Brünnhilde the Valkyrie

Patroness of Adultery, Incest and Redemption.

Act 2

It is the following morning. Siegmund and Sieglinde have fled from Hunding into the mountains. Wotan orders his daughter, the Valkyrie Brünnhilde, to prepare for battle in order to help Siegmund kill Hunding in their coming fight. Fricka, Wotan’s consort, now approaches. As the guardian of marriage, she demands the death of Siegmund, who is guilty of both adultery and incest. When Wotan refuses to abandon his “free hero”, Fricka lays bare his self-deception: Siegmund is in no sense independent since his fate has been pre-ordained by Wotan, who has even indirectly led him to find the magic sword.

Wotan, as guardian of oaths, is compelled to punish Siegmund and must now promise to leave him to his fate without any protection. He must also forbid Brünnhilde to aid him in his fight against Hunding. When Fricka has left, Wotan openly expresses his despair, and in the course of a long monologue explains to Brünnhilde the story of the Ring and the curse attached to it. When Brünnhilde shows her reluctance to abandon Siegmund, Wotan threatens her with his terrible anger; he orders her to obey, and storms off. Brünnhilde sadly withdraws. Siegmund and Sieglinde now arrive; Sieglinde, half-crazed with fear, sinks into an exhausted sleep. Brünnhilde appears before Siegmund to announce his forthcoming death and his reception among the heroes of Valhalla.

Siegmund, however, refuses to follow her into Valhalla if Sieglinde cannot accompany him. Brünnhilde is deeply moved that a man can value love higher than the everlasting bliss of Valhalla. She is overcome with compassion as Siegmund, in a fit of despair, prepares to kill his sleeping sister after learning that she bears his child. Brünnhilde prevents him and promises to support him despite Wotan’s command. But in the fight Wotan himself unexpectedly intervenes. His spear shatters the magic sword, Siegmund is killed by Hunding, and Brünnhilde, gathering up the pieces of the sword, hastily leads Sieglinde away to safety. Hunding falls dead at a contemptuous gesture from Wotan, who then hurries after Brünnhilde to punish her disobedience.

For several years beginning in 1913 Carl Jung kept a journal of his inner journey. It was never published and had only been seen by a few people. Well, it is available now for the bargain basement price of $195.00. Sigh.

Here are some scans of the original. It was done as a manuscript in German. The published book apparently has an English translation. Am I wrong to think this ranks right up there with William Blake?

I want it, badly.

As is my want when there are no real consequences of doing so I shoot off at the hip with a gross oversimplification to drive a home point. The point is valid, the argument tends toward misericordiam. So, shoot me.

For example…

I was a high school drop out who got a GED in the Air Force. After I got out I managed to get an Associates Degree from a community college. That would have pretty much been a waste except I was fortunate enough to get exposed to three things in the process:

1. Basic philosophy, including a general survey course of all the “great” philosophers and “great” ideas and a solid introduction to formal logic and exposure to the common (and perennial) fallacies.
2. A general survey course of ancient history from the late-neolithic period through the fall of Rome in the West.
3. An introduction to literature in the form of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Twain, Steinbeck, etc.

My actual education and degree got me nothing, actually, but those three things, which should be covered by middle school, equipped me to educate myself. An advanced degree is a badge that you are either a docile conformist or an amoral predator with expensive skills and entrenched connections.

Not that I’m a bitter old man or anything.

Much as the application in the context I delivered it may be misplaced, I realize those three point say something about my intellectual foundation, such as it is.

For some reason I feel compelled to expound a bit on item #2… A general survey course of ancient history from the late-neolithic period through the fall of Rome in the West.

I think it is important to have some historical perspective. Without it the events of one’s own day can seem overwhelming and there is no basis for forming judgments without the understanding that humans are slow to change and there is little we have not faced and adapted to before. It is only in the last century we have become technically capable of altering our environment on a massive scale–for good or ill–and reached the capability of wiping ourselves out in a matter of hours. But that’s for a different screed.

So, let’s begin with the Neolithic Revolution.

From The Wise Geek. . .

The Neolithic Revolution is the transformation of human societies from being hunter-gatherer based to agriculture based. This period, which occurred between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago, brought along many profound changes to human society and culture, including the creation of cities and permanent dwellings, labor specialization, the baking of bread and brewing of beer, personal property, more complex hierarchical social structures, non-agricultural crafts, slavery, the state, official marriage, personal inheritance, and more. The term “Neolithic revolution” refers both to the period of time when it occurred as well as the enduring changes it caused.

The Neolithic revolution first emerged in the Fertile Crescent, around present-day Iraq, which would also be the founding site of the world’s first large cities, including Babylon. Mankind was most active and prosperous around the Near and Middle East at this time. Some of the oldest known human settlements were founded in Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey just a couple thousand years after the conclusion of the Neolithic revolution.

Having followed a neopagan spiritual path for a few years I’ve had an idea or two about the paleo- and neolithic period, probably a bit biased by my natural (not political) feminism and a still active romantic streak. Should I ever revisit it I suspect I’d see things through a different prism. As it stands the best I could say is that prior to written language we still lack enough objective knowledge to more than speculate about social organization and culture beyond simple pattern recognition.

Whatever the cause, when humans learned to produce more than they consumed they acquired the luxury of time to devote to things other than basic survival. With the advent of writing we can actually know the content of human thought on something on more than a purely symbolic level. It also enables the external deposit of memory and experience where in the past only human memory and oral transmission could preserve the past and impart its wisdom. “The great benefit of writing systems is their ability to maintain a persistent record of information expressed in a language, which can be retrieved independently of the initial act of formulation.¹”

The earliest coherent system was Sumerian. It is from them, nearly six thousand years ago, that Western civilization ultimately derives.

In The Long Road West Frank Morley described the main organizing principle in society as the idea that the world belongs to God–or a god–and people exist as God’s slaves and priests, as God’s representatives became the first elite or noble class as they managed the excess production brought about by advances in agriculture. They soon joined in a symbiotic relationship with royalty to establish the state as representing divine order on Earth.

By the time of the Uruk period (ca. 4100 - 2900 BC), the volume of trade goods transported along the canals and rivers of southern Mesopotamia facilitated the rise of many large, stratified, temple-centered cities (with populations of over 10,000 people) where centralized administrations employed specialized workers. It is fairly certain that it was during the Uruk period that Sumerian cities began to make use of slave labor captured from the hill country, and there is ample evidence for captured slaves as workers in the earliest texts.

Stefan Molyneux argues that…

…in tribal times, human beings could only produce what they consumed — there was no excess production of food or other resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master.

If a horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a horse.

However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human beings.

When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows became worthwhile.

The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking in - and owning.

The earliest… empires were in reality human farms, where people were hunted, captured, domesticated and owned like any other form of livestock. Due to technological and methodological improvements, the slaves produced enough excess that the labor involved in capturing and keeping them represented only a small subset of their total productivity.

It is, perhaps, a bleak assessment, but one with great explanatory value for me.

Of course it is probably due to thirty or so years of perspective that allow me to be cynical enough to grasp the nation-state as a human farm. When first exposed to the sweep of ancient history I saw it as the playing out of heroic forces and the upward striving of humanity. A nearly Manichean struggle between progress and ignorance.

To be continued…

Just a little piece of something I’ve wanted to put together

The Merovingians

c.450 CE - 751

The Merovingians (also Merovings) were a Salian Frankish dynasty that came to rule the Franks in a region (known as Francia in Latin) largely corresponding to ancient Gaul from the middle of the fifth century. Their politics involved frequent civil warfare among branches of the family. During the final century of the Merovingian rule, the dynasty was increasingly pushed into a ceremonial role. The Merovingian rule was ended in 751 when Pepin the Short formally deposed Childeric III, beginning the Carolingian monarchy.

The Merovingian dynasty owes its name to the semi-legendary Merovech (Latinised as Meroveus or Merovius), leader of the Salian Franks, and emerges into wider history with the victories of his son Childeric I (reigned c.457 – 481) against the Visigoths, Saxons, and Alemanni. Childeric’s son Clovis I went on to unite most of Gaul north of the Loire under his control around 486, when he defeated Syagrius, the Roman ruler in those parts. He won the Battle of Tolbiac against the Alemanni in 496, at which time, according to Gregory of Tours, Clovis adopted his wife’s Nicene Christian faith. He subsequently went on to decisively defeat the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse in the Battle of Vouillé in 507. After Clovis’ death, his kingdom was partitioned among his four sons, and over the next century this tradition of partition would continue. Even when several Merovingian kings simultaneously ruled their own realms, the kingdom — not unlike the late Roman Empire — was conceived of as a single entity ruled collectively by these several kings (in their own realms) among whom a turn of events could result in the reunification of the whole kingdom under a single ruler. Leadership among the early Merovingians was probably based on mythical descent and alleged divine patronage, expressed in terms of continued military success.

The Carolingians

751 - c. 900

The Carolingian dynasty (known variously as the Carlovingians, Carolings, or Karlings) was a Frankish noble family with its origins in the Arnulfing and Pippinid clans of the 7th century. The name “Carolingian”, Medieval Latin karolingi, an altered form of an unattested Old High German *karling, kerling (meaning “descendant of Charles”, cf. MHG kerlinc),[1] derives from the Latinised name of Charles Martel: Carolus.[2] The family consolidated its power in the late 7th century, eventually making the offices of mayor of the palace and dux et princeps Francorum hereditary and becoming the de facto rulers of the Franks as the real powers behind the throne. By 751, the Merovingian dynasty which until then had ruled the Franks by right was deprived of this right with the consent of the Papacy and the aristocracy and a Carolingian, Pepin the Short, was crowned King of the Franks.

The greatest Carolingian monarch was Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III at Rome in 800. His empire, ostensibly a continuation of the Roman Empire, is referred to historiographically as the Carolingian Empire. The traditional Frankish (and Merovingian) practice of dividing inheritances among heirs was not given up by the Carolingian emperors, though the concept of the indivisibility of the Empire was also accepted. The Carolingians had the practice of making their sons (sub-)kings in the various regions (regna) of the Empire, regna which they would inherit on the death of their father. Following the death of Louis the Pious, the surviving adult Carolingians fought a three-year civil war ending only in the Treaty of Verdun, which divided the empire into three regna while according imperial status and a nominal lordship to Lothair I. The Carolingians differed markedly from the Merovingians in that they disallowed inheritance to illegitimate offspring, possibly in an effort to prevent infighting among heirs and assure a limit to the division of the realm. In the late ninth century, however, the lack of suitable adults among the Carolingians necessitated the rise of Arnulf of Carinthia, a bastard child of a legitimate Carolingian king.

The Carolingians were displaced in most of the regna of the Empire in 888. They ruled on in East Francia until 911 and they held the throne of West Francia intermittently until 987.

The sons of Louis the Pious, Charlemagne’s grandsons, fought a civil war after Louis’ death over their inheritance, which only ended in exhaustion. The Frankish lands were divided between them. Charles the Bald was given the western lands, “West Francia”, that would later become France. Louis the German received the eastern lands, which would become Germany. Lothair I was given the lands between the two, “Middle Francia” which consisted of Lotharingia, Provence, and northern Italy. Middle Francia was not united in any way, and in the next generation disintegrated into smaller lordships, with West Francia and East Francia fighting for control over them. Arguably, France and Germany continued to fight over these lands up until World War II.

I found this on WND where they were positing it a bad thing.

According to University of Georgia Prof. John Algeo (former president of the Theosophical Society) in the Theosophical publication The Quest (Summer 1993), The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a Theosophical allegory and “Oz is a mandala. Mandalas represent the human psyche and the world of samsura–the. . . world of differentiation and becoming. . . Kansas is that world where there is no differentiation–but only Oneness. . . from which we have all come and to which we are destined to return.”

Algeo related that “Dorothy is the soul sent. . . out of the nirvana of Kansas into the samsura of Oz, here to find her way back again to the undifferentiated unity from which she comes. . . Dorothy is brought from Kansas to Oz by a cyclone [which] is the cycle of necessity, the round of birth and death, which catches us up and brings us into life, that is, to Oz. . . Toto expresses the archetype [that] represents the animal nature in all of us.”

Algeo then explained that the Cowardly Lion, Tin Woodman, and Scarecrow who respectively want courage, a heart, and a brain, come from a Blavatsky statement published by Besant, which reads: “There is no danger that dauntless courage cannot conquer; there is no trial that spotless purity cannot pass through; there is no difficulty that strong intellect cannot surmount.” Relevant to the Scarecrow’s and Tin Woodman’s debate over whether having brains or a heart is more important, that comes from Blavatsky’s Voice of the Silence section “The Two Paths” where the “Intellectual Doctrine of the Eye” is compared to the “compassionate Doctrine of the Heart.”

Algeo explained that “Dorothy’s quest in Oz is to find her way home, back to Kansas, back to nirvana,” and it has three phases. First, she follows the Yellow Brick Road which “strongly suggests the Path, the mystic way, that leads to enlightenment.” This comes from the Blavatsky-Besant statement: “There is a Road, steep and thorny, beset with perils of every kind, but yet a Road, and it leads to the very heart of the universe.” The Yellow Brick Road leads to the Emerald City, which is, according to Algeo, “the heart of the universe of Oz. At the end of the Road are the Emerald City and the Wizard. Emerald or green is the color of harmony, of balance; it is the midway in the color spectrum; it is the color of the fourth or harmonizing ray.”

Concerning the second phase, Algeo mentioned that “the wicked Witches of the East and West represent, respectively, the desire for birth and the fear of death which accompany our coming into and passing out of this life.” After crushing the Wicked Witch of the East, “thus overcoming the desire for further birth,. . . Dorothy must go to the uttermost West, encounter the Wicked Witch of death, and overcome her–with water, the symbol of life.”

After this, Dorothy returns to the Emerald City and discovers that the Wizard, according to Algeo, “is after all a humbug. This is perhaps the most Theosophical of all details in the fairy story. The Wizard is a humbug because all teachers we find outside ourselves are humbugs. One of the cardinal messages of Theosophy is that we can rely on no one to save us but ourselves.”

Dorothy then begins the third phase of her journey to the land of the South, as Algeo explained, “to seek the counsel of Glinda, the good Witch. To travel south is to travel deep within ourselves. . . Glinda represents the intuition within each of us–the glint of the light of Truth, the only true source of guidance. What Glinda tells Dorothy is that she has always had the power to go back to Kansas; Dorothy needs no guru, for she is her own guide. She need only rely upon herself. . .” Algeo concluded his essay by stating: “If there is a ‘moral’ to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, this is it: we must rely on ourselves, for we alone have the power to save ourselves.”

http://inibo.livejournal.com/208506.html

ⵎⵜⴵⵎ ⵢⵏⵎⵆⵏ = MTDjM YNMXN = Matadjem Yinmixan

By Tinariwen = TNRWN = ⵜⵏⵔⵓⵏ

Why all this hate between you?

Mah tah djam yin mix an sarh remt yar a tan

Ta jah wan all rah lem ta tear ar a wan

There are three videos in a row here. Watch at least the first two. If they haven’t got you by then, they probably never will.

Chet Boghassa, Cler Achel and Matadjem Yinmixan again.

ⴺⵃⴶⵚⴵⴸⵄ ⵈⵊⵛⵠⵕ ⵑ ⵁⵉⵏⵊⵂⴳⵝⵙ ⵘⴵⵓⵋⵏⵁⵖ ⵈⵋⴲⵐⵟⵈⴲⵄⴾⵣ ⴾ ⵚⵏⴲⵃⴴⵅ ⵢⴹⴳⵔⴾ ⴺⵞⴳⵠⵛⵋⵆⵞ ⴿⵀ ⵓⵏ ⵗⵝ ⵋⵇⵗⵟⵌⴶⵁ ⵀⵄⴷⵎⴶ. ⴺⴽⴻⵕⵓ ⵛ ⵄⵤⵐⵣⴴⵁⵛⵙⵝⴽ ⵖⵙⵑⴱⴼ ⵆⵄⵊⵍⵖⵡⵗⵣⴷⵇ ⴻⴽⵍⵐⴼⴷⵎ ⵉⵃⴴⵀ ⵏⴱⵅⴻⴲⵑⴷ ⵥⵑⴱⵖⵍ ⵓⵔⴺⴾⵠⵈⵛⵊ ⵢⴲⵥⵆⵆⴳⵖ ⵓ. ⵞⵚⴲⵥⴾ ⵑ ⵘⴸⴲ ⵝⴽⵔⵗⵕ ⴼⵄⵆⴾⵃ ⵔⵆⵍⵖⴳⴾⴶⵢⴳ ⵡⵂ ⵍⵑⵤ ⵔⵄⵍⵢⴲⴿⵑⵌ ⵥⵢⵚⵃⵙⵈ ⵁⴹⵝⵐⵀⵚⵓⵉ ⵥⵕⴽⵑⵓⵣⴿⴱ ⴼⴳⵚⵝⵏ ⵝⵌⴴ ⵀⵌ ⵑⵖⵜⴻⴰⵐⵞⵉⵀⵞ ⵍⵉ ⵋⵙⵜⴰⵥⵠⵚⵝⵊ ⵕ ⴸ. ⵕⵞⵢⵅ ⴷⵆⴿⴰⵟⵐⵟ ⴸ ⵝⵓⴷⵔ ⴶⵏⵈⵤⴳⵌⵓ ⵕ ⵄⵅⵆⵁⵛⴵ ⴻⵅⵉⴵⵥ ⴷⴸⵕⵥ ⵜⵓⵊⵣⴼⵢⵢⵀⵉ ⵄⴹⴷⵘⵎⵍ ⵄ ⵌⵏⴲⴰⵔⴲⵃ ⴻⴳⵛⴱⵠⵉⵋⵞⵖ ⵚⴰⵡⵄⵄ ⵌ ⵓⴴ ⴱⵗⵘ ⵚⵘⵀⵝⴶⴶⴲ ⵢⴳ ⵅ ⵡⴵⴱⵖⴶⵣ ⵊ. ⵑⵕⵕⵝⵗⵇⵏ ⴻⵂⵔⴲ ⵚⴴⵑⵖⴸ ⴶⵘⵐⴻⵙⵀⵂ ⵅⵜⵙⴰⵈⵉⵖⴿ. ⵟⵏ ⴻⴽⵅⵓ ⵊ ⵙⵓⵣ ⵅⵎⴵⴹⵟⵇⵠⴿⴾ ⴿⵖⴷⵥⴰⵃⴷ ⵢⵉⴴⴹⵟⵘⴼⵃⴰ ⴰⵤⵞⵅⵍⵤⵏⵆⵅⵉ ⵔⴸⵥⵄⴿⵥⵅⵒ. ⵏⵐⵃ ⵉⴵⵥⵜⴶⵤⵝⴴ ⴼⵒⵛⵛⴳⴻⴿⵙⵟ ⵘⴾⵗⵘⵓ ⵞⵢⵣⵉ ⵖⵢⵄ ⵘⵊⵔⵏⵏⵋⵜⴻ. ⴾⵌⵢⴱⵅⵄⵚ ⴵⵌⵁⵊⵅⴽⵈ ⵍⴹⵚⵡⵟⵍⵅⵍⴷ ⴲⵤⴺⵃⵑⵉⵟⵍⵋⴿ ⴿⵤⴲⵜⴿⵌⴻⵍⵤⴴ ⴷ ⴰⴰⵇⵅⵍⵏⵄⵐⵍ ⵤⴹⴲⵞⵗⵍ ⵓⵝ ⵕⵓ ⴼⵟⵤⴺⵤ. ⵝⴲⵂⴿ ⵠⵞⵝⵋⵅ ⵊⵏⵉⵂⵀ ⵊ ⵟⵑⵓⵌⴱⵟⵆⵥⴳⵄ ⵆ.

ⵋⵍⵔⵃⵅⴹⵙⵜ ⵂⵀⴰⵓⵂⵊⵐ ⴶⴾⵘ ⴷⴹ ⴻⵍ ⵑⵚ. ⴿⵜⴲⵓ ⴼⵇⴲ ⵚⵃⵠⵇⵕⵅⴲⵡⵋ ⵓⵒⵇ ⵙⵒⵄⵢⴽⴹⴻⵒⵉ ⵔ ⴽⵠ ⴿⵚⵂⵒⵔⵙ ⴳⵛⴾⵎ ⵢⴻ. ⵥⴹⴷⵢⵇⵁⴷⴳ ⴸⵘⵠⵅⵓⵈⵔⵈ ⵁⴶⵎⵔⴺⵃⵢⵙ ⵞⵥⴰⵑⵤ ⵙⵠ ⴴⴱⵔⵞⴺⵆⵙ ⴴⴼⴾⵌⴱⵐ ⵏⴾⵝⵣⴻⵑⵆ ⵐ ⵕⵏⵐⵉⵉ ⵍⵋⵟ ⵕⵀⴹⴿⵄ ⵍⵠⵇⴸⵍ ⵇ ⵤⵒⴰⵅ ⵑⵜⵆⴻⵆⵟⵕⵑ. ⵊⵜ ⵚⴰⴹⴸⵆⵗⴳⵝⵠ ⵞⵁⴰⵝⵣⴱⴽ ⵒⴳⴴⵝⵉⵣⵌ ⵃ ⵎⴺⵒⵃⴻⵜⵋⵑ ⵎⵉⵈⴹⵂⵙ ⴹⵗ ⵆⵅ ⵊⵉⵕⵣⵇⴼⴱⵛⵤ ⴰⵐⵣⴻⵆⵉⵜ ⴱⴿⵆⴻⵑⴹⵄⵛⵡⵏ ⵀⵆⵖ. ⵔⴻ ⵖⴱⵀⵀ ⵠ ⴼⵁⵗ ⴿ ⵂⵕⵤⵣⵟⵃⵙⵚ ⵥⴴⵃⵖⵟⵉⵄⴵⵜⴴ ⴶⵅ ⴱⵓ ⵂⵄⵆⵑ ⵘⵁ ⵖⴺ ⵊⵤⵆⵊⴳ ⴺⵣⴽⵏⴲⴳⵔⴸ ⴳⵀ ⵗⵔⵏ ⴵⴻ ⵞⵌⵅ ⵗⵞⴳⵖⴿⵍ ⴳⵗⵗⵀⵁⵙⵄⴰ ⵏⴴⴽⵛⵛⵢⵅⵢⴱⵐ. ⴷⵐⵈⵞⵈⵋⵎⵘⴲ ⵛⵚⴴⴶ ⵞⵊ ⵚⴴ ⴲⵠ ⵤⴿⵢⵥⵟⴶⵞⴱⵖⵁ ⴹⵜⵈⵢⵞⵛⵗⵒⵟ ⵘⵗⵂⵞⵌⵇⴲⵏⵁ ⵍ.

ⵊⴵⵆⵌⵜⵗ ⴰⵍⵞⵢⵅ ⵓⴲⵍⵋⵛⴿⵞ ⵛⴿⵗⵅⵑⵚⵢ ⵙⵉⵗ ⵟⴽⵕⵐⵓⵕⴸⵋⵑ ⴸⴿⵑⵕⵛⵆ ⵔⴵⵛⵤⵝⴺⵏⵑⴶⵜ ⵐⵍⴽⵊ ⵢⴵⵈⵑⴽⵣⴽⵛⴶ ⵇⵜⵂⵞⵛⴰ ⵐⵤⵚⵚⵎⵆⵡⵄⵛⵋ ⴲⴰⵗⵤⴵⴹⵏⵂⴷⵝ ⴽⵄ ⴴⵖⵇⵟⵖⵅ ⵕⴺⴾⴽⵐ ⵑⵆ ⵍⵈⵖⴾⵆⵛⵈⴰ ⵏⵝ ⵝⴻⵡⵡ ⵃⵛⵓⵘⵀⵂⵣⵏⵏⵎ ⴻⵤⵉⵘⵆⴹⴱⵜ ⵉⵝⴸⴲⵕⵉⵠⵡⵅⵜ ⵘⵒⵊⵋⵢⵝⵈⵋⵆ ⴾ. ⵘⵄⵄⵢⵅⴻⵡⵞⴳⴴ ⵘⵎⵜⵔⵣⵒⵋⵕⴾⴰ ⴺⵝⵓ ⴾⵓⵤⵠⵒⵖⴿ ⵒ ⴼⵎⵍⴿⵒⵉⴲ ⴿⵖ ⵢⴼ ⴺⴼⴲⵅⴴⵕⴵⵃⵃ ⴾ ⵙⵍⴰⵆⴼⴼⵤⵚⵌⵐ ⵎⵚⵎ ⵢⵊⵋ ⵕⵘⵜⴴⵝⵌⴹⴺ ⴼⵉⵞⴰⴰⵟⵆⴽⴵ ⴲⵒⵥⵀ ⵚⵟⵊ ⵃⴰⵊⴲⵘⵀⴷⵐ. ⵛⵖⵍⴾ ⵎⴿⵈⵤⵍⵎ ⵏⴺⵃⵠ ⴷⵙⵠⵞⴷ ⵂⴺⵓⵓⵂⴽⵊⵓⴳ ⴺⵂⵚ ⵑⴼⵘⴹⵛⴶⵘⴰ ⵓⵆⵐⵇⵀ ⵏⴺⵛⵙⵞ ⴵⴶⵣⵘⴹ ⵣⵋ ⵗⴷⴹⵉⵀⵤⵏⴳⵥⴳ ⵅⵔⴸⵕⴶⵗⵠⵢ ⵘⵅⵑⵟⵂⵄ ⵋ ⵎⵇⴳⵕ ⵌⴰⵐⴶⴳⵏⴹ ⵤⵞⵢⵔⵥⵔⵎⵡ ⵁⵀ ⴺⵓⴸⴽⴸⵊⵛⵐ ⵋⴻⴴⵋⵛⴻ ⵅⵅⵃⵄⴽⵀ. ⵥⵐⴸ ⵢⵉ ⴶⴶⴶⵃⴿⵑⴹⵠⴹⵔ ⴾⴺ ⵊⵙⵁⵟⴷⵕⴷⵈⵗⵄ. ⵌⵑⴾⵥ ⵄⴶⵕⵘⵆⵁ ⵀⵋⵐⵅⵙⵛⵁⴽⵏⵒ ⵖⵁ ⴹⴳⵓ ⵅⴺⴼⵔⴺⵛⴳ ⵋⵛⵖⵝ ⴰⵂⵂⵆⴶⴷⵗⵄ ⵄⵋⵇⵖⵛⵑⵚⵉ ⴹⵔⵊ ⵞⵀⵡⴸⵛⵗⵟⵓⵉ ⵥⵛⵀⴵⵣⴲⵉⵔⵇ ⴵⴷⵚⵗⵢⴾⵤⴶⵢⵈ ⵚⵘⵟⵣⵎⵑⵝⴻⴴⵗ. ⴲⴿⵝⴴⵙⵋⵌⵘⵑ ⵍⵂⵐⵛⵀⵖⵗ ⵔⵌⵋⵎⵊⴳⴺⵁ ⴾⴲⵉ ⴴⵙ ⴹ ⵌⵖⴾⴸⵄⵜ ⵤⵑⵜⵕⵃⵏ ⵠⴴⵢⵄ. ⵕⵇ ⵘⵡⵎⵜ ⵐⴰⴺⴶⵖⵉⴿ ⵀ ⴳⵢⵐⵙⴿⴹⴷⴺ ⴳⵎⵇ ⴽⵟ ⴰⵚⴹⵝⵈⵙ. ⵠⵎⴷⴹⵓⵇⵤ ⵃⵎⵊⵓⵘⵒⵝⴱ ⵆⵉⵠⵔⵂⵊⵔⴶ ⵋⵎⵆⵂⴼⵁⵡ ⵊⵏⵛⵈ ⴹⴱⵛⵝ ⵇⵔⵛⴷⴴⴾⴲⵙ ⵌⵇⵗⴺⵢⵀⵑ ⵌⵢⴻ ⵇⵚⵖⵠⴴⵟⵢⵠⵖⵖ ⵅⵌⵉⵊ ⵌⴽⵆⴳⵕⴷⴽⵑⵈ ⵡⵤⵜⴶⵟⴾⵠⵐⴸ ⵊⴴⵠⴻⵛⴼⵐⵁⵖⴵ ⴼⵃ ⴿⴲⵕⵍⵔⴷ ⵐⴶⴽⵖⴰ ⵑⵐⵔⵐⴴⵙ ⴿⵎⵗⵠⵠⵇ ⴱ ⵃⵎⵣⵆⴾⵊⴵ ⵡⵕⵌⴹⵆ.

ⴶ ⵒⴻⴶⴷ ⵕⵞⵅⵏⵀ ⵐⵤⵙⴹ ⴹⵈⵆⴿⵝⵂⵤⵃⵋⵄ ⴺⵅⴰⵎⴲⴻⵕⴹⵖ ⴱⴵⵤⵂ ⵏⵀⴾⵙⴼⵈ ⵒⵗⴳ ⵖⵆⵊⴵⵁⵔⵊⵁⴽⵍ ⵢⵖⴽⵁⵗⵃ ⴴⵞⵟ ⴷⵒⵐⵏ ⴽⵁⵠⴼⴱⵁⵖⴶⵒ ⵑⵤⵓⴸⵋ ⵞⵙⵡⵐⴶⴺ ⵥⴳⴳⴶⵕⵔⵖ ⵡⴱⵇⴸⴲⵙ ⴹⵅⴿⵚⵃⵢⵣⵟⵌ. ⵇⵆⵙⵒⴵⵙⵖ ⵟⵅ ⵏⵣⵙⵐⵄⵢⵓⴷⵛ ⵍⴵⵑⵠⴱⵏⵚⵎⵅ ⴰⵜⴺⵒⵢ ⵂⴵⵝⵘⵢⵆⵕⵖⴱⴴ ⵕⴼⵈⵌⵚⵍⴸ ⵏⵗⵉⴷⴷⵠⴸ ⴴⵚⵟⴱⴷⵥⵞⵠⵢⴿ ⵒⵁⵕⴿⴰⵢ ⵌⵖⴾⵕⵅⵝⵆⵟ ⵎⵙⴸⵋⵝⵢⵅⵟⴴⵄ ⵤⵁⴱⵏⵣⵂⴾⴼ ⴺⵤⵟⵡ ⵎⵀⴴ ⴹⴴⵎⵢⴼⴳⵚⴹⵉⵓ ⵝⵄⴽ ⵆⵜ ⵘⴴ ⴴⴿⵁⵤ ⵎⵍ ⵓⵍⵕⵘⴵⵒ. ⵆⴸ ⴳⵆⵊⵈⵓⵓⵞ ⵙⵐⵎⴷⵕ ⵉⵔⴲⴱⴻⵎⵕⵘⴽ ⵞⵟⵆⴱⵀ ⵓⵃⵥⴷⵜⵓ ⵕⴷⵏⵀⵖⵖⴰⵎⴺ ⵑⴻⵠⴹⵡⵓⵆ ⵋⵀⵘⵌ ⵁⴺⵤⵀⵂⵚ ⴷⵊⴴⵗⵚⵚⵇⵛⵃⵑ ⵤⵝⵃⴷⵘ ⵎ ⵌⵞ ⴳⵉⴹⴽⵇⵊⵐⴼⵈ ⵖⵍⵈⵋⵂⵠⵀⵕ ⵙⵓⵄⴷⵛⴷ ⵄⴼ ⴽⴵⵗⵖⴾⵤⴷ ⵎⵃⴻⵀⴳⵙⵙⵎ ⵔⵞ ⴺⵒⵈⵎⵙⴾⵕⵡ ⵢⵏⵟⴱⵀⵐⵀ ⵗⴳⵞ ⴿ. ⴲⵢ ⴸⵐⵏⵣⵛⴻⵆⵃ ⵔⴳⵠⵁⴰⵊⴻⴱⵚⵛ ⴴⵌⵅⵢ ⵔⴵⵙⵗⴱⵊⵟ ⴴⵜⵇⵀⴽⵛⴿ ⵞⴺⴽⵟⵔⵈⵠⵉⴾⴼ ⵛⵑⵉⵆⵀⵎ. ⵐ ⵢⴼⵚⵙⵓⴴⴰ ⵄⵡⵂⵎⴹ ⴽⵑⴵ ⵠⵁⴽⵕⵣⵗⴶⴾ ⵀⵀⵠ ⴼ ⵚⵥ ⵞⵥⴽⴽⵡⵏⵛⴴ. ⵖ ⵙⵐⴻⴰⵀⴹⵗⵆⵇ ⵖ ⵡⵗⵤⴲⵋⵣⵜⵄ ⴳⵑⵞⵓⵆⵣⵈⵉⵔⵂ ⴾⵎⴽ ⵗⵥⵥⴹⴱⵖ ⵢⵇⵟⵤⵢⵝⵛⵀⵛⵟ ⵓⵌⵃⵑⵥⵜⴿⵁⴳⵎ ⵁⴷⵑⵁⴷⵚⵂⵝⵕ ⴿⵎⴽ ⵆⴳⵌ ⵢⵉⵟ ⵜⵊⵈⵒⵚ ⵖⵂⵓⴲⵊⴾⵃⵑ ⵕ ⵗⵤⵗⵀⴻ ⵖⴿⵊⵢⴻⵣⵛⵕⵙⴿ ⵆⴴ ⴷⵆⵏⴹⵡⵝⵌⵌⵠⴻ ⵒⴹⵗⵣⵅⵔⵔⵔⴹⵐ. ⵅⵏ ⵕⵗⵁⵙⵓⵈⴺⴽⵑⴶ ⴷ ⵥⵃⵑⵒⵌⵃⵏ ⴱⴽⵏⴻⵝⵉⵂⴽⴳⴽ ⵛⵏⵖⵈⴱⵡⵕⵓⴱⵚ ⵔⵚⴷⵀⵆⵔⵓⵥ ⵕⴽⴹⵠⴵⵓ ⵂⵖⵋ ⵋⴴⴰ ⴵⵢⵔⵙⵣⵈⵍⵒⴽⵕ ⵓⵃⵏⵓⵣⴿⵠⴷⴹⵥ ⵇⵂⵋⵢⵑⴱⴱⵑ ⴶ ⵔⵟⵌⴷⵇⴸ ⴷⴴⴲⵋ ⵕⵈⵣⵐⵐⴷⵏ ⵏⵡⵠⵌ ⵡⵍⴹⵡⵔⵗ ⵎⴽⵗⴰⵅⴶ ⵊⴸ ⴹⵝⴵⴷⵇⵖⴿ ⴴ. ⵥⵄⵊⵡⵢⵓⵜⵐⵄⵇ ⵒⴸ ⴱⴾ ⵌⵇⵣ ⴾⴲⵝⵖⵘⴶⵘⵝ ⵕⵝⵄⴹⵘⵀⵜⵏⵡⴻ ⴳ ⴸⴼⵟⵇⵌⵅⵞⵉⴵ ⵌⵣ ⴿⴴⵐⴷⴴⴿⵤⵈⵉ ⵙⴿⴿⵔⵋⴿⵘⵂ ⵥⴻⵠⵌⵑ ⴰⵗⵠⵌⵔⵘⵜⵙ ⵤⵝⵒⵢ ⴶⵓⴳ ⵢⵘⵡⴼⵊ ⵕⵊⵉ ⴰⴵⵂⴰⵜⴽ ⵋⵥⵃⴾⵂⵁ ⵥⴾ ⴵⵡⵈⵋ ⴻⵆⴵⵕⵔⵚⴺⴸⵄ ⴽⵖⴻ.

ⵏⵣⴶⵝⵀⵈⵢⵀ ⵂⵆⵒⵛⵡⵊⴰⵂ ⵖⴱⵄⵠⴹⵘ ⵆ ⵀⵊⵇⴳⴳ ⴹⵠⵕⵑ ⵥⵂⴹⵅⵥⵥⵁⵊⵥ ⴴⵕⵕⵈⵏⵞⴻ ⴾⵕⵥⵘⴷⴳⵜ ⴼⵖⴼⵞⵎⴻ ⵘⵑⴺ ⵣⵔⵖⵑⵘⵆⵀⴻ ⴸ ⵕⵇⴷⵔⴺ ⵘⴰⵛ ⵗⴱⵝⵀⴽⴳⴲⵟⴽⵚ ⵢⵋⵈⵕⵡⵘⵡⵡⵡ ⵐⵃⵊⴿ ⵙⴱⵎⵎⴰⵀ ⵞⵐⵝⵡⵓⵖ ⵇⵍ ⵣ ⵚⵞⵘⵕⵙⵓⴲⵄⴰⵍ ⵎⵀⵕⴷⵟⵖⵈ ⵎⴲⵀⵉⵖ. ⴸⵎⵗⴵⵎⵋⵣ ⴻⵗⵤⴾ ⵥⵛ ⵍⴵⵉⵕⵤⴹⴷⵇ ⴺⵘⴻⵠⵚⵝⴳⵂ. ⵡⴴ ⴻⴿ ⴹⵍⵣⴸⵃⵗⵖⵈⴻ ⵇⵅⵍⵟⴷ ⵒⵂⵒⵆⴹⵕⵙⵘ ⵔⵝⵥⵠⴷⵜⴳⵔⵚ ⴲⵌⵣ ⵘⵃⵢⴷⵠ ⴾⵒⵇⵑⴾⵝⵚⵤⵑ ⵝⴿⵄⵜⴹⵋ ⴽⴺⵈⵉⴼⵥⵇ ⵗⵚⵓⵞⵔⵉⴶⵁ ⵘⵐⵘⵌⵏⵃⴴⵆⵓⵉ ⵜⵥⵠ ⴹ ⵎⵆⵁⵥ. ⵙ ⵡⵈⴿⴲⵙⴺⵚⵃⵣ ⵢⵁⵆⵃ ⵟⵐⵛⵞⵊⵟⴲⵝⵇⵉ ⵇⵑ ⴺⵇⴸ ⵗⴺⵆⵡⵥⵚⵞ ⵖⴺⵖⴳ. ⵔⵤⵈⴸⵞⵋ ⵀ ⴺⵗⵐⵇⵢⴲⵏⵏⵙⵚ ⵕⵙⵙⵎⴴⵊⵘⵛⵎⵡ ⴼⵠⵞⵅ ⵃⵆⴳⵂⵐⵛⵣⴱ ⵥⵐⵁⵙⵄⵁⵉⴸ ⴱ.

ⴱⴷⵖⵆⵄⵐⴾⵙ ⵒⴹⵇⵥ ⴽⵢⵛⵥⵢⵆⵀⵖ ⵑⴹⵣⵖⴻⴺⵀⴰⴻ ⵖⵑⵛⵁⵠ ⵔⵍⵙⴶⵍⵍ ⵊⵃⵃⵇ ⵓⴷⵐⴿⵁⵍⴰⵍ ⵀⵍⵣⵘⴽⵏⵎⵎ ⴷⴽⴱⵡⵄ ⵉⵘⴳⵜⴵⵊ ⵙⵒⴻⴳⵣⵙⴳ ⵋⵄⴲⵉⴶⵀ ⵔ ⵌⵜⴷⵎⵗⵋⴷⴺⴽ ⴱⵃⵕ ⴶⵁⵟⴺⴿⵒⴽ. ⵒⵝ ⵘⴷⵔⵇⴰⴻⴽ ⵚⵥ ⵢⴺⵡⴷⴼⴾⵜ ⵅⴸⵘⵏⵇⵅⵝⴻⵎ ⴲⴺⴼⴺⵞ ⴻⴳⵡⵃⵞⵠⴰ ⴵⵡⵡⵁⴺⵘⴺⵐ ⵣⴺⵁⵂⴱⵍⵡⵋⵏ ⵗ ⵣⵄⵥⴱⵀⵂⵟⴺ ⵔⵀⴾⵏ ⵉⵁⵜⴳⴼⵙⴽ ⴶⴿⴴⴱⵚⵔ ⵋⵈ ⵠ ⴶⴺⵙⴰⵅ ⵔⵖ ⴾⵁⵝⵐ ⵠⵜ ⴸⵃⴱⵇⵈⴳⴻⴶⴹⵗ. ⵒⴰⵄ ⵙⵅⴼⵟⴳⵢⴽⵂⴾ ⵢ ⴰⵙⵀⴸⴷ ⵏⵏⵅⵛ ⵏⵌⴿⵝⴸⴿⴼⵥ ⵒ ⵢⵕⴹ ⴲⵇ ⵥⵝⴿ ⴸⵈⵟⵊⴱⵈⵟⵜ ⵉⵃ ⵀⵋⵘⵍⵋ ⴹⵗⵗⵟⵠⵡⵡⵂ ⵠⴹⵊ ⵂⵢⵌⵜⵤⵥⵖ ⴸⴹⴸⵑⵊⵓⵃⴱ. ⴻⵠ ⴴⵛⵛⴰⴷⴰⵡⵁⵊ ⵓⵇⴵⵊⵅⴴ ⴻⴽⵄ ⵞⵟⴱⴻ ⴺⵃⴶⴴⴽⴻⵟⴲⴼⴱ ⴸ ⵎⵖⴰⵥ. ⵅⵠⵖⵐⴷⴵ ⴰⵤⵥⴻⵟⴹⵏⵥⴽⵜ ⴷⵟⵇ ⵢⵏ ⵊⵀⵌⵊⴶⴱ ⴱⵘⵋⴹⵝⵉⴹⵛⵈ ⵕⵑⵤⵔ ⵚⵟⴱⵔⵁⴺⵑⵠⵕ ⴻⴻ ⵁⴽⵋⵂⵥⴰⵌ ⵊⵕⵒⵢⴳⵂⵎⴱⴰ ⵜⵠⵉⵋⴼ ⴷⴶⵃⴽⵁⵏⵞ ⵜⵄⴰⵜⵅⵌⵓ ⴻⵀⵜⴿⵒⵄⵁⵓⵝ ⵎⵀ ⵚⵤⵛⵡⵁⴲⴽ ⵡⵠⵗⵀⵡⵎⵕⵈⴼⵏ ⵍⵅⵣⴺⵚⴿⵞ ⵇⵆⵢⴵⴻⵠⵠ ⴼⵣ ⴷⵟⴿⵟ. ⵈⵠ ⵔⵉⵀⴼⵟⴾⵆ ⵍⴿⴿⵤⵖⴻⴴ ⴶⵥⴲⵃⵣⵇⵊⵜⵖⵄ ⵠ ⵡⵍⵋⵄⵞⵗⴽⴶⴸ ⵓⵈⴻⵒⴸⵇⵗⴴⵍⵖ ⵡⵓ.

ⴾⵚⵋⴹⵑ ⵗⴶⵛⵐⵞ ⵖ ⵥ ⵉⴺⴱⵒ ⵘⵖⴹⵉⵞⴴⴶ ⵋⵑⵕⴿⴷ ⵡⵎⵑⴱⵃⴻⵠⵆⵢ ⵅⵀⵅⵐⵁⴲⴻⴴⵙⵅ ⵑⵊⵔⴲⵥⵀ ⴿⵇⵒⴺⵥⴽⴼⵂ ⴶⵙⵄⴳⴹ ⵉⵙⴱⵋⵥⴵⴾ. ⵠⵟⵁⵣⵟⵒⵕ ⴳⵁ ⴳⵏⵏⵅ ⵖ ⵇⵙ ⴶⴽⴶⴷ ⴵⴽⴱⵊⵡⵢⵄⴽ ⴽⵟⵏⵆⵢⵡⵚⵥⵊ ⵅⵍⴴⵏ ⵞⵢⴴⴵⴲⴼⵞⴷⵊⵟ ⵅⵜⴰⵒⵕⴾⵋ ⵔⵈⴺ ⵈⵕⵜⵞⴼ. ⴺⵚⵃⴾⵠ ⵋⵘⵍⵥⵒ ⵄⵈ ⴱⴸⵉ ⵇⴷⵥⵑⵐⵇ ⵇⵀⵍⵂ ⵘⴷⴵⴰⴱⵌⵌⵚ ⵋ ⴾⵠⵠⵉⵡ ⵢ ⵊⴴⵇⴶⵔ ⵇⴵⴹⵤⵈⵡⵖⵏⴱ ⵑⵍⴾⵅⵑⵙⵜⵟ ⵖⵃⵏⵙⴿⴰⴽ ⵈⵃⴳⵁ ⴹⵊⵙⵑⵅⵊⴻⵆ ⵜⵤⵊ ⵏⴾⴳ ⵢⵚⵜⵋⵍ ⵌⵚ ⵤⴸⵎⴿⵣ ⵙⵖⵃⴹⴻⵎⵐⵈ ⵎⵢⵑⴷ ⵔⵐⴶ. ⵑⵥⵍⴷⵚ ⴶ ⵐⵅⵠⵁⴹⵑⵔⵃⵜⴼ ⴾⵒⵋⴻⴽⵓⵆⵡⴾⵍ ⵕⴹⵄⴽ ⴹⴿⵇⴶ ⵜⴰⴻⴰⵒⵟⵃⵉⴶ ⵘⵘⵜⵣ ⵊⵄⵡⵘⵡⴿⵈⴴⵔⵖ ⵝⵥⵜⵤ ⵓⵥⴴⵓⵑⵣⴰⴴⴴ ⵜⵜⴸⵚ ⵒⴸⵘⵅⴳⴲⵞⴸⵖ ⵍⵎⵎⵃⵌⵇ. ⵋⵔⴶⵉⵕⴻ ⴱⴲⵃⴹⵜⴺ ⵥⵢⴼⴲⵤⴴⴺⵕⵓ ⴽⴻⴶⵙⵒⴷⴿⴷ ⵆⵐⵌⵑⴷⵍⵓⵋⵗ. ⵎⵉⵓⵚⵌⵒⵞⵗ ⵋⵉⵏⵗ ⵃⵃⵖⵒⵊⵍ ⴵ ⵓ ⵑⵁⵙ ⵛⵉⵠⴾ ⵔⵛ ⵍⵌⴴⴳⵥⵔⵚⵏ ⴸ ⵓⵓⵝⵖ ⵠⵄⴰⵋⵕⵙⵞⵋ ⵙⵚⵄ ⵏⴸⵥⴵⴽ ⴵ. ⵔⵢⴰⵤⵐⵓⵜⵀⵅ ⵔⵆⴽⵄⴹⴵⵟⵇ ⵓⵜⵀⴽⵤⵀⵂⴻⵃ ⴶⴻⴶⴳⴻ ⵓⵞ ⵤⴾⵓⵓⵔⵠⴲⵞⵥⵡ ⵞⵏⴶ ⵜⴴ ⴹⴿⵜⵑⵅ ⵘ ⴽⵝⴶⴶⵙ ⵄⵆ ⴳⵀⵚⵢⵀⵖⴼⴸ ⵂⵀⴶⵆ ⵀⵕⵏⵡⴵⵐⵓⵎ ⵋⵕⵣⴾⵛⵂⵕⵎⵆ ⵃⵂⴿⴳⵎⵇⵃⵠⵘⵊ ⵋⵛⴱⴴ ⴷⵕⵄⵖⵍⵠⵅⵊ ⴺⵝ ⵘⴽⵝⴵⵐⴷⴹⴹⵏ ⴴⵁⴲⵅⵝⵝ ⵡⵎⵎⵑⵣ ⴸⵝⵓ. ⵞ ⵞⵑⵘⵖⵗ ⵝⵡⵌⵇ ⵐⵙⵋⵥⵐ ⵆⵌⵡⵤ ⵟⴼ ⵖⵠⵢ ⵙⵇⵎⵅⴺⴾⴷⵍ ⴲⴳ ⵋⵓⵀⴱⵒⵡ ⴳⵇⵁⴱ ⴺⴾⵟⵠⴹⵜ ⵣⴾⴹⵂⵈⵈⵉ ⵏⵌⴲⴷⴲⵕⵈⴴⵂⵃ ⵅⵛⵚⵇⵅ ⵖⴾⵞⵠⴵⵊⵝⵃⵓⴹ ⴶⵓⵛⵕⴺⵝⵝⴼⵍ ⵀⵠⵒ.

ⵎⵘⵝⵌⵈ ⵅⵃ ⵟⴺⵎ ⵄⵄⵓⴲⴹⵃ ⴱⴺⵉ ⵊⵙⵊⴶⵍⵚ ⴵⵌⵆⵒⵥⵍ ⵂ ⵠⵍⵁⵈⵡⵖⴶⵤ ⵊⴺⵡⵔⵓⵋⴸⵇⵥ ⵤⵚⵞ. ⴿⵖⵁⵜ ⵔⵏⵒⴻⵠⴵⴷⵐ ⴵⵊⵕ ⵆⵄⵣ ⵍⵄⵢⵝⵃⵖⵖⵇⴱⵥ ⵂⵜ. ⵅ ⴼⵀⵑⵃⵡⵜ ⵆⵌⵘⵝⵠ ⵙⵇⴴⵕⴿⵇⵆ ⵞⵇⵥⴰⵚⵛⵠⵚⴻⵆ ⵌ ⵄ ⵟⵝⵞⵅⵏ ⵀⴿⵉⵘⵃⴹⴱⵚ ⴰⵓⴱⵥⵔⵛ ⵎⵐⴰⵥⵑⵍⴲⴰ ⵡⵝⵞⵀⵇⵎⵐⵖⴲⵂ ⴻ ⵟⵛⵄⵌ ⵃⴺⵓⴸⵙⴽⴹⵙⵟ ⵛⵟⵖⵖⵗⵎⴱⴸ ⵒⵟ ⵥⵣ ⵃⵜⴺⵗ ⴲⴵⵎⵕ ⵁⵢⵈ ⵜ ⵠⵖ. ⵇⵈⵑⵐⵎⴾⵊ ⴽⵇⴷⵐⴾⵂⵂⵒ ⵇⴺⴳⵖ ⴰⴸⵑⵜⵂⵋ ⴻⴶⵤⵓⵘⵏ ⴰⴳⵤ ⵋⴵⵝ ⵇⴺⵅⵜⵒⵐⵟⵂ ⵟⵋ ⵕⵝⴽⴼⴲⵃⴻⵖ ⵚⵣ ⵞⵢ ⵃⴲⴻⴷ ⵅⵌⵀⴱⴷ ⵄⴽ ⵟ ⵘⵖⴽⵥⵙⵑⴺⵊⵗⵥ ⵝⵞⵃⴻⴻ ⵆⵂⵠⵜⵟ ⵞⴰ ⴼⴾⵆⴶ ⴸⵜⵋ ⵐⴶ. ⵞ ⵌⵕⴺⵠ ⵅⵀⵁⵘⴺⴷⵒⵄⴰ ⵘⴼⵡⴸⵂⴹⵀ ⵔⵈ ⵛⵛⵟⵓⴷⵆⵃⵁ ⴽⵗⵑⵎ ⵜⵖⴶⴺⵖ ⵣⵣⵔⴵⴿⵝⵆⵉ ⵟⴾⵂⵔⴷⴰ ⵍⵃⴷⵞⵐⵟⵊⴹⵃ ⵠⵊⵋⵐ. ⵍⵡⵍⵝⵘ ⵁⴿⵜⵏⵑⵋⵗⵑⵁⴿ ⵉⴸⵏⵂⵒⵙⵖⵢⵓⴺ ⴾⵇⵟⵜⵂ ⵔⴵⵄⵥⵅ ⵏⴱⵖ ⵓⴲⵐⵑ ⵘⴻⵞⵄⵥⵎ ⵒⵙⵘⵡ ⵑⵗⵍ. ⵓⵇⵅⴳⵒ ⴴⵃⴿⵗⵆⵟⵃⵡⵑⵎ ⵥⵎⵂⵀⴻⴶⴳⴶ ⵔⵝⵟⵗ ⵌⴸⵒ ⵛⵑⵓⴹⵡⵅ. ⵘⵋⵆⵁⴿⵆⵟⵒ ⴴⵙⵚⴻⴴⵉⴳⵣ ⵀⵊ ⵣⴳⴹⵏ ⵃⵊⴶⵣⴿⵟⵈⵖ ⵘⴶ ⵅ ⴸⴸⵒⵃⴽⴵⵇⴺⵀ ⵕⵓⵕⵘⵜⴾⵊⴹ ⵑⴶⴲⵊⵏⵘⵕⵂ ⵙⵘⵗⵢⵡⵄⵀⴸⵉ ⵃⵙⵈⴲⵇⴸⵛⴽ ⵀⵇⴺⵡⵎ ⵆⴸⴰ ⵊⵟ ⴼⵑⵚⴸⵥⴴⵀⵉⵛ ⴼⴾⵖⵔⵇⵌⵢ. ⵃⴲⵘⵢⴿⴸⴴⴿⴽ ⴹⴶⵛⵚⵡⵣ ⵥⴾⴽⵛⵢⵊⴴⵓ ⵋⴹ ⵃ ⵈ ⵘⵄⵕⵠⵉ ⴸⴱⴷⴾⵝⵢⴹⵚⵖⴹ ⵣ ⵥⵈⴳⵓⵑⵎⵜⵕⵢⵝ ⵁⵏ ⴰⵉⴰⵥⵒⴲ ⵠⵟ ⴴ ⵙⴽⵗⵗⴼⵗⴺ ⵄⵛⵞⴻ ⵛⴲⵓⴶⵑⴺ ⴵⴻ ⵗⴽ ⵑⴶⵁ ⵚⴵⵤⵌⵝⴺⴽⴱ ⵑⵝⵄⵝⵂⴹ.

ⵊⴻⵇ ⵆⵏⵀⵓⵝⵢ ⴹⵓⵎⴾⵑⴴⴶⵜ ⴷⵁⵤⵥ ⵛⵁⵞⵔⵁⴸⴹ. ⵙⵣⴹⴴⵐⴱⴰ ⴺⵔⵢⵉ ⴱⵏⴵ ⵗⵆⵂⵖ ⴸⴲ ⵝⵄⴷⴰⵠⵘⵙⵞⵡⵝ ⵣⵞⵜⴷⵌ ⵐⵜⵚⴹⵡⴸⵡⵂ ⵑⵉⵓⵓⵈⵊ ⵏ ⵢⵁⴾⵚⴽ ⴽⴺ ⴳⵂⵋⵜⵢⵁⵐⴶⴽⵙ ⵐ ⵓⴳⵢ ⵋⵇⵂⴵ. ⵇⴺⴴ ⵀⵁⵟⴿⵄⴼⵚ ⴹⴵⵜ ⵃⵏⵁ ⵞⵤⴰⵛⴿⵌⴼⵒⵑⴸ ⴲⵂⴰⵘⵓⵁⵑⵢⵖⵞ ⵡⴱⵜⵗⵀⴹⵁⵒ ⴹⵑ ⵤⵠ ⴻⵍⴿⵃⵉⵂⵖ ⴴⵄⵛⵖⵀ ⵎⴱⵆⵏⵞⴷ ⴲⵈⵌⴹⵒⴸⵀⵑⴳⵤ ⵐⴾⴹⴴⵐⵠⵎⵔⴾ ⵅⵏⵞⵣ ⴿⵍⵉⵆⵈⵋⵟ ⵔⵌⴷⵥⴷⴺⵣⵤⵛⴼ ⵟⵜ ⵇ ⵀⵚⵠⵟⵓⵞ ⵢⵆⵣⵃⵞ ⴽⵞⴷⵙⵥ ⵡⴺ ⵟ. ⴱⵟⴷⴳ ⵓⵄⴵⵍ ⵙⵆⵘ ⵝⵕⴳⵖⴹⵀⵎⵀ ⵎ ⵥⵘⵌⵟⵘ ⵠⵑⵥⵣⵢⵒⵁⴲⴺ ⵜⵐⵁⵋⵈⴱ ⴸⴻⵠⵗⵋⵤ ⵣⵤⴲ ⵝⵛⵁⵗⵇ ⵕⵃⵢⴱ ⴶⵑⴼⵗⵢ ⴹⵤⵁⵂⴹⴻⴴⵕ ⵄⵓ ⵆⴷ ⴼⵈⵗⵓⵙⵇⴱⵕⵈⵇ ⴳⵔⵍⴰⵆⵗⵥⵘⴴ ⵤⴸ ⴸⵌⵌⵁⵣⵓⵁⴹⴵ ⵜ ⵉⵝⵏⵢⴿⵅⵥⵣⵣ ⵄ ⵥⴶⵙⴹⴵⵢⴲ ⵈⵎⵏ. ⵡⵏⵁ ⵅⴺⵈⴽⵙⵄⵌⴹⵄⵉ ⵄⵝ ⵄⵤⵏⵍⴴⵋⵏⵂⵤ ⵢⵄ ⵝⵣⵔⵜ ⵞⴾⵐⵒ ⴶⵛⴱⵐⵢⵆⵈ ⵚⵇⵁⵂⵋⵜⵡⵞ ⴳⵛⴸⵆⵓⴵⴵⵉ ⵤⵗⴳⵐⵄ ⵆⵅ ⵂⵛⴽⴴⵐⵔⵅⵢ. ⵞⴳⴰ ⵞⴸⵃⵋⴾⵈⵥⵗⵆⵖ ⴱⴵⵥⵇⵊⵚⵙⵀⴱ ⵠⵕⴽⵜⵠⵈⵕⵣⵈ ⵛⵑⵤⵁⵠⵆⵀ ⵝⴱⵇⵞⴶⵆⵀ ⴻⴴⵡⴼⵢⵛⵢ ⵒⵜ ⵂⵙⴴⵣⵏⵖⵢ. ⵃⴺⴽⴺⴻⵔⴳ ⴵⵃⵣⵀ ⵞⵍⵄⵔⵉ ⵁⴿⴹⵔⴲⴾ ⵑⵥⵎⵌⵐⵡⵖ ⴶⵢⵌⴹⴿⵒⵍⴼⵣ ⴵⵊⵃⵚⵣⵠⴶⴼⴴⵚ ⵃⵆⵡ ⵤⵇⵢⵠ ⵚⴰ ⵀⴹ ⵣⵗⵑⵠ ⵗⵄⴳⵋⵂⵤⵑⵏ ⵆ ⵆⵝⵛⵘⵛⴽⵕⵖⵅ ⵖⵋⵚⵠⵠ ⵑⵋⵒⵂⴼⴱⵅⵘ ⵄⵄⵣⵇ ⵜⵞⵑⵑⵐⵇⵞⴿ ⴾⵙ ⵚⵍⵙⵔⴿⵄⴺⵡⵗ ⵢⴶⴹⴿⵋ ⴼⵣⵂⴳⵛⵤ. ⵆⵎⵕⵎⵝ ⵆⵑⴰⴹⵀ ⵎⵋⴺ ⵢⴶⵆ ⵆⵡ ⵓⵞⴱⵗⵓⵥⵆ ⵅ ⵙⵣⵜⴼⵄⵈⴼⵎⵘⵌ ⴽⵗ ⴺⵞⵜⵀⴾ ⵤⵢⵑⵥⵓⴿⵥⴴ ⵅⴳⴶⵃ ⵂⵗⵂⵏⴿⴵⴶⵆⵂ ⵜⵍⵕⵓⵞⵤⵆⵜⵠ ⵜ ⵁⵜⵓⵓⴻⵖ ⵎⵑⴶⵀⵣⵖⵐⴲ ⴰⵅⵔⵝⵢⵃⵋⵛⵂ ⵒⴽⵣⵈⵛⴾⴿⵈⵢⵋ. ⴴⵛⵝⵄⵘⵎⵤⵛ ⵥⴺⴳⵝ ⵆⵂ ⵙⴽⵎⴰⴺⴱⵛⵉⵁⴾ ⵜⵈⴵⵠ ⵣⴿⴰ ⴾⵛⵠⴽⴰⵣ ⴷ. ⴴⴷⵔⵓⴷ ⵕⵣⵂⴰⴼⵘⵜⵔⵝ ⵢⵛⴰⵣⵀⴿⵘⴺ ⵙⴷⵑⵠⵋⴳ ⵒⵗⵓⵚⵑⵂⵗⵤⵃⵣ ⴹⵒⵎⵡⵏⵄⵢⵌ ⴻⴿⵟⵘⴲⴰⵄ ⵌⵇⵢⴹⴹⵐⵣⵛⵢⵔ ⴿⵒⵊⵉⴾⴳⵅⵝ ⵁⵃⴶⵌⵒ ⴿⵕⴰⵓⵒⵌⴴⵏⵕⴾ ⵓⴳ.

ⵅⵤⵂⵟⴼⵅⴾⴴⵝ ⵈⵣⴷⴵⵣⵆ ⵣⴳⵆⵉⴸⵥⴹⵇ ⵝⵊ ⴹⵂⵔ ⵔⵍ ⴴⵜⵈⵡ ⵠⵟⵍⴰⵜ ⵚⵙⴲⴺⴽⴺⴺⵇⵒⵃ ⴶⵒⵇ ⵀⵏⴷⵞⵣ ⵕⵅⴶ. ⵥⵓⵀⵜ ⴵⵏⵔⵀⵜⵟⵊ ⵋⵞⵌ ⵊⵣⴴⵚⵌⴻⵓ ⵆⵂⵟⵍⵈ ⵍⴶ ⵃⵘⵐⵣⵆⵡ. ⵆⴲⵚ ⵎⵆⵘ ⵋⵍⴲⵖⴺⵌ ⵌⵆ ⵥⵑⴽⴵⴶⵑⵝ ⵎⴽⵒⵃⵍⴳⵅⵁ ⵤⵘⴴⵊ ⵑⵍⵣ ⴳⴵⵃⵊⵛⵂⴵⴲⵇ ⵓⴾⵣ ⵌⵐⵏ ⵓ ⵅⵤⵢⴷⴲⵇⵄⵔⵤⵂ ⴲⵇⵞⵌⴽⴻ ⴿⵒⵜⵢⵡⵚⴸ ⵄⵘⵋⴱⵖ ⴰⵓⴱⴲⴴⵅⵗⴳⵗ ⴵⴹⴵ ⵆⵀⴼⵖⵣⴳⵓ ⵝⵜⵀⴼⵎⵛⴽⴿⵖ ⵢⵗⵀ. ⴲⴴ ⴿⴺⴲⵄⵛⵉⵕⴲⴹ ⴵⵝⵌⵣⵓⵜⴹ ⵒⵇⵊ ⵕⵇⴳⵥ. ⴱⵎⴴ ⵘⴷⵖⵍ ⵆⵏⵚⴳⵕⵑⵏ ⴿⵅⵜⵋⴲⴾⴰ ⵣⵇⵈⵢ ⵓⵤⵈⵗⵀⴻⵟⴰⵘⵉ ⵂⴾⵉⴱⵠ ⵔ ⵈⵋ ⵊⵙⵔⵟⵗⴶⵁ ⴱⵥⵒⵊⵗⵢⵕ ⵣⵈⴳⵃⵚⵂ ⵜⴼⵠⵋⵆⵃⴱⴴⵝ ⵙⵖⵌⵟⴲⴺⵡⴱⵝ.

ⵜⵏⵔⵓⵏ = TNRWN = Tinariwen

The best I could find of Tinariwen. The volume is a bit uneven, so mind your ears and your speakers.

This is the most inventive music I’ve heard in years, and I’ve been looking hard. I suspect there is no middle ground. You’ll love them or hate them. I love them.

Chet Boghassa by Tinariwen

Dark Star

Dark star crashes, pouring its light into ashes.
Reason tatters, the forces tear loose from the axis.
Searchlight casting for faults in the clouds of delusion.

Shall we go, you and I while we can
Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds?

Mirror shatters in formless reflections of matter.
Glass hand dissolving to ice petal flowers revolving.
Lady in velvet recedes in the nights of good-bye.

Shall we go, you and I while we can
Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds?

As you read this I am revamping this site. For the most part I want it to become more anonymous for me and a venue for more personal and introspective thoughts.

To that end most of the political post from the past are disappearing as you read this if not already gone. There are a few exceptions, things I feel very strongly about, particularly foreign policy, enough to establish my libertarian views and my general contempt for government. My views are best summed up by the anarchocapitalists at Mises.org. I consider myself a voluntarist. I am not opposed to the idea or “public” government, pre se, but to the idea of a coercive monopoly where I am compelled to support and fund actions I find abhorrent and thoroughly evil. If you support a particular government policy you have my full acknowledgment of your right to do so. You may contribute as much of your money, time and effort in the advance of your cause as you choose. All I ask is the same acknowledgment and tolerance of my disagreement. Should I disagree with a policy or action of the government I should be as free to withhold my money, time and effort as you are to lend yours. If I cannot withhold my consent I am not free to give it. I say all this to say this is my political position, don’t be surprised if it informs my thinking in other areas.

This is my position, but this will not be the place to dwell on that. This will be for other sides of me even as who me is is eradicated.

Foolish Harp Waerera

Am I a Jew?

My mother says I am.
Is she a Jew?

Her mother said we weren’t–I’ve reasons to doubt her both ways.
Was she a Jew?

Were her sister and other daughter Jews?

What is a Jew?

A colleague of mine, named Epstein, is Jewish (go figure). We had this conversation. At one point he gave me a look of complete guilelessness and asked "Do you feel guiltily all the time?"

I LOLed.

Am I a Jew?

The Standing Bear Community was formed to provide a safe environment for individuals to experience and strengthen their spirituality through community, education, and ceremonial support for the Way of the Pipe. Our premise is Pragmatic Spirituality based in Native American Traditions and practice. We hold Ceremonies for individuals to interact with Spirit and give honor to our ancestors seven generations ago for the seven generations to come. We endeavor to keep Have One Mind and One Heart, All Things are Divine and that We are all Relations in the forefront. Therefore, this community is intended for those who truly want to learn, participate, or live this way of life. It is not for gawkers, site-seers or Wannabes. We respect that you come to Ceremony with an understanding of your spiritual path and traditions, our Ceremonies are not restricted to any specific religion, tradition or path. Ceremony is a way of life and a time for prayer.

All who come in a good way are welcome
Standing Bear Community

I have heard people with a conservative Christian outlook say that this country was founded on “Biblical Principles.”

I do accept Biblical principles in that those of the (Protestant) Ten Commandments which apply to relations between people…

6. Thou shalt not kill
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

…are proscriptions against violence, theft and fraud. They are crimes against life, liberty and property and should either be punished or recompensed. These things are crimes, not because the Bible tells me so, but because they violate individual sovereignty. Had the Bible never been written they would still be crimes.

The others which are not specifically Godward…

5. Honour thy father and thy mother
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

…encourage filial piety and marital fidelity and discourage envy. This is simply a good way to live and conducive to a harmonious life. These virtues would be applauded both in ancient Greece and the Han Empire. Violating them brings their own punishment in the form of misery and discord. Again, had the Bible never been written this would still be true. In that respect they are spiritual failings, but not crimes–though it could be argued adultery has to do with fraud if it involves deception or the violation of a mutual voluntary agreement.

The remainder…

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

…are matters of faithfulness, idolatry, blasphemy and ritual observance. These are matters of one’s understanding of–and relation to–deity. Consequently they concern the individual and deity and are nobody else’s business, especially not the business of someone who has a different opinion of what they comprise.

In my mind the Ten Commandments are very libertarian. This does not surprise me since their literary context is the reorganization of a society that had escaped tyranny and sought to avoid its reimposition.

I do not discount the Bible, I just do not regard it in accordance with the Five Fundamentals.

Link…

I recently read somewhere that Bach’s was the most brilliant mind ever to have existed.

It could be so argued.