reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that many Jews in present-day Israel are not descendants of the Judeans or the lost tribes of Israel, but rather descendants of the Khazars from Eastern Europe. They argue that these Jews cannot trace their ancestry to ancient Palestine and are not Semites. The speaker questions why the history of the Khazars and their kingdom is not taught in schools or included in history textbooks. They suggest doing some cross-checking and mention that even the Jewish encyclopedia acknowledges the existence of the Khazars.

They call themselves Netanyahu, but it's just a stolen name, a Hebrew mask plastered over a European exile's face. His real name was Milakowski, born of Ashkenazi lineage from Poland. Benjamin Netanyahu has neither the blood nor the land nor the language of those he claims to represent. It is the Judaism of a colonizer from elsewhere who put on the prophet's robe to hide the scent of ashes. What he represents today is not a people, it is a machine, a political, military, ideological machine, a machine of steel and contempt. He never spoke Arabic. He never shared bread with a Palestinian. He never had to bury a child beneath the rubble of an Israeli airstrike. Today, under his rule, Gaza is a graveyard for children.

Antisemitism is “you know, it’s always kind of lurking underneath, and you need sometimes sometimes events over the years, you know, pull it out.” The speaker recalls Captain Dreyfus being accused of treason in France and Theodor Herzl watching, and suddenly, “kill Dreyfus, kill all the Jews.” The question is, where did “kill all the Jews” come from? The response is that, from one guy, antisemitism can surge. The speaker notes that today we have our Dreyfus again. We have the war. We have Jeffrey Epstein, who, the speaker says, “hated Israel,” and “had nothing there was nothing about him that was Jewish. Didn’t observe Judaism, didn’t practice Judaism.” The speaker adds as a side thought: “If you don’t mind me jumping in on this,” and then discusses a common claim: people say you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic, arguing that Judaism is just a religion, not a nationality, so they are not against the religion but against the nation, and it “shouldn’t be considered a nation.” The speaker then contends that Epstein is not a Jew under that standard because there is nothing about him that identifies with Israel. The only related claim is that “one of his emails says, I hate Israel. Right? There’s nothing about him that is religious at all.” However, when it comes to antisemitism, the speaker asserts, “he’s a Jew.” That is presented as the final point on Epstein’s case. The speaker mentions Epstein “tried to work with a former prime minister,” calling that his only connection. The former prime minister referred to is David Barak, described as not in politics for many, many years and having no influence in Israel, and “is the, kind of, the main political antagonist of Netanyahu.” The transcript notes that Epstein’s only connection was with David Barak, and that Barak is viewed as Netanyahu’s main political antagonist, despite Barak’s long absence from active politics. The passage ends with that acknowledgment of Epstein’s connection being limited to Barak.

The speaker explains the difference between Jews and Zionists. They state that Zionism is the opposite of Judaism, as it mistrusts God and goes against religious beliefs. Zionists are accused of committing crimes by taking land from others through killing and robbery, which goes against the commandments of not killing and not stealing. This is the fundamental difference between Zionists and others.

The speaker claims that the "Zionist occupation of Palestine that calls itself Israel" is built on lies and theft, having stolen the name "Israel." The name originates from the Old Testament, where Jacob was renamed Israel, and his descendants were the Israelites. Those who accepted covenants with God were part of the House of Israel, later the Christian Church established by Jesus. Rejecters of Jesus were the Jews, a pejorative term for those who rejected Christ. The speaker asserts that the true Israel is the Church, not a birthright or DNA privilege. Christian Zionists are deceived in believing today's Jews are still in covenant with God from the old covenant with Abraham. The speaker rejects Calvinist theology and predestination. In 1948, Zionists stole the name Israel to mislead evangelicals and religious Jews. Only religious fanatics in Puritan circles supported Zionism, misinterpreting scriptures. The speaker believes evangelicals are not Christians, the chosen people are not chosen, and Israel is not Israel. The true Israel is a spiritual fellowship of people with faith who follow Jesus. The Zionist occupation is a Jewish military dictatorship that has fooled religious fanatics and the secular masses.

DNA tests are allegedly prohibited in Israel because they would reveal that virtually no Ashkenazi Jews are Semitic or have ancestral connection to Palestine. The speaker claims to have met Chinese, Vietnamese, and African Jews, none of whom are native to Palestine. The speaker states that some Ashkenazi Jews are entirely European in their DNA. The speaker recounts being assaulted by a BBC manager who had recently converted to Judaism. The speaker believes that converting to Judaism does not give someone the right to displace Palestinians.

The speaker claims that the present Jews in Palestine are not descendants of the Judeans or the lost tribes of Israel, but rather descendants of the Kazars from Eastern Europe. They state that the Jews in Eastern Europe were never semites and cannot be considered semites in the future. The speaker questions why the origin and history of the Khazars and the Khazar Kingdom are not taught in history textbooks or courses. They suggest cross-checking the information, even referring to the Jewish encyclopedia for confirmation.

The speaker asserts that every Israeli prime minister has a fake name and that many changed their original European Jewish surnames to sound more Jewish or Middle Eastern. The speaker claims various examples: - David Ben Gurion: original name Gruen; changed to sound more Jewish and Middle Eastern. - Benjamin Netanyahu: real name Milkovsky (also stated as Malikowski in places); the speaker urges checking to verify Milkovsky. - Moshe Sharet: original name Chertok. - Levi Eshkol: original name Shklonik; changed to Eshkol. - Yigal Allon: original name Peikovits. - Golda Meir: real name Mabovich (not Golda Meir). - Yitzhak Rabin: real name Rubitsov. - Yitzhak Shamir: original name Yezernitsky; noted as being on a British wanted poster in Palestine for terrorism. - Shimon Peres: original name Persky. - Ehud Barak: original name Brog; changed to Barak. - Ariel Sharon: original name Shinerman; changed to Sharon. - Yair Lapid: original name Lample; changed to Lapid. The speaker emphasizes that Israelis are European Jews who do not come from Palestine and argues they want others to believe they are indigenous to the land; thus, they changed names to obscure their Eastern European origins. The pattern highlighted is that these are Eastern European names, not Palestinian or Middle Eastern, implying a claim about origins and ethnicity. The discussion centers on name changes as a deliberate act to redefine identity, with multiple examples presented to illustrate the point.

Deborah said that this new form of antisemitism is not so new anti-Zionism. Speaker 0 responds that this is not new, noting that the first document of anti-Zionism is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written in response to the world Zionist congresses. It was true: the Jews were gathering to hatch their international plans, and we still do. Right? But what I think is...

Speaker 0 argues that some claim Jewish prophecies in the Torah require that 6,000,000 Jews vanish before Israel can be formed, but asserts that the common translations do not state this and that interpretation varies across translations. He cites Leviticus 25:10, “And you shall hollow the earth fifteenth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all inhabitants thereof,” noting that exoterically there is nothing, but Rabbinical scholars allegedly see deeper meanings through words, numbers, and symbols. He claims Hebrew text can read as “you shall return,” and that the letter “v” stands for the number six, framing the passage as mysteriously misspelled in Hebrew to spell and imply 6,000,000. He says Ben Wytrall, a religious scientist, learned from rabbis that the missing letter signals the number 6,000,000. The prophecy, according to this esoteric reading, says you will return but with 6,000,000 less, suggesting a divine cleansing or burnt sacrifice allowing Jews to return to Israel. He asserts that esoteric deciphering of Talmudic and Jewish texts reveals meanings hidden from Gentiles, and that whether 6,000,000 died in the Holocaust is secondary to the esoteric significance. He states that exoterically the number 6,000,000 isn’t present in English Torah, and cites Robert b Goldman claiming that without the Holocaust, there would be no Jewish state. He ties the term holocaust to “burnt offerings,” arguing the prophecy has been fulfilled and Israel becomes legitimate. He adds that questioning this number or its historical accuracy can lead to jail sentences in 12 countries. He then explains Jewish gematria, a system assigning numeric values to words, names, or phrases to reveal relatedness; cites chai as an example (alive) whose letters sum to 18, making 18 a lucky number in Jewish culture. He notes gematria derives from the Greek gematria (geometry) and claims Freemasons act as a smokescreen using gematria, with Freemasonry embracing Kabbalah and ancient traditions linked to Jews released from Babylonian captivity, influencing Freemasonry and Catholicism. He mentions the suggestion that the letter “G” in the Freemasonic square and compass stands for geometry and highlights cryptic Freemasonic symbolism and double meanings. Speaker 1 quotes Manley P. Hall, a 33rd-degree Masonic historian, describing Freemasonry as “a fraternity within a fraternity,” with an outer visible organization and an inner invisible brotherhood devoted to a sacred secret, noting that the inner society remains largely unrecorded by historians and operates in secret. Speaker 0 amplifies that the topic’s complexity is intentional, not meant for general public comprehension, and refers to the Goyim. Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 demonstrate gematria calculations and discuss Lashon Hakodesh, the oneness of God, and archetypal connections between Adam, David, Mashiach, and Moses, asserting numerical equivalences such as 1,499 in a biblical phrase and linking Adam, Moses, and Sheth as archetypal souls. Speaker 0 concludes that tracing the roots of political Zionism to headlines and writings since the inception of political Zionism through the Nuremberg trials reveals over 200 references to 6,000,000 Jews dying, framed not to persuade the Goyim but to justify divine fulfillment and the extermination of Palestinians, asserting that from a rabbinical perspective this is the will of their God and they are God’s chosen people. He adds a note on the Nuremberg trials as a potential cover-up and mentions William Hoetel’s testimony about 4,000,000 Jews murdered in concentration camps, with 2,000,000 elsewhere, claiming this unsupported claim fueled the 6,000,000 narrative and that 6,000,000 Jews being sacrificed is the cost for the land of Israel in the eyes of some.

The speaker discusses the history of Bani Israel, who are known as the Jews today. They highlight that Bani Israel repeatedly broke their covenants with Allah and even killed some of the messengers and prophets sent to them. The speaker mentions a story about fishermen who disobeyed Allah's command not to fish on Saturdays and were turned into monkeys as a punishment. They caution against trusting the Jews based on their history and urge listeners to be aware of their actions. The speaker also mentions how Israelis label anyone who disagrees with them as terrorists while comparing their own suffering to the Holocaust. They emphasize the importance of understanding the nature of these people.

The speaker discusses a decision made by a family to change their surname to a Jewish name from Jewish religious scripture. They mention that Jews from various backgrounds may want to disassociate themselves from surnames forced upon them due to painful past experiences. The speaker emphasizes that repeatedly taunting individuals with their historical names, which they do not use, is ignorant. They also mention that many common Israeli surnames are of Arabic or Safari origin.

The speaker argues that American Jews are wrestling with a category they inherited from our European ancestors about 250 years ago. As Jews moved into modern nation-states and pursued secular jobs and secular education, they reimagined Judaism to fit in. Judaism was transformed into something like a Protestant-style religion: a framework that worked well for a long period, enabling Jews to participate in broader society. The speaker emphasizes that Jews are not merely a religion, nor are we a race or ethnicity. Instead, Jews are a nation, civilization, tribe, peoplehood, and above all, a family. Therefore, a young person in America who thinks Judaism is simply a Protestant religion risks viewing the 7,000,000 Jews in Israel as merely co-religionists. If that is the lens, the natural question becomes: what do you owe to them? It would be like telling a mainline, very progressive Protestant in Berkeley, California that they must care about a Pentecostal in Brazil. In that framing, it doesn’t make sense, because it’s a category error. The speaker clarifies that the people in Israel are not merely co-religionists; they are siblings. The danger lies in thinking of Israel's Jewish population primarily through the lens of shared religious practice. When that happens, there is a risk of sliding into anti-Zionism, because the fundamental, personal connection to Israel—as siblings within a broader Jewish family—gets diminished or lost if Israel is reduced to a subset of co-religionists who share a particular religious outlook or social-justice framework. Key contrasts highlighted include the historical adaptation that treated Judaism as a Protestant-style religion to fit into secular, modern-state life, versus the present understanding that Jewish identity encompasses nationhood, civilization, and family ties. The speaker suggests that recognizing Israel as part of a family, not just a co-religionist community, is essential to maintaining connections that are not solely defined by theological agreement or social-justice alignment but by a broader shared Jewish peoplehood.

In this video, the speaker discusses a book written by Benjamin H. Friedman, a Jewish man, who challenges the belief that present-day Jews in Palestine are the true descendants of the Judeans. According to Friedman, they are actually descendants of the Khazars. He also claims that the word "Jew" was only introduced in the English language in the 18th century, and Jesus referred to himself as a Judean, not a Jew. The speaker verifies that the Latin words inscribed on the cross during Jesus' crucifixion support this claim. The speaker emphasizes that the term "Jew" has both religious and governmental connotations, while "Judean" is purely geographical.

It's a pretty known fact that the Jews are God's chosen people, that the Jewish homeland is Israel, that the Jews believe in the Old Testament, and that the Old Testament is about Jews. However, almost none of these facts are true. "Nowhere in the Bible does it call the Jews God's chosen people." "The Jews don't really believe in the Old Testament, and only maybe 5% of the people in the Old Testament can even be considered Jewish." "the expression anti Semite literally means against Shem or his descendants. However, being anti Jewish isn't the same as being anti Semitic." "Shem is the son of Noah, the guy who built the ark when Mesopotamia flooded." "Except Abraham has never been a Jew nor will he ever be a Jew."

Jewish people have allegedly aimed to control the world for thousands of years, according to the speaker. They believe this is supported by a book of God. Another speaker suggests that in Jewish understanding, the term "Edom" refers to Christianity. The first speaker then discusses the fate of non-Jews when the Messiah comes, stating that they will cease to exist as individuals and as a nation. This is referred to as cultural genocide by some.

Speaker 0 argues that chanting “from the river to the sea” is in favor of a second holocaust. He suggests some students are ignorant and do not understand what they’re talking about, noting they talk about “end the occupation of Palestine” and needing a history lesson. He states that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state. Before World War I, the land experienced centuries under the Ottoman Empire and was not a Palestinian Arab state. Then came the British mandate for Palestine, followed by a UN partition plan that proposed a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted the state and founded Israel, while the Arabs rejected the state and went to war to try to eradicate Israel, and they lost. He says they went to war again and lost in 1967 and 1973 and throughout the Intifadas. Consequently, he asserts that the land historically has “no stronger connection” than any group of people except the Jewish people, and that connection goes back thousands of years. He concludes with a call to “Read your bible.”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a view that the entire Zionist story, history, culture, and Jewish identity are synthetic and contrived. They claim there are think tanks, such as JPPI and others, that strategize on how to advance Zionism, how to change the story, how to better the story, and how to progress to gain more followers. They assert that one of their methods was to make Jews appear as if they are organically connected to The Holy Land, but not from a religious or spiritual perspective, rather from a national perspective. They note that many of these Zionists came from Russia and Poland and spoke Yiddish, while Sfardim spoke Arabic, and they mention having Jewish friends from Syria who speak Arabic. They say the strategy involved changing the language Jews were made to speak to Hebrew, with no more Yiddish, arguing that Yiddish is a dialect of German. Speaker 0 adds a comment that the modern invention of Hebrew is not the same as the ancient language of Hebrew, calling it a reconstruction. Speaker 1 expands, saying that Hebrew is more than a reconstruction and calling it blasphemous. He expands on the language topic by discussing the Talmud, noting that in discussions between rabbis when a question remains unresolved, the term taiku is used to indicate that the rabbinic legal religious discussion has not been resolved. He explains the word is spelled taiku (t a I k u) and is used exclusively to describe unresolved rabbinic legal discussion, contrasting this with today where the word is used to describe a tie in a soccer match, implying a perceived shift in meaning. Overall, the speakers present a narrative in which Zionist identity is manufactured, with deliberate language shifts and reframe of historical connections, highlighting the use of Hebrew over Yiddish, the nationality-based framing of Jewish connection to the land, and a linguistic and cultural reinterpretation of traditional terms and language history. They juxtapose traditional Talmudic usage of taiku with contemporary usage, emphasizing a perceived discrepancy between historical meanings and modern applications.

The speaker highlights that the mass protests worldwide are not just about supporting Palestinians but also about hating Jews. They provide an example of a protester in London who suggests that the West should give a place in Germany to Israeli Zionists and compares them to Hitler. The speaker sarcastically thanks the protester for clarifying that when they say "Zionist," they actually mean Jews.

The speaker claims that several common beliefs about Jews are false: that they are God's chosen people, that Israel is their homeland, that they believe in the Old Testament, and that the Old Testament is about them. The speaker asserts that the term "anti-Semite" is misused, as Semites include Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, not just Jews. Abraham was a Hebrew, not a Jew, and God promised he'd be the father of many nations. The Abrahamic blessing passed to Jacob (Israel), whose son Judah fathered the Jewish people. However, Israel favored Joseph, whose sons Ephraim and Manasseh received the Abrahamic blessing. The speaker says that the Jewish homeland, Israel, was originally Canaan, inhabited by immoral Canaanites. After a civil war, Jews ruled Judea, while Joseph's sons ruled the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Jews were later conquered by Babylonians and Romans, leading to revolts and banishment. The speaker alleges that Jews don't truly believe in the Old Testament, prioritizing the Talmud, which contains disparaging remarks about Jesus and Christians. The speaker concludes that the Old Testament isn't primarily about Jews, as many figures like Moses and Paul were not Jewish. The speaker states that the Bible encompasses the history of various nations, not just the Jews.

The transcript centers on a speaker discussing Jewish identity and political figures through a controversial lens. The speaker first notes that “the small app people have occupied leading positions all around the world,” then immediately shifts to a claim about ancestry and religion: “So his grandparents would show you he's a quarter Jew. So he was a quarter Jew. He's a Jew. He's a Jew too. Still a Jew.” The speaker contrasts Halakhic law with genetics, asserting, “So according to Halakhic law, he's not a Jew, but genetics, you're half a Jew. You're a Jew.” This sequence frames a tension between religious criteria and genetic interpretation of Jewish identity as presented by the speaker. The discussion then pivots to a wife’s Jewish status, with the line, “Worst. Wife is a Jew, I thought, not him. His wife.” The speaker continues by suggesting that “a lot of times, some of these politicians are married to Jews, like Joe Biden's kids and Ivanka Trump, you know, that like, this is how it works with these creatures.” The term “creatures” is used in reference to Jews, marking a dehumanizing and antisemitic tone embedded in the remarks. The speaker adds a hyperbolic claim: “And by the way, this is mathematically impossible, just so you know. This should not even happen ever one time. The fact this is happening in multiple countries in our face like this, it just shows you what the fuck's going on.” The phrase “mathematically impossible” is repeated, underscoring a rhetorical insistence that the observed phenomena cannot plausibly occur, even though no mathematical basis is provided in the transcript. A brief interruption follows with “Other Jesus Christ.” Then the speaker remarks about another individual who “look[s] like one,” followed by “Oh, his wife.” The assertion “This is mathematically impossible, just so you know.” recurs, reinforcing the stated incredulity toward the claimed pattern. The speaker then mentions “Oh, even more Panama,” followed by “Based based Jews, bro. Don't you like to be ruled by Jews?” This culminates in the closing sentiment, “Yeah. This is incredible.” Across the remarks, the speaker weaves together ancestry-based claims, religious identity, and political marriages to assert a provocative, antisemitic narrative about Jews influencing leadership and governance, framed as inexplicable and extraordinary.

The speaker recounts a set of provocative claims about Mamdani. They say: - Mamdani won and is supposedly Muslim, and a large number of posters claim that “the Jews don’t control everything” and that New York City isn’t controlled by Jews; they note Mamdani is a Muslim and now the mayor. - The speaker asserts that they recently met Mamdani and found out he is Jewish—specifically that his mother was Jewish, and they say his grandmother was Jewish, highlighting that this contradicts the earlier claim about his faith. - They claim Mamdani is “basically in bed with all the Jew guys,” and emphasize that he is the mayor. - The speaker mentions Karl Marx as someone who started communism, and then adds a drum roll question implying something about someone named Joe being not only friends with all the Jews but also an actor. - They state that people are discovering Zoran Mamdani was in a Disney movie nine years ago, and that “of course” he was, implying a broader pattern that “they all are.” - The speaker declares this as “a grand illusion of slavery,” urging the listener to understand the irony. - They describe Mamdani as a Muslim mayor who is in bed with the Jews, and then connect this to the claim that nine/eleven was supposedly done by Muslims in a cave in Afghanistan, asserting that this is not true but that many NPCs still think it is. - They conclude that twenty-five years later, New York City has a Muslim mayor who is in bed with the Jews, and claim that the Jews are the ones who did nine/eleven. - The closing remark is that this situation should be understood, and that not all Jews—but many—share this view.

The speaker discusses the origins of the Jewish people, claiming they are not descendants of the ancient Israelites but rather pagan Khazars who converted to Judaism. He questions the support for Israel, arguing that the idea of repatriating God's chosen people is a lie perpetuated by those in power. The speaker criticizes the influence of Jews in media, politics, and religion, suggesting that their control leads to widespread misinformation and manipulation of beliefs.

A speaker identifying themselves as Jewish with critical thinking skills questions where information comes from and asks to see sources. They reference opening the Torah and reading the story of how Jewish people ended up in Israel, then challenge the audience about Abraham’s origins and knowledge of his story. They state that Abraham comes from what is now present-day Iraq, and they question what the story with Abraham, the Jewish people, and God is. They assert that Jewish people are not indigenous to Israel and recount a version of the biblical narrative: God speaks to Abraham and offers a present of “free land” for the Jewish people, telling Abraham to take them to a land filled with milk and honey, and that Abraham leads the people there. They ask what happens when they get to Israel and note that there were already people there. They claim that God told Abraham to slaughter and expel those people from the land, identifying those people as the indigenous inhabitants. The speaker condemns what they describe as others on the app presenting this information as fact, expressing concern that Jewish people themselves may not know their own history or the history of their religion, culture, and land. They juxtapose this with broader historical tragedies, suggesting that if readers have wondered what they would have done during the Holocaust, civil rights movement, slavery, and Canada’s genocide of indigenous people, they should look at what people are doing in the present. They argue that worldwide tragedies and genocide continue because people are afraid to speak out due to social repercussions. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the following core claims: - Abraham originated from a region corresponding to present-day Iraq, not Israel. - The narrative involves God presenting “free land” to the Jewish people and Abraham leading them to this land. - Upon arrival, the land already had indigenous inhabitants. - The divine instruction attributed to God to Abraham was to slaughter and expel those indigenous people. - Many individuals on the app propagate incorrect historical claims as fact, and some Jewish people may lack awareness of their own historical and religious background. - The speaker connects current fear of speaking out to historical and ongoing acts of mass violence and genocide, urging people to speak out rather than stay silent. The speaker ends by linking contemporary social fear to historical injustices, calling for greater courage to speak out.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the basis for Jewish connection to the land and who has a legitimate claim to it. Speaker 0 begins by stating that there are about 16,000,000 Jews in total worldwide, with 8,000,000 living in the area being discussed, and the remainder living mainly in New York, South Florida, and a few other places. He notes that this is a small population with historical and biblical connections to the land, and asks if such a connection exists. Speaker 1 responds that Bibi’s family lived in Eastern Europe and that there is no evidence they ever lived in the land, and that he isn’t religious. He questions whether there is a true ancestral link. Speaker 0 asks whether there is evidence of any genuine ancestral connection. Speaker 1 asks if there is a family tree for Bibi, and if not, whether anyone has one. Speaker 0 asks how they know, and Speaker 1 elaborates that the point is to establish an ancestral connection to the land. He notes that there has been a practice of Judaism and a connection to the language, suggesting that Bibi has fought for the land, and that his family has fought for it. He raises an obvious, meaningful question: where does this right come from? He explains that many people in the territory Israel controls, particularly in the West Bank, have genetic evidence of having been there for thousands of years, with many identified as Christians for two thousand years, and even if some did not practice Judaism or were Samaritan or pre-Islam, the question remains: how do they compare in terms of rights to someone whose ancestors lived in Latvia or Poland and were Jewish? He questions the basis of being “Jewish” by faith, language, or Torah. Speaker 0 challenges the question, asking how we know if Bibi’s ancestors ever lived there, and expresses confusion about what Speaker 1 is trying to determine. Speaker 1 emphasizes that a claim of rights based on ancestral presence is significant because many claims hinge on whether ancestors lived there, whether money flowed, and whether displacement occurred. He reiterates that it is not a theoretical issue like a grandparent’s distant past, but a real question of who has the right to be there. Speaker 0 remains unable to fully process Speaker 1’s point.