The Spirit of
The Golden Rennaissance Is Mankind’s Best Hope

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis
Lyndon LaRouche
Related Articles

Fidelio, Vol.II, No, 4. 
Winter 1993
This article is reprinted from the Winter 1993 issue of FIDELIO Magazine.

For related articles, scroll down or click here.

The Spirit of the Golden Renaissance
Is Mankind’s Best Hope

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. delivered this keynote address by audiotape to the Schiller Institute Conference held on Sept. 4, 1993 in Tyson’s Corner, Virginia. He remains [released in 1994] a political prisoner in Federal prison in Rochester, Minnesota.
I shall focus in, as with a zooming microscope, on a very specific aspect of the matter which I presented in my paper on “History as Science.”* I’ve referred to this relatively microscopic matter on a number of occasions recently; and now I shall attempt to describe what I consider its most essential features again, in a form suitable to the proceedings today and this weekend.

I have indicated that it is my estimate that, in the worst case scenario, the United States begins visibly to disintegrate as a political organization within approximately three years. It might take longer, but that is the worst case scenario. In any case, if the disintegration process is not prevented during this year, the coming twelve months or less, then the disintegration will surely occur by the end of this century.

I want to indicate the reasoning for that again, although I have indicated elements of this in earlier communications.

Firstly, one must see that political institutions of government and other key institutions which form a quasi-governmental role in society, depend upon their logistics. This includes departments of Federal, state, and local government and other such institutions, which include essential infrastructure, such as railway systems and power systems, private and public utilities which are not government.

Therefore, if economic breakdown, or physical economic breakdown occurs, and certain kinds of financial breakdown as well, then these institutions of government cease to function. And if, under such circumstances that the essential institutions of government at the Federal, state, and local level cease to function, the population does not have a characteristic response which forces government to act to put things back in order, then the disintegration is, at least for the short to medium-term, irreversible. That is the problem we face.

In general, the cause of this disintegration, primarily from an economic standpoint, begins with the introduction of certain “utopian” goals on a large scale beginning back in the 1964-1967 period; this is the root of the collapse of not only the United States but of much of the world besides. These “utopian” goals include the launching on a mass basis of the rock-drug-sex counterculture; these include the introduction of neo-Malthusian policies of population reduction; these include neo-Malthusian policies (or Bertrand Russell policies, as you may prefer to describe them) of environmentalism, of post-industrial society. These include something which began immediately in the post-war period—Hugo Black’s successful leadership in proposing actions called “separation of church from state.”

All of these factors were introduced largely from Great Britain, from centers such as the Tavistock Institute, or the networks of Bertrand Russell and his Satanic friends such as H.G. Wells and Aleister Crowley and the Theosophists generally—the Lucifer worshippers.

They proposed, essentially, to eliminate the Christian basis of Western European civilization. They proposed to return to a kind of paganism, to establish a form of one-world imperial government, under some body such as the United Nations—and so forth and so on. In other words, not only to destroy the economy, but to destroy the morality and the historic basis in culture for the existence of the nation-states of Western European civilization. That’s our problem.

Through the emphasis on radical free trade and radical de-industrialization, together with radical environmentalism, we have systematically destroyed the economy of the world—especially those aspects of the economy which depend upon the technology of Western Europe and North America. We have destroyed the United States to the point that this nation is no longer capable of producing its own physical needs. We must import what we need to satisfy the diminishing household budgets of our population, from other nations, including the poorest ones, which we rely upon for so-called cheap labor products in the form of food and other necessaries, as well as primary materials.

We pay for these by swindles, largely. We are engaged in financial swindles through the International Monetary Fund and other international monetary arrangements; and through these swindles, we are able to exact tribute from South America, from Africa, and from Asia. Probably about seventy percent—certainly a majority—of what we consume, depends upon these imports, which are largely dependent upon the continuation of these swindles and presumably the continuation of production in the countries from which we swindle these products.

We are in the middle of a worldwide depression—not a localized depression or a series of localized depressions, but a worldwide depression. The rate of collapse of Western Europe, is catastrophic. The continent of Europe is beginning to catch up with the disaster which has turned Britain into the rust bucket of the century.

Japan, too, is swept up in this; the developing sector nations are collapsing. South and Central America’s economies are collapsing or in a state of collapse; Africa is beyond disaster. The tigers of the Asian Rim are threatened. So there is no source of economic strength outside the United States, which might succor us in our disaster.

The Response of Government

Now, these being the causes of our problem, observe the way in which the Congress and the Presidency have responded, and increasingly the news media and public opinion, since, approximately, 1983. To be more precise, since April of 1983—a time that Paul Volcker was deployed around the Reagan administration from his position as chief of the Federal Reserve system, to impress upon the U.S. government that we could not conduct a Strategic Defense Insitiative (SDI) mobilization because of the prior urgency of the cutting the Federal budget deficit.

Every time the U.S. economy has gone deeper into the trough, the deficit has tended to grow, no matter what the reforms were to relieve it, including the foolish and failed Gramm-Rudman policy. The Congress, the majority of the population, and the politicians have responded by saying we must take stricter, harsher, budget-deficit reducing measures. We must cut this, we must cut that.

The problem for them has been that the number of employees of the non-military category, specifically, of the U.S. government, has been a shrinking percentile of the total U.S. labor force over the past twenty-five to thirty years. The only apparent growth in government expenditure has come in two areas: one, entitlements (specifically, pensions and related kinds of things, and medical care, for example); and two, in interest and related expense of service of the national debt.

Let me comment briefly on each of these, in order to give you an image of why we are talking about two to three years from now as the beginning of a visible disintegration of the United States as a political entity. Again, let me emphasize, that is the worst-case scenario, as I see it at this point.

First of all, the reason for the growth of entitlements as a burden, is not that they have grown; they have not. If you take a realistic inflation deflater, the actual per capita benefit of entitlements has decreased over the past decade or so. But it has increased in money amount.

The essential reason for the absolute decrease in physical terms of the value of these entitlements per capita, and the apparent relative increase per capita of the population or per capita population income, is two-fold.

First of all, the birth rate has dropped. Now, the greatest cost of pensions and medical care comes in terms of people who are fifty-five to sixty-five or older. That’s the time in which you get, actuarially, a greater likelihood of needing medical care, as well as, of course, the time at which you usually begin to collect your pensions. So entitlements increase, when you tilt the pyramid of population so that you have more old people than you do younger people, relatively speaking. And the way you bring this about, is by population control.

Thus, this is a relative change, as a result of changes in population policy. We’re not producing enough people to maintain the pyramid of population the way the entitlement system was originally designed. That’s our first problem.

Now, look at the younger generations coming up, those under forty-six approximately, or forty especially. People of this generation are less well educated, less skilled, and more poorly employed than those of the previous generation in the earlier period, say, up to 1979.

What has happened, is that people who were previously employed, are being downgraded into flipping hamburgers or other kinds of marginal utility employment, away from high-skilled employment; and those who are of the post-1968-1970 generation of high school matriculants are savagely more poorly educated, both in content of education and actual teaching practice and in quality of concentration span for study, than those of the pre-1968 generations of students.

You look at the shift in universities and elsewhere, toward an emphasis on useless subjects in the curriculum: sociology, generally a useless pseudo-science; anthropology, a useless pseudo-science; other kinds of behavioral studies, useless pseudo-science; the introduction of “current events” substitutes for the study of history. The quality of teachers is poorer. Look at the newspapers. Look at the entertainment media. Look at the books, the television sets; all of these things. We are becoming a scientifically, technologically illiterate nation, depending upon computers to do our technical thinking for us. Technology has become the ability to use a device which has a computer which does the decision-making—at least, that’s the direction of things.

We have drained capital out of our industries, which are no longer capital intensive, because we don’t believe in capital intensity, at least on the policy level, any more.

In terms of government, we have collapsed infrastructure. It would probably cost us $5-7 trillion to put the public infrastructure—transportation, water systems, power production—of the nation, back into the relative condition it was in, in 1970, or about that time.

So we are losing infrastructure. Remember, infrastructure is the basis for private industrial and agricultural production. Without that infrastructure, you cannot maintain agriculture or industry.

So in all these things, we are collapsing. Now this means, that together with the government policy of downsizing everything in the name of free trade, shipping jobs overseas to places where labor is cheaper, and the fact that we have an approximately seventeen percent of the labor force which is actually unemployed, according to U.S. government survey data, we have a collapse of the tax revenue base. That is, the taxable income provided as income of households and income of industries is collapsing.

On top of this, we have an increasing demand for government payments relative to the tax revenue base from entitlements, which is unavoidable. We are collapsing the base on which entitlement payments depend, and therefore the entitlements seem to grow. They aren’t actually growing; the base of payments is collapsing.

On the other side, we have the looting of government through the Federal Reserve and banking systems, looting which is accelerated by the creation of a minimal average balance of a $10-12 trillion bubble, which amounts to a turnover of over $300 trillion a year, compared with, say, $5.5 trillion of the U.S. Gross National Product.

So we see that a great useless parasitical bubble is sucking the blood out of the poor little U.S. and other economies, which are minuscule compared to this giant of a bubble.

The bubble operates against the U.S. economy largely through the U.S. banking system, and through the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve and the banking system—a banking system which is transformed and virtually bankrupt, in point of fact subsidized by the Federal Reserve—throw loan money in the direction of this bubble. The Federal Reserve creates the debt, to create the loan money, to fund the bubble. Thus, the Federal debt increases, and thus the debt service increases; so the only thing that’s growing in the U.S. economy, is this cancer of debt, this bubble, which is caused by continued support and toleration of the banking and monetary policies of the Federal Reserve system.

The worst aspect of this complex is that, as I said, every time the United States faces a perceived new budgetary crisis, the declaimer is that we have failed to act strictly enough, to enforce deficit-reducing measures.

Now given the fact that the policies which I have cited, are the causes for the collapse of the U.S. economy, what is the effect of Washington supported by popular demand—the majority opinion—and by the news media, demanding that we administer a stronger dose of the disease that is killing us, to our economy? And that’s what every reform has meant.

Therefore, if this continues—as long as you see people saying, “Deficit reduction is the primary goal of government,” that free trade must be upheld, that we must export jobs to cheap labor areas overseas, and that sort of thing; and reforms in the congressional budget are based on those assumptions and those directives and imperatives in the White House—then you are going to see every reform (which come once every budget time) is going to make the problem actually worse, not better. It would be better if they made no reforms at all, if they would give up all attempt to balance the budget; that would be less bad, than it would be by their trying to balance the budget.

So, thus, we see, if you look at the figures, that in about two more budget-balancing reform cycles under present trends, given the collapse of the world economy now in progress, the United States would begin to disintegrate.

The disintegration would probably occur in something like the following form. Remember that the Federal government can have a deficit. But by law, most states and localities cannot—by their constitutions. Thus, what we are seeing, is a collapse of not only the tax revenue base of the Federal government, but a tax revenue base which is shrinking as a result of these budget-cutting measures. That will hit, naturally, at the most vulnerable local communities, most intensely: towns and cities—and, in some cases, counties.

These will find that they have no tax revenue to meet their current obligations—or very little. That they’ve got to shut down the school system, the police department, or what have you. They will find that, under these conditions, the states cannot come to their rescue with financial aid; that the Federal government is cutting out financial aid. Thus, as has happened in a number of cases spottily around the country since 1984, the town or city will shut down. It will be there, the people there—drifting away, of course—but the town, with its functions, its fire-fighting system, the whole business, will be shutting down, totally or in large part.

We will find that the same thing goes on in states. We have the recent case of the budget crisis in California, where chits were being issued and then nothing was being issued for a while, while the legislature came to an agreement on a budget which allowed the state to continue to operate. That is a warning of what can happen on state levels.

On the Federal government level, the inability to find the revenue to cover some of the entitlements and other costs of operating sections of the Federal government, will result in a simple casting off or suspension of the operation of whole functions of the Federal government. And it is in that visible form, that you will see, from an economic standpoint, the political disintegration of the United States beginning to occur.

Now one would say: Will the people respond at that point, to say no, we’ve been doing the wrong thing, let’s change our policy? Well, let’s look at the people.

What do the people believe?

How many people you know, believe in the separation of church and state, as the Ku Klux Klan Freemason U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black campaigned successfully for this policy?

How many people accept the expulsion of prayer from the public schools? And so forth and so on.

To make it clearer, how many people are tolerating the program called Outcome-Based Education (O.B.E.), or Common Core of Learning, or the Anti-Defamation League’s “World of Difference” program? How many people are allowing that sort of program to go on in their school system—not by supporting it necessarily, but simply by tolerating it, allowing it to happen to their children? This is destroying their children.

How many people think that various kinds of satanic religion ought to be tolerated as a religion—that is, ought to have the protection of a religion? Not simply supporting such a religion, but believing that these people have the same rights that we do to our religion?

Well, in that case, and with a total counterculture, you have a population which is morally incapable—at least in the majority—of responding to a visible breakdown in progress with the appropriate measures.

What we must do, of course, is reverse that. But let me go on to our next point, as to what the implication of this kind of cultural decay is, for reviving this nation.

History as Science

Now let me turn your attention to my paper on “History As Science,” to specifically the references to the Golden Renaissance, and to the figure in that article, of the curve of population growth (See Figure 1).

Look at that curve. You see that on a global scale, population was flopping around, up and down, significantly but with no great change, for thousands of years, within about the same range. When a good society came into effect, the population increased; when a bad society took over, the population levels collapsed. And then a good society might come in, and the population level would rise again.

But then, about 1440, there was a fundamental change. World population rates zoomed—or, to put it more specifically, the potential population level of the planet increased, as a result of European culture; as a result of the Golden Renaissance, which was centered around the 1438-1440 period of the Council of Florence.

What was the Council of Florence’s significance relative to this population curve?

Well, it introduced, as Nicolaus of Cusa’s Concordancia Catholica illustrates the point, the notion of the modern sovereign nation-state, as the responsible political entity. It introduced, for the first time, what we call today modern science. There were contributions to such a science going way back. We can trace it back to well into prior to 5,000 B.C.E. , in the case of certainly the Indo-European culture in Central Asia, and, as also indicated, in the ancient culture of China.

But this was not science, because it had not put under one roof the notion of the intelligibility, according to a common principle, of all branches of human knowledge of nature.

That notion of science was introduced by Nicolaus of Cusa and his associates, in the setting of the Council of Florence. And it was that Council of Florence which created this Golden Renaissance in Europe, which increased the productive power of labor in the manner you see in the upward sweep, the hyperbolic sweep, of the population curve for the world following 1440—something that had never happened before, in the entire history of mankind.

There’s another aspect to this, that the Council of Florence was committed to evangelization; and despite the lying stories you heard about Columbus, Columbus did discover America. He did have a map. The map was highly accurate—some of the details were wrong, because the information from Venice was wrong, that is, the Venetians lied, and said that Japan and China were much further to the East than they were in actuality. That put Japan about in the middle of the Mississippi Valley.

So the Europeans, like Columbus, in particular, thought that, when they reached these islands in the Caribbean, they had sailed to islands south of Japan—that is, the Philippines, the Indonesian group. It was only later, when Columbus hit the mainland of Central America, that they realized that they had struck a continent.

But otherwise, the map, as a map of the size of the planet, was accurate, and they were accurate in their knowledge of where land lay on the other side of the Atlantic, through their study of ocean and wind currents.

So Columbus not only discovered America through a scientific method of discovery, very much like the scientific method of landing a man on the Moon, or planning to land man on Mars; it’s a true scientific discovery; but there was another feature to this.

The Council of Florence, whose members constructed the accurate map, showing accurately the size of the world as a sphere, also launched a program of evangelization, so that we had Franciscans and others who were conducting evangelization among the peoples they found living in these areas which were discovered through scientific methods of exploration. We have the case of Mexico, which is one of the more successful cases, in which the Spaniards found a population of about, let’s say, less than two million people, living in what we call today Mexico. And these people were living, at that instant, under a savage dictatorship of the Aztecs, who were cutting the hearts out of 18,000 living captives in one day as a religious celebration, which typifies the worse-than-Nazi-like character of the Aztecs, who were brutalizing their subjugated peoples. And this was a representation of a general decline in the culture of so-called Indian cultures over the 2,500 years preceding, at least, the arrival of, say, Cortez.

That is, we can go back to 1,000 B.C.E. and earlier, and find much higher levels of culture than existed in, say, Mexico or Peru in A.C.E. 1500. We can find, for example, even in Mexico, that the children’s carts had wheels on them, whereas at the time that the Spaniards arrived in Mexico, the use of the wheel had vanished, even though they knew the wheel, contrary to some rumors.

So this was a case of a degenerating culture.

The Indians, under the leadership of Cortez, freed themselves from their Nazi-like Aztec oppressors; and, through the building of cities and the work of the missionaries, especially the great Franciscan missionaries, the Indians of Mexico, for example, built a civilization. They built cities, they built cathedrals, they sang, they produced advanced mining, and so forth and so on.

Later, as Spain, like Portugal, was taken over by the Venetian and Genoese bankers, this was destroyed; and everything was reduced to I.M.F. conditionalities during the time of Charles V and Philip II of Spain.

So the looting of the New World by the Genoese bankers, very much like the I.M.F. conditionalities arrangment in Mexico today, did destroy much of the progress of this evangelization culture; but nonetheless, the technology, the potential, was transmitted.

We see, in the Franciscans and others in China, a similar attempt. But we see evangelization, where the ideas, including science (such as the science of astronomy), of Europe, was mingled with the cultures of the entire planet. As a result, the level of potential population density of all nations of the world, or virtually all, was vastly increased not by European colonization—that is, by the settlement of European nations in these lands alone, but also by the cross-fertilization, if you please, of science and technology and other features of the Golden Renaissance—including the creation of the idea of the modern sovereign nation-state.

The result is, there is no longer a multicultural history of the world in a true sense. The existing population of all nations, including the largest nation, China, depends upon the maintenance and increase of science and technology, a science and technology which is original to and integral to the Golden Renaissance of Western Europe.

So without European culture, the entire planet collapses; and therefore, the planet is under European culture in such a way that the different language-cultures (there are no racial cultures, there are only language-cultures) of this planet, are assured their parity, their rights, their dignity, under a worldwide European culture, if they employ this specific method of that European culture called the absolutely sovereign, or perfectly sovereign, nation-state form.

So the cultural differentia within European culture, are protected and sustained through the institution of the sovereign nation-state; and also through the European Christian principle of imago Dei and capax Dei, that is, first of all, that every human being, by virtue of possessing the potential for developable reason, is in the image of the Creator; and that every individual, through use of the creative powers in a way which is motivated by love of mankind, that such behavior is participation in the work of God, or capax Dei.

Now, that’s the best part of the civilization. Granted, European civilization has its bad side, which is not specific to European civilization. As a matter of fact, the bad side came from places such as the Middle East, from the Babylonian model, for example, sometimes called the Persian model in literature, but it’s actually the Babylonian model. The model of usury; the model of the religious pantheon. A multicultural model, such as the pantheon of Babylon, the pantheon of the cult of Delphi; the Roman pagan pantheon.

These are multicultural models; and they are all imperialisms, they’re all oligarchies, they are all forms of government which carried their subject population to the doom of that political form of existence and into dark ages of great suffering over extended periods for the people.

Look, for example, at the case of Iraq today. I was last physically in Iraq in April of 1975, when there were approximately ten million people in the whole country, with about two million concentrated around Baghdad. As I stood there in Baghdad, or along the banks of the Euphrates later there, I knew, from my 1950’s work on archaeology, that in the time of Haroun al-Rashid, the great Caliph of Baghdad, contemporary of Charlemagne, there had been thirty-five million people living in relative prosperity in the area of today’s Iraq. And I could see, traveling a brief distance up and down the Euphrates, where the systems of agriculture which would sustain such a population had once existed, and were now collapsed.

This is an example of the evil represented by the Babylonian system based on usury; based on oligarchism; based on multiculturalism; based on pagan pantheons of the type which the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.), for example, is working with the satanists, i.e., the Lucifer Trust or Lucis Trust, to bring into the school systems of the United States today.

So, once we reject the principle upon which all of Western civilization, on which 550 years of scientific and technological progress is based, and do so under conditions of a general physical collapse of the institutions of government, of the type that threatens us during the remainder of this century—these remaining few years—we are doomed. We are doomed—unless we return to recognition of the principle upon which every success, every desirable feature of the past 550 years of history is premised.

If we do not do that, the levels of world population must necessarily collapse—if the Anti-Defamation League, for example, has its way. The levels of population throughout the world, must collapse to the levels of the middle of the fourteenth century, or below.

In other words, we must go from a world population of over five billion, to a world population in the order of a few hundreds of millions—and do that within the period of a generation or two. That means a world dominated by horrors which are beyond anything in recorded history. It means the worst outbreak of pandemics as well as epidemic diseases of old and new forms ever in the history of mankind. It means also devastation in our forests and fields. The elimination of production will not improve our forests or our fields, contrary to what these radical environmentalists say; it will actually cause them to collapse still worse, to what are called sylvatics and various kinds of animal diseases which will spread just like human epidemics and pandemics.

This planet will become, in large part, a wasteland, a desert, with people living like baboons, in terms of cultural level: groveling, unable to sustain themselves. Unless we reverse this.

The magic recipe upon which every good of our civilization depends, is the recipe of the Golden Renaissance of about A.C.E.  1440. Without that, this planet cannot survive; and without returning to those principles, the people of the United States could not reverse the political disintegration of the United States, once it begins to occur visibly, as early as, in the worst case, say about three years from now.

Thus, in my view, I have emphasized within the United States, the importance of eliminating immediately, this year, this school year, from the educational system of the United States, from the primary grade and kindergarten all the way up into the universities, Outcome-Based Education or the same thing, the same satanic program presented under various other labels. To eliminate the influence of the National Education Association, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Lucis Trust—that is, the Lucifer-worshipping Trust—from our school system; and to eliminate the power also, of those specific Freemasonic groups, the so-called New Age group, which have fostered and directed the NEA, the Lucis Trust, and the A.D.L., in conducting this kind of terrible sabotage of the population of our nation.

Unless we can make that reaffirmation and presumably, hopefully, respond to the situation before the disintegration begins to occur, then the likelihood is that the entire planet, not just the United States, will slip into the kind of New Dark Age which I have indicated.

We are at the point of decision. We are at the punctum saliens. It is not enough to react against things; we have to react against evil. We are so composed, as Leibniz indicated, in this “best of all possible worlds,” that when we, motivated by reason, act against evil, name evil, and say this must cease, and bring into place at the same time the good which must supersede the evil; when we do these three things together, then mankind can survive.

I have written the paper, “History As Science,” with this problem in mind, as I have more recently, since starting that paper, insisted that the elimination in the coming school year of the O.B.E. and related multicultural programs from our school system, is essential. Three principles: name the evil, attack the evil, eliminate the evil. State the principle on whose behalf we are attacking the evil, and define the action which we propose to take to replace the evil which must be removed. That is the spirit of the Golden Renaissance; that is the difference between success and impotence; the difference between reasonable action and futile protests or futile reformism.

We must each act as I indicate in the paper. We must see ourselves as individuals, as potentially the embodiments of reason, as imago Dei. We must look into the faces of people around the world, and see not different races or this or that distinction; but see, in those faces, in those eyes, another human being, who is also imago Dei—who has that potential within them. And seek to raise that potential within them, or to create the circumstances in which the ideas of doing good are presented more clearly to the individual, and in which the opportunities for doing that good, are more freely provided.

If we do that, we are participating in creation; we are of value to mankind as individuals, beyond all doubt. So again, in this “best of all possible worlds,” as Leibniz described it, let evil prompt us—not merely to deny evil, which we must do (we must denounce it, as well as denying it!)—but let us be prompted by evil, as Schiller described the principle of tragedy: the tragedy of evil must be attacked, recognized, feared, and hated to such a degree, that we are willing to do good, finally, to supplant the evil. Thank you.

* “History as Science: America 2000,” Fidelio, Vol. II, No. 3, Fall 1993.

top of page


The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244

Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute. Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.

Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.


Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | The LaRouche Frameup | Conferences
Links | LaRouche | Music | Join | Books | Concerts | Highlights  | Education |
Health | Spanish Pages | Poetry | Dialogue of Cultures
 Maps | What's New

© Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2006. All Rights Reserved.