able to obtain a complacent response to the greatest invasion of civil liberties since the 1951 Waterfront Strike. And ironically this invasion came not from the Far Right but a Left-Wing Government.
Clark sounds a warning nevertheless. He suggests that some of the right entities such as Voices for Freedom are moving into contesting local body elections and the clear inference is that they may move to national elections.
There are two unspoken conclusions from this. The first is that it would seem that Clark would rather that mainstream political involvement by the Far Right should not take place. That effectively would deny citizens the opportunity to put their ideas before a voting public and have them tested. The second possible conclusion is that by identifying Far Right actors and the tropes that they use, Clark is making it easy for the voting public to identify such candidates.
Many of the players in Clark’s account appear in Histories of Hatred which might seem to suggest that the Right-Wing Extremist threat – if there is such a thing – is limited to a few known actors. Perhaps this is a good thing. By exposing those who are likely to foster or encourage extremism means that they can be identified and avoided.
Clark’s concluding remarks are poignant. He suggests that politicians, academics, journalists and researchers have been targeted by the Alt-Right. He, along with others, have had to turn down media interviews, although that said, Clark was not backward in identifying alleged Alt-Right actors at the Albert Park demonstration against “Posie Parker”.
The irony of this is that Clark considers that there may be a safety risk in speaking out and some considering standing for public office may not do so. He suggests that our democracy is at risk when a small minority can use fear to avoid being criticised and to prevent the public from being informed. And yet it was not the Alt-Right who cancelled Molyneux and Southern in 2018, or the cancellation of Don Brash’s speaking engagement at Massey in the same year.
According to Jonathan Rauch in The Constitution of Knowledge – A Defense of Truth cancellation and the “heckler’s veto” is usually a tool of the Left. Disinformation is more often used by what Rauch describes as the so-called alt-right – an internet backlash movement that had more to do with rage and nihilism than with any coherent ideology - and the misinformation themes that have been put out by anti-vax activists have remained largely unchanged since the early 1800’s. It is unlikely that Rauch’s work would have been part of Clark’s “research” and he is not referenced. Indeed although Clark provides footnote references for some of his material there is no bibliography or list of sources.
The problem with Clark’s approach is that while he identifies some who could properly be considered Right Wing Extremists, he seems to be of the view that any who adopt a position other than that of mainstream left-wing or centrist progressivism are ipso facto Right Wing Extremists. Surely this cannot stand scrutiny.
Another approach is that if someone, such as Damien Grant, expresses a view that may be slightly sympathetic to those whom Clark has identified as a Right Wing Extremist (in Grant’s case members of the South African immigrant community) automatically qualifies them as a Right Wing Extremist. Although Grant in his journalistic endeavours identifies himself as writing from a Libertarian perspective, anyone who has read and analysed his material would quickly conclude that a Right Wing Extremist he is not.
I could not recommend Clark’s book as an entertaining read, for it is not that. There are parts of it that are informative. It lacks the intellectual heft that characterises some of the essays in Histories of Hatred. What is of concern is that Clark now seems to have joined Kate Hannah and Sanjaya Hattotuwa as one the media “go-to” darlings for any comment on neo-Fascist or right-wing presence at demonstrations or other gatherings.
Certainly Clark’s writings do not justify this level of expertise and care must be taken to ensure an objective and dispassionate assessment of such presence, and to place it in the context of the overall event. If Clark’s “expertise” is based on Fear it is, in this reviewer’s opinion without sufficient intellectual underpinning.
Clark’s book is, in short, a polemic and the title seems to more properly describe Clark’s own paranoia about Right Wing Extremism than any realistic threat either to himself or to the wider community.
Histories of Hate is, as I have suggested, a more academic piece of work. It is edited by Matthew Cunningham, Marinus La Rooij and Paul Spoonley and many of the essays cross-reference or link to others.
One very obvious shortcomings is the absence of any biographical information about any of the contributors other than the editors. This makes it difficult to evaluate the content of the essays without embarking upon personal research on each of the authors.
Some of the authors are familiar. I am well acquainted with the writings of Jarrod Gilbert and his piece on skinhead gangs is no doubt informed by or derives from his doctoral research on gangs in New Zealand. The rather tenuous link with Far Right Extremism is acknowledged, but, like many of the essays makes for interesting and informative reading.
The focus of Histories is not, however, Far Right Extremism. It focuses upon what is described as the Radical Right. There is a lack of consensus for an appropriate terminology when it comes to describing the Radical Right and the editors acknowledge this but there is no question but that much of the matrial in Histories covers Far Right Extremism
The editors have chosen to use the phrase to embrace the various themes, ideas, groups and supporters as well as strategies and behaviours that range from the centre-right out to the farthest fringes.
One of the areas of concern is when the radical right “jumps the firebreak” and begins to influence mainstream policy and social discourse. This is characterised as a process of radicalisation which seems to suggest the adoption of certain aspects of radical right thought by those who might not earlier have identified with the radical right.
In crystallising a definition, the editors state that “Radical Right” is their description of views that are more radical than those held by the mainstream, including the centre-right. However, within the context of the book the term “radical” is used perjoratively and the editors acknowledge that contributors have chosen to describe aspects of the Radical Right within the context of white supremacism, eugenics, neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, identitarianism and alt-right. The editors have left it up to contributors to refine their terms.
In locating the Radical Right for comparative purposes the editors refer to a description of four waves of the Postwar Radical Right developed by Cas Mudde in The Far Right Today (Cambridge, Polity Press, 2019). This helpful tabulation helps the understand the trajectory of Radical Right thinking and activity to the present. Mudde’s framework is used for comparative purposes in assessing the New Zealand flavour of the Radical Right
The book is divided into five parts.
Part 1 deals with the origins of the New Zealand Radical Right in the late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries and comprises four chapters. The principle theme is that of the development of eugenics and racism in New Zealand. In some respects this part develops the rise of what today is described as white supremacist thinking.
Part 2 is entitled The Ideological Cauldron of the Interwar Years and the themes apparent in this section are those of fear of external threats from Socialists, Bolsheviks and Anti-Semitism
Part 3 addresses the rise of the Radical Right after World War II and charts the support for apartheid South Africa, what is described as a rightward shift and an interesting side issue of street racism and skin heads.
Religious and Cultural Intolerance are covered in Part 4 and consider the rise of the Christian Right and the development of what is described as an anti-Treatyist response to a recognition of Maori Treaty Rights.
The final part deals with the current Radical Right activity. One chapter focusses upon the activities of Kyle Chapman who was involved in organised Far Right activity. Identitarianism and the alt-right and its rise in New Zealand and a final chapter dealing with the way in which white extremisim is mobilised via the use of international networks. The focus of this chapter, of course, is on the way in which communication technologies enable the spread of Far Right ideology.
Underlying themes
The underlying themes that characterise the Radical Right are those primarily of racism underpinned by elements of racial and cultural superiority, white supremacy and to a lesser degree, eugenics.
What is interesting, however, is that historically these ideas were not associated with the ideological fringe. The editors concede that the ideas and policies described in the first part were relatively mainstream.
Indeed in the 1920’s proposed legislation mandating sterilisation in certain cases was underpinned by ideas of eugenics and breeding out certain impure elements. Thus to assert, as the authors do, that eugenics was not universally supported may be partially true but it was a part of the policy of the Government of the day – see The Mental Defectives Amendment Bill 1928 here, here and here. Although the Bill was passed into law and received Royal Assent, sterilisation was out and implementation of the Act was postponed. (For a background piece on this legislation see Will Harvie New Zealand Almost Legalises Eugenic Sterilisation Stuff 3 March 2018.)
In many respects judgements in the historical section suffer from analysis by anachronism whereby we judge the actions and attitudes of what was then based upon the values of the here and now. Eugenics was mainstream although the 1928 Bill was the subject of some controversy and opposition. Eugenics was opposed by Catholics on moral grounds but was supported by many others. Eugenics was a prominent progressive movement at the time and enthusiasts could be found across the ideological spectrum.
The rise of Nazism and the eugenics policies of Hitler’s Germany resulted in a recognition of the failings of the “purity of race” philosophy. For that reason it has become associated with fascism and with the Far Right.
However it cannot be said that the idea was an offshoot of Darwinism or late nineteenth century white supremacy. For example Limpieza de sange (purity of blood) was a term used in the Spanish and Portuguese Empires following the Reconquista and during the Early Modern Era to refer to those who were considered to be Old Christians by virtue of not having Muslim or Jewish ancestors.
Chapter Seven provides an interesting insight into one of the strands of mainstream Anti-Semitism through the rise of the Douglas Social Credit movement in the 1930’s. Although Social Credit favoured radical monetary reform it really could not be described as “Radical Right”. The financial policies ran contrary to the economic orthodoxy of the time but the authors focus on the associated Anti-Semitism that accompanied Douglas Crediters.
However, given the diversity of its support base it could hardly be said to be an example of the Radical Right. Perhaps the author’s focus on its Anti-Semitism and the presence of Anti-Semitic ideology in current Far Right tropes has resulted in this conclusion. If so, it is another example of anachronistic thinking or reasoning backwards.
One of the problems in tracking the rise of the Radical Right in New Zealand in the years between the World Wars is that this country did not follow the example of others in Europe where there was a rise in fascism or right-wing authoritarianism. The explanation offered is that there are stronger democratic traditions in Commonwealth countries and the US.
Similarly post Word War II New Zealand did not develop a wave of neo-fascisms as many European countries did in the decade after World War II. There had been no pre-war fascist movement and no sharp political or economic crises to generate a radical right response.
In 1953 the Social Credit Political League was formed and conflicts arose between the “old guard” who supported the Douglas vision and others who required a more liberal approach. Some spin-offs from Social Credit formed other short-lived parties which have been shortlived. To characterise the Social Credit Party of the 1953 – 1987 period as Radical Right would be a misnomer, and perhaps the taint of Douglas’ Anti-Semitism is what wrongly justifies their position on the Right of the spectrum.
Although there may have been adherents to such philosophies the numbers are few and indeed as the book progresses (and it is apparent from Clark’s Fear) the numbers of adherents remain few. However, a concern on the part of some of the editors, and especially Paul Spoonley, is a fear of radicalisation where mainstream adherents will begin to adopt these contrarian or extreme ideas.
The Current Position
The final section of the book is where the most obvious connection with Clark’s work takes place. The critical piece is entitled “Identitarianism and the alt-right – a new phase of far-right politics in Aotearoa New Zealand” written by Paul Spoonley and Paul Morris.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus Paul Spoonley, is currently co-director of the Centre of Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism. He has studied elements of extremism is New Zealand from the 1980’s including Anti-Semitism (Report no 11: Antisemitism in New Zealand since 1945 Paul Spoonley and Helen Cox Wellington, New Zealand Jewish Council 1982) racism (Tauiwi: Racism and ethnic conflict in New Zealand Paul Spoonley (ed) Palmerston North Dumore Press 1984) and The Politics of Nostalgia: Racism and the extreme right in New Zealand (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press 1987) and Nga Patai: Racism and ethnic relations in Aotearoa New Zealand (Paul Spoonley, D. Desmond and C. McPherson (eds) (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press 1996.
He has also published articles on the extreme right and politics in New Zealand (1981) and a piece about skinheads in 1987. Since the 15 March 2019 Massacre he has been a “go to” commentator or extremism and the far right in New Zealand. His public pronouncements and indeed his role with the Centre of Excellence have been to sound a tocsin warning of the dangers of the rise of the Far Right.
Part of this warning involves a critique of the language of the Far Right and its association with “hate speech” – a term that is bandied about rather carelessly in my view. As I have said elsewhere, I prefer the term “Dangerous Speech” – the language of positive incitement to physical violence.
Although Marama Davidson’s unguarded recent comment about white cis males being responsible for domestic violence has been characterised by some commentators as hate speech, it does not contain the imminent threat of violence behind it to bring it within the scope of Dangerous Speech. Offensive and confronting it may be. Hate speech it is not. And in some respect the level of hyperbole that Davidson adopted demonstrates that confronting and offensive speech is not the exclusive province of the Far Right but also of the Left. I have no doubt that some would find some justification for Davidson’s outburst but thousands of ordinary New Zealanders would find it offensive. But that said, she is entitled to her point of view, is entitled to express it and others are entitled to hear it. Such is the nature of freedom of expression.
Spoonley and Morris describe the evolution of the protest movement as one built on rejection of society’s academic, media and political structures. As a result, it has since developed its own story-tellers, experts and leaders. The chapter identifies a number of right wing organisation characterised by tropes of “identitarianism” and “ethnonationalism”. Many are linked by what are described as conspiracy theories – an all embracing collection of differing and contrarian views many of which have a lengthy history. Those involved in opposition to vaccinations did not suddenly arise during the Covid 19 pandemic but have been around for some time. What is interesting is the way in which those views became merged with an anti-authoritarian sentiment that developed over the pandemic.
Part of the problem in coining the term “identitarianism” is that it risks confusion with identity politics. Although Spoonley and Morris locate identitarianism as suggesting some form of racial or ethnic exclusivity that views primarily Islam as a threat, the problem is that this becomes mingled with identity politics which is a characteristic largely of the Left.
Identity politics denies individuality. What matters is the group to which one belongs. The group to which one belongs is more important than the individual. A characteristic of identity politics is often a recitation of the groups to which one belongs – [age group], [gender], [orientation] and [race] – as if this has any especial bearing upon an issue. Those who embrace identity politics place more value and importance on the group rather than the validity of the argument advanced.
In a sense identitarianism takes on some of these characteristics. The group with which the identitarian may identify fulfils part of the concept of identity politics. The identitarian may despise members of another group. For example in identity politics the old white male is seen as a coloniser and therefore less worthy of respect.
What is plain is the warning that the 15 March 2019 Massacre demonstrated that New Zealand was not exempt from terrorism and that massacre was by a Far Right lone wolf actor. Although the identification of Far Right extremism that may lead to terrorism is certainly justified, to isolate terrorism in New Zealand as a purely Far Right phenomenon may be inferred and it is not. One would hope that Professor Spoonley’s involvement in the Centre of Excellence will address terrorism irrespective of position on the political spectrum.
That said the chapter on Identitarianism and the Alt-Right presents a more dispassionate description and analysis of possible problems than does Clark’s polemic.
But underpinning both books are the emotions expressed in the titles.
Clark trades on fear and argues that we should be watchful and fearful of what the future might hold. It appears to this reviewer that in fact he is engaging in transference of his own fear and arguing that others should share it.
The emotion in Histories is that of hatred. Indeed the title of the collection gives it away. Yet with a few exceptions it is difficult to discern a level of hatred that would justify a concern other than that there are some crazies in the community who hold to these ideas.
As I have observed in some respects the philosophies behind eugenics and what could be called “white supremacy” were in fact progressive and views held by many in the mainstream. There can be no doubts that hatred lies behind Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia but these extremes of antipathy are not new.
Both books espouse concerns about the Radical Right or Alt-Right during a time when a left-wing government holds the Treasury Benches. One of the problems with both books is the suggestion that Extreme Right-Wing thinking may infect – by radicalisation or otherwise – those of a Moderate Right persuasion.
Should we be aware – yes and in that respect these books are helpful. Are we headed for disaster. Unlikely. The Extreme Right uses asymmetric information warfare – ambushes, swarms, anonymous raids and disruptive strikes not because they are strong but on the contrary, because they are weak. Their hope is to batter and undermine the reality based community. Their threat does not lie in their own capabilities, but rather in undermining confidence in reality, degrading its legitimacy, obscuring its principles and dividing its constituencies.
As long as we understand this, and apply analytical thinking to the messaging that we receive, the Fear of the Extremist Right suffered by Clark and the legacies of Extremist Hatred will not gain traction.