Omar Barghouti – on “White People”

Check out the book The Secret History of Blacks and Jews produced by the Nation of Islam. Before you jump back in horror, it is a well documented and footnoted book that uses sources compiled by Jews writing at the time.

Another person to check out is Professor Tony Martin Dr. Tony Martin: Jewish Involvement in the African Slave Trade

We need to acknowledge that Jim Crow and post WWII prosperity deliberately omitted Blacks from the New Deal. This provided an “Affirmative Action” to whites in America for nearly 20 years before the passage of the Civil Rights Laws. The passage of the Civil Right and Affirmative Action led to a backlash that helped to usher in the neoliberal policies. While Blacks are the direct victims, Whites were also manipulated as a group. Now we are experiencing the end results of that manipulation all the while Zionists took over the U.S. political economy.

Thus understanding Jews role in the slave trade is necessary in order to break the cycle of Whites vs Blacks.

Thank you for this excellent link.
I’ll will listen to it tomorrow as today is getting late.
This prof. Tony Martin seems to be worth listening to .
He also has a good sense of humor, which I always appreciate.
This video, and the subject itself , should be widely known to the general audience.
The official history that we were taught at schools was/is so heavily manipulated/twisted/distorted.
Beyond belief.

Here’s a another link to a more in depth lecture by Tony Martin on the topic of Jewish involvement in the slave trade …

The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade – Lecture by Dr Tony Martin

Another interesting you tube video on this topic with a lots of references and names…

Jews Brought the Slaves to America

@Deadbeat
The two videos you posted above now appear to be unavailable on utube, so I’ve re-posted pgg804′s recent Tony Martin link below from the “@netanyahu @whitehouse Why It Is Apartheid in Israel Palestine” thread;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn_dcQ2GFPg

Thanks for posting live links. Naturally “[Jew] Tube” accommodated “complaints” of “copyright infringement” to justify the removal of Tony
Martin’s lectures.

@DB
Just out of interest I thought I’d see if there actually was a Jew Tube and low and behold, there is;
http://jewtube.com/
In the featured section I noticed a video suspiciously called;
The Jewish Monkeys Present “Black But Sweet”.
http://jewtube.com/2012/10/the-jewish-monkeys-present-black-but-sweet/24
After a little research I found the song was lifted from Trinidad born Wilmoth Houdini, who moved to New York in 1927.
“…he was often the object of derision by the calypsonians still in Trinidad, who claimed that he was stealing their ideas and capitalizing on them in the USA…from Roaring Lion and Attila the Hun in particular, who also recorded in New York at the time. This led to Houdini’s 1934 rebuttal, “Declaration of War”.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmoth_Houdini
Did Roaring Lion and Attila the Hun see things in the same light as Louis Farrakhan at 4:46mins?;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiQG23S2cZ4

A comment (half way down) from Erika Davies on her article “No More Jewish N-Word”;
“Thanks for the thoughtful comments and reflections.
To respond to one in particular-the reason that I write about Jews and Race is because it interests me. I think that we have an obligation as Jews to rise above, to lift people up, to see people of different races as our equals, our brothers and sisters. We have an obligation to be a Light Among Nations, we are reminded to Never Forget, we are implored to welcome the stranger because we were once strangers in the land of Egypt-are these simply words or do we put these words into actions?
I write about all of this all of the time and talk about all of this all of the time-if you’re my friend we’ve talked Jews and Race, Jews and Blacks-the similarities, Jews and Food, Jews and Blacks and Food.
I’m currently writing a curriculum with a friend, another black Jew, in hopes that our communities, our JCCs, our synagogues, or rabbinical schools, our newspapers, our websites are open, diverse, inclusive safe spaces for all Jews no matter the color of their skin.
When I converted to Judaism almost one year ago I wanted to work within the Jewish community to continue to facilitate and open conversations around who we are and who we say we are as Jews. Is any other race, ethnicity or religion perfect at being who they are-no. But I am a Jew and I am black and I hope that my communities (which are not mutually exclusive) can work and learn and share experiences together.
Jews and blacks have way more in common than we do different-we’ve been oppressed and denied access to schools, land, careers. Black Americans, like Diaspora Jews lack a “homeland” we share the same values for family and great food. Black women and Jewish woman fret over our big hair and we both like to talk loudly with our hands-yet being black is different in that I can’t ever be anything other than black. While white Jews in America have the ability to blend in a Black Jew doesn’t- a Black person doesn’t, has never and can’t be seen minus the color of their skin.
To say that race/racism is a non-issue in the Jewish community is completely untrue and it’s something I’m not willing to hide from. I’m not willing to turn a blind eye to it and I’m not willing to tip toe around it because it’s there.
So I talk about it and encourage people to talk back hoping that we can learn from our shared experiences and move towards the common goal of being the Jewish people we should-as dictated by our tradition. We are commanded as Jews to treat everyone with respect and dignity because we’re all made in the image of Gd, using language in a way that disrespects is unacceptable and making excuses for said language is equally unacceptable. Who knows, maybe next I’ll write about Black Jewish food.
I hope you all have a great evening and again thank you for taking the time to write a comment.”
http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/159773/no-more-jewish-n-word/

This is very nice and highly deceptive “touchy-feely” pseudo-Left rhetoric from Erika Davies but untrue. Jews were never DENIED anything. The ghetto were founded by Jews in order to SEPARATE themselves from the national society. Unfortunately Jews place Jewish interest above the nation. Which is now the case in the United States with the takeover of her political economy.

Listen to her rhetoric …

we have an obligation as Jews to rise above, to lift people up, to see people of different races as our equals, our brothers and sisters.

Really? Jews domination of the slave trade would say otherwise. And what about Jewish domination over the “goyim” and white Christians? Jewish domination of the West would also say otherwise.

As Mark Glenn of the The Ugly Truth says (paraphrasing) “Judaism is a mental illness”. It is clear that the vast denials, distortions, and lies abundant in the rhetoric of Ms. Davies is a clear example of schizophrenia.

Judaism cannot be reformed. The only cure is for Jews to divorce themselves from their supremacist belief system. That was essentially the message of Jesus Christ and remains the message today after 2000 years.

“however, it is down to Barghouti, Angry Arab and others to explain why they have decided to adopt this Zionised language”
I have the feeling that they won’t bother explaining it.
What striked me also with Omar B. is the tone of his voice. The way he said that he is not going to take any lessons from a “white person” .
There was such a contempt/disregard in his voice. If he want to alienate “white people ” from Palestinian Solidarity Movement than he is clearly doing a great job.
Why?? Why does he want to aliente many good people from the movement?
It is also strange that he said: “white race is responsible for Holocaust”??
I always fought that Nazi Germany was responsible for Holocaust, but what do I know. He did not mention that “white race” was responsible for communism crimes in Soviet Russia and other countries.
His marxists friends would not like that.

Tx so much and also for your contribution , peace G

Thanks–as always, you’re an education.
When you say:
“changes in the Left had a lot to do with Jews making the transition from working to middle class and upper class.
while true, it only refers to a change in social status/class for the jews.
There was also an important ideological shift, galvanized by Israel’s 1967 war: a more intense and openly manifested tribal consciousness among American Jews.
The pseudo-left masquerading as universal human rights activism pressed for and obtained the Vanik-Jackson amendment: human rights but only for Jews.
I well remember the huge signs everywhere with a star of David in chains that urged: Save Soviet Jews! Referring to it Soljenitsyn asks (200 Years Together): “What about us? Why not save us too?”
After the 1967 war American Jews turned their backs on the melting pot and coagulated back into a tribe.

The New Deal as who_me points out was the intended to weaken the left. Post WWII polices that built the middle class also lifted Jews from the working class into the middle class. And the McCarthy witch-hunts also put a damper on the Left.

What was important to Jews in the 1950′s was their assimilation into the dominate culture, which is why many altered their surname to gentile sounding names, but the 1964 Civil Rights legislation made it illegal to discrimination not only on racial grounds but on ethnic and religious as well. This allowed Jews to reclaim their identity and the 1967 war put that to the test.

Deadbeat: “What was important to Jews in the 1950′s was their assimilation into the dominate culture”

G: this is indeed a significant trend within J secular culture. 3 common answers,
1. Zionism- creating your own independent dominant culture
2. Zelig – pretending to be a Goy
3. Judifying the dominant culture (Bolshevism, neoconservatism, Zionising the left etc)

1967 Arab -Israeli war. “By virtually all accounts, it was only after this conflict that The Holocaust (meaning Holocaust Industry), became the fixture in American Jewish life”.
“The Holcoaust Industry has proven to be an indispensable idealogical WEAPON.
Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a “victim” state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likeweise acquired victim status.
The “Holocaust” is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust.
Like most ideologies , it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality.
The Holocaust (industry) is not an arbitrary but rather an internally coherent construct.
Its central dogmas sustain significant POLITICAL AND CLASS INTRESTS.”
N. Finkelstein “The Holocaust Industry”
This book is a must- read for everybody.

1967 Arab -Israeli war. “By virtually all accounts, it was only after this conflict that The Holocaust (meaning Holocaust Industry), became the fixture in American Jewish life”.

It was perfect timing for the Zionists to use the Holocaust rhetoric because the “Jewish state” was under attack. In other words — another Jewish “Holocaust”. Diaspora Jews were forced to decided and they decided with Israel — and still are to this day.

I wouldn’t call the Holocaust an “ideological weapon”. Jews are defending Jews when they defend Israel. That’s all that matters. Donation to Israel lobby groups by diaspora Jews are up — in fact double.

I think calling this a “Holocaust industry” misses the point and especially helps to conceal the Zionism of Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein finds it repulsive that there is a group “profiting” off the Holocaust. That is understandable that Finkelstein would find the Holocaust sacrosanct having lost direct family members to it. But Finkelstein still supports Israel as a “Jewish” state and is a “denier” when it comes to Zionist power and domination of the U.S. political economy. He like Chomsky make excuse about AIPAC (a “mere” lobby group).

The Holocaust is not an “industry”. I truly believe that Elie Wiesel is “honest” in his feelings and beliefs. These folks are on a “religious crusade” and labeling it an “industry” really misses the point and the way you have to structure your arguments.

I do not completely agree with you.
There is no mutual exclusivity here. The Holocaust is a religion AND an industry and much more. It is the cornerstone and the supreme proof of the victimology ideology, the reverse engineering of history to justify the necessity for the existence of the state of Israel (as if it hadn’t been in the works since the turn of the century).
It is a religion that meshes well with the most lugubrious paranoia in judaism but also a religion for atheist jews.

Of course Norm Finkelstein is a zionist, a “true-blue” zionist in the old-fashioned mold and that is why the Holocaust industry and the ‘excesses’ (“They’ve gone too Far”) of Israel offend him. He wants Israel to be “nice.” That does not take anything away from the validity of his exposé of the one facet of the Holocaust enterprise: the profit ledger.
Chomsky is a zionist also. He is too intelligent to be blind to the enormous power of the ZPC yet he dishonestly compares the Jewish Lobby to… AARP.
I definitely do not accept that Wiesel is honest (even in inverted quotes). You may confuse tribal fanaticism with honesty. A man who claims that even if a holocaust story is fake from beginning to end it is nevertheless “factually true” (his words) because its ‘spirit’ is true is a liar who has manufactured the rationale that lies deployed in the service of the Tribe’s “truth” are transmuted into “truths.” But he knows they are lies. No mutual exclusivity here either: the profit motive for him (money, power and fame) is in ample evidence.

mixing business and religion is about as israeli as it gets. so is mixing business and spying, mixing business and doctoring, and being a soldier, and everything else in that society. it’s a society where business is king, where making money off anything, no matter how repugnant, is fair game. and they do. the sort of mafia corruption one reads about in places like new york is peanuts compared to how things are done in israel. the god of that place is corruption. a corruption so deeply implanted upon the psyche of the people there, few think of it as anything other than normal.

so why should their sacred state religion of holocaust worship be any different?

“How’s that for irony but it is the major challenge that the Left now faces.”

But which “left”? Other than Petras I cannot think of any voice that “carries” and he is getting up in age.

Ariadna Theokopoulos

“But which “left”? Other than Petras I cannot think of any voice that “carries” and he is getting up in age.”

other than petras, it is hard to think of any others as still expressing left thought. that is how thorough zionist jewish exclusion tactics are. very israeli, where there is one way to do things, and one way only. the persecution these people practiced recently against atzmon is only a more recent example of how they work to exclude people who are not zionist from the left. they have been so successful, that very, very few people outside their chosen club get a voice any more. it’s an intentional co-opting strategy zionist use to make sure nobody gets information they don’t vet first.

Deadbeat

good analysis, but there is a couple of things i would add. the neutering of the left in the usa was mainly what “the new deal” was about in the 1930′s. they co-opted real change, like which had been happening in europe, with the old american favourite of “psuedo-change”, the image of change, while things remain much the same ( the older version of “change you can believe in” ). a marketing ploy.

after ww2, the “new deal” became an effort to get a car in everyone’s garage. they figured they could buy off leftist change with enough prosperity, that every one would grow fat and lazy. it worked for a while (the 50′s generation was about as disgracefully conformist as it gets), then the 60′s came about. then the fascists looked at revolution staring them in the face again. they worked out “what went wrong”. all that prosperity and education apparently gave people time and the ability to reason. and the people were rejecting being “good germans”. if it continued, the fascists would lose power in the usa.

so, they staged a “counter revolution”. this was during the 70′s that saw both political and popular culture shifted to the right. this was conscious manipulation. think of it as the first “color revolution”. they worked out how to get people into thinking big brother’s wants were their wants by getting them to “rebel” against what big brother was opposed to. fascism was made popular again, like it was in the 50′s. neo-connery was invented to counter the mood of the 60′s and get the country back to being “good germans” again.

getting to the zionist role in all of this. they were used to turn the left into the harmless, soft fuzzy thing of little consequence it is today in the usa (and is becoming in europe). as zionist power configuration rose in power in the west, the left has lost power. this is where jewish activism shows similar directions. when the zionists were still a junior partner of the fascist pollygarchy, jewish activism took an outsider role, promoting opposition to the status quo. now that zionists are the senior partner, jewish activism is geared to be very status quo supporting. it’s what israel and its zionist backers want that determines the direction jewish activism takes.

jewish people, as a whole, were considered outsiders in the usa when jews got involved in leftism. this was before zionism and was a natural reaction of people who had little power and were tired of being exploited. no different than any other working class people working to become empowered. the major change came when zionism got really going. it was then that there was a conscious effort to replace jews in leftist movements with zionist jews. this was largely done by the 60′s. also, this same effort by the zionist establishment put much of the american left under jewish zionist management, and it was very intentional.

the process was very similar to the way in which the fascist establishment co-opted the unions in the usa and turned them into loyal assets of people manipulation. zionist jews had a large role in that, as well, though it began before they came along.

@who_me thanks for your response. I can spot the overlap where your analysis and mine and where your analysis fills in the gaps nicely.

Shouldn’t we first define what is left and then try to grasp what makes it ‘pseudo’? Is it the tribal tendency? is it the lack of intellectual integrity? is it the lack of dialectical thinking? is it the Jewish hegemony?

I typically define the left as adhering to principles of justice, fairness, equality and democracy. Group and individuals that present themselves as adhering to those principles but having an ulterior agenda are what I typically identify as the pseudo-Left.

What makes the pseudo-Left difficult to combat is their left-wing pretensions. They don’t tell outright falsehoods or are overtly anti-Left but engages in misinformation, disinformation, and edges of the truth in order to gain credibility amongst the anxious populous and those with good intentions.

However recently these pseudo-Leftist have exposed themselves but their access to the media and their decades long reputation enable them to be quite formidable opponents.

Thus IMO, I would classify the questions that Gilad raises as traits exhibited by the pseudo-Left but not necessarily what defines the pseudo-Left.

Deadbeat:
I typically define the left as adhering to principles of justice, fairness, equality and democracy. Group and individuals that present themselves as adhering to those principles but having an ulterior agenda are what I typically identify as the pseudo-Left.

G: Fine, I accept your definition. However, i would also add that Left was originally regarded as a vivid intellectual discourse on the verge of a scientific attempt. Nowadays, it is specializing in tossing empty slogans and designing badges.

This explains the intellectual stagnation at the heart of the Pls solidarity discourse. The ‘Left’ is stuck with colonialism, apartheid and Zionism dismissing the the real issues.. Jewish Culture, Jewish Lobby, Jewish power etc’.. Zionists admit it all openly, yet the (pseudo) Left would shy away from discussing it all

Deadbeat: What makes the pseudo-Left difficult to combat is their left-wing pretensions. They don’t tell outright falsehoods or are overtly anti-Left but engages in misinformation, disinformation, and edges of the truth in order to gain credibility amongst the anxious populous and those with good intentions.

G: What you describe here is the Talmudic approach. It is the art of philosophizing ideas based of false premisses.

“G: What you describe here is the Talmudic approach. It is the art of philosophizing ideas based of false premisses.”
And those ideas are later sold to the public as the Truth, the only and ultimate Truth that only a few, the Chosen Oones can decipher.
The rest has to trust them, and follow blindly till the very end. Those who question “the Truth” are immediately slandered, labeled accordingly, disavowed, ostricised, threatened etc. That kind of behavior is characteristic in orthodox Judaism ( rabbis are the “gurus” that possess the ultimate knowledge of the Truth (i.e.Talmud), and the so-called Left, (where the leaders are the gurus, and the rest is expected to follow them blindly till the very end, no questions or doubts asked).
The same kind of “follow the leader” ,(in everything that he says and does) strategy.

Thanks again Gilad for you insight. I have never had an outright discussion on this issue primarily because I have never engage with a group of folks that have openly and honestly did a “self-examination” of the Left. I experienced the betrayals of the 2003 anti-War movement and Nader campaign by the Left that force me to re-examine the Left and the actors who where presented to me as the “Left”.

It is nice to know that I wasn’t alone in my thoughts and experience.

Cheers,
DB

Gilad Atzmon

“Shouldn’t we first define what is left and then try to grasp what makes it ‘pseudo’?”

it’s a subjective thing people widely differ about. my own view is the left is based upon collectivism, while the right is based upon hierarchy. this is the basic difference in societies. with collectivism, everyone has a say on how that society is run. with hierarchy, only a few make the decisions, the rest follow, either voluntarily or through coercion. most societies use a mixture of these two ways and the amount they use determines whether they lean left or right.

where the zionized “left” betrays its loyalties is how they operate. they are hierarchical in nature. they have to be, since they represent the right, pretending to be left. rather than seek to include everyone in decision making, they work to exclude people, so decision making remains hierarchical. instead of encouraging everyone to contribute their thoughts and work out their differences, the zionized “left” does the opposite. a few make the decisions, then work to either manipulate the rest into accepting the decisions, and to exclude those who differ, so their voices wont have any effect.

Thanks who_me that was an excellent explanation.

cheers, Deadbeat

Deadbeat, and Who Me… i will take the challenge.. I will offer a philosophical insight into this right/left dichotomy

The Left aims to tell us what the world is ought to be-peaceful, equal etc’

The Right aims to tell us what the world is for real- competitive, cruel etc’

The Left is therefore inherently detached and fictional, the Right is, on the other hand, essentialist by nature.

There is clearly an abyss between these 2 world views…

While Left, is a political stand. Right is a philosophical overview, it is in essence similar to the German Philosophical quest- it searches for the true nature of things (beauty/ aesthetics , Knowledge, epistemology, Being/ metaphysics etc).

Left being detached from the world and also from itself may explains why the “socialists” in Chicago reacted enthusiastically to Barghouti’s biological determinism.. they are basically a bunch of clueless crowd. They follow slogans and body gestures, they gave up on thinking.

It better change … Left contribution to world peace could be immense but it must first dezionise itself.

It’s not clear why you declare the Left a “political stand” and the Right a “philosophical overview.
Both are both philosophies and political stands.
The Left: Freedom and justice for all are non- negotiable goals.
They are not possible without social equality.
Social equality is not possible without economic justice.
Economic justice can only exist in a society in which each
individual assumes the ethical obligation to be his
“brother’s keeper” and the custodian of Earth for
future generations.
The Right: People are not create equal. Society should mirror biology.
Freedom is the right to engage without restrictions
in the competition for survival of the fittest.
The fittest are those who, by dint of their superior
endowment, manage to accumulate the most wealth,
which gives them the rightly earned power to mold the
society and the world to ensure the perpetuation of
their domination, which is beneficial for the masses who
get all the ‘treacle down’ they need and deserve.

Ariandna, I really do not think that Left is a philosophical position, at least not from a German (Kantian) perspective. It doesn’t aim to grasp what the ‘condition of the possibility of being in the world is all about’, it, instead, suggests what being in the world ‘should be’ or ‘look like’.

I do not have any problem with Left’s reasoning or the way you present it, but it isn’t a philosophy. It is a vision of an ethical state of affairs.

However, bear in mind that the Right wing thinker may as well argue against it that flattening the human landscape is in itself non ethical.

This is a deep debate that we may want to take on Deliberation. As far as i am aware no one engaged in this debate after WWII…

Russell defines it satisfactorily for me. He says that what we “know” about the word and ourselves comes from two sources:
(1) religion and ethics (given); and (2) conclusions based on scientific investigation (in permanent flux) and that philosophy in the broadest sense deals with both and with what is in between.
The main philosophical questions, simplified to the core are:
1. Mind and matter. One or separate? One over the other, and if so which?
a. Has he universe unity and purpose?
b. Are the laws of nature real or invented by us to organize what we perceive?
c. Is man a lump of C and H2O or the vessel of higher and transcendent spirituality?
d. Is there a way of living that is noble vs base (and do we go about acheiving the former) or is it all irrelevnat and futile?

2. Is “reality” knowable or is our knowledge an illusion based on perceiving an illusion?

I think there are definitely Left and Right answers to most of the above questions.

G: I am a dualist…
A. Not a shabby choice. Coming at it from physics perhaps?
Light… photons = corpuscle and pure energy way at the same time. But never measurable simultaneously.

“The Right: People are not create equal. Society should mirror biology.
Freedom is the right to engage without restrictions
in the competition for survival of the fittest..”
No this IS LEFtis ideology. Darwinim.
Social Darwinism used by Hitler and many others in justyfing eugenics, abortion, euthanasia.
You are mixing many things.

here is great video/interview that explains it better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICopy2LKkzk

I think that irrespective of the debate “Darwin” is a trigger word for you that in turn engages the “abortion” blast off button and after that you can’t see all that well in the smoke and noise of the detonation.
But that’s just an opinion and I could be wrong–no offense.

No, i just think you conveniently mix the buttons, whichever suits you the most at the time.
So are you going to tell me that the Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” dogma was not happily accepted by leftists vacuous religion???

“So are you going to tell me that the Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” dogma was not happily accepted by leftists vacuous religion???”

I am going to tell you absolutely nothing because that’s not what the discussion is about.

You are giving completely false info. That’s your problem.

Ariandna… Russel could with a bit of Heidegger ::))
There are many Right (philosophical) and different answers to the qs you presented ..

I am not so sure that there are any Left (in particular) answers…

How Left is related to the psycho-physic question? It probably replaces the psycho with a materialist content.. do we buy it?

‘Searching’ has it wrong about Darwinism and the left. In the 19th century, the main enemy of Darwin’s great discoveries was the Church. In the 20th century, it was the Left. They said there is no human nature, it’s “not in our genes”, it’s all “socially constructed”.

Terms like ‘reductionism’, ‘determinism’, ‘social darwinism’ and ‘eugenics’ are thrown around by Jewish leftists like Gould, Lewontin and Rose to try to turn us off applying evolutionary theory to human beings, thinking it’ll turn us into Nazis. Students threw insults and buckets of water at scientists trying to unify biology and social science.

Darwin’s theory is one big JOKE.
Don’t make me laugh.
Ask the monkey in the zoo why she did not Evolve??

Gilad: “do we buy it?”
A: That’s a horse of a different color.

here is a little info about philosphy of a big guru of the LEFT.
Enjoy.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/G_007_MarxSatanism.html

Ariadna – don’t be so dismissive of ‘searching’. He just posted a link exposing Karl Marx as a Satanist. I didn’t know that – did you?

I am sure, Jay ,that you don’t know many more things.
You claim to come from monkeys , I don’t.
Go to the zoo and give your cousins a banana.
Give tehm one from me.
They are funny animals aka your distant cousins.

Ariadna “do we buy it?”

Gilad: I don’t.

I am a dualist…