tv Book Discussion on Hillarys America CSPAN August 7, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
for the new generation of young conservatives inspired by the style and ideas. he stands out among the distinguished spread of speakers that speak not only has he encountered great success in literature but also also filmed. he's managed to infiltrate liberal hollywood and produced three of the most successful documentaries in history. the most recent critically acclaimed documentary that will change the landscape from now
until november launched nationwide on july 15 and has already become the highest grossing documentary in 2016. before we bring dinesh d'souza to the stage, take a look at this. >> who are these democrats? >> dinesh d'souza was sentenced on tuesday to eight months. >> it all began when the obama administration -- all crime is about stealing. the big criminals are still at large. the system doesn't go after them
it's time to go behind the curtain for the soul of the democratic party. the civil rights act will allow them to sit at the same table beside a white guest. >> why has this been swept under the rug? we are not even talking about race in history. >> as long as black men continue to ravage our women we will
continue to live here. >> the democrats went from slavery to enslavement. that's how you get corrupt unions. social engineering and social control. >> the opening video in 2012 the government did the one thing. the government belongs to us, we don't belong to it. >> what are the democrats hiding? >> [inaudible] when you follow the money -- >> what is the goal of the democratic party, the most valuable thing in the world has ever produced, what if is their
plan is to steal america? who will stop them now? [applause] thank you very much. for me is always an honor and privilege to be here at the young america's foundation them are confident. thrill to be accompanied by my wife. we are both immigrants. daddy from venezuela and neither am i-india. me from india. whenever i look at you guys, i always think about when i first
came to america i was 17-years-old and i was an exchange student from indiana to public school in arizona and then remember the airplane descending on new york city i looked out the window and i saw the skyline of new york and the statue of liberty and kind of a very strange feeling came over me because i realized from that moment on what be totally different. i realized without being political, into a deadly, i was moving from the margin of the world to the center and i would be able to do things with my life that i would not be able to do if i had stayed back in india. here in america, i have experienced the american dream, which isn't just a dream of
economic success or opportunity. it's a dream they dream of being able to be the architect of your own destiny. it's being able to write the script of your own life. if your parents say to you what do you want to be when you grow up, they can advise you. but at the end of the day, they know that it's you who will supply the answer to that question. fast forward about 25 years, it was about a year ago i found myself locked up in a federal confinement center under the supervision of the bureau of prison under the obama administration with 120 seats and hoodlums, i was going to say like myself but they were
certainly seasoned hoodlums. this was a campaign on the finance limits. i'd give him $20,000 to a college friend of mine running for the senate. normally this is an offense when there isn't any corruption, you don't try to do any kind of underhanded dealings. normally this is something that's referred to the federal election commission. it's not a federal matter at all. you get a fine and maybe some community service, but in my case the obama administration used the full law to try to get my sister to wear a hidden wire as if i were a al capone. it was the united states of america versus dinesh d'souza, kind of a chilling feeling down your spine when you are an
immigrant. did i exceed the campaign-finance law, yes. with no american has been locked up for doing what i did. in fact, about the same china spy case of there was another fella, an asian indian guy, we appear to specialize in the campaign-finance violation area. [laughter] in any event, he gave $180,000 in donations to hillary clinton and a group of other democratic candidates. she was also found guilty of witness tampering and openly devoured this corruption about trying to buy these politicians. this guy gets no prison, no confinement. i mention this because justice is not simply a matter of did you break the law.
it does the penalty for the crime. other guys that get the same thing did the same thing get the same penalty? i think we can see from my case that the progress of justice that i was subjected to was a sham. this was actually a kind of selective prosecution. why do i think that? because just a few months earlier i had made the film in which i got not only into obama's world but into his head. people say what makes you think the president of the united states is a relatively busy man would care what you did? because right after the film came out, the attacks on me and the movie appeared on a website called barackobama.com.
if you read them closely closely in their mixture of arrogance, incoherence, one could recognize the unmistakable signature of the man who currently occupies the white house. so, this was why i found myself in federal confinement, confinement center. i was kind of jubilant. the obama administration wanted to lock me up for two years. had they succeeded, there's no way i could have made this movie. i could be locked up now. but instead i got this confinement center in which i would spend the night in a dorm about the size of this room with 120 others who had served prison sentences. have served prison sentences. and these were not white collar. they were five to eight.
drug smugglers, armed robbers, rapists, the whole gamut. very rough guides. initially i was terrified because i thought to myself first of all, the majority were hispanic but they seemed to be in some kind of group or gang and they were complex. even though hispanics were not in one. of the hispanics outsiders were in one and then the mexicans had their gang so i was like i can talk to this guy because he will want to kill me. so i did consider starting my own gang, the asian indian gang. [laughter] but after about a month, i thought to myself look, i am in a strange place like an anthropologist in this strange land. this isn't a place you normally find conservatives. i'm not going to walk down the hall and see charles krauthammer
or george wills. so i said let me talk to these guys and learn the ideology of the underclass. my previous exposure to this ideology was limited to the viewings of the shawshank redemption in which i had the idea that all criminals insist that they never did it. they were innocent. but talking to these guys i realized their view is different and more interesting. they are view is we didn't, we are guilty. we are the stupid criminals that's why you're here. we are also the small fry. the biggest guy never gets caught and isn't even persecuted by the system because they run the system. they have connections to protect
them. so this got me thinking. for 25 years, i looked look at american politics as a kind of debate. we are the conservatives and we believe had we believe in this and the republicans for the equality of rights and outcomes. it is the view of the criminal underclass that this whole way of thinking about american politics is total and complete nonsense. why? because human nature isn't motivated that way by an urge to debate. human beings are motivated by the acquisitiveness and greed and lust and rage and hatred and revenge. if these drives human life, why
should politics be a meal in order except? in other words, we need a wide-angle to see the politics and therefore motive. the motive that isn't nearly idealistic but also realistic. why do people do what they do, what motivates obama? i would like to talk about that briefly this morning. i will begin by talking about the democratic party. i am a creature of the ronald reagan revolution. he used to say in the 80s i didn't didn't leave the democratic party. it left me. you get the idea that this was actually a good party. and it was humming along pretty well until maybe the 60s and
mcgovern campaign. but i regret to say this is one area that he was wrong and what i mean by that is later as i began to dig into the subject and research as i began to realize that no, the democratic party has actually had a ford -- thwarted strain from the very beginning. and the reason we don't know about it, ronald reagan didn't know about it is because of the success of progress at historiography. the progressives have been in progressives have been in genius at covering their tracks. i will start by giving an example of this because it pertains to one of the horrific events of the 20th century, the holocaust. so in some in the 1930s, the democratic party was fascinated
not only by fascism but also not via some. if this seems unbelievable, john f. kennedy went to nazi germany in the 30s and came back super excited about hitler. in fact he called him a legend. he said they claim to be superior. that's because they are. i should tell you nothing that i'm about to say this morning that is controversial in the sense of the debate on whether it occurred, you can actually google is on your phone and you will see that what i said is true. fdr was enamored by mussolini and dispatched members of his
trust to go to italy. they are more progressive than the new deal and he thought he could import ideas from italian fascism to america. this wasn't a one-way fascination. it was a mutual admiration society. mussolini reviewed the book in an italian magazine. he loved it. he said my conclusion is this guy is one of us. he's a fascist. now, after world war ii, progressive historians look at all of this and said wow fascism carries the holocaust, the gas chambers. we can't have this kind of stuff in the tech stocks. young people might find out
about it. let's make sure we leave it out. this is a small but telling example of the way the progressive figures have been protected by the progressive left. let's continue with fdr for a moment because fdr, when he was elected wanted to push through the new deal. it was difficult to push through the democrats and the democratic primary was racist to the core. they need to get the real deal through. so he goes to the democrats and it says i will give you all kinds of benefits and we will build the project of your neighborhood and so on.
if you agree to block all anti-lynching mall proposed. but the democrats say in addition to that, we want to make sure the occupations namely domestic service and agricultural labor are excluded from most new deal programs. no new deal for blacks. fdr agrees again. so here is the progressive hero the worst racists in america who are a critical part of getting the new deal through. once again, this is a fact. now, let's back up and take in the big picture because the big
picture can be summarized as follows. the democratic party, who founded it be no abraham lincoln was the founder of the republican party. who started the democratic party it can't be fdr, there was a party in the 19th century. it wasn't jefferson. jefferson's party was the democratic republican party. and they split and its leader became the democratic party and leader of the republican party. so andrew jackson was the founder of the democratic party. andrew jackson is a controversial figure, controversial because of his indian war as a savage indian fighter. but i would like to highlight a a psychic and that's never talked about. there are biographies that never mentioned this. and that is andrew jackson as
somebody who figured out how to profit greatly from public policy. to profit from public policy. here is what jackson would do. he would be getting ready to have a fight to push them for the west. this land would then be auctioned off the settlers. but since he knew which land was going to become available before the flight comes to send in his private surveyors who would determine the value of the land which would then be reported privately to him. he would then contact his buddies and they would bid on the land before it even became available for sales. in fact before the indians have even been thrown off the land. in this way, andrew jackson went from to use the phrase from hillary clinton if he broke to
becoming one of the richest men in the country. it was over $100 million. so he took the money and bought himself a big slave plantation in tennessee. why do i tell you this? because the roots of the foundation can be found in the land of stealing policies of andrew jackson. it's in the market policy. think for a moment about the clintons if i can fast forward a little bit. if they didn't come into politics with money we had presidents that are rich, jfk was rich but they were rich before and didn't have a lot of money so how do you go from zero to $300 million on a government
salary? how does your foundation accumulated a total of $3 million? you didn't invent the iphone or start a business so is there even a plausible way to imagine how that could legitimately occur? no. in other words, what we are dealing with here is cookery, people that have learned to market policy for the private benefit. now, back to the democratic party that began not only as the party of the indian relocation but as the party of slavery. this requires momentous explanation because they didn't invent slavery. slavery has been around since the dawn of mankind.
what they invented something called a positive good school of slavery. the idea that slavery is good not only for the master but also for the slave. historically people who defended slavery cited as a function of necessity there is dirty work to be done. someone has to do it. the democrats came up with the idea that slavery benefits for slaves. and i say this because there is an echo today in the world that democrats run what i'm going to call urban plantations on the same rationale. the urban plantations benefit the people who live on the plantations. this is an echo of the argument of the 19th century. the democrats defended slavery and the civil war is understood as a fight not between the north
and south north and the south but between the proslavery democratic party and the anti-slavery republican party. we think of the civil war as a north-south right, and amazingly this way of thinking about it is a salve triumph the progressives took their own crimes of the democratic party and said let's blame the south. let's make the south the bad guy and the anti-slavery north and proslavery south. but right away, if you pause you think both southerners owned slaves? ..
minute, every segregation law without exception was passed by a democratic legislature and signed by democratic governor. there is no exception to this role. the klan was founded by nathan bedford forrest, the democratic of national convention. they served as the democratic arm of the national party. this is not my way of putting it. the progressive historian, i'm quoting a book on reconstruction. the clan had a revival in the early 20th century on account of what world wilson who showed a pro ku klux klan movie in the white house called birth of a nation. that revived the clan, not only in the south but also also in the midwest and the west. in the 20th century, the get democrats became the party of stellar station and darwinism
and later progressivism became, it metamorphosed into a new kind of scam. now, i mentioned earlier about fascism and how the progressives cover their tracks. the great genius has been to take the crimes of the democratic party and blame them on the south. america was responsible for slavery and segregation. some americans did those things but other americans stock them. america is not responsible as a whole. the democratic party is responsible.
the genius of the story telling is to take all the bad stuff that we did and blame it on america. then present yourself as someone who cares. how can anyone get away with this. how can you pull off a scam of this magnitude that is so comprehensive that you can fool ragan and a whole bunch of other people. how do you pull this off? you need to control three institutions, academia, hollywood and the media. those are the three megaphones of our culture. if you dominate those there's a whole bunch of propaganda you can put out and there's no one around with a voice loud enough to say different. your propaganda is so successful that even the people who are your opponents believe it and
come to accept it. the democrats are kind of like lawyers. they said yes my client was at the scene of the crime but he didn't own a gun. then when you provide irrefutable evidence they say yes but it was in self-defense per the last line against this indictment which is irrefutable when they're absolutely up against the wall is called the big switch. the big switch. the most important intellectual task by this movie is to debunk and destroy the myth of the big
switch. what's the big switch? >> the basic idea is, now that you have got the goods on us, we admit that we did all this bad stuff, but just kind of at the last minute we changed. we saw the light and became the good guys and all the races became republicans. this was the big switch. this was a very cunning argument because on the surface it appears to be supported by two facts. the first fact is that blacks who use to vote republican do impact vote democrat. this would seem to support the idea there must have been some sort of switch. don't blacks know who their friends are? don't they realize their friends
are the democrats? wilds with a switch. southern whites who used to be monolithically democratic have now in fact become largely republican that appears to cooperate the notion of the big switch i want to tell you why the big switch is a big lie. first of all let's start with blacks. they did switch but not because of race. blacks switch during the era of the new deal. why? because the conditions were economically desperate. they were bribed into doing it. they knew they were leaving the party of lincoln and emancipation and joining the party of segregation in ku klux klan but they did it anyway. i don't blame them because conditions in the depression
were terrible but long term this has proven to be a really bad deal for blacks. now when did white switch from the democratic to the republican party. they switch between the 1970s and the 1990s. why? the reason that southern white switch does not because of racism but it was because of the decline of racism. in other words, if you look at survey data you can see racism is declining dramatically in the south in the second half of the 20th century. as the south becomes less racist, it becomes more republican. you can just chart those two things and you can see there's an invert connection. as racism goes down in the south, the republican of the south becomes stronger.
in other words the republican party one over the non-racist in the south who identified with patriotism, economic opportunity and social conservatism. christianity. now did the racist dixiecrat's become republicans? answer no. the whole case that claimed a big switch relies on one guy, such thurman. he was a dixiecrat and became a republican. he was pretty much the only one. you can make a list of dozens if not hundreds of racist dixiecrat spread you can see the vast majority of them remained in the democratic party. they felt more comfortable in the party of bigotry than they would in the republican party.
this is a fact. the big switch is bogus. didn't richard nixon have a seven strategy? no. richard nixon did not have a southern strategy and if he had a southern strategy, it didn't work because the deep south went for wallace. wallace is the guy who's slogan was segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. i don't have to tell you wallace was a democrat. he carried the deep south. now, this may may all seem like i'm fighting about history, but it's very important history. why? because the moral capital of the democratic party comes from's the idea that the democratic party are the good guys. they're the good guys per they've always been the good guys. they've always been fighting for the little guy in the ordinary man. they've been fighting for immigrants and latinos and blacks. in fact, the democratic party is the deadly enemy of the ordinary guy. they have an anti- immigrant party from the beginning.
they have been the enslavers and aggregators and literatures and murderers of blacks. you might say what about today? i was in philadelphia a couple days ago, strolling the democratic convention and then i decided to take a walk and about a mile away you see a very interesting site. a real contrast with the glitz of the convention, and that site is, i'm going i'm going to call it the urban plantation. now, this may seem like you're being a little bit strong here, plantations, or you can pairing the old slave plantation to what's happening in inner-city philadelphia? actually, yes yes. let's look at the features of the old slave plantation. i will mention five.
i draw this from the historian in his book on the plantation called the superior institution p he points out that on the old plantation we had ramshackle dwellings. in other words run down living quarters called slave quarters. number one. number two a family structure in complete disarray. children could be bought and sold under slavery and there was a lot of illegitimacy running around. number three a high degree of violence needed to keep the place intact. why? flavor is based on force. you have to force people to work. it's not easy to do that if you don't have whips, if you don't have the display of actual force. for, everybody has a meager provision. you basically have food, you
have health care if you got sick but there's no opportunity. nobody gets ahead. everybody is stuck where they are and there is no advancement. no education. nihilism, hopelessness, despair. despair. now i ask you. is it not a fact that we walk today through inner-city oakland detroit, chicago, philadelphia, dallas that you see exactly the same features today. the rule plantation and its characteristics have been transplanted and this is particularly interesting since the same party and in effect the same people are running both. the difference is that in the old days the democrats were stealing people's labor and today they are only interest in these people are there votes.
that's all they want and that's all they care about. in fact, they have a vested interest that those people's lives never get better. trillions of dollars have been spent and they never get fixed. there are about where they were in 1960. how is this possible. in fact, anytime somebody wants to gentrify the inner-city, high tech committees come and say were going to create lofts and living spaces and starbucks will come in and will be new letters of opportunity and they fight tooth and nail. if you give people letters of opportunity they have no reason to want to be democrats and the democratic party knows that. the point i'm making, history is not dead. people say we need to know history so we don't repeat them. no, you need to know it because you are living it. history is with us today.
the echoes of the pastor in the present. for most of my career i was a writer and speaker. the reason i've gone into making movies is movies appear to the head and the heart. movies are a way to reach a wider audience. movies have the potential of re-creating and telling stories that people can see and identify with. if you see the movie and a makes all kinds of extraordinary claims and you go what? a lot of people go what. that substantiated in my book. i send the film, i have i have this line which has caused a lot of draws to drop, in the war, no republicans owned a slave. during the civil war. everyone that owned a slave was a democrat. is this really true?
it is true. they're trying to scream at the movie and scream at the book. they can't find one little fact in the entire movie for the entire book that they can even plausibly dispute, let alone refute. they can't do it. they are saying it's paranoid and delusional. it's just a cloud of empty rhetoric. me, i love love it. i love the stuff. i love seeing my opponents thrashing around helplessly looking for weapons and not being able to find any. i urge you, as young people to learn and to equip yourselves and become very dangerous americans. our times demand it. normally we don't need it. normally we don't need to know about the founding that much. we have a great country.
it's like your house. you don't need to know the blueprints of your house. you sleep on the couch, walking the hallways, it's only when your house begins to shake that you say hey, i better get up in the attic and figure how this is put together. we are living in such a time. so i want to encourage you to be smart, strategic, creative and brave. aristotle said bravery is the most important courage. the most important of all the virtue because it takes courage to carry out all the other virtues. that is very much needed today. creativity, knowledge and bravery. armed with those things we can help america, we can restore america we can save america. this has been a very bad obama time we have been living through. he doubled the national debt. hillary is even worse. hillary is worse than obama
because obama is at least ideological. he has a goal. we may not agree with the goal but his goal is principle. the clintons are bonnie and clyde. they've been running ragged since the arkansas day when they were in the white house they were renting out the bedroom for money. they were forced to return it. then on to the clinton foundation. my gosh. we have had corruption in politics before we've never had a secretary of state who has figured out how to make money on form policy by collecting money from canadian billionaires who want mineral rights and selling out the russian oligarch and giving aid money for haiti.
it doesn't get to the haiti. tell me bill and hillary where is the money. this is going on. the media is not to be seen. why this is super embarrassing. it's one thing for them to rob from the rich but robbing from the poor does carry a certain distaste for it. progressives decided, just what i told you about fascism, let's leave that off the news. let's not highlight that one. it's not going to make our dow look all that good. this is our predicament. this is our time. our generation, the reagan generation is handing the baton to yours. may you be worthy of it. thank you very much. [applause] we have a few minutes for questions.
i will be delighted to answer. if they're short i can take a lot of them. >> my name is steven hayes, i go to the university of colorado. i was wondering what you expect hillary clinton to focus on in her speech tonight? >> tonight i think she will focus on the fact that the democrat has always been the party of civil rights and human rights and women. she claims the mantle of being a historic first. we've never had a female from this country so she would be a historic first. we will hear the useful dog and pony show and our movie is directly contradicted. i'm looking forward to hillary. she will give you the official story and then we will get the real story. >> as a future history teacher, i find all this interesting and
riveting. my question is do you see this trend in the education system ever changing back to a more true historical narrative? if so are there any policies you would advocate to see that change in public education? >> 30 years ago as progressives dominated, it's not enough to spend on campus. we would have to start 300 campuses to rival the domination of the left. the beauty today is because of technology and other means of delivering information. movies being one of them. the disinfectant of truth and facts is crushing.
in some ways precisely because the left has been hiding so much and sweeping it under the rug, that's what gives emotional power to my movie. imagine if everybody already knew this stuff. the reason i can tell you something you don't know is it's been kept from you. once it's out there, it's kind of a challenge. i've put down the gauntlet. okay if i'm wrong, show me. i'm still waiting. today's facts are very powerful. we have to creatively deploy them. if i just wrote it in an op-ed, no one would see it. by sticking it on 1200 screens around the country, it's a little hard to ignore. >> i am a rising freshman at hildale college. my question was based on not so long ago my home state of georgia became a tilting state because my state switch to the republican party.
the left still uses that party switching as a result of republicans being racist. how can we refute that? >> there's a book called the end of southern exceptionalism. there looks to be a divide among the most racist people and the nonracist. it shows the most racist people never switch. in fact they felt comfortable staying in the democratic party. the phnom racist in the south moved to the republican party because of economic opportunity. remember it's a technique that provides psychic consolation to the poor white man. it was a way of saying your life sucks but the good news is if you belong to this exclusive club called, for whites only. even though you're unbelievably stupid and unsuccessful we will still put you on a totem pole that is higher than the most educated black man. this was democratic party strategy for more than a
century. that's why the democrats held the poor whites. that's why they never left the democratic party. it's important to fight this big switch nonsense because it's the last out for the left. there is no out because the evidence is the other way and it's important for you to be familiar with it. get the book, get my book, together the two are like one of those muhammad ali 12 punches. >> i'm here from george washington university. with the whole e-mail scandal and the fbi to declining against took crooked hillary it seems the system is rigged. what can we do to get back to the rule of law? >> number one you have to expose the kernel of what's going on. look what these recent scandals show. number one the democrats, the party calls democrats rigging their own election. unbelievable.
they are running a soviet style election in america. amazing. number two when you listen to the private conversation of democrats, you you realize the party of racism hasn't changed all that much. their hispanic initiative, they call it the taco bell initiative. they make all kinds of fun against black, homosexuals, they want to use the bernie sanders alleged atheism against him, this is a party and their private, uncensored speech. so imagine, if if this was trump and the republicans, the media would be so all over it. as it is, it's once again a progressive embarrassment for the people in media. this is their job. how do we covered it up. how do we minimize that we can't deny it but how do we make it a no big deal. how do we make it a let's move on. this is how these people think.
that's why it's important for you to wonder how you can influence the media, hollywood, and academia. we can't allow the left to continue its current monopoly in those areas. >> i'm from connecticut, i recently saw your movie and it was amazing. one of the questions that came to mind when i was watching it was how do you do this. most of the movies in theaters, everything in hollywood has a bias, a liberal bias. my question really is was there any resistance from the democratic side getting your movie in theaters. you really did expose the true side of the democratic party and the evil that they do. >> the left, it was a very pleasant discovery for me that the left controlled hollywood which is movie production, but it doesn't control movie distribution. the movie distribution is completely different.
by allying ourselves with the distributors, i realized i went to them and if you could get people lined up around the block we are happy to put your movie in theaters. that's all i needed to hear. we are not a part of hollywood. we filmed this whole movie in dallas. this keeps us outside the influence of hollywood people to be able to torpedo us. the moment the movie comes out, 300 critics are deployed to destroy it. they will go and trash the movie and happily most of these people are ignorant. they are full of violent hatred but they don't know anything. fighting against me, 301 is pretty good odds for me. just in terms of knowledge. i'm not saying they aren't progressives who are smart. believe me, they will ultimately
deploy those from harvard and stanford to go after the book and i'm ready for that but in the beginning, it's all these ridiculous people and they just sort of come up with big words to impress themselves. we'll get 5% on rotten tomatoes with them will get 90% from the audience. audiences love the movie. the effort to block this movie has not worked. it isn't working. i think we have shown a path that other conservatives can follow. you don't make movies to do messaging. you make movies entertain. michael moore knows this. it's one of the few things he does know. you make an entertaining movie and you can do a lot of messaging. if you make a movie on obamacare or immigration, no. you have have to make a movie that is a story line that actually has drama and plots and narratives in character, suspense. this movie is a thriller because
where hillary's involved there are elements of horror. it's a a little bit of a horror movie. [applause] >> my name is austin stevens from coastal carolina university. i was just wondering if you see a bright future for attracting more minorities to the republican party. how do you see that happening? >> two things are going on. one minorities in particular blocks have been sold the storyline. the storyline is the republican party is the party of bigotry. it's important to correct that perception. the republican party is not actually the party of emancipation, antilynching, anti-segregation. they have fought for immigrants of blacks and other minorities for the vast majority of history. number two, the way the
democrats, you feel a sense of vertigo in a new country. it's scary and you don't know anyone they say climb up the ladder of opportunity. if you don't know where how to climb you don't know where the latter as per the democrats come and say you don't need a ladder we are standing on top of will let down a rope. you hang onto the the rope. hanging on is easier than climbing. we will pull you up :