The **** needs to be made into soap.
"snide sneering Leftwing Jew Soderbergh is making a Che Guevara movie to
turn hispanics against USA and white folks" <cerebureaucracy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote in message
news:1193366650.404609.116880@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> why is liberal or leftist(he plays it both ways) jew soderbergh making
> a two part movie on che guevara, the virulent and rabid anti-american
> communist psychopath? and why not a one part movie? why a two part
> mooie?
> you see, soderbergh is trying to do what spike lee did with Malcolm
> X. lee was trying to militarize black consciousness against america.
> now, soderbergh is trying to militarize hispanic consciousness against
> white(christian)america. and, he wants to make it two part movie cuz
> such will remain in the cultural radar much longer than a one part
> mooie. there was much hype surrounding Malcolm X, but it came and
> went and that was that.
> with the che guevara movie, the intial hype will be followed by a
> second hype. it will be not just a jab at america but a jab followed
> by a right across.
>
> now, why would soderbergh, a rich capitalist american jew champion and
> romanticize a latino anti-american marxist thug? doesn't che
> represent everything that soderbergh holds in contempt? doesn't
> soderbergh believe in liberal freedom, human rights, and open
> society? che was a stalinist-maoist. he found north korea 'most
> impressive'. he wanted to topple all latin governments--rightwing or
> democratic--and turn them into commie nations. he wanted the likes of
> himself and castro to rule over every inch of latin america. and then
> he wanted to bring to communist revolution to america. his wish was
> that non-whites and working class whites in america would unite with
> the 'oppressed around the world' and bring down the capitalist class
> and turn US into a communist state. the hope was fantastic and
> delusional but che was nothing if not a grand dreamer and schemer.
>
> anyway, soderbergh is a superduper rich jew. he must be worth at least
> 100s of millions from the hit movies he's made in hollywood. so, why
> whould he sup****t a figure like che? surely, soderbergh is NOT a
> communist. no, i dont' think he is. but, he is a leftist and sees in
> marxism a kind of spiritual meaning and sustenance lacking in our
> materialist society. when jews gave up on their religion and yahweh,
> they fixated on the secular religion of marxism. to a lot of jews,
> marx is their new moses. and it was hoped that lenin or mao would be
> the jesus figure. but, those two killed alot of people and failed.
> castro was once a candidate for the position but he grew old and
> corrupt. but che died young. and he even kinda looked like christ.
> and though he was killed in a war he started, he's been ****trayed as a
> saint-martyr. because che died before he gained great power and did
> great damage on the scale of lenin, stalin, and mao, his record is
> relatively clean. because his power was curbed in cuba and because
> his revolutionary ventures elsewhere failed, his hands were stained
> with the blood of thousands than millions. there is this stupid naive
> faith among leftists that if CHE had taken control, revolution would
> have worked. of course, had mao died before he conquered china, he
> too would be romanticized in a similar fa****on. in a way, that was
> the case with trotsky.. kicked out of russia by stalin, he could play
> the role of Conscience of the Revolution. never mind that trotsky
> hated liberal democracy and sup****ted stalin's greatest crime--the
> forced collectivization of agriculture that led to the ukrainian
> holocaust(a criminal madness in which leftwing jews--not as yet
> toppled in the moscow trials of 1938) that murdered 10 million
> innocent folks.
>
> anyway, i don't think soderbergh is a communist or even strictly a
> theoretical marxist. but, he is a spiritual marxist. even if he
> doesn't believe in the blueprint of leftist revolution, he believes in
> its spirit. similarly, there are those who, while not believing the
> literal truth of the bible, embrace the spiritual aura of the judeo-
> christian tradition.
> alot of blacks didn't agree with much of what malcolm x said. but,
> many felt that malcolm made them feel 'like a man'. they embraced the
> style and 'spiritual' essence of malcolm x.
> and che has that hold among many modern day radicals. that che was
> wrong about many things is not the issue. the main issue is that he
> was for 'social justice', against 'exploitation', against 'american
> imperialism'. he was for spreading 'revolution' and 'truth' around
> the world. he was 'self-less' and 'pure'. these are all romantic and
> spiritual qualities. and, this may explain why so many people in the
> middle east--even non-muslims--respect and even revere osama bin
> laden. most of these sympathizers would not want to live under
> alqaeda rule in a taliban-esque state. but, they see osama as a man of
> purity, a man who gave up material things for the Noble Cause. a man
> who took on the great twin evil empire of US and israel. a man who
> inspired his followers to acts of great daring and courage.
> on the cr*****t level, it's why so many of us love tony
> montana(scarface) and the *** pistols. we all feel compromised and
> confined in our world. tony the purist madman does as he pleases. he
> may be a pig and murderer but he's got Mighty Balls. this spiritual
> badassness wins much admiration from most of us who are sheep. sheeps
> may fear wolves but also wor****p the wolves' power. leftwing jews are
> too smart to be like sheep. but, they are too wimpy and geeky to be
> like wolves. so, they are more like weasels. leftwing jews understand
> that the pen is mightier than the sword. in a way, jewish culture
> and ideas conquered the world thru the pen. christianity, islam,
> and marxism are all rooted in jewish culture.
> and, in the twentieth century, the jewish mental prowess that created
> the nuclear bomb eclipsed the the mechanical swordsmiting mentality of
> germans and japanese. pen beat the sword.
> in the US, jews are not the toughest people. they aren't much at
> s****ts. they are not the biggest or toughest people. but, they are
> the most powerful people cuz they own the media. they dominate in the
> field of law. they control the brain center. soderbergh doesn't have
> the guts or courage or toughness to pick up an AK-47 and go into the
> jungle. he'll leave that for the goyim. rather, he will inspire the
> goyim with his powerful position in the media. his movie will be
> screened in all nations around the world, will come into the homes of
> billions people worldwide thru cable tv, internet, and dvd. now, THAT
> is power!!
> it's not so much that 'big brother is watching you'. it is 'you are
> watching and listening to the Big Leftwing Jew'. of course, we don't
> know that we are watching the Leftwing Jew. when latinos around the
> world watch the che guevara movie, they will think they are watching
> THEIR movie when in fact they are watching a leftwing jew movie and
> enriching the leftwing jew even further.
>
> latinos think che guevara is THEIR hero, but in essence, che is the
> spiritual puppet of the leftwing jew. like stalin, mao, and castro,
> che's ideas are rooted in the ideas of marx, lenin, and trotsky. even
> as stalin, mao, and castro deviated from leftwing jewish dogma, the
> essence of communism is leftwing jewish.
> so, while leftwing jews pretend to be humbly awed by the greatness of
> che, they are indeed amused that a useful spick had been turned on to
> leftwing jewish ideas.
> che was simply one more useful/murderous idiot of the leftwing jew.
>
> anyway, i don't think soderbergh wants to live in a communist nation
> nor wants the US to be a communist nation. he obviously wants HIS
> freedom and money and privileges. but, when it comes to other nations,
> there may still be this foolish idea that communism or some form of
> radical socialism would be better for them.
> this idea is nothing new. even many jewish liberals who didn't like
> communism thought that communism would be better for the third world.
> it was believed that much of the third world had only four options.
> one was traditional feudalism which was just cruel and nasty. or, it
> was reactionary rightwing rule where the few rich at the top ruled
> over m***** of poor folks locked in poverty and misery. or, there was
> an attempt at democracy which was a farce because the m***** of third
> world folks were uneducated, ignorant, backward, and didn't know what
> democracy was about. that being the case, third world democracy was
> little different in real terms than third world rightwing
> dictator****p. basically, the rich, the cunning, the ruthless, the
> greedy, the corrupt merely banded together to suck the m***** dry.
> consider the narration throughout louis malle's "Phantom India". it
> suggests again and again that indian democracy is a joke, that india
> needs a mao tse-tung. the illiterate m***** have no clue. they are
> controlled thru religious superstitution and taboos. the democratic
> elite of india are just self-interested pompous blowhards who never
> lift a finger to really help the m***** of poor folks.
> given this reality, it was thought that communism would, at the very
> least, provide basic human needs to all people in poor backward
> nations. after all, what does 'civil liberty' mean if you don't have
> bread?
> it was thought that communists were more idealistic, less likely to be
> corrupt, purer, more dedicated and self-less. sure, they could be
> ruthless, brutal, and dogmatic and blind. but, at least their manic
> fervor was for 'social justice'. as long as there are lot of killings
> in the third world, why not have the killings be in the name of
> 'progress'.
> this was especially the case of china where the communists seemed
> selfless, courageous, and idealistic while nationalists seemed venal,
> corrupt, and cowardly. also, during the vietnam war, the communists
> seemed tough, courageous, selfless, and committed while south
> vietnamese government and army seemed cowardly, stupid, lame, faggoty,
> and corrupt.
> indeed, this was why germans embraced nazism in the 30s. though nazis
> were clearly looney in many ways, they seemed committed, idealistic,
> and tough compared to all those bickering, venal, corrupt politicians
> of weimar republic. and, this is why palestinians voted hamas into
> power after growing sick of corrupt and inept fatah. notice that the
> liberal jewish dominated media don't wax romantic about fascist or
> arab forms of purism or idealism. this is because such tend to be anti-
> jewish and also because such are seen as anti-'progressive' and,
> ultimately, as backers of reactionary forces. the leftist malarky on
> fascism was that it was just the last resort of the bourgeois
> capitalist class trying to hold off communist revolution. and hamas is
> seen as representing religious fundamental so antithetical to
> modernity and progress. is hamas were marxist, liberal jews would be
> in a real bind? they would have to pick between a nationalist jewish
> state and a leftwing jewish-influenced arabs.
> communists, on the other hand, were supposedly the champions of
> radical progress. indeed, if communists violated civil rights, it was
> in haste to create a socially just world. there is this idea among
> leftist jews that it's okay to violate democratic principles IF the
> goals bring humanity closer to the progressive utopian ideal. so,
> mccarthyism is wrong for silencing the left, but political correctness
> is okay for it silences the reactionary right. pinochet was evil to
> suspend the rights of leftists but castro and hugo chavez are okay to
> violate the freedom of the 'right'. according to the jewish left,
> there is the correct way and there is the wrong way. the only true
> freedom is the correct way. being free to be wrong is not acceptable
> because being wrong means exploitation and oppression. in other
> words, when a rightist uses freedom, he's using the freedom to exploit
> and oppress, thereby robbing others of their freedoms. but, when a
> leftist uses freedom, he's trying to bring about equality which means
> equal freedom for all.
> so, chavez is trying to bring equal freedom to all venezuelans whereas
> his opponents simply want political and economic freedom for
> themselves to enslave m***** of venezuelans. so, it's okay for
> leftists to suppress all anti-leftist freedoms. again, liberal jews
> operate in bad faith.
>
> anyway, the two poster child nations of the leftist idea that
> communism is the best option for the third world were communist china--
> until the late 70s when the truth about maoism came out--and castro's
> cuba. until the truth of maoism came out, many in the west--including
> anti-communist liberals--thought most chinese were well-fed, happy,
> proud, and content in mao's china. one wonders why liberals, who
> pride themselves on skepticism and open inquiry, were so willing to
> swallow communist propaganda. but, liberals have their own naive
> orthodoxy.
> as for castro's cuba, it's true that many cubans lived better than
> alot of latinos in other people around the region. one reason was
> that soviet union consciously wanted to use cuba as their posterboy.
> so, soviets lavishly subsidized many of the needs and services in
> castro's cuba.
> also, some latin nations were so corrupt, braindead, and oppressive
> that there was a kernal of truth in the leftist charge. of course, the
> radical leftist challenge only made the corrupt and oppressive forces
> in those nations to become more entrenched.
> still, the achievements of the cuban revolution was wildly
> exaggerated, helped in large measure by the fact that major media
> outlets in the US hired leftist and radical re****ters to cover latin
> america. consider that NY Times got much of its news on latin america
> from jon lee anderson, a communist sympathizer and admirer of castro/
> che. this was like having david irving cover nazi germany. in the
> 30s, NY Times played the role of (ukrainian)holocaust denier by hiring
> the likes of walter duranty to cover the soviet union. duranty saw
> the ukrainian holocaust firsthand but suppressed the truth. during the
> vietnam war, NY Times depended on sydney schanberg who clearly slanted
> his re****ting to make US look bad and khmer rouge look good(the idiot
> admitted he was wrong about the khmer rouge only after a holocaust
> took place in that country. ironically, jews, a people who go on and
> on about their holocaust, aided and abetted in the leftist holocausts
> in several nations). instead, NY Times and such ilk depended on
> re****ters who were more than willing to do the bidding of commie
> nations. in the 50s and 60s, western press got much of its
> information on red china from edgar snow, a diehard mao admirer.
> between 1958-61, 30 million chinamen starved to death, but there was
> no re****ting on this. of course, the western press cannot be blamed
> for what it had no access to. but, it must be blamed for eagerly
> swallowing communist propaganda and lending validity to accounts of
> people like edgar snow who were clearly partisan and full of *****.
>
> anyway, time passed and even this notion that communism would be good
> for third world nations proved terribly false. in africa, angola,
> mozambique, and ethiopia turned communist and not only did no better
> but made things even worse. also, many left-leaning african nations
> were full of crap and total failures, even worse than when africa was
> run by white imperialists.
> in latin america, most people didn't want communism. rather, radical
> hotheads took up AK-47 and raised hell all over the region which only
> polarized politics and only gave justification for the military
> right. also, rightwing pro-american chile did best. meanwhile,
> nations run by left-leaning statist regimes as in mexico(under PRI)
> just turned to ever bigger *****. and cuba got tiresome. what kind of
> revolution is it that freezes a nation in time? under castro, cuba
> has turned into a land that time forgot. despite all the talk of
> progress, cuba today is simply a dilapidated version of what of it was
> in the 60s. just as spain went downhill after kicking out all the
> 'blood-sucking' merchant jews, cuba went downhill after kicking out
> all the 'blood-sucking' capitalists and businessmen. by the way,
> contrary to liberal jewish propaganda, most cubans who were exiled
> were NOT members of organized crime, mafia, or CIA-associated.
> funny that jews are angry at the nazi slander that all jews were
> bloodsucking businessmen(in truth, most german jews were good honest
> people while only a tiny number were profitting from the misery of the
> german m*****), yet liberal jews make the case that almost all cubans
> who came to america were involved with the mafia and the batista
> regime. the average cuban businessmen who left owned a small business
> at which he worked diligently.
> anyway, in asia all communist nations were either insanely murderous,
> brutal, poverty stricken, and mad. all that stuff about china being
> happy and well-fed under mao proved false. and communist vietnam was
> mired in human rights abuses, economic failure, hunger, misery.
> cambodia under communinsm produced a genuine holocaust. north korea is
> one of the most insane, psychotic, and oppressive(and poor) nations on
> earth. meanwhile, asian nations which were allied with the US did
> immeasurably better than commie asian nations. taiwan, south korea,
> singa****e, hong kong, thailand, indonesia, malaysia, etc all saw great
> deal of progress during the same period. some were run by corrupt
> military, some were semi-democracies, etc. but, the truth is they
> beat communist nations in all areas--material goods, health, freedom,
> liberty, economic growth, etc some even became genuine democracies in
> the process--consider taiwan. also, china began to make great strides
> only when it ditched marxism-maoism and adopted the policies it
> learned from capitalist asian nations. since the 80s, mainland
> chinese leaders have been trying to turn the entire mainland into a
> giant hongkong/singa****e.
>
> and, communism totally collapsed in the soviet union and eastern
> european nations. oh what a shame!!, thought the leftwing jew. most
> people around the world were happy. but, not the leftwing jews. jews
> are heirs of a certain mentality that goes back 1000s of yrs. liberal
> jewish commentators often say that chinese have a 'middle kingdom'
> mentality. though chinese now live in the modern new world order,
> they can't help thinking in the old chinese way which saw china as the
> center of the world. so, there is an undercurrent of chinese
> chauvanism, that chinese know best, and so on. liberal jewish
> commentators say modern japanese have a village mentality. for this
> reason, we cannot trust japanese to be truly democratic in spirit or
> trustworthy on an international scale because of their way of
> thinking.
> now, since jewish thinkers can generalize about certain national
> groups, it should be okay to generalize about the jewish mentality.
> though jews live in the modern world, surely they too are shaped by
> what had been 1000s of yrs of tradition. that tradition could be
> called the 'jealous god' mentality or the 'chosen people' mentality.
> this traditon says that jews know best cuz their god is the one and
> only god and all other false gods must be banished. jewish truth is
> real truth. it's no wonder that jews have been so eager to monopolize
> the media. media is the purveyor of truth, and those who own the
> media own the Truth. anyway, even as jews dropped their religious
> beliefs, they were still shaped by their traditional mental
> structures. they still believed that jews know best, and that the
> future must be created according to higher jewish truths and all false
> idols must be smashed. marx became the god of this truth. so did
> freud but on a much more humble scale. now, there were great
> im****tant jewish thinkers of capitalism BUT modern capitalism was seen
> essentially as an anglo-american affair. sure, once jews entered the
> game, they outperformed everyone else. but, jews were winning at a
> game that wasn't purely jewish. milton friedman, as great as he is,
> has a forebearer in adam smith, a non jew.
> but, marx was a jew. marxist truth was jewish truth. now, jews
> consciously didn't see it this way. they sincerely--on a conscious
> level--saw marx as a liberator of mankind, not as a jew. and they saw
> marxism or communism as belonging to all mankind, not to the jews.
> but, on the subconscious level, jews saw marx as their secular moses--
> and by extension, even non-jewish che is the spiritual child of a
> jewish father--and saw communism as their baby.
> just as charles degaulle, though owing to anglos and americans for the
> liberation of france, resented the brits and americans due to the fact
> that the french also have a proudly centric view of the world, jews
> have also had this dual relation****p with anglo-americans. on the
> one hand, US has been a paradise to jews. they made their fortune
> here. they amassed more wealth, power, and privilege than any other
> group. yet, there is a sense among many jews--at least
> subconsciously--that they lost out to the anglos in the battle of
> Truth. in the end, anglo-american truth won out over jewish truth.
> most jews made it by adopting anglo-americanism in politics and
> economics. and, if we look at latin america, chile--which adopted
> anglo-american economic model more than any other--did much better
> than cuba which adopted the leftwing jewish model. in asia, anglo-
> american model did wonders while leftwing jewish model led to the
> gulags of mao, boat people of vietnam, and the holocaust in cambodia.
> and all of eastern europe ditched leftwing jewism over something else
> if not anglo-americanism. in russia, we are seeing a kind of mild
> slavic fascist-democratism. nationalism is back. communism is
> dead.
> even as most jews know of the evil of communism, they feel sad that
> their baby has been rejected by mankind while anglo-americanist child
> has grown big and strong. look at all successful jews and they
> followed the anglo-americanist model. but, there is a lingering
> feeling of angst and resentment arising from the 'chosen people' and
> 'jealous god' mentality. just as chauvanistic french have a kneejerk
> reaction to anglo-american dominance and chinese are awful sensitive
> about their role in the world, many jews feel that as leftwing jewism
> failed all around, jews are fated to be outsiders in the goyim's
> house. even as the jews entered the most privileged rooms in this
> house, it's someone else's house--one designed by anglo-americans, a
> people less intelligent than the jews.
> this is why chantal akerman and jonathan rosenbaum are seething in
> anger. their baby communism failed in eastern europe. this is why
> noam chomsky is pissing mad. this is why abbie hoffman committed
> suicide probably. some sane jews have diagnosed this jewish sickness
> and cured themselves and have learned to see the dangers of centric-
> radicalism. consider david horowitz who felt deeply sorry for his role
> in spreading communism in asia, just as germans felt terribly sorry
> for the jewish holocaust. but, most jews have shown no contrition or
> conscience about their terrible role in the 20th century. all said
> and done, communism must be seen as essentially a leftwing jewish
> ideology. theoretically, it's almost entirely jewish. and jews were
> prominent in the most im****tant positions in the early crucial stages.
> also, jews in the US--even as they made great money thru capitalism--
> did everything in their power to aid and abet communist enterprises
> around the world.
>
> of course, we have to be careful here. it's okay for jewish
> commentators to generalize about the french and their franco-centric
> chauvanism, the chinese and middle kingdom mentality, and japanese and
> the village mentality. but, if you dare generalize about jews, you
> are an 'anti-semite' and must be blacklisted, silenced, and ruined.
> and jews can do this cuz they own and operate most of the media.
> much of the media is liberal jews talking to themselves thru channels
> and outlets owned by liberal jews. and even non-jews have been
> handpicked by jews for their jewish-friendly sheepishness. charlie
> rose and ken burns are prime examples of castrated and faggoty anglo-
> boys favored by liberal and leftwing jews. or, consider charlie gibson
> or diane sawyer. ken and barbie doll puppets of liberal jews.
> jews, of course, also generalize wildly about arabs and muslims.
> but, we cannot generalize about jews or attribute anything negative to
> jewish culture or attitudes--while jews openly and frequenlty label
> other groups in negative ways. just listen to jewish commentators on
> charlie rose talk about arabs and muslims in general, chinaman in
> general, the french in general, etc.
> the ONLY group that jews are careful about are blacks. blacks are
> always good. and so are hispanics, increasingly, in the national
> jewish dominated media. why?
>
> indeed, soderbergh's movie ties into this consideration.
> you see, while the majority of hispanics are pro-democratic(party-
> wise), they are not particularly liberal. in certain ways, hispanics
> are more conservative that many whites. hispanics have problems with
> blacks. also, many hispanics would rather follow the successful white
> route in america that the failed dependent black route. all of this
> means that hispanics may lean more to conservatism and
> republicanism.
> this makes jews angry for several reasons. first, democratic party is
> essentially a jewish owned party. 50% of funds come from jews. follow
> the money trail. hillary was/is of radical feminist mold,
> ideologically, she turned away from anglo-americanism and came under
> the rubric of radical jewism ala betty friedan. barack obama was not
> picked by blacks but by jews. jews groomed and funded the obama
> campaign. obama, as the product of harvard law school--dominated by
> liberal and leftist jews--is also a jewish puppet. most blacks would
> prefer someone other than obama as their candidate. but, alot of real
> black leaders have had problems with the jewish community. think of
> jesse jackson and al sharpton. obama, on the other hand, is jew-
> friendly because he's been ideologically shaped by jews. he is the
> 'jewish candidate'--like the 'manchurian candidate'.
> jews want hispanics to join the liberal and democratic side. the fear
> is more and more hispanics will succeed in the US and join the
> conservative and republican side. this would boost the power of anglo-
> americans and christian right. so, how do you steer the hispanics to
> the liberal, democratic side? one way is to champion unlimited
> illegal immigration. indeed, republicans have done damage on this
> issue by calling for more border security. the liberal media have
> ****trayed those who oppose illegal immigration as nazis and
> 'racists'.
> but, an easier way to turn hispanics away from anglo-america is to
> promote che guevara. this is actually like killiing two birds with one
> stone. you turn hispanics from anglo-americanism and bring them
> closer to leftwing-jewism, as che was a disciple of jewish ideology of
> communism.
> when m***** of latin kids in the US watch the two che movies, they
> will see che as the greatest hero in the world. just as malcolm x is
> the main black hero among many black youths, it is soderbergh's hope
> that hispanic kids will see che as the great ****ning hero. if
> soderbergh tried to turn on hispanics to leftwing jewism by making a
> movie about marx, that won't really work. who cares about some old
> fat jewish fart? only intellectual types. the m***** are drawn to
> handsome dudes. they are also drawn to their own kind. so, clever
> jew soderbergh is using latin machismo nationalism to spread leftwing
> jewism. when latin kids see che, they see a latin male stud. they see
> him as one of their own. of course, che was really a 'jewish
> candidate'. similarly, jews sup****t michael moore as a useful link to
> white trash. white trash, who tend to be anti-leftist, may see fat
> trashy moore as one of their own. thru moore, white trash come to
> unwittingly swallow the views of noam chomsky and marx.
> thru che, latinos come to swallow the idea of marx and lenin.
> subconsciously, jews are locked in the battle for Truth and world
> control. so far, the End of History ideology seems to be anglo-
> american IF such ideology is ever possible. jews of the 'jealous god'
> mentality cannot let the god of some other group take over the world.
> it must the truth of the jewish god, the jealous god that tolerates no
> competittion. even secular jews are still infected with this mental
> virus.
> when china turned communist, many jews beamed with joy and pride. the
> most populous nation in the world turned leftwing jewish!!! one of
> the most ancient, one with great tradition... adopted the ideology of
> the leftwing jew. during the deng era, it was hoped that china would
> make reforms but stay mostly socialist. but, as yrs go by, china is
> becoming more and more capitalist and more nationalist. today, china
> is, in essence, closer to capitalism and facism than to communism.
> this is why so many jews are more pissed at china of today than during
> the mao era. during the mao era, china was totally ******y but it was
> a nation ruled under leftwing jewism.
>
> ---- to continue.
>
|
