If a person hypothetically were to go live in the Czech republic for a short while (5-6 months or something like that)...

Are you a hypothetical person? Stop being a theory, you will die in 20 to 40 years, fucking do what you want.

Yes, I can possibly be…
Not really, in all fairness, I was curious about ammunition and non-essential gun parts, and magazines
the wiki answered the magazine parts, so thank you very much

I don't want to spend the next 20-40 years of what remains of my life behind bar's…

You're in norway so you can probably on your own get a PS4 with PS+ as guaranteed by your human rights, and with even a moderately jewish lawyer in current year he can argue that keeping anyone imprisoned against his will is a human rights violation.

No (((lawyer))) is going to defend the right of a goy like me to have the right to buy magazines.
Not in the current year of (((progressive tolerance)))

Attached: 1465306638284-0.jpg (287x419, 26.49K)

EU is doing marxism-leninism though

Attached: yeah_baby.JPG (729x728, 47.16K)

ML is theory base for stalinism which is practically indistinguishable from fascism, so give it time.

Nie posiadam. Brb shooting myself (with a 16J airgun).

Attached: 0f8e8f5d33b9f76d28ded3e2bf358c75400c9a31d3dc641ce8004536e05f73d3.jpg (583x1508, 200.66K)

Huh?
Any valid proof of identity can be used.

Attached: Punished 'Venom' Korwin.jpg (599x831 232.36 KB, 120.5K)

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Attached: doubt.jpg (600x315, 9.81K)

Both are ideologies of absolute loyalty to the leader, with people being no more than just resources. No matter what exact base lies underneath, it is just used as an excuse for totalitarianism and invasion into any field of life possible. It does not matter, be it natsocs, christian socialists, greens or commies, when there is a central figure that makes decisions on the application of the ideology and singe handedly explains it, the ideology in question becomes less important than the one who stands behind it.

At risk of being accused of le enlightened centrism, too true. Also, can anyone explain to me why NEETSocs are so quick to accuse everyone else of following horseshit theory, when their own ideology is named "third positionism?"

Attached: Frederic_Bastiat_on_social_planning.jpg (960x443, 128.03K)

So is fucking monarchy and theocracy. You're a fucking moron, just because two forms of government have one similar dimension doesn't mean they're the same, or that they produce the same results.

Fascism is intranational, Stalinism is international. Fascism supports individuals owning businesses, Stalinism is heavily against it. Fascism has a well developed economic theory that supports rapid expansion and growth, Stalinism has a 3rd graders understanding of economics which produces nothing but famine and poverty. There are so many differences its not even funny.

It's true about any society set to be led by a simple leader. Was the French Empire during the times of Napoleonic wars fascist or Marxist? What about tsarist Russia? China before the fall of the Qing dynasty? Japan in the last two millennia? South Korea under Park Chung-hee?
Unlike in all those other system where are treated as… what exactly? Even in a direct democracy people look at other people as nothing but votes or taxanble subjects. The human mind evolved to deal with about 150 people living in a small tribe. At best we can live in a settlement of a few thousand before our mind start looking at strangers as abstract things. Your problem is that a totalitarian system is more effective at utilizing people.
No shit, a hand-held weapon is also only as good as the man firing it, be it a pocket pistol or a battle rifle. It doesn't mean that there is no difference between a Walther PPK and a Garand, both in theory and practice, even if someone tries to carry a Garand in his pocket. In other words, both Stalin and Hitler were totalitarian leaders who were fighint in the same war, but that doesn't mean they were mirror images of each other.

Fascism and similar ideologies were born from the lessons and experiences of the first world war. People learned that a society can achieve incredible things if instead of meekly negotiating with spineless bastards they force everyone to do their part. You can argue if it's a good or bad thing, but that really is what it was. This is why you have all these very similar movements with completely different ideologies, and with completely ad hoc solutions (e.g. Italian fascists were royalists at times, and anti-royalists at others, depending on the current position of the king). Meanwhile Marxism has a set goal (building a certain utopian society) and various movements try to achieve it in different ways. This is why you have people who believe the same thing doing completely different things (e.g. Stalinsm, Trotskyism, Cultural Marxism, socialism, various anarchists, etc).

You mean like every functional ideology in human history even non-Kosher athenian democracy was?

Anarcho-whateverism cannot work in anything above village-population level.

Padopoulous layin' down some truths

Scratch that. It can theoretically work in a homogeneous populations comprised exclusively by over-empathetic, high-IQ "higher" Whites with a good sense of social responsibility and work ethics, like modern germanics, PROVIDED there are no competitive neighboring tribes of wogs, slavs, baltics and hungrofingols, or even worse full blown soulless emathy-impaired mongoloid bugmen, with a sufficient social and technological development level to wage war at them and pillage their wealth and blondes, but last time I checked not only that was not the case but there were also semites, turkcroaches, curryniggers and doubleniggers directly imported to their motherlands to mug them out of their pocket money and rape their women and children.

You have no idea.

Don't project your inferiority unto us. After we came to the Carpathian basin, we were oftentimes employed by your beloved Teutons as mercenaries to slaughter an other bunch of your beloved Teutons. Then true to their peaceloving nature they attacked us time and again, usually with rather disastrous effects:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pressburg
They kept it up even after we became a Christan kingdom and Saint Stephen opened the land route to Jerusalem:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_I_of_Hungary#Wars_with_the_Holy_Roman_Empire_(1047–1053)
Eventually after a few more centuries the Habsburgs got our throne in the 16th century, and they were so horribly bad that we fought two wars against them:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rákóczi's_War_of_Independence
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1848

Monarchy is about blood more than about person. Theocracy can be more about some data(i.e. bible), but due to nature of religions this statement is true. It really does not change my argument, islamist theocratic states are as shit as mussolini italy, maybe a bit more.

Oh, but of course a pointless distinction comes into play. You know, means of production are also privately owned, so it does not count, even if only 2 persons can own them.

So bullshit, it supports nationalization and subversion of businesses to the state.

Like keynsian "light your house on fire so you can rebuild it" idiocy? Leftists have marxism, fascists have whatever they can use to support economic intervention.

Ever heard of "republic", pal? The one that now being turned into democracy, but still allows burgers to not be noguns.

This is as much of a response as you deserve.

Attached: laughing white fella.png (453x500, 73.26K)

no arguments confirmed

Attached: ddance.gif (458x438, 103.33K)

Strictly speaking, no. Monarchs don't wield nearly the degree of power that Deer Reader does. Theocracy is too general a term to make a claim like that one way or the other.

Communism might be in theory, though not always in practice international, but Stalinism really isn't. The Soviets were far more concerned with keeping power in their own country than they were with expanding. Also, which border your ideology stops at isn't really an indicator of intellectual difference.

Perhaps, but the level of state control and intrusion into private business makes the private ownership of such nominal at best. The socialist in "National Socialist" isn't just there for show. Even Hitler himself expressed a growing appreciation of Stalin's central planning efforts as the war progressed.

At best, the Italian fascists had a somewhat grounded, albeit limited, understanding of economics that in practice was no different than Keynesianism. The Reich and Hitler in particular treated the science of economics with open disdain, dismissing its teachings as sophistry. The fact that all the NatSocs with whom I've spoken seem to think economics and money in general is some kind of voodoo, made to be manipulated by whoever knows the secret incantations, doesn't really help this viewpoint either.

Except that the idea of a leader or a government having such a high and wide degree of power is a relatively new one, not more than a couple hundred years old. States of the past were far less invasive, their rule comparatively hands-off, and its agents treated with open suspicion.

Let's assume that's true for the sake of argument. The process of systematic eviction (ie physical removal) of anyone who doesn't meet the criteria for functioning in ancapistan, effectively banishing them from the region, would mean that any kind of private society would not only quickly become homogeneous, the population would quite effectively regulate itself against any further deviation. Thanks to the effectiveness of market forces (the ease of calculation from the price system is the single biggest factor here, although there are others), this privatized McPurge™ would be far quicker, far more effective, and far more permanent than a government could ever hope to be. You want a fascist ethnostate? Ancap is the only way to make one that lasts more than a few generations.

Except for the part where that never happened you mean?

Dude, you are literal turanists. Like it or not we are pretty much on the same spot of quasi-mongrelism.

One ended by uncle Julius for being corrupt and ineffective the other ended with full-blown zionist occupation, and that's only assuming it wasn't a mason ruse from the start.

So it's the capitalists jews, who ruin glorious communism white ethnostate, while at the same time supplying degenerate individualistic societies to develop and prosper, just to prevent the glorious comrades perfect white people from becoming one with another no homo

Poor attempt of sarcasm excluded, pretty much yes.

Do you even have a definition of fascism other than "stuff I don't like"? Because so far it sounds like one man telling an other to do something is fascism in your opinion. As for the rest of your post: people die, communities die out. You can be as much of an independent individual of individual independence as you want, you'll live for less than a dozen decades and then maybe your bones and some of your possessions remain after you. Only "people" with weak instincts are fine with that.

Do you even know what is a Turanist? And since when do I belong to that group? And I'm in a quite different spot of mongrelism, because at worse we have Eurasians with European and Central Asian ancestry. That's quite a lot better than genes from the Middle East.

You do realize that pre-sandnigger middle eastererners pretty much invented civilization, right?

You do realize that "central asians" are predominantly turkic and the Whitest thing to come out of there were notoriously barbaric feminist Scythians, no?

Congrats, you managed to figure out that they're both authoritarian. Guess republic democracy and ancap is the same ideology because they both don't require a central leader and profess avoidance towards inferring with people.

It has one central leader that holds absolute power.
Do you not know what those words mean? Nationalism vs globalism.
Immediately obvious you don't have half a clue what you're talking about. Germany had mixed markets, interventionism is the absolute strongest word you can use to describe it.

Yes, yes they are you braindead potato.
You're correct, they wield more.
Stalinism was a failed Marxism Leninism acid-burned fetus.
God jesus hell if I had a nickel for every single time someone immediately thought 'hurr it must be leftist!' when they see the word socialism. Kill yourself retard. Hitler has a rather well known quote basically saying it means abstract 'the people gotta work together' collectivism
At this point I have to assume you are for real actually retarded or leftist
Please tell me user, why do you feel the need to express opinion about something you know nothing about? Even the russian user has a better understand then you do.

They were among the first to build civilizations, but then all of those civilizations both imported African slaves and were taken over by various Semitic peoples.
Yes. And? It's still better than having Afro-Semitic genes from the Middle East. And it's still true that Germans attacked us more times than we attacked them.

Have no idea how did you get to that conclusion, but no, they are not the same. Republic still contains more authoritarianism than ancap.

Yet the leader is not valued and praised in himself, but only due to being a part of the royal family.

They do mean little, if anything, as any collectivist ideology strives to expand.

As well as government welfare, corporatism and public movement.

It really depends on how do you define "leftism". If it's communism, then stalinism does not have much. If it's collectivism, then other regimes also apply. No matter what you choose, these two will stand close to each other, as definitions do not change their similarity. Socialism is generally used as a "collectivist system" in a broad sense, i think we all agree with such a definition.

And which genes would they be?

And secondly:

Attached: unbelievable.jpg (1832x991 25.3 KB, 522.63K)

I'm not the one who said that Germans would be perfectly peaceful people if not for those ebil subhumans around them, despite the fact that Germans were quite happy to wage war both against other Germans and non-Germans.
The ones that ended up in Anatolia after it was the centre of a Moslem empire for centuries.
I take it means you like jews, gypsies and niggers. Also, you should clarify if you mean Ottoman Turks or the other branches of Turks.

Attached: Turkmen.jpg (2992x1987, 1.01M)

That's not awfully specific, and it includes a dysgenic effect barely relatable to deep ancestry (like stupid plebs that could not pay jizya and having to revert or give a child for devcirme).

Certainly hate them less than turks and are way less detrimental to humanity as a whole.
They have way more nobel prizes than roaches and their higher IQ makes a tad more tolerable in everyday life even if it makes them also more dangerous than antennae flailing mongrels.

Attached: iq-europe.jpg (500x477 365.04 KB, 46.68K)

A forest is a jungle if you're far enough away.

Attached: akiyama_yukari_by_balmorianarcher-d5pc67v.jpg (900x1243, 248.76K)

That doesn't make any sense at all. A score of 100 is set as the average IQ. That's the definition of IQ.
All of the values of this map are < 101, which means that the population of Finland would be larger than the population of all other countries of Europe combined to make up for the sub-average scores.

As counter-intuitive as it may sound: Europe =/= the world.

Studies on national IQs use one nation as the reference. In a study which encompassed all nations by Lynn in 2010 they used the UK, given that image lists the UK as 99 they used a a different country for the 2012 study (probably Switzerland).

In other words, even before the invasion of millions of sub 85 IQ savages into Germany it had the same average IQ as the UK. I can't find a more up to date study but I would be willing to bet Germany is

I'm using the same logic you're using to equate Stalinism and Natsoc
A cult of personality was a thing unique to natsoc and which no other fascist country had. And I'd argue that a king is rather highly praised by the people, way more than Hitler was, even if it's mandatory
That's a non sequitur. Whether they're collectivist or not has no factor on if they're expansionists, and it doesn't even related to what I said in the first place. I don't think you know what those words mean
Germany had little welfare. You had Unemployment insurance, health insurance, child and senior care.
Leftist economic ideology. Welfare. Communism is a leftist ideology, it is not 'the' left ideology. Collectivism has no factor on where a political system is placed. The market is what determines a country, so the best you could argue is that the mixed markets made Germany centrist, as it's usually placed on political charts as well.
Socialism is a collectivist system, where people work for the greater good- but they do it with high taxes, high welfare, and a mindset against meritocracy. The opposite of natsoc.
You do not understand what you are talking about.

First of all, that's the definition which included average for HUMANKIND, which was pegged way back when white people were 1/4th of the planets population. Since then niggers increased in number and now the "average" is ten points below what it used to be.

Also since about 1980 IQ has been replaced by G, specifically because the mythical 'average' for IQ was never calculated so it was based on a guess.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Because these two systems were very similar in practice. Commies might have been more radical, but their ideologies both have degraded to fascism almost completely. Republic and ancap are very different from ideological perspective, even if they were similar in practice, which they are also not.

Tell that to stalin.

Really depends on the king in question, generally he is not.

That's exactly the thing - any collectivist ideology is expansionist, nationalism vs globalism is a false distinction. Any nationalist system that managed to steal and rob enough resources will try to expand, up to the whole world, if it ever could. Even nationalist/internationalist distinction is faulty in a way that it can only be applied to collectivist regimes.

Here, read some en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People's_Welfare
"Hitler had essentially nationalized local municipalities, German federal states and private delivery structures that had provided welfare services to the public."
"The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941."

Except it is THE most important factor that determines all others. You cannot have collectivism without coercion, government, it's intervention, taxes, corruption, wealth redistribution and fascism.

Soviets also had money, so they had mixed economy too, duh! It even was state capitalism, because their socialism never fails. Don't make me search for the "enlightened centrist" memes now.

No, it's not. Socialism is a broad term to define many collectivist ideologies. There are left socialists(commies), christian socialists, green socialists, national socialists, and many more. You just do not want to call natsoc socialist to the point of denying all other socialist systems except one. At least change the name "natsoc" into something if it's not socialism, retard. Also, never believe a fascist saying anything about meritocracy - he's only using it to find reason to protect his position and remove opponents, not have any "merits". The thing any fascist values most is loyalty, and ignorance.

It's either you who do not know what you are talking about, or you do and you are just a shill, stroking your ego on some edgy guy.

It seems like your definition of fascism still haven't change from "stuff I don't like".

Such a blatant strawman. Fascism is an ideology of total subversion to a government and its leader, without any individuality, rights, restrictions, goals or motives. You do not even have to declare your actions in the name of "god", "nation", "nature", or whatever else there can be imagined. Next time ask someone with more brain to bait instead.

Attached: 04dbbb236d29cca0c25e8cd29c2e7ed01b94ff4fbf754cefbeeeca44821f7b06.png.jpg (255x255, 6.65K)

It seems like your definition of fascism still haven't change from "stuff I don't like".

No, they were completely different besides being authoritarian and collectivist. '
The funny thing is that natsoc is considered a bastard of fascism specifically because it had the personality cult and Übermensch thing going on.
Tell that to Austria, Croatia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungry, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, or Spain
No, no it's not. Because there was some random amount of focus towards internal affairs doesn't make a country nationalist.
Yes, as I said. You do realize that's less than what we have in America today. This sentence right here definitively proves it is not leftist in any way shape or form
Hunter-gatherer tribes could be considered collectivist. They work and hunt for the betterment of the group instead of focusing on themselves
Ok, I take back what I said about the other guy having less knowledge than you. Not even knowing what markets are makes me think you're some retarded kid having a kneejerk reaction to ebil fascism
You are dumb. Google socialism.
I'll help you out
Socialism you think of is defined by hefty welfare

Attached: definition.jpg (1024x512, 149.87K)

That's enough for their practices to be almost the same.

What does this have to do with personality cult of stalin?

Attached: smug robin hood.jpg (200x200, 16.67K)

Democracy is about subsuming oneself into a group hive mind, a gestalt that acts together, with no individuality, rights, restrictions, goals or motives aside from consuming and adding more individuals into the group mind.

Acting like an ignorant turd and representing things you don't like in 2 dimensions is easy.

Stop it.

Yes they are. In fact Bill Clinton wrote into law no interest loans to niggers, and niggers never bothered to pay them back which literally is what caused the Great Recession.

By the way the entire world also is collectivist, uses fiat money and has welfare. I mean by your definition 100% of the planet is fascist/socialist.

Other than inflation a jewish invention why would you demand more money back than you returned?
If you were my neighbor, and I needed a power drill, would I need to give it back to you with a new battery or a set of drills?

demand more money than you lent'

Fucking this!

I never said anything about democracy. I definitely do not present democracy as any kind of way out of the problem. Mob rule is mob rule. It won't lead to anything other than support of ignorance, as it is what most people have on any subject I actually agree with your statement, except for 2 dimensions part. I didn't really get what you meant bu this.

In theory a good and honest investor sees a good idea, finances it, takes away some of the profits, and invest that into other good ideas. In other words, he controls the flow of money in a positive way. Of course he also takes a cut to live a good life. And then a bad but honest investor will finance not so good ideas, ends up without money, and then he stops being an investor. The problem here is that all the laws and governments are on the side of psychopaths who invest their money into companies and give horrible loans to people only to squeeze out everything from them. And they can't even do bad according to the law, not to mention that they can always rely on their own folk for a generous loan that a simple goy could never dream of.

So people have an incentive to return your money? If there's no interest or penalty for missing a due date, what's to stop anyone from simply never paying you back?

Is it a $150,000 drill? Of course for small amounts of cash or tools given to people in your immediate community, you can get away with simply banning a client from ever interacting with you again, and badmouthing him to the community so he loses reputation.

But real credit is much larger sums of money, and it isn't given to neighbors you can shame.

Neither inflation nor interest is a kike invention, they're not smart enough to invent something like that.

For example
^
First case of inflation.

Another example:
^
First case of interest.

I never said no penalty, just no interest, and if you don't pay it back I'll break your legs as per our agreement.

Well, i did not actually know that. Then there is even more welfare than i thought. Given the modern technological options, it might be that USSR welfare would be smaller compared to modern one.

It is not a set of options out of which you pick yours, it's more of a scale, and yes, government control has greatly increased with technological development, along with potential capabilities of an individual. Fiat money is unreliable and easily abused, but how bad it is, depends on how much does government print it, as well as other factors. Welfare also differs, it's still money stolen from people, but the amount and quality of services and amount of money exerted varies greatly.

Nothing in the world is 100% socialist/fascist/capitalist/individualist/whatever. Well, unless we can change the nature of people, it is. Today states' influence and control constantly expands, but some countries still oppress you less than others. Take US and UK as example: gun ownership, self defense, free speech, economic freedom, taxes, personal autonomy and many other things greatly differ, even though both countries have plentiful government more than willing to do whatever they want to you. It really all varies, and we can only choose, but some options are better than others.

It would be a good thing for you to help your neighbor in some way in return for offering you to use a tool he invested money into, so you did not have to. Now, if he is not your pal, he still might offer you something like this, but for some required fee. It might be cheaper for you to buy the tool, but he offers you options you might not have without him. This is how renting is done, generally.

That would also work, and is called interest "on pain". For example "x will pay back y money on pain of death".

Time preference, convenience, and risk, for starters.
Loaning out of money as a service isn't the same as doing a favor for a friend—you don't have a personal guarantee that your clients will pay you back, and you need to account for that loss. Interest simultaneously acts as insurance against defaults, and as an incentive for clients to pay their loans quickly (for less gross interest paid), and to get better credit (for lower rates).

You can always try to ask friends, family, neighbors for money, but they might not have it or not have enough. You could get a dozen smaller loans piecemeal, but that's a big hassle, and if any one person backs out you're screwed. A bank goes through the trouble of having a large amount of capital on hand at any given time, and for providing that convenience the bank charges a service fee, in the form of interest.

Your drill example doesn't quite work because it's a personal favor for a friend. A better example is a tool emporium renting out a drill for a week. Surely the idea of paying money for a rental isn't that unreasonable; interest is the same idea.

Not for long goyim!

Attached: morawiecki.JPG (211x278, 41.31K)

But nowadays the purpose of loans is to enslave people and governments with a system where you have to constantly get new loans to finance the previous loans. Although there is a solution that requires two changes:
This is discussed to death in quite a few places, therefore I'd rather not repeat it.
E.g. the bank can't get more than 2.5 times the loan. Interest is still present, and so there is still an incentive to pay back the money as quickly as possible. But now the banks don't have an incentive to lenghten the amount of time it takes to pay back, because after a while they aren't allowed to squeeze out any more shekels from the client. Together with the previous point it means only banks that don't risk their money needlessly will survive, as bad loans will ruin them too. But because there are only so many potential good clients, they will have to compete even more to stay afloat, as they can't beg the central bank for free money if their own bad decisions lead to their downfall. I think after a while you'd have a few big banks competing for essentially risk-free clients, while smaller and newer banks would give money to more risky clients, but the loans would be worse too.

If you need to get loans for your loans, that's a product of your own bad decision-making, don't live beyond your means. If it's because your loans have really shit financing, get your loans from another institution.
That's a product of bailouts, subsidies, the FDIC, and fractional reserve banking. But, as you say, this subject has been done to death. In any case a proper deregulation of the financial sector alleviates these issues.

This has a couple problems that I see. The first is inflation—while it's not nearly as big an issue with commodity money as it is with fiat, fluctuations in the value of money fo still occur. And if you limit the gross interest paid, and the currency inflates, lenders get screwed.
The second is flexibility in the market. You might not personally like the idea of long-running loans, but for other market participants it might actually be advantageous to pay lots of interest. For instance, if you have a very fixed income and a lot of time on your hands—you lost your arm in hazardous work early in life, and you're living off pension/hazard pay for instance—it might be in your interest to get a very long-running loan with low monthly payments, over a short-running one with higher payments. Even though the first option might cost a lot more, it would be a lot more manageable in this situation. The market tends to work better if you don't fuck with it too much.

Attached: chad .jpg (1200x490, 82.54K)

I don't see how inflation would be a serious problem if the amount of new money is rather limited. At least now they will have a reason to be against too much inflation. Also, I'd rather have the lenders fear getting screwed by the market, because the current system let's them bet on the market screwing their beloved clients. E.g. in this part of Europe it was quite common a while ago to lend money in a foreign currency, because the banks promised that it will be good for bogus reasons. The most common currency was the Swiss Frank. Then one day the Swiss let their currency float freely, and suddenly it was worth so much that most people who had these loans went bankrupt immediately. Of course you can blame the clients for this, but it was rather obvious that no harm will befall on the lenders if nothing similar happen, so they take this bet without any risks.
I actually like them, and I don't see how this wouldn't let banks to handle out low-interest loans. If anything they should have a "base' of long-running low-risk loans as a constant source of money. I think in this case they'd let it go to the maximum, e.g. if we keep it at 2.5 times, then a loan of 10 000 000 would be paid back over 25 years with 1 000 000 every year. So in the end the client would pay back 25 000 000, and the bank would be at its money after 10 years. Of course, an other bank might offer a loan of 10 000 000 for 25 years where the client will have to pay back "only" 24 500 000 in the end. The numbers are quite random here, but there are only for demonstrative purposes.