What do you think?
Rate this book
丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲: 诏夭丕乇卮蹖 丿乇 亘丕亘 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇
丌蹖丕 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 讴爻蹖 亘蹖鈥屫①嗂┵� 卮乇賵乇 亘丕卮丿貙 賲乇鬲讴亘 卮乇丕乇鬲 卮賵丿責 丕蹖賳 倬乇爻卮 丿卮賵丕乇蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲貙 賲鬲賮讴乇 丌賱賲丕賳蹖貙 丿乇 噩爻鬲鈥屬堌堐� 倬丕爻禺蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳貙 乇丕賴蹖 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲 賵 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丌丿賵賱賮 丌蹖卮賲賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 亘蹖卮 丕夭 倬賳噩丕賴 爻丕賱 丕夭 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 芦丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲禄 賲蹖鈥屭柏必� 賵 丕蹖賳 诏夭丕乇卮 賴賲趩賳丕賳 噩賳噩丕賱蹖鈥屫臂屬� 丕孬乇 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 亘賴 卮賲丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫辟堌�. 丌乇賳鬲 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲丕 鬲乇噩蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫囒屬� 丕夭 赖蹖賵賱丕蹖蹖 亘乇禺丕爻鬲賴 丕夭 馗賱賲鬲 卮讴爻鬲 亘禺賵乇蹖賲 鬲丕 丕夭 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 賲毓賲賵賱蹖貙 趩賵賳 亘賴 丕蹖賳鈥� 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 禺賵丿賲丕賳 乇丕 讴賲鬲乇 賲賯氐乇 賲蹖鈥屫з嗃屬�.
376 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1963
4,964 people are currently reading
65.9k people want to read
About the author
Hannah Arendt
374听books4,444听followersHannah Arendt (1906 鈥� 1975) was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. Born into a German-Jewish family, she was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and lived in Paris for the next eight years, working for a number of Jewish refugee organisations. In 1941 she immigrated to the United States and soon became part of a lively intellectual circle in New York. She held a number of academic positions at various American universities until her death in 1975. She is best known for two works that had a major impact both within and outside the academic community. The first, The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, was a study of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes that generated a wide-ranging debate on the nature and historical antecedents of the totalitarian phenomenon. The second, The Human Condition, published in 1958, was an original philosophical study that investigated the fundamental categories of the vita activa (labor, work, action). In addition to these two important works, Arendt published a number of influential essays on topics such as the nature of revolution, freedom, authority, tradition and the modern age. At the time of her death in 1975, she had completed the first two volumes of her last major philosophical work, The Life of the Mind, which examined the three fundamental faculties of the vita contemplativa (thinking, willing, judging).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,681 reviews
September 1, 2010
In order to pronounce judgment on this book, on Arendt, on the idea of "the banality of evil," you can't simply read reviews, summaries, excerpts, chunks, sentences. You have to read the entire book. You have to. Only by reading the entire book will you acclimate yourself to Arendt's tone, her idiosyncratic writing style, the way a word on p. 252 seems like an odd choice until you recall how she used the same word on p. 53.
In the wake of the book came a flood of criticism (in both senses) that continues still. Here's an example of what I consider a misleading statement about the book (the misleading part is bold), from Michael Massing's October 17, 2004 article in the New York Times:
I would hardly describe those things as "mitigating circumstance[s:]." After each one I ask, So? And? Are we all such simpletons that we require mass murderers to be 100% uncompromising monsters, in every aspect of their lives and motives? Why do we require this of Eichmann - that he be a perfervid, sadistic Jew-hater who would have liked to beat every one of his victims to death with a club, if only he'd had the time? Furthermore, what would these circumstances be mitigating? Arendt believes Eichmann is guilty of genocide and should be put to death - where's the mitigation, again?
Massing writes:
First, Arendt's treatment of Eichmann is hardly "solicitous," a strange word indeed, making me wonder if Massing and I read the same book. Her treatment is relentlessly scornful. I found nearly every word she wrote about him "dripping with sarcasm and scorn." Arendt clearly finds Eichmann beneath contempt in every respect, utterly guilty of crimes against humanity, and deserving of his death sentence. On the subject of the Jewish Councils to which Massing refers, Arendt does indeed blame them to a degree. As Amos Elon notes in his excellent introduction to this edition, her criticism of them went over better in Israel than America, because "Zionism, after all, had been a movement of Jewish self-criticism." Massing goes on to pretend that Arendt is establishing a moral equivalency between the Nazi authorities and the Jewish authorities, which is a ridiculous assertion and belied by everything in the book. Isn't it at least conceivable that Jews might find the role of their Jewish leaders in their destruction "the darkest chapter" - the same way a parent who accidentally causes the death of her child would grieve in a darker, more profound way than if the child had been killed by someone else?
Michael A. Musmanno's review of the book in the May 19, 1963 New York Times is also full of groaners. (Musmanno was a presiding judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal and also testified against Eichmann at his trial.) I'll just pick one. He quotes Arendt: "...no punishment has ever possessed enough power of deterrence to prevent the commission of crimes." Seems about right to me...all around us we see punishments, yet fresh crimes blossom anew every morning. But Musmanno concludes: "This, in effect, says it was a terrible mistake to punish Eichmann at all!" Except, her book says the opposite, over and over. He lifts this from a section in which Arendt is writing about the necessity and protection of international law in dealing with genocide and crimes against humanity.
What Does She Mean By the Banality of Evil?
Most of us have some of idea of what she must mean by "the banality of evil" before we pick up the book. But she only uses the phrase twice - in the subtitle, and in the last sentence of text before the Epilogue. She uses it in the context of Eichmann's last words as he goes to the gallows. I'll quote at length:
So here she is making no mention of the paper-pushing bureaucrat, just-following-orders aspect that everyone commonly associates with the phrase (she does touch on these things elsewhere in the book). Rather, she is writing about the "grotesque silliness," the clich茅d quality, of his words. Elsewhere she notes that Eichmann would come up with "stock phrases," slogans, nonsensical and meaningless (particularly to an intellectual like Arendt), such as his claim to the court that he "would like to find peace with [his:] former enemies;" i.e., this director of administrative massacres (Arendt's term) wished to make nice with Holocaust victims. Eichmann's vocabulary was so limited and inelastic that sometimes the Israeli authorities couldn't understand him, and he couldn't find another way to express the same idea. He apologized to the court, saying, "Officialese [Amtssprache:] is my only language." Arendt thought he had a mild case of aphasia, and adds: "But the point here is that officialese became his language because he was genuinely incapable of uttering a single sentence that was not a clich茅." And, "The longer one listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else. No communication was possible with him, not because he lied but because he was surrounded by the most reliable of all safeguards against the words and the presence of others, and hence against reality as such." Over and over, Eichmann's nonsensical rhetorical idiocies transformed him from monster into clown; this, for Arendt, was what made him the face of the banality of evil.
In the wake of the book came a flood of criticism (in both senses) that continues still. Here's an example of what I consider a misleading statement about the book (the misleading part is bold), from Michael Massing's October 17, 2004 article in the New York Times:
...Eichmann rose to become the senior Nazi official in charge of deporting and transporting Europe's Jews to the death camps. Yet Arendt seems always to find a mitigating circumstance. ''He did not enter the party out of conviction, nor was he ever convinced by it,'' she writes. It was not any fanatical hatred for the Jews but a desire to advance his career that drove his work as a Nazi, she maintains. Although Eichmann had repeatedly visited Auschwitz and seen the killing apparatus there, Arendt, noting he did not personally participate in the slaughter, insists that his role in the Final Solution ''had been wildly exaggerated.'' She even has the occasional kind word for Eichmann, citing evidence, for instance, that he was ''rather decent toward his subordinates.'' Over all, Arendt concludes, Eichmann ''was not Iago and not Macbeth. . . . Except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all.''
I would hardly describe those things as "mitigating circumstance[s:]." After each one I ask, So? And? Are we all such simpletons that we require mass murderers to be 100% uncompromising monsters, in every aspect of their lives and motives? Why do we require this of Eichmann - that he be a perfervid, sadistic Jew-hater who would have liked to beat every one of his victims to death with a club, if only he'd had the time? Furthermore, what would these circumstances be mitigating? Arendt believes Eichmann is guilty of genocide and should be put to death - where's the mitigation, again?
Massing writes:
Arendt's solicitous treatment of Eichmann seems all the more unaccountable when compared to her relentlessly harsh portrayal of Europe's Jewish leaders. In a book dripping with sarcasm and scorn, Arendt reserves some of her bitterest comments for the Jewish leaders who cooperated with the Nazis. Had these leaders not so obligingly provided lists of Jewish residents, had they not so diligently compiled accounts of Jewish possessions, had they not so uniformly counseled submission to German deportation orders, many of the millions who perished during the war could have been saved, Arendt contends. ''To a Jew,'' she writes, ''this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story.''
First, Arendt's treatment of Eichmann is hardly "solicitous," a strange word indeed, making me wonder if Massing and I read the same book. Her treatment is relentlessly scornful. I found nearly every word she wrote about him "dripping with sarcasm and scorn." Arendt clearly finds Eichmann beneath contempt in every respect, utterly guilty of crimes against humanity, and deserving of his death sentence. On the subject of the Jewish Councils to which Massing refers, Arendt does indeed blame them to a degree. As Amos Elon notes in his excellent introduction to this edition, her criticism of them went over better in Israel than America, because "Zionism, after all, had been a movement of Jewish self-criticism." Massing goes on to pretend that Arendt is establishing a moral equivalency between the Nazi authorities and the Jewish authorities, which is a ridiculous assertion and belied by everything in the book. Isn't it at least conceivable that Jews might find the role of their Jewish leaders in their destruction "the darkest chapter" - the same way a parent who accidentally causes the death of her child would grieve in a darker, more profound way than if the child had been killed by someone else?
Michael A. Musmanno's review of the book in the May 19, 1963 New York Times is also full of groaners. (Musmanno was a presiding judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal and also testified against Eichmann at his trial.) I'll just pick one. He quotes Arendt: "...no punishment has ever possessed enough power of deterrence to prevent the commission of crimes." Seems about right to me...all around us we see punishments, yet fresh crimes blossom anew every morning. But Musmanno concludes: "This, in effect, says it was a terrible mistake to punish Eichmann at all!" Except, her book says the opposite, over and over. He lifts this from a section in which Arendt is writing about the necessity and protection of international law in dealing with genocide and crimes against humanity.
What Does She Mean By the Banality of Evil?
Most of us have some of idea of what she must mean by "the banality of evil" before we pick up the book. But she only uses the phrase twice - in the subtitle, and in the last sentence of text before the Epilogue. She uses it in the context of Eichmann's last words as he goes to the gallows. I'll quote at length:
He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more: he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a 骋辞迟迟驳濒盲耻产颈驳别谤, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death. He then proceeded: "After a short while, gentlemen, we shall meet again. Such is the fate of all men. Long live Germany, long live Argentina, long live Austria. I shall not forget them." In the face of death, he had found the clich茅 used in funeral oratory. Under the gallows, his memory played him the last trick; he was "elated" and he forgot that this was his own funeral.
It was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us - the lesson of the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil.
So here she is making no mention of the paper-pushing bureaucrat, just-following-orders aspect that everyone commonly associates with the phrase (she does touch on these things elsewhere in the book). Rather, she is writing about the "grotesque silliness," the clich茅d quality, of his words. Elsewhere she notes that Eichmann would come up with "stock phrases," slogans, nonsensical and meaningless (particularly to an intellectual like Arendt), such as his claim to the court that he "would like to find peace with [his:] former enemies;" i.e., this director of administrative massacres (Arendt's term) wished to make nice with Holocaust victims. Eichmann's vocabulary was so limited and inelastic that sometimes the Israeli authorities couldn't understand him, and he couldn't find another way to express the same idea. He apologized to the court, saying, "Officialese [Amtssprache:] is my only language." Arendt thought he had a mild case of aphasia, and adds: "But the point here is that officialese became his language because he was genuinely incapable of uttering a single sentence that was not a clich茅." And, "The longer one listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else. No communication was possible with him, not because he lied but because he was surrounded by the most reliable of all safeguards against the words and the presence of others, and hence against reality as such." Over and over, Eichmann's nonsensical rhetorical idiocies transformed him from monster into clown; this, for Arendt, was what made him the face of the banality of evil.
March 31, 2016
It is hard to know what to say about this book. The subtitle is pretty well right: the banality of evil. Eichmann comes across as a complete fool, utterly lacking in any ability to see things from the perspective of the other. As Arendt says at one point, the idea that he could sit chatting to a German Jew about how unfair it was that he never received a promotion for his work in exterminating the Jews pretty much sums up the man.
It seems Eichmann felt he was doing his best not only for his masters, but also for the Jews too. This was the part I found most surprising. He knew the Jews were being exterminated, that this was more or less inevitable, and so given this inevitability the 鈥榤oral鈥� thing to do was to make the whole process as clean and 鈥榩ainless鈥� as possible. I kept thinking of Bauman talking about the holocaust as a huge exercise in 鈥榟ygiene鈥�. There really is no part of this that doesn鈥檛 quickly sink into a horrible kind of absurdity.
The problem with the holocaust is the sheer scale of it makes trying to hold it in your head comparable to trying to understand the universe, you can feel yourself sinking into insanity. And it is not just the whole 鈥榮o many!鈥� problem, although, obviously, it is that as well, but mingled with that is the remarkable level of planning involved, to which Eichmann was clearly dedicated and hardworking to a fault. The problem this book raises isn鈥檛 the reassuring 鈥榶ou would need to be a monster鈥� 鈥� because how much better the world would be if that were true. It isn鈥檛 even the 鈥榳e would all be Eichmann if placed in similar circumstances鈥�. That, in fact, simply and demonstrably isn鈥檛 the case. We have endless examples of people who actively chose not to be Eichmann, people who knowingly paid for not being Eichmann with their lives, and did so as an active choice. The thing that this book makes terribly clear is that simple bureaucratic processes can be used to remarkable effect in normalising the unthinkable 鈥� in fact, you can commit genocide on an unprecedented scale if you have people worrying about train timetables and the supply of gas rather than where the trains will go and what the gas is for. There was an insanely horrible part of this where she says that many Germans would have preferred suicide to defeat, and that some may well have felt those damn Jews had used up all of the gas. The world really can be endlessly perverse in the most unspeakable of ways.
A particularly interesting part of the book was the discussion of why the Nazis dealt with the Zionists. All Jews were bad, but at least the Zionists had some sense of national feeling. I鈥檇 never thought of the monstrous consistency that might lie at the heart of nationalism.
And yet, this book left me feeling terribly uneasy. Once Eichmann was in Israel it was clear he was going to die 鈥� for as much as Israel may not have wanted this to be seen as a show trial, clearly this was a story with only one possible ending. The concern I had was that this guy really couldn鈥檛 be called a 鈥榤astermind鈥� in any sense that doesn鈥檛 inspire the bitterest of ironic laughs. He was, in some ways, proof that the Nazis recognising that to promote him beyond where he was would only result in an exemplar case of the Peter Principle. He was highly effective at organising logistics, but his motivation was not genocide or hatred of the Jews 鈥� I dread to say it, but that would at least make sense. Instead he was just some guy pitifully obsessed with following orders in the hope of getting a promotion, seeking to impress his superiors and completely obsessed with efficiency. I certainly cannot bring myself to be sorry for his fate, but then neither can I feel the world is all that much better without him. He was a fool, a terrifying fool doing his job.
And that fact is the most terrifying of all about this book, I fear.
It seems Eichmann felt he was doing his best not only for his masters, but also for the Jews too. This was the part I found most surprising. He knew the Jews were being exterminated, that this was more or less inevitable, and so given this inevitability the 鈥榤oral鈥� thing to do was to make the whole process as clean and 鈥榩ainless鈥� as possible. I kept thinking of Bauman talking about the holocaust as a huge exercise in 鈥榟ygiene鈥�. There really is no part of this that doesn鈥檛 quickly sink into a horrible kind of absurdity.
The problem with the holocaust is the sheer scale of it makes trying to hold it in your head comparable to trying to understand the universe, you can feel yourself sinking into insanity. And it is not just the whole 鈥榮o many!鈥� problem, although, obviously, it is that as well, but mingled with that is the remarkable level of planning involved, to which Eichmann was clearly dedicated and hardworking to a fault. The problem this book raises isn鈥檛 the reassuring 鈥榶ou would need to be a monster鈥� 鈥� because how much better the world would be if that were true. It isn鈥檛 even the 鈥榳e would all be Eichmann if placed in similar circumstances鈥�. That, in fact, simply and demonstrably isn鈥檛 the case. We have endless examples of people who actively chose not to be Eichmann, people who knowingly paid for not being Eichmann with their lives, and did so as an active choice. The thing that this book makes terribly clear is that simple bureaucratic processes can be used to remarkable effect in normalising the unthinkable 鈥� in fact, you can commit genocide on an unprecedented scale if you have people worrying about train timetables and the supply of gas rather than where the trains will go and what the gas is for. There was an insanely horrible part of this where she says that many Germans would have preferred suicide to defeat, and that some may well have felt those damn Jews had used up all of the gas. The world really can be endlessly perverse in the most unspeakable of ways.
A particularly interesting part of the book was the discussion of why the Nazis dealt with the Zionists. All Jews were bad, but at least the Zionists had some sense of national feeling. I鈥檇 never thought of the monstrous consistency that might lie at the heart of nationalism.
And yet, this book left me feeling terribly uneasy. Once Eichmann was in Israel it was clear he was going to die 鈥� for as much as Israel may not have wanted this to be seen as a show trial, clearly this was a story with only one possible ending. The concern I had was that this guy really couldn鈥檛 be called a 鈥榤astermind鈥� in any sense that doesn鈥檛 inspire the bitterest of ironic laughs. He was, in some ways, proof that the Nazis recognising that to promote him beyond where he was would only result in an exemplar case of the Peter Principle. He was highly effective at organising logistics, but his motivation was not genocide or hatred of the Jews 鈥� I dread to say it, but that would at least make sense. Instead he was just some guy pitifully obsessed with following orders in the hope of getting a promotion, seeking to impress his superiors and completely obsessed with efficiency. I certainly cannot bring myself to be sorry for his fate, but then neither can I feel the world is all that much better without him. He was a fool, a terrifying fool doing his job.
And that fact is the most terrifying of all about this book, I fear.
December 31, 2022
SIGNORA ARENDT, MA COSA CI TROVA DI COS脤 BANALE NEL MALE?
Capita che il male non lambisca la banalit脿, anzi, capita che proprio nel caso si tratti di un nazista, il Male non sia una serie di procedure burocratiche o stupidit脿.
Oggi ho letto un articolo di Susanna Nirenstein (da non confondersi con la sorella Fiamma) che ho trovato esprimesse perfettamente il mio pensiero e sentimento su questo libro.
Susanna Nirenstein non 猫 certo la prima, e non sar脿 l鈥檜ltima a dire queste cose: il favore che ha goduto il libro di Hanna Arendt 猫 da tempo messo in discussione, in Europa e oltre oceano.
Ma Susanna Nirenstein riesce nell鈥檌mpresa senza astio o livore, che invece accompagnano spesso altri critici, feriti dalla 鈥渂analit脿鈥� dell鈥檌nterpretazione di Arendt.
Eccolo integralmente:
S鈥檌ntitola "Il processo. Eichmann a giudizio", ma potrebbe quasi chiamarsi "Processo ad Hannah Arendt" la mostra che arriva da Berlino ed 猫 pronta ad aprirsi negli spazi delle Murate, le ex-prigioni di Firenze, il 23 gennaio (fino al 18 febbraio), quattro giorni prima del Giorno della Memoria. La visione e la lettura dei numerosi video e documenti del procedimento che inizi貌 l'11 aprile 1961 a Gerusalemme dopo il clamoroso rapimento da parte del Mossad, l'11 maggio 1960, del direttore del Dipartimento Affari Ebraici IV B 4 delle SS rifugiato in Argentina 鈥� dell'organizzatore prima dell'espulsione degli ebrei dalla Germania, del loro trasferimento a Est e poi dei trasporti verso i campi di sterminio da tutta l'Europa occupata 鈥� la lettura proposta dai curatori tedeschi, dicevamo, si differenzia infatti dalla diffusa interpretazione della filosofa tedesca che segu矛 (ma solo in parte!) l'avvenimento epocale nella capitale israeliana per il New Yorker e vide in Eichmann "la banalit脿 del male". Il Male che Eichmann incarna non ha niente di "banale", come mette in luce il percorso creato dalle fondazioni berlinesi Topografia del Terrore e Memoriale degli Ebrei Assassinati in Europa, la statura di Eichmann non 猫 affatto quella di un grigio burocrate incastrato nel motore della tirannia come una qualsiasi rotella inconsapevole e necessaria al meccanismo. La visione della filosofa tedesca era senz'altro legata alla sua tesi sulla cappa psicologica invincibile del totalitarismo, e serviva forse a salvare dalla colpa collettiva il popolo tedesco in mezzo a cui si era formata e forse persino Heidegger, il suo maestro, che al nazismo aveva aderito. Arendt alla fin fine cos矛 si dimostrava aperta alla tesi della difesa di Eichmann: 芦ho solo obbedito agli ordini, sono stato solo un dente di un ingranaggio, non sono mai stato antisemita禄, senza attribuire la giusta importanza n茅 allo svelamento inedito dei testimoni, n茅 alla personale convinzione ideologica nazista che aveva spinto lui come milioni d'altri "volenterosi carnefici" al genocidio.
Ecco invece le tappe della sua biografia: legato fin da giovanissimo alla destra austriaca che chiedeva l'annessione alla Germania e si nutriva di antisemitismo, presente nell'estremismo militante, lettore attento fin dalla fine degli anni Venti di giornali nazional-socialisti, parte di quel misero 3% che nel '30 in Austria vot貌 per il partito nazista a cui aderisce definitivamente nel '32. Nel Reich dal '33, all'indomani della vittoria di Hitler, Eichmann riceve una formazione paramilitare nelle SS e nel '34 entra nel Servizio di Sicurezza del Reichfuehrer Himmler, e ben presto con gradi sempre pi霉 alti nell'unit脿 "Affari ebraici", dedita a forzare gli ebrei a lasciare la Germania. Alla conferenza di Wansee del '42 che mise a punto il piano della "soluzione finale" fu uno degli organizzatori (e l矛, lo vediamo dire in tribunale, si sent矛 sollevato come Ponzio Pilato perch茅 erano stati "i protagonisti, i papi del Reich" a decidere, anche se era lui stesso a prospettare le soluzioni possibili). Himmler lo defin矛 "lo specialista" quando nel '44 lo chiam貌 come sempre a deportare velocemente mezzo milione di ebrei ungheresi ad Auschwitz, un "maestro" della spoliazione, dell'emigrazione forzata, e ben presto del trasferimento nei lager. Persino nella sua deposizione nel '61 in Israele Eichmann chiama gli ebrei "parassiti".
Cosa ci vide di "banale" Hannah Arendt? La sua intuizione, o la sua forzatura, che tanto ha condizionato la riflessione sulla Shoah come di un evento fatale perpetrato da uomini senza volto, non funziona (fu l'autorevole Raul Hilberg a dirlo per primo, seguito ben presto da tanti altri storici): una mappa mostra gli infiniti spostamenti di Eichmann in tutti i luoghi caldi dello sterminio, la storiografia pi霉 recente ne certifica le continue iniziative, la partecipazione attiva alla macchina della morte, la conoscenza esatta di quel che stava avvenendo, l'antisemitismo convinto (il comandante di Auschwitz Rudolf Hoess l'aveva definito "ossessionato dalla questione ebraica"). Un quadro confermato anche dall麓intervista data nel 1957 da Eichmann a Willem Sassen, un giornalista ex SS (in Italia nel '61 la pubblic貌 Epoca).
Capita che il male non lambisca la banalit脿, anzi, capita che proprio nel caso si tratti di un nazista, il Male non sia una serie di procedure burocratiche o stupidit脿.
Oggi ho letto un articolo di Susanna Nirenstein (da non confondersi con la sorella Fiamma) che ho trovato esprimesse perfettamente il mio pensiero e sentimento su questo libro.
Susanna Nirenstein non 猫 certo la prima, e non sar脿 l鈥檜ltima a dire queste cose: il favore che ha goduto il libro di Hanna Arendt 猫 da tempo messo in discussione, in Europa e oltre oceano.
Ma Susanna Nirenstein riesce nell鈥檌mpresa senza astio o livore, che invece accompagnano spesso altri critici, feriti dalla 鈥渂analit脿鈥� dell鈥檌nterpretazione di Arendt.
Eccolo integralmente:
S鈥檌ntitola "Il processo. Eichmann a giudizio", ma potrebbe quasi chiamarsi "Processo ad Hannah Arendt" la mostra che arriva da Berlino ed 猫 pronta ad aprirsi negli spazi delle Murate, le ex-prigioni di Firenze, il 23 gennaio (fino al 18 febbraio), quattro giorni prima del Giorno della Memoria. La visione e la lettura dei numerosi video e documenti del procedimento che inizi貌 l'11 aprile 1961 a Gerusalemme dopo il clamoroso rapimento da parte del Mossad, l'11 maggio 1960, del direttore del Dipartimento Affari Ebraici IV B 4 delle SS rifugiato in Argentina 鈥� dell'organizzatore prima dell'espulsione degli ebrei dalla Germania, del loro trasferimento a Est e poi dei trasporti verso i campi di sterminio da tutta l'Europa occupata 鈥� la lettura proposta dai curatori tedeschi, dicevamo, si differenzia infatti dalla diffusa interpretazione della filosofa tedesca che segu矛 (ma solo in parte!) l'avvenimento epocale nella capitale israeliana per il New Yorker e vide in Eichmann "la banalit脿 del male". Il Male che Eichmann incarna non ha niente di "banale", come mette in luce il percorso creato dalle fondazioni berlinesi Topografia del Terrore e Memoriale degli Ebrei Assassinati in Europa, la statura di Eichmann non 猫 affatto quella di un grigio burocrate incastrato nel motore della tirannia come una qualsiasi rotella inconsapevole e necessaria al meccanismo. La visione della filosofa tedesca era senz'altro legata alla sua tesi sulla cappa psicologica invincibile del totalitarismo, e serviva forse a salvare dalla colpa collettiva il popolo tedesco in mezzo a cui si era formata e forse persino Heidegger, il suo maestro, che al nazismo aveva aderito. Arendt alla fin fine cos矛 si dimostrava aperta alla tesi della difesa di Eichmann: 芦ho solo obbedito agli ordini, sono stato solo un dente di un ingranaggio, non sono mai stato antisemita禄, senza attribuire la giusta importanza n茅 allo svelamento inedito dei testimoni, n茅 alla personale convinzione ideologica nazista che aveva spinto lui come milioni d'altri "volenterosi carnefici" al genocidio.
Ecco invece le tappe della sua biografia: legato fin da giovanissimo alla destra austriaca che chiedeva l'annessione alla Germania e si nutriva di antisemitismo, presente nell'estremismo militante, lettore attento fin dalla fine degli anni Venti di giornali nazional-socialisti, parte di quel misero 3% che nel '30 in Austria vot貌 per il partito nazista a cui aderisce definitivamente nel '32. Nel Reich dal '33, all'indomani della vittoria di Hitler, Eichmann riceve una formazione paramilitare nelle SS e nel '34 entra nel Servizio di Sicurezza del Reichfuehrer Himmler, e ben presto con gradi sempre pi霉 alti nell'unit脿 "Affari ebraici", dedita a forzare gli ebrei a lasciare la Germania. Alla conferenza di Wansee del '42 che mise a punto il piano della "soluzione finale" fu uno degli organizzatori (e l矛, lo vediamo dire in tribunale, si sent矛 sollevato come Ponzio Pilato perch茅 erano stati "i protagonisti, i papi del Reich" a decidere, anche se era lui stesso a prospettare le soluzioni possibili). Himmler lo defin矛 "lo specialista" quando nel '44 lo chiam貌 come sempre a deportare velocemente mezzo milione di ebrei ungheresi ad Auschwitz, un "maestro" della spoliazione, dell'emigrazione forzata, e ben presto del trasferimento nei lager. Persino nella sua deposizione nel '61 in Israele Eichmann chiama gli ebrei "parassiti".
Cosa ci vide di "banale" Hannah Arendt? La sua intuizione, o la sua forzatura, che tanto ha condizionato la riflessione sulla Shoah come di un evento fatale perpetrato da uomini senza volto, non funziona (fu l'autorevole Raul Hilberg a dirlo per primo, seguito ben presto da tanti altri storici): una mappa mostra gli infiniti spostamenti di Eichmann in tutti i luoghi caldi dello sterminio, la storiografia pi霉 recente ne certifica le continue iniziative, la partecipazione attiva alla macchina della morte, la conoscenza esatta di quel che stava avvenendo, l'antisemitismo convinto (il comandante di Auschwitz Rudolf Hoess l'aveva definito "ossessionato dalla questione ebraica"). Un quadro confermato anche dall麓intervista data nel 1957 da Eichmann a Willem Sassen, un giornalista ex SS (in Italia nel '61 la pubblic貌 Epoca).
November 17, 2020
丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 丨丕賱丕 讴賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵亘貙 亘丕 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屫й� 禺賵亘鬲乇 丿乇 丿爻鬲乇爻 賴賲賴鈥屬囏池� 丿蹖诏賴 丕夭 "丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇" 丿乇 噩丕 賵 賲毓賳丕蹖 丿乇爻鬲 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 讴賳蹖丿 賵 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 乇賵 亘賴 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 賳讴卮蹖丿.
______
"丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 " 蹖毓賳蹖 趩賴責
丕氐胤賱丕丨 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇貙 丕亘丿丕毓 禺丕賳賲 丌乇賳鬲貙 鬲賳賴丕 丿賵噩丕 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 卮丿賴 . 蹖讴蹖 乇賵蹖 噩賱丿 賵 蹖讴蹖 賴賲 丕賵丕禺乇 讴鬲丕亘 . 丕賲丕 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇蹖賳 丕氐胤賱丕丨 爻丕禺鬲賴 丕蹖卮賵賳賴 賵 倬乇讴丕乇亘乇丿鬲乇蹖賳 ( 丕睾賱亘 賳丕亘噩丕 ) 鬲賵爻胤 賲乇丿賲 .
蹖讴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 爻丕丿賴 賵 乇賵卮賳 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丕氐胤賱丕丨 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賴 讴賴 賲蹖诏賴:
丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 蹖丕 亘賴賳噩丕乇蹖 卮乇貙 賳馗乇蹖賴 丕蹖 爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖诏賴 卮乇 賴丕蹖 亘夭乇诏 鬲丕乇蹖禺貙 丕毓賲丕賱蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 亘賵爻蹖賱賴 賲乇丿賲 毓丕丿蹖( 賳賴 丕賮乇丕丿 乇賵丕賳蹖貙 噩丕賴鈥屫焚勜ㄘ� 賲鬲毓氐亘 ) 賵 鬲丨鬲 爻蹖爻鬲賲 亘賵乇賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕丿丕乇蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖卮賳.
( 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賲蹖诏賴 丕賮乇丕丿 賲亘鬲匕賱 亘丕 丕賳诏蹖夭賴 賴丕蹖 爻胤丨蹖 丕蹖賳 丕毓賲丕賱 卮乇賵乇丕賳賴 乇賵 賲乇鬲讴亘 賲蹖卮賳 讴賴 讴丕賲賱丕 丌丿賲賴丕蹖 毓丕丿蹖 亘賳馗乇 賲蹖丕賳 賵 亘賴 丕氐胤賱丕丨 賲丕賲賵乇賳 賵 賲毓匕賵乇)
丕蹖賳 丕毓賲丕賱 丕夭 賳馗乇 賲乇丿賲 鬲丨鬲 爻賱胤賴 丕賵賳 賳馗丕賲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 貙丕毓賲丕賱 胤亘蹖毓蹖貙 毓丕丿蹖 賵 爻賱爻賱賴 賲乇丕鬲亘蹖 賴爻鬲賳 賵 亘丕 賴丿賮賴丕蹖 爻胤丨 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賲孬賱 丕乇鬲賯丕蹖 噩夭卅蹖 卮睾賱蹖 賵 丕賳噩丕賲 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 亘蹖鈥屬嗁傌� 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖卮賳.
亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 蹖讴 卮乇賵乇 賲亘鬲匕賱 亘丕卮蹖丿 亘丕蹖丿 趩讴丕乇 讴賳蹖丿責
丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴 丕賵賱 賮賯胤 讴丕賮蹖賴 賮讴乇 賳讴賳蹖丿 ( 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賮讴乇賴丕 乇賵 丿賵賱鬲_爻蹖爻鬲賲 賲蹖讴賳賴) 賵 亘賴 丿爻鬲賵乇 丕賱毓賲賱 賴丕蹖 丿蹖讴鬲賴 卮丿賴 毓賲賱 讴賳蹖丿. 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴 亘毓丿 亘丕 鬲賴蹖 讴乇丿賳 丕毓賲丕賱 囟丿 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 丕夭 賲毓賳丕貙 丿趩丕乇 賮賱噩 賵噩丿丕賳 賵 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 賲丕卮蹖賳 讴卮鬲丕乇 賲蹖卮蹖丿.
______
亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲 亘丕賱丕貙 趩賳丿 賲孬丕賱 丕夭 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 丿乇 丿賳蹖丕 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖丿 賵 亘賳賵蹖爻蹖丿 蹖丕 賳賳賵蹖爻蹖丿 蹖丕 丨鬲蹖 倬蹖丿丕 賴賲 賳讴賳蹖丿. 鄣賳賲乇賴
______
"丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 " 蹖毓賳蹖 趩賴責
丕氐胤賱丕丨 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇貙 丕亘丿丕毓 禺丕賳賲 丌乇賳鬲貙 鬲賳賴丕 丿賵噩丕 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 卮丿賴 . 蹖讴蹖 乇賵蹖 噩賱丿 賵 蹖讴蹖 賴賲 丕賵丕禺乇 讴鬲丕亘 . 丕賲丕 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇蹖賳 丕氐胤賱丕丨 爻丕禺鬲賴 丕蹖卮賵賳賴 賵 倬乇讴丕乇亘乇丿鬲乇蹖賳 ( 丕睾賱亘 賳丕亘噩丕 ) 鬲賵爻胤 賲乇丿賲 .
蹖讴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 爻丕丿賴 賵 乇賵卮賳 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丕氐胤賱丕丨 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賴 讴賴 賲蹖诏賴:
丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 蹖丕 亘賴賳噩丕乇蹖 卮乇貙 賳馗乇蹖賴 丕蹖 爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖诏賴 卮乇 賴丕蹖 亘夭乇诏 鬲丕乇蹖禺貙 丕毓賲丕賱蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 亘賵爻蹖賱賴 賲乇丿賲 毓丕丿蹖( 賳賴 丕賮乇丕丿 乇賵丕賳蹖貙 噩丕賴鈥屫焚勜ㄘ� 賲鬲毓氐亘 ) 賵 鬲丨鬲 爻蹖爻鬲賲 亘賵乇賵讴乇丕爻蹖 丕丿丕乇蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖卮賳.
( 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賲蹖诏賴 丕賮乇丕丿 賲亘鬲匕賱 亘丕 丕賳诏蹖夭賴 賴丕蹖 爻胤丨蹖 丕蹖賳 丕毓賲丕賱 卮乇賵乇丕賳賴 乇賵 賲乇鬲讴亘 賲蹖卮賳 讴賴 讴丕賲賱丕 丌丿賲賴丕蹖 毓丕丿蹖 亘賳馗乇 賲蹖丕賳 賵 亘賴 丕氐胤賱丕丨 賲丕賲賵乇賳 賵 賲毓匕賵乇)
丕蹖賳 丕毓賲丕賱 丕夭 賳馗乇 賲乇丿賲 鬲丨鬲 爻賱胤賴 丕賵賳 賳馗丕賲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 貙丕毓賲丕賱 胤亘蹖毓蹖貙 毓丕丿蹖 賵 爻賱爻賱賴 賲乇丕鬲亘蹖 賴爻鬲賳 賵 亘丕 賴丿賮賴丕蹖 爻胤丨 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賲孬賱 丕乇鬲賯丕蹖 噩夭卅蹖 卮睾賱蹖 賵 丕賳噩丕賲 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 亘蹖鈥屬嗁傌� 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖卮賳.
亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 蹖讴 卮乇賵乇 賲亘鬲匕賱 亘丕卮蹖丿 亘丕蹖丿 趩讴丕乇 讴賳蹖丿責
丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴 丕賵賱 賮賯胤 讴丕賮蹖賴 賮讴乇 賳讴賳蹖丿 ( 賴賲賴鈥屰� 賮讴乇賴丕 乇賵 丿賵賱鬲_爻蹖爻鬲賲 賲蹖讴賳賴) 賵 亘賴 丿爻鬲賵乇 丕賱毓賲賱 賴丕蹖 丿蹖讴鬲賴 卮丿賴 毓賲賱 讴賳蹖丿. 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴 亘毓丿 亘丕 鬲賴蹖 讴乇丿賳 丕毓賲丕賱 囟丿 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 丕夭 賲毓賳丕貙 丿趩丕乇 賮賱噩 賵噩丿丕賳 賵 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 賲丕卮蹖賳 讴卮鬲丕乇 賲蹖卮蹖丿.
______
亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲 亘丕賱丕貙 趩賳丿 賲孬丕賱 丕夭 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 丿乇 丿賳蹖丕 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖丿 賵 亘賳賵蹖爻蹖丿 蹖丕 賳賳賵蹖爻蹖丿 蹖丕 丨鬲蹖 倬蹖丿丕 賴賲 賳讴賳蹖丿. 鄣賳賲乇賴
June 3, 2022
賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 讴亘蹖乇 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲 鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 丕夭 噩賱丕丿 賵 賯乇亘丕賳蹖 貙 馗丕賱賲 賵 賲馗賱賵賲 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖 丿賴丿 貙 鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 亘爻 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘丕 讴賱蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賮蹖賱賲 賴丕蹖 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 賴賵賱賵讴丕爻鬲 賯亘賱丕 丿蹖丿賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 貙 賳賴 賳丕夭蹖 賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丕賵 乇賵丕賳蹖 賴丕蹖蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 丌賲賵賳 诏賵鬲 賮賴乇爻鬲 卮蹖賳丿賱乇 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 賳賴 賯乇亘丕賳蹖丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕賳亘賵賴 噩賲丕毓鬲 蹖賴賵丿 亘蹖 诏賳丕賴丕賳 . 丌乇賳鬲 賴乇 丿賵 乇丕 亘賴 卮丿鬲 賳賯丿 賲蹖 讴賳丿 貙 丕賵 賯賴乇賲丕賳 賳賲蹖 爻丕夭丿 貙 賴蹖賵賱丕 蹖丕 卮蹖胤丕賳 賴賲 賳賲蹖 爻丕夭丿 .
丌乇賳鬲 乇賵丕蹖鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿 貙 丕賵 亘賴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丌賲丿賴 鬲丕 赖蹖賵賱丕蹖蹖 乇丕 亘亘蹖賳丿 丕賲丕 賳丕丕賲蹖丿 賲蹖 卮賵丿 . 丌乇賳鬲 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 乇丕 賲蹖 亘蹖賳丿 貙 蹖讴 讴丕乇賲賳丿 丕丿丕乇蹖 貙 蹖讴 賮乇丿 卮賴乇賳卮蹖賳 毓丕丿蹖 . 丕賲丕 丕蹖賳 賮乇丿 賳賯卮蹖 賲賴賲 丿乇 賮乇丌蹖賳丿蹖 囟丿 亘卮乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 貙 丕賵 毓賳氐乇蹖 賲賴賲 丿乇 趩乇禺賴 鬲乇賵乇 賵 賳丕亘賵丿蹖 爻丕夭賲丕賳 丿丕丿賴 卮丿賴 乇跇蹖賲 賳丕夭蹖 亘賵丿賴 . 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丌蹖卮賲賳 噩乇賲 賳爻亘鬲丕 噩丿蹖丿蹖 賲乇鬲讴亘 卮丿賴 貙 丕賵 亘丿賵賳 丌賳讴賴 賯乇亘丕賳蹖丕賳 毓賲賱 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘亘蹖賳丿 賲乇鬲讴亘 噩賳丕蹖鬲 卮丿賴 貙 丌蹖卮賲賳 蹖讴 丿跇禺蹖賲 亘賵乇賵讴乇丕鬲 亘賵丿賴 .
丌丿賵賱賮 丌蹖卮賲賳 蹖讴 賲賴乇賴 讴賵趩讴 丿乇 亘賵乇賵讴乇丕爻蹖 毓馗蹖賲 賳丕夭蹖 賴丕 亘賵丿賴 貙 丕賵 賳賴 賴賲丕賳賳丿 赖丕蹖丿乇蹖卮 賮乇丿蹖 賲賴賲 亘丕 賯丿乇鬲 賳賵丌賵乇蹖 亘賵丿賴 賵 賳賴 賲丕賳賳丿 賴蹖賲賱乇 賲毓賲丕乇 賴賵賱賵讴丕爻鬲 . 丕賵 賲丕賳賳丿 丌賲賵賳 诏賵鬲 賮乇賲丕賳丿賴 讴賲倬 倬賱丕卮賮 賴賲 賳亘賵丿 讴賴 禺賵丿 丨讴賲 丕毓丿丕賲 賯乇亘丕賳蹖 乇丕 丕噩乇丕 讴賳丿 . 丌蹖卮賲賳 賳賴 亘賴 亘乇鬲乇蹖 賳跇丕丿蹖 丕毓鬲賯丕丿蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 賵 賳賴 丕夭 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 賲鬲賳賮乇 亘賵丿賴 . 丕賵 亘賴 讴丕乇蹖 讴賴 亘賴 丕賵 爻倬乇丿賴 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 丿賱亘爻鬲賴 亘賵丿賴 賵 丿睾丿睾賴 丕賵 丕噩乇丕蹖 亘賴鬲乇 賵 爻乇蹖毓鬲乇 賵馗蹖賮賴 賲丨賵賱 卮丿賴 亘賴
丕賵 亘賵丿賴 . 賵馗蹖賮賴 乇丕賳丿賳 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 丕夭 禺丕賳賴 亘賴 诏鬲賵 賵 丕夭 诏鬲賵賴丕 亘賴 丕乇丿賵诏丕賴 賴丕蹖 讴丕乇 丕噩亘丕乇蹖 賵 賲乇诏
丌蹖卮賲賳 讴賴 鬲丕 賯亘賱 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 丿乇 丕噩乇丕蹖 賴乇 賵馗蹖賮賴 丕蹖 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 亘賵丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 丕夭 禺賵丿 讴賮丕蹖鬲 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賴 賵 乇囟丕蹖鬲 賴蹖賲賱乇 賵 赖丕蹖丿乇蹖卮 乇丕 噩賱亘 賲蹖 讴賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖 卮賵丿 讴賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 讴丕乇卮賳丕爻 丕賲賵乇 蹖賴賵丿 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮賵丿 賵 賵馗蹖賮賴 丕禺乇丕噩 賯賵賲 蹖賴賵丿 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 鬲噩賲蹖毓 爻丕夭蹖 蹖丕 丕爻讴丕賳 賲噩丿丿 亘賴 丕賵 爻倬乇丿賴 卮賵丿 .
賴賲丕賳 胤賵乇 讴賴 丕夭 丌乇賳鬲 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賲蹖 乇賵丿 亘賴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 丕夭 夭賵丕蹖丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮蹖 賳诏丕賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 賳鬲丕蹖噩 噩丕賱亘蹖 賴賲 賲蹖 乇爻丿 貙 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 丕亘鬲丿丕 鬲讴賱蹖賮 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘丕 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 貙 丌賯丕蹖 賴丕賵夭賳乇 賲卮禺氐 賲蹖 讴賳丿 . 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 乇賮鬲丕乇 賳賲丕蹖卮蹖 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖 丿賴丿 讴賴 丕賵 賮賯胤 毓乇賵爻讴 丿爻鬲蹖 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱 賵 卮禺氐 賳禺爻鬲 賵夭蹖乇 貙 亘賳 诏賵乇蹖賳 賴爻鬲 賵 毓丿丕賱鬲 乇丕 鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 倬蹖诏蹖乇蹖 賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 賲賳丕賮毓 丿賵賱鬲 蹖賴賵丿乇丕 亘賴 禺胤乇 賳蹖丕賳丿丕夭丿 . 丕賲丕 丌乇賳鬲 賯囟丕鬲 丿丕丿诏丕賴 乇丕 鬲丨爻蹖賳 賲蹖 讴賳丿 貙丿乇 乇丕爻 丌賳賴丕 賯丕囟蹖 賱丕賳丿賵 讴賴 亘丕 鬲賲丕賲 賵噩賵丿 鬲賱丕卮 賲蹖 讴賳丿 鬲丕 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 乇丕 亘賴 賳賲丕蹖卮 鬲亘丿蹖賱 賳讴賳丿 .
讴賱丕賲 丌乇賳鬲 賴乇 夭賲丕賳 讴賴 亘賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 賲蹖 乇爻丿 鬲丨賯蹖乇 讴賳賳丿賴 賵 诏夭賳丿賴 賲蹖 卮賵丿 貙丕夭 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴 賲賵噩賵丿 亘賴 鬲賲丕賲 賲毓賳蹖 賲亘鬲匕賱 蹖丕丿 賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 丨鬲蹖 丕夭 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賳 爻丕丿賴 賴賲 毓丕噩夭 丕爻鬲 . 讴賱蹖卮賴 丕蹖 氐丨亘鬲 賲蹖 讴賳丿 賵 丨乇賮賴丕蹖卮 爻乇 賵 鬲賴 賳丿丕乇丿 貨 夭亘丕賳卮 禺卮讴 賵 丕丿丕乇蹖 賵 乇賮鬲丕乇卮 讴丕乇賲賳丿 賵丕乇 賵 毓丕噩夭 丕夭 鬲賮讴乇 丕爻鬲 . 丕賲丕 賴乇 趩賴 亘丕卮丿 蹖讴 賴蹖賵賱丕 蹖丕 蹖讴 卮乇 賲胤賱賯 賳蹖爻鬲 貙 丕夭 乇賵蹖 毓賱丕賯賴 亘賴 丨夭亘 賲賱丨賯 賳卮丿賴 賵 賴蹖趩 毓賳丕丿 賵 丿卮賲賳蹖 亘丕 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 丕诏乇 丌蹖卮賲賳 鬲氐賲蹖賲 诏蹖乇賳丿賴 賳賴丕蹖蹖 賯囟蹖賴 蹖賴賵丿 亘賵丿 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕 讴丕乇 亘賴 鬲亘毓蹖丿 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 亘賴 賲丕丿丕诏丕爻讴丕乇 蹖丕 賴乇 讴卮賵乇 丿蹖诏乇蹖 禺鬲賲 賲蹖 卮丿 .
丿乇 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賮氐賱 賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丌乇賳鬲 亘賴 乇賵賳丿 丕禺乇丕噩 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 丕夭 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丕乇賵倬丕蹖蹖 賵 亘乇禺賵乇丿 賲禺鬲賱賮 賲乇丿賲 丌賳 讴卮賵乇賴丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賯囟蹖賴 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭丿 . 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 亘賴鬲乇 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 蹖丕 賴賲诏丕賳蹖 卮丿賳 卮乇 倬蹖 亘亘乇丿 . 賲乇丿賲 丕讴孬乇 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丕乇賵倬丕 亘賴 噩夭 丿丕賳賲丕乇讴 賵 丕蹖鬲丕賱蹖丕 ( 丌乇賳鬲 乇賮鬲丕乇 賲乇丿賲 丕蹖鬲丕賱蹖丕 乇丕 賳噩蹖亘丕賳賴 亘丕 乇蹖卮賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賲蹖 丿丕賳丿 ) 亘丕 爻讴賵鬲 禺賵丿 蹖丕 亘爻鬲賳 丿乇亘 禺丕賳賴 賴丕蹖 禺賵丿 蹖丕 賱賵丿丕丿賳 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 亘賴 讴卮鬲賴 卮丿賳 丌賳賴丕 讴賲讴 讴乇丿賴 賵 賳賯卮蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲丕噩乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕賳丿 貙 賳賯卮蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賴蹖趩 丿丕丿诏丕賴蹖 亘賴 丌賳 乇爻蹖丿诏蹖 賳卮丿 .
賴賲蹖賳 胤賵乇 丌乇賳鬲 亘丕 氐乇丕丨鬲 亘賴 賳賯卮 卮賵乇丕蹖 蹖賴賵丿 賵 倬賱蹖爻 蹖賴賵丿 丿乇 丕噩乇丕蹖 丕賵丕賲乇 賳丕夭蹖 賴丕 賵 賴賲讴丕乇蹖 讴丕賲賱 亘丕 丌賳賴丕 丕卮丕乇賴 賲蹖 讴賳丿 貙 鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 卮賵乇丕蹖 蹖賴賵丿 乇丕 丿爻鬲 乇丕爻鬲 丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 賯囟蹖賴 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賲蹖 丿丕賳丿 . 賵丕囟丨 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賲丕賲 鬲賱丕卮 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 賵 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱 爻乇倬賵卮 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 亘乇 丕蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲 .
丿乇 氐賮丨丕鬲 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丌乇賳鬲 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 丨讴賲 胤賵賱丕賳蹖 賯囟丕鬲 乇丕 禺胤丕亘 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘丕夭诏賵 賲蹖 讴賳丿 :
卮賲丕 丨丕賲蹖 賵 賲噩乇蹖 爻蹖丕爻鬲蹖 亘賵丿蹖丿 讴賴 賳賲蹖 禺賵丕爻鬲 夭賲蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 賲乇丿賲 蹖賴賵丿 賵 賲乇丿賲 趩賳丿 賲賱鬲 丿蹖诏乇 爻賴蹖賲 亘丕卮丿 鈥� 诏賵蹖蹖 卮賲丕 賵 賲丕賮賵賯 賴丕蹖鬲丕賳 丕爻丕爻丕 丨賯 丿丕卮鬲蹖丿 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 趩賴 讴爻蹖 亘丕蹖丿 蹖丕 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿 鈥� 賲丕 賴賲 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 乇爻蹖丿賴 丕蹖賲 讴賴 丕夭 賴蹖趩 讴爻 貙 蹖毓賳蹖 丕夭 賴蹖趩 蹖讴 丕夭 丕毓囟丕蹖 賳跇丕丿丕賳爻丕賳 賳賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳
. 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丿丕卮鬲 讴賴 亘禺賵丕賴丿 夭賲蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 卮賲丕 爻賴蹖賲 亘丕卮丿 . 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 賵 賮賯胤 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 卮賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丿丕乇 丌賵蹖禺鬲賴 卮賵蹖丿
讴鬲丕亘 毓賱蹖 乇睾賲 丨噩賲 賳爻亘鬲丕 讴賲 丌賳 (376 氐賮丨賴 ) 丿丕乇丕蹖 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 毓賲蹖賯蹖 丕蹖爻鬲 貙 賴賳乇 丌乇賳鬲 毓賱丕賵賴 亘乇 亘蹖 胤乇賮 亘賵丿賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 ( 讴賴 禺賵卮 丌蹖賳丿 丿賵賱鬲賴丕蹖 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 賵 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱 賳亘賵丿賴) 賳诏乇蹖爻鬲賳 亘賴 蹖讴 賲賵囟賵毓 丕夭 夭賵丕蹖丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕爻鬲 貙 丌乇賳鬲 鬲毓乇蹖賮 噩丿蹖丿蹖 丕夭 卮乇 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖 丿賴丿 貙 卮乇蹖 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖 丿賴丿 賳丕卮蹖 丕夭 爻讴賵鬲 貙 亘蹖 鬲賮讴乇蹖 貙 丕胤丕毓鬲 賲丨囟 賵 讴賵乇讴賵乇丕賳賴 丕爻鬲 貙 賳丕卮蹖 丕夭 蹖讴 賳馗丕賲 乇毓亘 賵 賵丨卮鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 丌賱賲丕賳蹖賴丕 亘賱讴賴 丕讴孬乇蹖鬲 賲乇丿賲 丿乇 爻乇鬲丕爻乇 丕乇賵倬丕 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕賲賵卮蹖 賲睾夭 賵 鬲爻賱蹖賲 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賲賵噩 鬲乇賵乇 賵丕丿丕卮鬲賴 亘賵丿 .卮丕蹖丿 亘鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 丕夭 賳诏丕賴 丌乇賳鬲 爻讴賵鬲 賵 亘蹖 毓賲賱蹖 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 丕賳噩丕賲 馗賱賲 乇丕 亘鬲賵丕賳 賴賲丕賳賳丿 賲卮丕乇讴鬲 丿乇 丕乇鬲讴丕亘 丌賳 丿丕賳爻鬲 . 亘丕 丕蹖賳 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 鬲賵丿賴 賴丕蹖 囟毓蹖賮 賳賯卮蹖 丨蹖丕鬲蹖 丿乇 賲亘丕乇夭賴 亘丕 爻鬲賲 丿乇 賳馗乇 诏乇賮鬲 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲 爻讴賵鬲 賴賲蹖賳 鬲賵丿賴 賴丕 乇丕 賴賲 賴賲丿爻鬲 賯丿乇鬲 丿丕賳爻鬲 .
丌乇賳鬲 乇賵丕蹖鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿 貙 丕賵 亘賴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丌賲丿賴 鬲丕 赖蹖賵賱丕蹖蹖 乇丕 亘亘蹖賳丿 丕賲丕 賳丕丕賲蹖丿 賲蹖 卮賵丿 . 丌乇賳鬲 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 乇丕 賲蹖 亘蹖賳丿 貙 蹖讴 讴丕乇賲賳丿 丕丿丕乇蹖 貙 蹖讴 賮乇丿 卮賴乇賳卮蹖賳 毓丕丿蹖 . 丕賲丕 丕蹖賳 賮乇丿 賳賯卮蹖 賲賴賲 丿乇 賮乇丌蹖賳丿蹖 囟丿 亘卮乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 貙 丕賵 毓賳氐乇蹖 賲賴賲 丿乇 趩乇禺賴 鬲乇賵乇 賵 賳丕亘賵丿蹖 爻丕夭賲丕賳 丿丕丿賴 卮丿賴 乇跇蹖賲 賳丕夭蹖 亘賵丿賴 . 丿乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丌蹖卮賲賳 噩乇賲 賳爻亘鬲丕 噩丿蹖丿蹖 賲乇鬲讴亘 卮丿賴 貙 丕賵 亘丿賵賳 丌賳讴賴 賯乇亘丕賳蹖丕賳 毓賲賱 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘亘蹖賳丿 賲乇鬲讴亘 噩賳丕蹖鬲 卮丿賴 貙 丌蹖卮賲賳 蹖讴 丿跇禺蹖賲 亘賵乇賵讴乇丕鬲 亘賵丿賴 .
丌丿賵賱賮 丌蹖卮賲賳 蹖讴 賲賴乇賴 讴賵趩讴 丿乇 亘賵乇賵讴乇丕爻蹖 毓馗蹖賲 賳丕夭蹖 賴丕 亘賵丿賴 貙 丕賵 賳賴 賴賲丕賳賳丿 赖丕蹖丿乇蹖卮 賮乇丿蹖 賲賴賲 亘丕 賯丿乇鬲 賳賵丌賵乇蹖 亘賵丿賴 賵 賳賴 賲丕賳賳丿 賴蹖賲賱乇 賲毓賲丕乇 賴賵賱賵讴丕爻鬲 . 丕賵 賲丕賳賳丿 丌賲賵賳 诏賵鬲 賮乇賲丕賳丿賴 讴賲倬 倬賱丕卮賮 賴賲 賳亘賵丿 讴賴 禺賵丿 丨讴賲 丕毓丿丕賲 賯乇亘丕賳蹖 乇丕 丕噩乇丕 讴賳丿 . 丌蹖卮賲賳 賳賴 亘賴 亘乇鬲乇蹖 賳跇丕丿蹖 丕毓鬲賯丕丿蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 賵 賳賴 丕夭 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 賲鬲賳賮乇 亘賵丿賴 . 丕賵 亘賴 讴丕乇蹖 讴賴 亘賴 丕賵 爻倬乇丿賴 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 丿賱亘爻鬲賴 亘賵丿賴 賵 丿睾丿睾賴 丕賵 丕噩乇丕蹖 亘賴鬲乇 賵 爻乇蹖毓鬲乇 賵馗蹖賮賴 賲丨賵賱 卮丿賴 亘賴
丕賵 亘賵丿賴 . 賵馗蹖賮賴 乇丕賳丿賳 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 丕夭 禺丕賳賴 亘賴 诏鬲賵 賵 丕夭 诏鬲賵賴丕 亘賴 丕乇丿賵诏丕賴 賴丕蹖 讴丕乇 丕噩亘丕乇蹖 賵 賲乇诏
丌蹖卮賲賳 讴賴 鬲丕 賯亘賱 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 丿乇 丕噩乇丕蹖 賴乇 賵馗蹖賮賴 丕蹖 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 亘賵丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 丕夭 禺賵丿 讴賮丕蹖鬲 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賴 賵 乇囟丕蹖鬲 賴蹖賲賱乇 賵 赖丕蹖丿乇蹖卮 乇丕 噩賱亘 賲蹖 讴賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖 卮賵丿 讴賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 讴丕乇卮賳丕爻 丕賲賵乇 蹖賴賵丿 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮賵丿 賵 賵馗蹖賮賴 丕禺乇丕噩 賯賵賲 蹖賴賵丿 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 鬲噩賲蹖毓 爻丕夭蹖 蹖丕 丕爻讴丕賳 賲噩丿丿 亘賴 丕賵 爻倬乇丿賴 卮賵丿 .
賴賲丕賳 胤賵乇 讴賴 丕夭 丌乇賳鬲 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賲蹖 乇賵丿 亘賴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 丕夭 夭賵丕蹖丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮蹖 賳诏丕賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 賳鬲丕蹖噩 噩丕賱亘蹖 賴賲 賲蹖 乇爻丿 貙 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 丕亘鬲丿丕 鬲讴賱蹖賮 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘丕 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 貙 丌賯丕蹖 賴丕賵夭賳乇 賲卮禺氐 賲蹖 讴賳丿 . 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 乇賮鬲丕乇 賳賲丕蹖卮蹖 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖 丿賴丿 讴賴 丕賵 賮賯胤 毓乇賵爻讴 丿爻鬲蹖 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱 賵 卮禺氐 賳禺爻鬲 賵夭蹖乇 貙 亘賳 诏賵乇蹖賳 賴爻鬲 賵 毓丿丕賱鬲 乇丕 鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 倬蹖诏蹖乇蹖 賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 賲賳丕賮毓 丿賵賱鬲 蹖賴賵丿乇丕 亘賴 禺胤乇 賳蹖丕賳丿丕夭丿 . 丕賲丕 丌乇賳鬲 賯囟丕鬲 丿丕丿诏丕賴 乇丕 鬲丨爻蹖賳 賲蹖 讴賳丿 貙丿乇 乇丕爻 丌賳賴丕 賯丕囟蹖 賱丕賳丿賵 讴賴 亘丕 鬲賲丕賲 賵噩賵丿 鬲賱丕卮 賲蹖 讴賳丿 鬲丕 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 乇丕 亘賴 賳賲丕蹖卮 鬲亘丿蹖賱 賳讴賳丿 .
讴賱丕賲 丌乇賳鬲 賴乇 夭賲丕賳 讴賴 亘賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 賲蹖 乇爻丿 鬲丨賯蹖乇 讴賳賳丿賴 賵 诏夭賳丿賴 賲蹖 卮賵丿 貙丕夭 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴 賲賵噩賵丿 亘賴 鬲賲丕賲 賲毓賳蹖 賲亘鬲匕賱 蹖丕丿 賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 丨鬲蹖 丕夭 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賳 爻丕丿賴 賴賲 毓丕噩夭 丕爻鬲 . 讴賱蹖卮賴 丕蹖 氐丨亘鬲 賲蹖 讴賳丿 賵 丨乇賮賴丕蹖卮 爻乇 賵 鬲賴 賳丿丕乇丿 貨 夭亘丕賳卮 禺卮讴 賵 丕丿丕乇蹖 賵 乇賮鬲丕乇卮 讴丕乇賲賳丿 賵丕乇 賵 毓丕噩夭 丕夭 鬲賮讴乇 丕爻鬲 . 丕賲丕 賴乇 趩賴 亘丕卮丿 蹖讴 賴蹖賵賱丕 蹖丕 蹖讴 卮乇 賲胤賱賯 賳蹖爻鬲 貙 丕夭 乇賵蹖 毓賱丕賯賴 亘賴 丨夭亘 賲賱丨賯 賳卮丿賴 賵 賴蹖趩 毓賳丕丿 賵 丿卮賲賳蹖 亘丕 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 丕诏乇 丌蹖卮賲賳 鬲氐賲蹖賲 诏蹖乇賳丿賴 賳賴丕蹖蹖 賯囟蹖賴 蹖賴賵丿 亘賵丿 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕 讴丕乇 亘賴 鬲亘毓蹖丿 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 亘賴 賲丕丿丕诏丕爻讴丕乇 蹖丕 賴乇 讴卮賵乇 丿蹖诏乇蹖 禺鬲賲 賲蹖 卮丿 .
丿乇 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賮氐賱 賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丌乇賳鬲 亘賴 乇賵賳丿 丕禺乇丕噩 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 丕夭 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丕乇賵倬丕蹖蹖 賵 亘乇禺賵乇丿 賲禺鬲賱賮 賲乇丿賲 丌賳 讴卮賵乇賴丕 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賯囟蹖賴 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭丿 . 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 亘賴鬲乇 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 蹖丕 賴賲诏丕賳蹖 卮丿賳 卮乇 倬蹖 亘亘乇丿 . 賲乇丿賲 丕讴孬乇 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丕乇賵倬丕 亘賴 噩夭 丿丕賳賲丕乇讴 賵 丕蹖鬲丕賱蹖丕 ( 丌乇賳鬲 乇賮鬲丕乇 賲乇丿賲 丕蹖鬲丕賱蹖丕 乇丕 賳噩蹖亘丕賳賴 亘丕 乇蹖卮賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 賲蹖 丿丕賳丿 ) 亘丕 爻讴賵鬲 禺賵丿 蹖丕 亘爻鬲賳 丿乇亘 禺丕賳賴 賴丕蹖 禺賵丿 蹖丕 賱賵丿丕丿賳 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 亘賴 讴卮鬲賴 卮丿賳 丌賳賴丕 讴賲讴 讴乇丿賴 賵 賳賯卮蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲丕噩乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕賳丿 貙 賳賯卮蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賴蹖趩 丿丕丿诏丕賴蹖 亘賴 丌賳 乇爻蹖丿诏蹖 賳卮丿 .
賴賲蹖賳 胤賵乇 丌乇賳鬲 亘丕 氐乇丕丨鬲 亘賴 賳賯卮 卮賵乇丕蹖 蹖賴賵丿 賵 倬賱蹖爻 蹖賴賵丿 丿乇 丕噩乇丕蹖 丕賵丕賲乇 賳丕夭蹖 賴丕 賵 賴賲讴丕乇蹖 讴丕賲賱 亘丕 丌賳賴丕 丕卮丕乇賴 賲蹖 讴賳丿 貙 鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 卮賵乇丕蹖 蹖賴賵丿 乇丕 丿爻鬲 乇丕爻鬲 丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 賯囟蹖賴 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賲蹖 丿丕賳丿 . 賵丕囟丨 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賲丕賲 鬲賱丕卮 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 賵 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱 爻乇倬賵卮 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 亘乇 丕蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲 .
丿乇 氐賮丨丕鬲 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丌乇賳鬲 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 丨讴賲 胤賵賱丕賳蹖 賯囟丕鬲 乇丕 禺胤丕亘 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘丕夭诏賵 賲蹖 讴賳丿 :
卮賲丕 丨丕賲蹖 賵 賲噩乇蹖 爻蹖丕爻鬲蹖 亘賵丿蹖丿 讴賴 賳賲蹖 禺賵丕爻鬲 夭賲蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 賲乇丿賲 蹖賴賵丿 賵 賲乇丿賲 趩賳丿 賲賱鬲 丿蹖诏乇 爻賴蹖賲 亘丕卮丿 鈥� 诏賵蹖蹖 卮賲丕 賵 賲丕賮賵賯 賴丕蹖鬲丕賳 丕爻丕爻丕 丨賯 丿丕卮鬲蹖丿 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 趩賴 讴爻蹖 亘丕蹖丿 蹖丕 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿 鈥� 賲丕 賴賲 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 乇爻蹖丿賴 丕蹖賲 讴賴 丕夭 賴蹖趩 讴爻 貙 蹖毓賳蹖 丕夭 賴蹖趩 蹖讴 丕夭 丕毓囟丕蹖 賳跇丕丿丕賳爻丕賳 賳賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳
. 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丿丕卮鬲 讴賴 亘禺賵丕賴丿 夭賲蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 卮賲丕 爻賴蹖賲 亘丕卮丿 . 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 賵 賮賯胤 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 卮賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丿丕乇 丌賵蹖禺鬲賴 卮賵蹖丿
讴鬲丕亘 毓賱蹖 乇睾賲 丨噩賲 賳爻亘鬲丕 讴賲 丌賳 (376 氐賮丨賴 ) 丿丕乇丕蹖 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 毓賲蹖賯蹖 丕蹖爻鬲 貙 賴賳乇 丌乇賳鬲 毓賱丕賵賴 亘乇 亘蹖 胤乇賮 亘賵丿賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 ( 讴賴 禺賵卮 丌蹖賳丿 丿賵賱鬲賴丕蹖 丌賲乇蹖讴丕 賵 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱 賳亘賵丿賴) 賳诏乇蹖爻鬲賳 亘賴 蹖讴 賲賵囟賵毓 丕夭 夭賵丕蹖丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕爻鬲 貙 丌乇賳鬲 鬲毓乇蹖賮 噩丿蹖丿蹖 丕夭 卮乇 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖 丿賴丿 貙 卮乇蹖 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖 丿賴丿 賳丕卮蹖 丕夭 爻讴賵鬲 貙 亘蹖 鬲賮讴乇蹖 貙 丕胤丕毓鬲 賲丨囟 賵 讴賵乇讴賵乇丕賳賴 丕爻鬲 貙 賳丕卮蹖 丕夭 蹖讴 賳馗丕賲 乇毓亘 賵 賵丨卮鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 丌賱賲丕賳蹖賴丕 亘賱讴賴 丕讴孬乇蹖鬲 賲乇丿賲 丿乇 爻乇鬲丕爻乇 丕乇賵倬丕 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕賲賵卮蹖 賲睾夭 賵 鬲爻賱蹖賲 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賲賵噩 鬲乇賵乇 賵丕丿丕卮鬲賴 亘賵丿 .卮丕蹖丿 亘鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 丕夭 賳诏丕賴 丌乇賳鬲 爻讴賵鬲 賵 亘蹖 毓賲賱蹖 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 丕賳噩丕賲 馗賱賲 乇丕 亘鬲賵丕賳 賴賲丕賳賳丿 賲卮丕乇讴鬲 丿乇 丕乇鬲讴丕亘 丌賳 丿丕賳爻鬲 . 亘丕 丕蹖賳 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 鬲賵丿賴 賴丕蹖 囟毓蹖賮 賳賯卮蹖 丨蹖丕鬲蹖 丿乇 賲亘丕乇夭賴 亘丕 爻鬲賲 丿乇 賳馗乇 诏乇賮鬲 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲 爻讴賵鬲 賴賲蹖賳 鬲賵丿賴 賴丕 乇丕 賴賲 賴賲丿爻鬲 賯丿乇鬲 丿丕賳爻鬲 .
September 7, 2017
鈥淸T]hese defendants now ask this Tribunal to say they are not guilty of planning, executing, or conspiring to commit this long list of crimes and wrongs. They stand before the record of this Tribunal as bloodstained Gloucester stood by the body of his slain king. He begged of the widow, as they beg of you: 鈥楽ay I slew them not.鈥� And the Queen replied: 鈥淭hen say they are not slain. But dead they are鈥︹€欌€�
-- from Robert Jackson鈥檚 closing argument at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
In my opinion, one of the central failings of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was its list of defendants. Leave aside all questions of international law, 鈥渧ictor鈥檚 justice,鈥� and tu quoque arguments, and this is what you notice: that the Nuremberg dock was filled with the lesser lights of the Nazi Party.
Absent was Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler, dead by their own hands. Absent was the troll Bormann, who never escaped Berlin. Absent was Heydrich the hangman, killed by Czech partisans long before the tide turned.
The most (in)famous Nazi in the dock was the suave and corpulent Goering, but even he was not destined for the noose. He escaped with the aid of smuggled cyanide.
This left the victorious Allies punishing halfwits and lackeys and avatars of evil: the Jew-baiter Streicher, so foul and vile even Hitler despised him; the lapdog Keitel, without a brain in his head; the incompetent von Ribbentrop; the furiously backpedaling Doenitz; the quite-possibly insane Hess.
Destroying this grab-bag of thugs and louts was a cold comfort. Today, aside from Goering and the unctuous and self-serving Speer, the Nuremberg defendants are mostly forgotten. We don鈥檛 think of Nazism extinguished at the end of a rope; instead, we think of Hitler and his goofy mustache and wild gesticulations and struggle with the notion he somehow escaped justice.
Thus, it is quite possible that the mantel of most (in)famous Nazi war criminal falls upon the thin shoulders of balding, bespectacled Adolf Eichmann. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, he was captured by the Mossad during a brazen raid in Argentina. Next, he was at the center of a widely publicized show trial in Jerusalem. Mainly, though, we remember Eichmann (while we forget Frick, Funk, Sauckel and Schirach) because of three words:
Banality of evil.
Coined by political theorist Hannah Arendt, the phrase has stood the test of time. It has a pseudo-intellectual patina that has become a kind of shorthand in discussions of the Nazi regime. If you want to sound smart without knowing much at all, just spit it out (just make sure you pronounce 鈥渂anal鈥� correctly). As such, it is ripe for misuse (see, e.g., ).
From a marketing standpoint, 鈥渂anality of evil鈥� is solid gold, the politico-historical equivalent of 鈥渟how me the money!鈥� It has kept Arendt鈥檚 Eichmann in Jerusalem relevant and in print since the 60s, and there is no indication the book or the phrase is going anywhere.
Interestingly, though, the phrase only appears once in the text: as the book鈥檚 last lines. It is only explained by Arendt in a postscript. And that's fine, really. There are plenty of people around willing to argue about what those words mean and whether they are correct.
Eichmann in Jerusalem is, in Arendt鈥檚 words, a 鈥渢rial report.鈥� The book version is cobbled together from her reporting for The New Yorker, as well as some later research.
I don鈥檛 like to disagree with an author over her own creation, but Eichmann in Jerusalem doesn鈥檛 really feel like a trial report, or at least not as I conceive such a thing. This book doesn鈥檛 concern itself with the nuts-and-bolts of the trial; it does not analyze opening and closing statements, witness credibility, or the incisiveness of cross examination. To be sure, some of these things are touched on, but if you want the story of the trial itself, how it went down, day by day or week by week, you鈥檒l have to look elsewhere.
(By my rough count, there are about seven chapters devoted mainly to Eichmann鈥檚 activities during the Holocaust, while there are only two chapters devoted solely to the trial).
Instead, Arendt has written Eichmann鈥檚 story as based upon what she learned at the trial. Indeed, the bulk of Eichmann in Jerusalem reads like any other nonfiction book about the Nazis. It covers the Wannsee Conference, forced emigrations, deportations, and finally the rail-lines to the death camps. The only unique angle is that Eichmann is at the center of this narrative. And this is saying something, I suppose.
Despite his infamy, and despite the fact I鈥檝e read more than my share of Nazi-centric books (my wife would say far more than my fair share), I鈥檝e never really learned a lot about Adolf Eichmann. He is almost always mentioned, but never explored. This is due to the fact that however involved he was in the Holocaust, he was, at the end of the day, a functionary.
Accordingly, I don鈥檛 mind Arendt鈥檚 decision to focus on the man at the center of the trial, rather than the mechanics of the trial itself.
The problem I had, however, is with Arendt鈥檚 writing style. For the last few minutes, I鈥檝e struggled to find the best way to express what I mean. The words 鈥渃lunky鈥� and 鈥渋nelegant鈥� spring to mind, as does the phrase 鈥渄ense prose.鈥� I would also venture to say she displays 鈥渃urious sentence structure.鈥� Whatever the actual diagnosis 鈥� I鈥檓 a lawyer, not a grammarian 鈥� the result forces the reader to grapple with the material, rather than absorb it. This is a book I had to force my way through. Sometimes I鈥檇 read entire pages before realizing I had no idea what鈥檇 just been said. Despite being only 300 odd pages, it felt like a long, plodding slog.
(None of this is helped by the massively long paragraphs and Arendt鈥檚 curious hesitation about indentations. This makes for aesthetically displeasing pages).
Eichmann in Jerusalem carries a lot of baggage with it, which I suppose is the reason people continue to read it, despite its literary shortcomings. Some of the recent controversy involves Arendt鈥檚 relationship with crypto-Nazi cum philosopher Martin Heidegger. Frankly, I don鈥檛 have much to say on that score, and it feels a little too insider-academics to me.
Still, there is plenty of controversy right there on the page, in black and white, without delving into Arendt鈥檚 sex life.
While reading, I picked out three major areas of potential criticism.
The first critique, which I agree with, is in Arendt鈥檚 treatment of Jewish leaders during the war. It is a matter of historical fact that Jewish leaders were utilized by the Nazis in order to expedite the Holocaust. The trouble with Arendt鈥檚 interpretation, though, is that she essentially accuses them of collaboration. This just isn鈥檛 the case. Yes, the Judenrat assisted the Nazis, but they did so with a knife at their throats, and that鈥檚 an important piece of the puzzle that Arendt ignores. Had the Judenrat resisted, Spartacus-style, as she clearly wished they had, they would鈥檝e been liquidated and replaced, and nothing would鈥檝e changed. Instead, the Judenrat, for the most part, did what they could to ease the situation for their people. And in return, they are blamed in hindsight for lacking complete knowledge of all the Nazis鈥� contemporary machinations.
(On this topic: the idea of Jewish resistance, or lack thereof, is far more complicated than Arendt makes it out to be. First of all, most of these people had no formal military training. Unlike in the movies, where one can learn all the arts of war during a brief montage, in the real world, one must be taught to be a soldier. Second of all, the Jews of Europe were not a monolithic group: they came from Germany and France and Austria and Poland and on and on. Who鈥檚 going to coordinate this resistance? And how? Finally, the Germans had a certain tendency to respond unfavorably to partisan action. Indeed, Hitler鈥檚 Partisan Order spelled out mathematically how many enemy were to be killed for each lost German life. After Heydrich鈥檚 assassination, 1,300 Czechs were murdered, 13,000 were deported. And these were non-Jews that Hitler needed as labor. With all these disadvantages, Judah Maccabee himself, risen from the grave, couldn鈥檛 have fomented serious resistance).
The second major criticism leveled at Arendt has to do with her portrayal of Eichmann, and her choice of those three magic words to sum him up.
The Eichmann that Arendt presents is indelible: a high school dropout and intellectual dud; a bureaucratic ladder-climber; an unoriginal man who spoke in catchphrases and slogans like some kind of evil Abed from Community. His 鈥渂anality,鈥� as Arendt explains, is in his lack of imagination. He never would have murdered someone with his own hands, but he was perfectly willing 鈥� operating within the Nazi framework, in which his actions were lawful 鈥� to facilitate the deaths of millions.
It鈥檚 impossible to say whether Arendt鈥檚 portrait is entirely correct. It is, after all, impossible to know the human heart. However, she has come under criticism for taking Eichmann too much at his word, and failing to realize Eichmann was minimizing his role. To be honest, I鈥檓 not sure that Eichmann was shrewd enough to reframe himself in that way. Anyway, one has to ask, even if he was, what end he was hoping to achieve? He was damned either way, and whether he came off as an unquestioning bureaucrat or a mustache-twirling villain, he was going to stretch. In other words, Eichmann didn't really have all that much motive to lie.
On that point, however, I must admit that I鈥檓 predisposed to Arendt鈥檚 conception of Eichmann in particular, and Nazi-era Germans in general (which places me contra anything Daniel Jonah Goldhagen writes). I'm no expert on human nature, but I just can't believe that somehow, for some reason, the Germany of 1933-1945 had an astronomically high percentage of psychopaths and sociopaths and sadists operating outside the realm of fundamental human morality.
Instead, to use Christopher Browning鈥檚 phrase, I think most Nazis were 鈥渙rdinary men.鈥� That is, they were men (and women) subject to national-political pressures, social pressures, and group pressures that coerced them follow Hitler鈥檚 will. Some of them undoubtedly believed in the mission, wholeheartedly, but this was the result of their complex existence within a paradigm that effectively convinced people that up was down, left was right, and evil was good. The farther away from the killing, the easier this became.
A third and final criticism of Arendt is in her vigorous attacks on the fairness of the Jerusalem trial. Like the first controversy, discussed above, I don't think this one carries much weight. There is nothing groundbreaking in her critique of the process and procedures of the Eichmann Trial; indeed, the items she cites are in line with what other legal scholars (such as Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor) have written.
Importantly, at the end of the day, she acknowledges Eichmann鈥檚 guilt, and states flatly that he deserved to die:
It would鈥檝e been more satisfying were Eichmann a monster. So too with Hitler, Himmler, Goering and the rest. Monsters can be recognized; monsters can be destroyed. But these men weren鈥檛 monsters. They were of this earth. When Hitler put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, it turned out that he was flesh and bone and soft tissue, just like the rest of us.
That, I suppose, is why Arendt鈥檚 Eichmann is so discomforting.
-- from Robert Jackson鈥檚 closing argument at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
In my opinion, one of the central failings of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was its list of defendants. Leave aside all questions of international law, 鈥渧ictor鈥檚 justice,鈥� and tu quoque arguments, and this is what you notice: that the Nuremberg dock was filled with the lesser lights of the Nazi Party.
Absent was Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler, dead by their own hands. Absent was the troll Bormann, who never escaped Berlin. Absent was Heydrich the hangman, killed by Czech partisans long before the tide turned.
The most (in)famous Nazi in the dock was the suave and corpulent Goering, but even he was not destined for the noose. He escaped with the aid of smuggled cyanide.
This left the victorious Allies punishing halfwits and lackeys and avatars of evil: the Jew-baiter Streicher, so foul and vile even Hitler despised him; the lapdog Keitel, without a brain in his head; the incompetent von Ribbentrop; the furiously backpedaling Doenitz; the quite-possibly insane Hess.
Destroying this grab-bag of thugs and louts was a cold comfort. Today, aside from Goering and the unctuous and self-serving Speer, the Nuremberg defendants are mostly forgotten. We don鈥檛 think of Nazism extinguished at the end of a rope; instead, we think of Hitler and his goofy mustache and wild gesticulations and struggle with the notion he somehow escaped justice.
Thus, it is quite possible that the mantel of most (in)famous Nazi war criminal falls upon the thin shoulders of balding, bespectacled Adolf Eichmann. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, he was captured by the Mossad during a brazen raid in Argentina. Next, he was at the center of a widely publicized show trial in Jerusalem. Mainly, though, we remember Eichmann (while we forget Frick, Funk, Sauckel and Schirach) because of three words:
Banality of evil.
Coined by political theorist Hannah Arendt, the phrase has stood the test of time. It has a pseudo-intellectual patina that has become a kind of shorthand in discussions of the Nazi regime. If you want to sound smart without knowing much at all, just spit it out (just make sure you pronounce 鈥渂anal鈥� correctly). As such, it is ripe for misuse (see, e.g., ).
From a marketing standpoint, 鈥渂anality of evil鈥� is solid gold, the politico-historical equivalent of 鈥渟how me the money!鈥� It has kept Arendt鈥檚 Eichmann in Jerusalem relevant and in print since the 60s, and there is no indication the book or the phrase is going anywhere.
Interestingly, though, the phrase only appears once in the text: as the book鈥檚 last lines. It is only explained by Arendt in a postscript. And that's fine, really. There are plenty of people around willing to argue about what those words mean and whether they are correct.
Eichmann in Jerusalem is, in Arendt鈥檚 words, a 鈥渢rial report.鈥� The book version is cobbled together from her reporting for The New Yorker, as well as some later research.
I don鈥檛 like to disagree with an author over her own creation, but Eichmann in Jerusalem doesn鈥檛 really feel like a trial report, or at least not as I conceive such a thing. This book doesn鈥檛 concern itself with the nuts-and-bolts of the trial; it does not analyze opening and closing statements, witness credibility, or the incisiveness of cross examination. To be sure, some of these things are touched on, but if you want the story of the trial itself, how it went down, day by day or week by week, you鈥檒l have to look elsewhere.
(By my rough count, there are about seven chapters devoted mainly to Eichmann鈥檚 activities during the Holocaust, while there are only two chapters devoted solely to the trial).
Instead, Arendt has written Eichmann鈥檚 story as based upon what she learned at the trial. Indeed, the bulk of Eichmann in Jerusalem reads like any other nonfiction book about the Nazis. It covers the Wannsee Conference, forced emigrations, deportations, and finally the rail-lines to the death camps. The only unique angle is that Eichmann is at the center of this narrative. And this is saying something, I suppose.
Despite his infamy, and despite the fact I鈥檝e read more than my share of Nazi-centric books (my wife would say far more than my fair share), I鈥檝e never really learned a lot about Adolf Eichmann. He is almost always mentioned, but never explored. This is due to the fact that however involved he was in the Holocaust, he was, at the end of the day, a functionary.
Accordingly, I don鈥檛 mind Arendt鈥檚 decision to focus on the man at the center of the trial, rather than the mechanics of the trial itself.
The problem I had, however, is with Arendt鈥檚 writing style. For the last few minutes, I鈥檝e struggled to find the best way to express what I mean. The words 鈥渃lunky鈥� and 鈥渋nelegant鈥� spring to mind, as does the phrase 鈥渄ense prose.鈥� I would also venture to say she displays 鈥渃urious sentence structure.鈥� Whatever the actual diagnosis 鈥� I鈥檓 a lawyer, not a grammarian 鈥� the result forces the reader to grapple with the material, rather than absorb it. This is a book I had to force my way through. Sometimes I鈥檇 read entire pages before realizing I had no idea what鈥檇 just been said. Despite being only 300 odd pages, it felt like a long, plodding slog.
(None of this is helped by the massively long paragraphs and Arendt鈥檚 curious hesitation about indentations. This makes for aesthetically displeasing pages).
Eichmann in Jerusalem carries a lot of baggage with it, which I suppose is the reason people continue to read it, despite its literary shortcomings. Some of the recent controversy involves Arendt鈥檚 relationship with crypto-Nazi cum philosopher Martin Heidegger. Frankly, I don鈥檛 have much to say on that score, and it feels a little too insider-academics to me.
Still, there is plenty of controversy right there on the page, in black and white, without delving into Arendt鈥檚 sex life.
While reading, I picked out three major areas of potential criticism.
The first critique, which I agree with, is in Arendt鈥檚 treatment of Jewish leaders during the war. It is a matter of historical fact that Jewish leaders were utilized by the Nazis in order to expedite the Holocaust. The trouble with Arendt鈥檚 interpretation, though, is that she essentially accuses them of collaboration. This just isn鈥檛 the case. Yes, the Judenrat assisted the Nazis, but they did so with a knife at their throats, and that鈥檚 an important piece of the puzzle that Arendt ignores. Had the Judenrat resisted, Spartacus-style, as she clearly wished they had, they would鈥檝e been liquidated and replaced, and nothing would鈥檝e changed. Instead, the Judenrat, for the most part, did what they could to ease the situation for their people. And in return, they are blamed in hindsight for lacking complete knowledge of all the Nazis鈥� contemporary machinations.
(On this topic: the idea of Jewish resistance, or lack thereof, is far more complicated than Arendt makes it out to be. First of all, most of these people had no formal military training. Unlike in the movies, where one can learn all the arts of war during a brief montage, in the real world, one must be taught to be a soldier. Second of all, the Jews of Europe were not a monolithic group: they came from Germany and France and Austria and Poland and on and on. Who鈥檚 going to coordinate this resistance? And how? Finally, the Germans had a certain tendency to respond unfavorably to partisan action. Indeed, Hitler鈥檚 Partisan Order spelled out mathematically how many enemy were to be killed for each lost German life. After Heydrich鈥檚 assassination, 1,300 Czechs were murdered, 13,000 were deported. And these were non-Jews that Hitler needed as labor. With all these disadvantages, Judah Maccabee himself, risen from the grave, couldn鈥檛 have fomented serious resistance).
The second major criticism leveled at Arendt has to do with her portrayal of Eichmann, and her choice of those three magic words to sum him up.
The Eichmann that Arendt presents is indelible: a high school dropout and intellectual dud; a bureaucratic ladder-climber; an unoriginal man who spoke in catchphrases and slogans like some kind of evil Abed from Community. His 鈥渂anality,鈥� as Arendt explains, is in his lack of imagination. He never would have murdered someone with his own hands, but he was perfectly willing 鈥� operating within the Nazi framework, in which his actions were lawful 鈥� to facilitate the deaths of millions.
It鈥檚 impossible to say whether Arendt鈥檚 portrait is entirely correct. It is, after all, impossible to know the human heart. However, she has come under criticism for taking Eichmann too much at his word, and failing to realize Eichmann was minimizing his role. To be honest, I鈥檓 not sure that Eichmann was shrewd enough to reframe himself in that way. Anyway, one has to ask, even if he was, what end he was hoping to achieve? He was damned either way, and whether he came off as an unquestioning bureaucrat or a mustache-twirling villain, he was going to stretch. In other words, Eichmann didn't really have all that much motive to lie.
On that point, however, I must admit that I鈥檓 predisposed to Arendt鈥檚 conception of Eichmann in particular, and Nazi-era Germans in general (which places me contra anything Daniel Jonah Goldhagen writes). I'm no expert on human nature, but I just can't believe that somehow, for some reason, the Germany of 1933-1945 had an astronomically high percentage of psychopaths and sociopaths and sadists operating outside the realm of fundamental human morality.
Instead, to use Christopher Browning鈥檚 phrase, I think most Nazis were 鈥渙rdinary men.鈥� That is, they were men (and women) subject to national-political pressures, social pressures, and group pressures that coerced them follow Hitler鈥檚 will. Some of them undoubtedly believed in the mission, wholeheartedly, but this was the result of their complex existence within a paradigm that effectively convinced people that up was down, left was right, and evil was good. The farther away from the killing, the easier this became.
A third and final criticism of Arendt is in her vigorous attacks on the fairness of the Jerusalem trial. Like the first controversy, discussed above, I don't think this one carries much weight. There is nothing groundbreaking in her critique of the process and procedures of the Eichmann Trial; indeed, the items she cites are in line with what other legal scholars (such as Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor) have written.
Importantly, at the end of the day, she acknowledges Eichmann鈥檚 guilt, and states flatly that he deserved to die:
And just as you [Eichmann] supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people鈥s though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world鈥e find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang.
It would鈥檝e been more satisfying were Eichmann a monster. So too with Hitler, Himmler, Goering and the rest. Monsters can be recognized; monsters can be destroyed. But these men weren鈥檛 monsters. They were of this earth. When Hitler put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, it turned out that he was flesh and bone and soft tissue, just like the rest of us.
That, I suppose, is why Arendt鈥檚 Eichmann is so discomforting.
February 1, 2023
[Original review, Aug 24 2013]
We just saw the movie , and it is extremely good - possibly the best thing I've seen this year. Margarethe von Trotta's direction and script are excellent, and Barbara Sukowa is terrific in the title role.
____________________
[And a mere ten years later I got around to reading the book...]
In 1960, Adolf Eichmann, who had played a key role in organising the Holocaust, was captured in Argentina by Israeli agents. The following year, he was put on trial in Jerusalem. The philosopher Hannah Arendt attended and wrote this book based on her observations. It got her into a great deal of trouble, because she was incautious enough to say what she actually thought, as opposed to repeating the accepted wisdom on this sensitive topic. In the postscript, Arendt, clearly somewhat exasperated by the public reaction, says that many people seemed to have misunderstood what she was doing. She did not set out to write a history of the Third Reich, or an account of the Holocaust, or a treatise on the nature of evil. Of course all of these issues were highly relevant, and she in no way avoided them. But basically she was describing a trial, and the focus of her attention was the concerns of a trial: primarily, what was the defendant accused of, what was the evidence, what was the verdict, and, above all, was justice done. She had grave reservations about a great deal of the process.
Arendt argues persuasively that Eichmann had committed a new kind of crime, which the law was not well equipped to deal with. He was evidently one of the main actors involved in the murder of several million Jews, which he did not deny. But, as he pointed out, he had never actually killed any Jew, or even directly ordered any individual Jew's death. He did not harbour any particular animosity towards Jews. He generally got on well with Jews and had had a Jewish mistress for a while. But he was working for the Third Reich, he had got himself a job where his responsibility was for "Jewish Affairs", and he wanted to make a success of it; also, he had a great admiration for Hitler.
Initially, Eichmann's task was to get Jews out of Germany by forcing them to emigrate to other countries, generally taking most of their money in the process. In this phase of his career, I was surprised to find that he worked closely with Zionists; they both wanted the same thing, to move Jews to, as it then was, Palestine. He said he liked and respected Zionists, and this could have been true. But then the war started, emigration became logistically impossible except for the very rich, and the F眉hrer had moved on to the second part of his master plan: the Jews would not be forced to emigrate, but rather would be killed. At first, Eichmann said he didn't like this at all and for a few weeks put up token resistance, creating minor bureaucratic difficulties. But quickly he overcame his scruples. He didn't consider himself competent to question the F眉hrer's judgement. Above all, he needed to get on with the job.
Arendt convincingly describes Eichmann as being neither sadistic, nor mad, nor even completely conscienceless. She thinks it absurd, as some people would like to have had it, to claim that he came up with this fantastically wicked scheme himself and talked Himmler and Hitler into okaying it. The reverse was the truth. He was low down in the military hierarchy; incredibly, he complained to his Israeli captors that he had never been promoted higher than a rank corresponding to lieutenant-colonel. He was not very bright, or imaginative, or charismatic, though he was a reasonably efficient administrator. He was just doing his job, which was to organise the transportation of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children to their deaths.
The book makes very uncomfortable reading: you can absolutely understand why so many people at the time were furious with Arendt. It would have been so convenient if everything had been Eichmann's fault. Equally, and in a different way, it would have been convenient to be able to say that it was everyone's fault. (Another thing that made people furious was her detailed descriptions of how the Jewish councils systematically organised the arrest and transportation of their own people, closely liaising with the Nazis). But Arendt concludes that neither of these positions are tenable. The Final Solution was not just Eichmann's idea, or even just Hitler's idea. Neither was it the case that every country occupied by the Nazis had to collaborate in rounding up Jews and sending them to the death camps. Several countries, Denmark being a shining example, just refused. Nothing happened to them: it was quite possible not to carry out the Nazis' orders. The fact of the matter was that some people, in fact a great many people, helped carry out the massacre of the European Jews, and some people, at varying degrees of risk to themselves, decided they would have nothing to do with it. In the first group, Arendt is scathing about the behaviour of the post-war German courts, who gave light sentences to many people documented as instrumental in thousands of murders. Arendt says Eichmann was clearly guilty and deserved to hang: unfortunately, the trial was not well enough organised to create an appropriate precedent for this unprecedented crime.
Even if Arendt explicitly says she is not writing a book about the nature of evil, she describes such a striking example that it's impossible not to generalise. Eichmann's kind of evil is undramatic, and he seems not even to have considered his actions evil while he was carrying them out. It is only in retrospect that their nature becomes clear. If things continue as they are currently doing, I wonder how future generations will, for example, view the fossil fuel company executives who decided to suppress the accurate climate modelling they had commissioned and continue with strategies that maximized short-term profits. While they were doing it, I'm sure they didn't think they were committing mass murder. It probably didn't even cross their minds, it would be ridiculous. How can you attach a label like "genocide" to an action that is so, as one might put it, banal?
We just saw the movie , and it is extremely good - possibly the best thing I've seen this year. Margarethe von Trotta's direction and script are excellent, and Barbara Sukowa is terrific in the title role.
____________________
[And a mere ten years later I got around to reading the book...]
In 1960, Adolf Eichmann, who had played a key role in organising the Holocaust, was captured in Argentina by Israeli agents. The following year, he was put on trial in Jerusalem. The philosopher Hannah Arendt attended and wrote this book based on her observations. It got her into a great deal of trouble, because she was incautious enough to say what she actually thought, as opposed to repeating the accepted wisdom on this sensitive topic. In the postscript, Arendt, clearly somewhat exasperated by the public reaction, says that many people seemed to have misunderstood what she was doing. She did not set out to write a history of the Third Reich, or an account of the Holocaust, or a treatise on the nature of evil. Of course all of these issues were highly relevant, and she in no way avoided them. But basically she was describing a trial, and the focus of her attention was the concerns of a trial: primarily, what was the defendant accused of, what was the evidence, what was the verdict, and, above all, was justice done. She had grave reservations about a great deal of the process.
Arendt argues persuasively that Eichmann had committed a new kind of crime, which the law was not well equipped to deal with. He was evidently one of the main actors involved in the murder of several million Jews, which he did not deny. But, as he pointed out, he had never actually killed any Jew, or even directly ordered any individual Jew's death. He did not harbour any particular animosity towards Jews. He generally got on well with Jews and had had a Jewish mistress for a while. But he was working for the Third Reich, he had got himself a job where his responsibility was for "Jewish Affairs", and he wanted to make a success of it; also, he had a great admiration for Hitler.
Initially, Eichmann's task was to get Jews out of Germany by forcing them to emigrate to other countries, generally taking most of their money in the process. In this phase of his career, I was surprised to find that he worked closely with Zionists; they both wanted the same thing, to move Jews to, as it then was, Palestine. He said he liked and respected Zionists, and this could have been true. But then the war started, emigration became logistically impossible except for the very rich, and the F眉hrer had moved on to the second part of his master plan: the Jews would not be forced to emigrate, but rather would be killed. At first, Eichmann said he didn't like this at all and for a few weeks put up token resistance, creating minor bureaucratic difficulties. But quickly he overcame his scruples. He didn't consider himself competent to question the F眉hrer's judgement. Above all, he needed to get on with the job.
Arendt convincingly describes Eichmann as being neither sadistic, nor mad, nor even completely conscienceless. She thinks it absurd, as some people would like to have had it, to claim that he came up with this fantastically wicked scheme himself and talked Himmler and Hitler into okaying it. The reverse was the truth. He was low down in the military hierarchy; incredibly, he complained to his Israeli captors that he had never been promoted higher than a rank corresponding to lieutenant-colonel. He was not very bright, or imaginative, or charismatic, though he was a reasonably efficient administrator. He was just doing his job, which was to organise the transportation of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children to their deaths.
The book makes very uncomfortable reading: you can absolutely understand why so many people at the time were furious with Arendt. It would have been so convenient if everything had been Eichmann's fault. Equally, and in a different way, it would have been convenient to be able to say that it was everyone's fault. (Another thing that made people furious was her detailed descriptions of how the Jewish councils systematically organised the arrest and transportation of their own people, closely liaising with the Nazis). But Arendt concludes that neither of these positions are tenable. The Final Solution was not just Eichmann's idea, or even just Hitler's idea. Neither was it the case that every country occupied by the Nazis had to collaborate in rounding up Jews and sending them to the death camps. Several countries, Denmark being a shining example, just refused. Nothing happened to them: it was quite possible not to carry out the Nazis' orders. The fact of the matter was that some people, in fact a great many people, helped carry out the massacre of the European Jews, and some people, at varying degrees of risk to themselves, decided they would have nothing to do with it. In the first group, Arendt is scathing about the behaviour of the post-war German courts, who gave light sentences to many people documented as instrumental in thousands of murders. Arendt says Eichmann was clearly guilty and deserved to hang: unfortunately, the trial was not well enough organised to create an appropriate precedent for this unprecedented crime.
Even if Arendt explicitly says she is not writing a book about the nature of evil, she describes such a striking example that it's impossible not to generalise. Eichmann's kind of evil is undramatic, and he seems not even to have considered his actions evil while he was carrying them out. It is only in retrospect that their nature becomes clear. If things continue as they are currently doing, I wonder how future generations will, for example, view the fossil fuel company executives who decided to suppress the accurate climate modelling they had commissioned and continue with strategies that maximized short-term profits. While they were doing it, I'm sure they didn't think they were committing mass murder. It probably didn't even cross their minds, it would be ridiculous. How can you attach a label like "genocide" to an action that is so, as one might put it, banal?
June 1, 2022
Impresionante ensayo sobre el juicio de Jerusal茅n y el rol de Adolf Eichmann en la llamada "Soluci贸n final".
S贸lo los cap铆tulos referentes a todas las deportaciones de los jud铆os se me ha hecho repetitivo.
Arendt es capaz de separar la personalidad de Eichmann y su rol en la matanza de jud铆os. Adem谩s, hace unas valoraciones morales muy acertadas en cuanto al proceso judicial: 驴es justo que un tribunal jud铆o juzgue sobre cr铆menes a los jud铆os? 驴Cr铆menes contra la humanidad o cr铆menes contra los jud铆os?
Ser铆a muy pretencioso por mi parte resumir en un p谩rrafo un ensayo tan profundo.
No conoc铆a este apartado de la historia y Arendt me ha ayudado a entenderlo.
M谩s all谩 de sus consideraciones, es un ensayo largo y complejo que requiere una buena dosis de tiempo.
Impressive essay on the judgment of Jerusalem and the role of Adolf Eichmann in the so-called "final solution ".
Only the chapters relating to all the deportations of the jews have become repetitive to me.
Arendt is able to separate Eichmann's personality and his role in the killing of jews. Furthermore, she makes a very good moral assessment of the judicial process: is it right for a jewish court to judge crimes to jews? Crimes against humanity or crimes against jews?
It would be very pretentious of me to summarize in one paragraph such a profound essay.
I didn't know this section of history and Arendt has helped me to understand it.
Beyond her considerations, it is a long and complex essay that requires a good deal of time.
S贸lo los cap铆tulos referentes a todas las deportaciones de los jud铆os se me ha hecho repetitivo.
Arendt es capaz de separar la personalidad de Eichmann y su rol en la matanza de jud铆os. Adem谩s, hace unas valoraciones morales muy acertadas en cuanto al proceso judicial: 驴es justo que un tribunal jud铆o juzgue sobre cr铆menes a los jud铆os? 驴Cr铆menes contra la humanidad o cr铆menes contra los jud铆os?
Ser铆a muy pretencioso por mi parte resumir en un p谩rrafo un ensayo tan profundo.
No conoc铆a este apartado de la historia y Arendt me ha ayudado a entenderlo.
M谩s all谩 de sus consideraciones, es un ensayo largo y complejo que requiere una buena dosis de tiempo.
Impressive essay on the judgment of Jerusalem and the role of Adolf Eichmann in the so-called "final solution ".
Only the chapters relating to all the deportations of the jews have become repetitive to me.
Arendt is able to separate Eichmann's personality and his role in the killing of jews. Furthermore, she makes a very good moral assessment of the judicial process: is it right for a jewish court to judge crimes to jews? Crimes against humanity or crimes against jews?
It would be very pretentious of me to summarize in one paragraph such a profound essay.
I didn't know this section of history and Arendt has helped me to understand it.
Beyond her considerations, it is a long and complex essay that requires a good deal of time.
January 21, 2015
The horror and enigma surrounding the Holocaust trials is probably best exhibited in Peter Weiss鈥檚 play The Investigation. Based on the actual testimonies given during the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials- reading it is an experience that is cold, brutal and almost physical in ways unexpected. Witnesses try to communicate the incommunicable suffering of victims and survivors; Defendants try to deny or extenuate their respective roles in the heinous crimes and Judges try to measure up an appropriate sentence against the evil involved that keeps on getting bigger, hideous and unbearable. In the course of brief dialogues, Weiss deftly manages to raise some inconvenient questions and leaves the tough task of contemplation for the readers. In that sense, where this play ends, Eichmann in Jerusalem begins.
One last question, the most disturbing of all, was asked by the judges, and especially by the presiding judge, over and over again: Had the killing of Jews gone against his conscience? But this was a moral question, and the answer to it may not have been legally relevant.
I am tempted to say that Hannah Arendt followed Eichmann鈥檚 trial as an impartial third party whose aim was to view things in the light of a relevant objectivity but it would be too bold a claim given my superficial knowledge about the concerned subject matter. Still I can say that she definitely strives to penetrate the colossal intricacy of Nazi machinery along with the challenges faced by a wary legal system. It鈥檚 not a coin we are talking about but a demonic labyrinth of 鈥榗rimes against humanity鈥� and the difficulty in analyzing its structure must have been enormous. From the outset only, Arendt鈥檚 lucid and assured writing conveys the much needed message that whatever shall follow will not complicate the already complicated events but rather deconstruct the methods and consequences of venomous indoctrination.
One last question, the most disturbing of all, was asked by the judges, and especially by the presiding judge, over and over again: Had the killing of Jews gone against his conscience? But this was a moral question, and the answer to it may not have been legally relevant.
I am tempted to say that Hannah Arendt followed Eichmann鈥檚 trial as an impartial third party whose aim was to view things in the light of a relevant objectivity but it would be too bold a claim given my superficial knowledge about the concerned subject matter. Still I can say that she definitely strives to penetrate the colossal intricacy of Nazi machinery along with the challenges faced by a wary legal system. It鈥檚 not a coin we are talking about but a demonic labyrinth of 鈥榗rimes against humanity鈥� and the difficulty in analyzing its structure must have been enormous. From the outset only, Arendt鈥檚 lucid and assured writing conveys the much needed message that whatever shall follow will not complicate the already complicated events but rather deconstruct the methods and consequences of venomous indoctrination.
What stuck in the minds of these men who had become murderers was simply the notion of being involved in something historic, grandiose, unique, which must therefore be difficult to bear. This was important, because the murderers were not sadists or killers by nature; on the contrary, a systematic effort was made to weed out all those who derived physical pleasure from what they did.And in the centre of all this is a man sitting in the bullet proof glass cage, recounting the whys and hows and wheres of the gross injustice he perpetrated while Arendt carefully observes his various stances actuated by a thorough research and presents a 鈥榬eport鈥� that is worth reading for the sheer amount of information and new perspectives it offers for our perusal. Although all her arguments bear a force that warrants some sort of reaction even from the unaffected, there are instances where things appears to be stretched a little too far on her part especially when it comes to pass judgments on Eichmann鈥檚 character. And no, I鈥檓 not referring to the 鈥榖anality鈥� which is most likely a foregone conclusion (and Arendt herself regretted the use of that word) but certain extraneous assumptions. The 鈥榖anality鈥� however, whether that of a person or some invisible evil force can鈥檛 be dismissed in its entirety when one reads the following words:
Just as the law in civilized countries assumes that the voice of conscience tells everybody 鈥淭hou shalt not kill,鈥� even though man's natural desires and inclinations may at times be murderous, so the law of Hitler's land demanded that the voice of conscience tell everybody: 鈥淭hou shalt kill,鈥� although the organizers of the massacres knew full well that murder is against the normal desires and inclinations of most people. Evil in the Third Reich had lost the quality by which most people recognize it- the quality of temptation.Maybe there are many philosophies at play here that I didn鈥檛 able to differentiate or even recognize but one thing that is apparent against the tragic backdrop of wars is the dwelling place of truth that usually gets blurred or wiped out under the layers of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. Arendt has explored those very places in a manner that is admirable and brave.
January 20, 2021
Highly philosophically enlightening and important -- if not a disturbing truth to reckon with. Ardent proposes the idea of "the banality of evil" in this text, recognising that "normal" people can do truly horrific and evil things in the modern world.
Offers a detailed history of the Nazi Genocide (in part, this text reads like a history book) and, more interestingly, the circumstances of Eichmann himself.
Offers a detailed history of the Nazi Genocide (in part, this text reads like a history book) and, more interestingly, the circumstances of Eichmann himself.
January 29, 2024
A truly disturbing look at what motivates individuals to follow orders. While there are some who may disagree with some of the conclusions that Hannah Arendt draws I still think this is a groundbreaking study in the connection between conformity and criminal compliance. A book that will challenge your perspectives that is meticulously researched.
February 9, 2025
4.5
Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension yet- and this is its horror- it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world...Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.
SS officer Adolf Eichmann was a key figure in organizing the mass deportation of Jews and executing the 鈥榝inal solution鈥�. He was arrested in 1945 by the allies but escaped to Argentina and settled there under the name Ricardo Klement.
Eventually in 1960 Eichmann was identified and captured by Mossad and taken to Israel. He was put on trial before the Supreme Court and was condemned to death for crimes against humanity.
He was hanged in 1962.
He was one of those who wouldn鈥檛 acknowledge accountability and believed he was following orders and just doing his job.
"I didn't care about the Jews deported to Auschwitz, whether they lived or died. It was the F眉hrer's order: Jews who were fit to work would work and those who weren't would be sent to the Final Solution."
Hannah Arendt, a Jew of German origin who fled Germany in the early years of the Nazi regime, was sent by The New Yorker to Jerusalem to report on Eichmann鈥檚 trial.
This book is more than just a straightforward recounting of the events of the trial. Based on her observations of Eichmann and his ordinariness, Arendt argues that an evil-doer wouldn鈥檛 necessarily have a pair of horns on his head or won鈥檛 look like a psychopathic monster. He may look and behave like an ordinary person. He may even believe he is a law-abiding citizen doing good and obeying his much more intelligent and loved F眉hrer.
Evil, as she saw it, need not be committed only by demonic monsters but鈥攚ith disastrous effect鈥攂y morons and imbeciles as well, especially if, as we see in our own day, their deeds are sanctioned by religious authority.
Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension yet- and this is its horror- it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world...Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.
SS officer Adolf Eichmann was a key figure in organizing the mass deportation of Jews and executing the 鈥榝inal solution鈥�. He was arrested in 1945 by the allies but escaped to Argentina and settled there under the name Ricardo Klement.
Eventually in 1960 Eichmann was identified and captured by Mossad and taken to Israel. He was put on trial before the Supreme Court and was condemned to death for crimes against humanity.
He was hanged in 1962.
He was one of those who wouldn鈥檛 acknowledge accountability and believed he was following orders and just doing his job.
"I didn't care about the Jews deported to Auschwitz, whether they lived or died. It was the F眉hrer's order: Jews who were fit to work would work and those who weren't would be sent to the Final Solution."
Hannah Arendt, a Jew of German origin who fled Germany in the early years of the Nazi regime, was sent by The New Yorker to Jerusalem to report on Eichmann鈥檚 trial.
This book is more than just a straightforward recounting of the events of the trial. Based on her observations of Eichmann and his ordinariness, Arendt argues that an evil-doer wouldn鈥檛 necessarily have a pair of horns on his head or won鈥檛 look like a psychopathic monster. He may look and behave like an ordinary person. He may even believe he is a law-abiding citizen doing good and obeying his much more intelligent and loved F眉hrer.
Evil, as she saw it, need not be committed only by demonic monsters but鈥攚ith disastrous effect鈥攂y morons and imbeciles as well, especially if, as we see in our own day, their deeds are sanctioned by religious authority.
March 28, 2025
Eichmann is dead and unlamented. The SS officer who oversaw the logistics of transporting millions of European Jews to ghettos, and then to extermination camps, escaped to Argentina at the time of the final defeat of the Nazi regime, but was abducted in 1960 from his South American hiding place by agents of Israel鈥檚 Mossad intelligence agency. Tried in Jerusalem in 1961, Eichmann was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and was executed by hanging in 1962. And Hannah Arendt, a German-American philosopher who examined in her work topics like totalitarianism and the nature of evil, witnessed the trial and its aftermath, and set down her impressions in a uniquely compelling 1964 book titled Eichmann in Jerusalem. Among its other distinctions, this book gave the world the phrase 鈥渢he banality of evil,鈥� through its subtitle: A Report on the Banality of Evil.
Arendt lived the history of which she wrote. Born in 1906 in north-central Germany, Arendt grew up in a politically progressive family, earned a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Heidelberg during the liberal and tolerant years of the Weimar Republic, and then ran afoul of the Nazi regime shortly after Hitler鈥檚 rise to power. Arrested by the Nazis for studying anti-Semitism, she escaped, and eventually made her way to the United States. Her experiences with tyrannical regimes informed her writing of The Origins of Totalitarianism (1950), a book that remains a seminal study of how regimes like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are established and sustained.
Arendt travelled to Jerusalem in 1961, and reported on the Eichmann trial for The New Yorker; the magazine published Arendt鈥檚 initial account of the trial in its February and March 1963 issues. Arendt had meanwhile written a book version of her observations of the Eichmann trial in 1962, and Eichmann in Jerusalem was published in book form in 1964.
Those readers who might be expecting this book to provide a morally satisfying, 鈥渂ad guy gets his just deserts鈥� reading experience may find Eichmann in Jerusalem somewhat disappointing. From the book鈥檚 beginnings, Arendt focuses on the complexities and ambiguities of the trial. Achieving justice, she suggests, is a challenge in a context where what is 鈥淥n trial are [Eichmann鈥檚] deeds, not the sufferings of the Jews, not the German people or mankind, not even anti-Semitism and racism鈥� (p. 33). At the same time, Arendt sees an inherent contradiction in how the prosecution鈥檚 鈥渃ase was built on what the Jews had suffered, not on what Eichmann had done鈥� (p. 35).
Arendt also considers the political aspects of the Eichmann trial, for nations that include, but are not restricted to, Israel and Germany. In 1961, Israel was a very young country, just 13 years old, and its government was trying to convince Jewish people throughout the world to leave the nations of which they were citizens and relocate to Israel. As Arendt sees it, 鈥淭he trial was supposed to show [Israelis] what it meant to live among non-Jews, to convince them that only in Israel could a Jew be safe and live an honorable life鈥� (p. 36).
Post-World War II Germany likewise comes in for incisive and troubling analysis. By 1961, Germany had long since been divided into West Germany, a democracy allied with the United States, and East Germany, a totalitarian dictatorship aligned with the communist Soviet Union; it was in that year, in fact, that the East German regime began building the Berlin Wall, in an effort to stop unhappy East Germans from fleeing to the west.
Seeing and hearing the inconsistencies in many German witnesses鈥� post-war testimony regarding their wartime experiences, Arendt writes that 鈥渢he practice of self-deception had become so common, almost a moral prerequisite for survival, that even now, eighteen years after the collapse of the Nazi regime, when most of the specific content of its lies have been forgotten, it is sometimes difficult not to believe that mendacity has become an integral part of the German national character鈥� (p. 88).
Where Arendt鈥檚 Eichmann in Jerusalem becomes particularly compelling is in Arendt鈥檚 portrayal of Eichmann himself. The stakes are so high, the death and suffering caused by the Nazis so vast, that some first-time readers of Eichmann in Jerusalem might expect Eichmann to emerge as a compelling figure with an internally coherent philosophy of consciously chosen evil 鈥� a character, perhaps, like Hannibal Lecter from Thomas Harris鈥檚 1988 novel The Silence of the Lambs and Jonathan Demme鈥檚 Oscar-winning film adaptation of the book. Recall that Lecter, in both book and film, is a witty raconteur who is well-read, well-travelled, and well-educated; he knows fine food and wine, quotes Marcus Aurelius, publishes scholarly papers in top academic journals, and (by the way) is a cannibalistic serial killer. Perhaps it comforts us to believe that true evil is something so distant from ourselves.
But that鈥檚 not what the reader finds in Arendt鈥檚 depiction of Adolf Eichmann. A thorough and rigorous examination of Eichmann鈥檚 life, from his early years through his role in the Nazi regime to his escape and capture, reveals a singularly dull and ordinary person. One of his few distinguishing characteristics turns out to be his lack of empathy: 鈥淭he longer one listened to him,鈥� Arendt writes, 鈥渢he more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think 鈥� namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else鈥� (p. 84).
Indeed, Eichmann鈥檚 dull and ordinary qualities come to pose a challenge for the prosecution during the trial in Jerusalem: Arendt recalls that 鈥淒espite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a 鈥榤onster,鈥� but it was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was a clown. And since this suspicion would have been fatal to the whole enterprise, and was also rather hard to sustain in view of the sufferings he and his like had caused to millions of people, his worst clowneries were hardly noticed and almost never reported鈥� (p. 89). Whether he was contradicting himself on whether or not he would take an oath, or speaking out of both sides of his mouth regarding the question of asking the court鈥檚 mercy, Eichmann showed a 鈥渉orrible gift for consoling himself with clich茅s鈥� (p. 91).
I was struck by Arendt鈥檚 posing of the question, about halfway through Eichmann in Jerusalem, of whether Eichmann could be said to have had a conscience 鈥� a question that led to the following reflections:
The case of the conscience of Adolf Eichmann, which is admittedly complicated but is by no means unique, is scarcely comparable to the case of the German generals, one of whom, when asked at Nuremberg, 鈥淗ow was it possible that all you honorable generals could continue to serve a murderer with such unquestioning loyalty?鈥�, replied that it was 鈥渘ot the task of a soldier to act as judge over his supreme commander. Let history do that, or God in heaven.鈥� (Thus General Alfred Jodl, hanged at Nuremberg.) Eichmann, much less intelligent and without any education to speak of, at least dimly realized that it was not an order but a law which had turned them all into criminals. The distinction between an order and the F眉hrer鈥檚 word was that the latter鈥檚 validity was not limited in time and space, which is the outstanding characteristic of the former. This is also the reason why the F眉hrer鈥檚 order for the Final Solution was followed by a huge shower of regulations and directives, all drafted by expert lawyers and legal advisers, not by mere administrators; this order, in contrast to ordinary orders, was treated as a law. Needless to add, the resulting legal paraphernalia, far from being a mere symptom of German pedantry or thoroughness, served most effectively to give the whole business its outward appearance of legality. (p. 201)
Arendt concludes Eichmann in Jerusalem with an account of Eichmann鈥檚 hanging, focusing on what Arendt describes as 鈥渢he grotesque silliness of his last words鈥� (p. 321). Having asked for a bottle of red wine and consumed half of it, having declined the consolations of a Protestant minister, he said to the people assembled to carry out and witness his execution that they would all meet again, and then he praised Germany, Austria, and Argentina. Arendt characterizes this bizarre moment by stating that Eichmann 鈥渇orgot that this was his own funeral鈥� and adds that 鈥淚t was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us 鈥� the lesson of the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil鈥� (p. 323).
In an epilogue, Arendt builds upon what she had written in the main body of Eichmann in Jerusalem, stating that 鈥淭he trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic 鈥� that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal鈥� (p. 351).
This Penguin Classics edition of Eichmann in Jerusalem benefits from a thoughtful introduction by the Austrian-born Israeli writer Amos Elon, who reinforces Arendt鈥檚 thematic emphasis by writing that 鈥淓vil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought, for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil鈥� (p. 15).
Elon鈥檚 introduction is titled 鈥淭he Excommunication of Hannah Arendt,鈥� in large part because Eichmann in Jerusalem was quite controversial upon its original publication. At a few points during the book, Arendt states her belief that leaders of Jewish communities throughout occupied Europe failed to do what they could to protect those communities. Statements like this one no doubt helped to make this book controversial:
Wherever Jews lived, there were recognized Jewish leaders, and this leadership, almost without exception, cooperated in one way or another, for one reason or another, with the Nazis. The whole truth was that if the Jewish people had really been unorganized and leaderless, there would have been chaos and plenty of misery, but the total number of victims would hardly have been between four and a half and six million people. (p. 173)
These passages from the book made me terribly uncomfortable. Perhaps there is no way not to feel terribly uncomfortable when considering history鈥檚 most hideous example of genocide. I would not be surprised if Arendt wants us to feel uncomfortable 鈥� profoundly uncomfortable, with no safe space in which to hide, no heroes to whose example we can appeal, no comforting beliefs to which we can retreat.
Elon called his foreword to Eichmann in Jerusalem 鈥淭he Excommunication of Hannah Arendt.鈥� I sensed, in this title, an allusion to the life and career of Baruch Spinoza. Like Arendt, Spinoza was raised in the Jewish community of an affluent West European democracy; like her, he faced criticism for telling the truth as he saw it. Spinoza ultimately faced actual excommunication 鈥� formal expulsion from the Amsterdam Jewish community of which he had been a member. Elon seems to feel that Arendt, at the time of the publication of Eichmann in Jerusalem, faced a sort of metaphorical excommunication, from a community that might not then have been ready to hear what she had to say.
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil is one of the most powerful, and one of the most difficult, books that I have ever read.
Arendt lived the history of which she wrote. Born in 1906 in north-central Germany, Arendt grew up in a politically progressive family, earned a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Heidelberg during the liberal and tolerant years of the Weimar Republic, and then ran afoul of the Nazi regime shortly after Hitler鈥檚 rise to power. Arrested by the Nazis for studying anti-Semitism, she escaped, and eventually made her way to the United States. Her experiences with tyrannical regimes informed her writing of The Origins of Totalitarianism (1950), a book that remains a seminal study of how regimes like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are established and sustained.
Arendt travelled to Jerusalem in 1961, and reported on the Eichmann trial for The New Yorker; the magazine published Arendt鈥檚 initial account of the trial in its February and March 1963 issues. Arendt had meanwhile written a book version of her observations of the Eichmann trial in 1962, and Eichmann in Jerusalem was published in book form in 1964.
Those readers who might be expecting this book to provide a morally satisfying, 鈥渂ad guy gets his just deserts鈥� reading experience may find Eichmann in Jerusalem somewhat disappointing. From the book鈥檚 beginnings, Arendt focuses on the complexities and ambiguities of the trial. Achieving justice, she suggests, is a challenge in a context where what is 鈥淥n trial are [Eichmann鈥檚] deeds, not the sufferings of the Jews, not the German people or mankind, not even anti-Semitism and racism鈥� (p. 33). At the same time, Arendt sees an inherent contradiction in how the prosecution鈥檚 鈥渃ase was built on what the Jews had suffered, not on what Eichmann had done鈥� (p. 35).
Arendt also considers the political aspects of the Eichmann trial, for nations that include, but are not restricted to, Israel and Germany. In 1961, Israel was a very young country, just 13 years old, and its government was trying to convince Jewish people throughout the world to leave the nations of which they were citizens and relocate to Israel. As Arendt sees it, 鈥淭he trial was supposed to show [Israelis] what it meant to live among non-Jews, to convince them that only in Israel could a Jew be safe and live an honorable life鈥� (p. 36).
Post-World War II Germany likewise comes in for incisive and troubling analysis. By 1961, Germany had long since been divided into West Germany, a democracy allied with the United States, and East Germany, a totalitarian dictatorship aligned with the communist Soviet Union; it was in that year, in fact, that the East German regime began building the Berlin Wall, in an effort to stop unhappy East Germans from fleeing to the west.
Seeing and hearing the inconsistencies in many German witnesses鈥� post-war testimony regarding their wartime experiences, Arendt writes that 鈥渢he practice of self-deception had become so common, almost a moral prerequisite for survival, that even now, eighteen years after the collapse of the Nazi regime, when most of the specific content of its lies have been forgotten, it is sometimes difficult not to believe that mendacity has become an integral part of the German national character鈥� (p. 88).
Where Arendt鈥檚 Eichmann in Jerusalem becomes particularly compelling is in Arendt鈥檚 portrayal of Eichmann himself. The stakes are so high, the death and suffering caused by the Nazis so vast, that some first-time readers of Eichmann in Jerusalem might expect Eichmann to emerge as a compelling figure with an internally coherent philosophy of consciously chosen evil 鈥� a character, perhaps, like Hannibal Lecter from Thomas Harris鈥檚 1988 novel The Silence of the Lambs and Jonathan Demme鈥檚 Oscar-winning film adaptation of the book. Recall that Lecter, in both book and film, is a witty raconteur who is well-read, well-travelled, and well-educated; he knows fine food and wine, quotes Marcus Aurelius, publishes scholarly papers in top academic journals, and (by the way) is a cannibalistic serial killer. Perhaps it comforts us to believe that true evil is something so distant from ourselves.
But that鈥檚 not what the reader finds in Arendt鈥檚 depiction of Adolf Eichmann. A thorough and rigorous examination of Eichmann鈥檚 life, from his early years through his role in the Nazi regime to his escape and capture, reveals a singularly dull and ordinary person. One of his few distinguishing characteristics turns out to be his lack of empathy: 鈥淭he longer one listened to him,鈥� Arendt writes, 鈥渢he more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think 鈥� namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else鈥� (p. 84).
Indeed, Eichmann鈥檚 dull and ordinary qualities come to pose a challenge for the prosecution during the trial in Jerusalem: Arendt recalls that 鈥淒espite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a 鈥榤onster,鈥� but it was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was a clown. And since this suspicion would have been fatal to the whole enterprise, and was also rather hard to sustain in view of the sufferings he and his like had caused to millions of people, his worst clowneries were hardly noticed and almost never reported鈥� (p. 89). Whether he was contradicting himself on whether or not he would take an oath, or speaking out of both sides of his mouth regarding the question of asking the court鈥檚 mercy, Eichmann showed a 鈥渉orrible gift for consoling himself with clich茅s鈥� (p. 91).
I was struck by Arendt鈥檚 posing of the question, about halfway through Eichmann in Jerusalem, of whether Eichmann could be said to have had a conscience 鈥� a question that led to the following reflections:
The case of the conscience of Adolf Eichmann, which is admittedly complicated but is by no means unique, is scarcely comparable to the case of the German generals, one of whom, when asked at Nuremberg, 鈥淗ow was it possible that all you honorable generals could continue to serve a murderer with such unquestioning loyalty?鈥�, replied that it was 鈥渘ot the task of a soldier to act as judge over his supreme commander. Let history do that, or God in heaven.鈥� (Thus General Alfred Jodl, hanged at Nuremberg.) Eichmann, much less intelligent and without any education to speak of, at least dimly realized that it was not an order but a law which had turned them all into criminals. The distinction between an order and the F眉hrer鈥檚 word was that the latter鈥檚 validity was not limited in time and space, which is the outstanding characteristic of the former. This is also the reason why the F眉hrer鈥檚 order for the Final Solution was followed by a huge shower of regulations and directives, all drafted by expert lawyers and legal advisers, not by mere administrators; this order, in contrast to ordinary orders, was treated as a law. Needless to add, the resulting legal paraphernalia, far from being a mere symptom of German pedantry or thoroughness, served most effectively to give the whole business its outward appearance of legality. (p. 201)
Arendt concludes Eichmann in Jerusalem with an account of Eichmann鈥檚 hanging, focusing on what Arendt describes as 鈥渢he grotesque silliness of his last words鈥� (p. 321). Having asked for a bottle of red wine and consumed half of it, having declined the consolations of a Protestant minister, he said to the people assembled to carry out and witness his execution that they would all meet again, and then he praised Germany, Austria, and Argentina. Arendt characterizes this bizarre moment by stating that Eichmann 鈥渇orgot that this was his own funeral鈥� and adds that 鈥淚t was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us 鈥� the lesson of the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil鈥� (p. 323).
In an epilogue, Arendt builds upon what she had written in the main body of Eichmann in Jerusalem, stating that 鈥淭he trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic 鈥� that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal鈥� (p. 351).
This Penguin Classics edition of Eichmann in Jerusalem benefits from a thoughtful introduction by the Austrian-born Israeli writer Amos Elon, who reinforces Arendt鈥檚 thematic emphasis by writing that 鈥淓vil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought, for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil鈥� (p. 15).
Elon鈥檚 introduction is titled 鈥淭he Excommunication of Hannah Arendt,鈥� in large part because Eichmann in Jerusalem was quite controversial upon its original publication. At a few points during the book, Arendt states her belief that leaders of Jewish communities throughout occupied Europe failed to do what they could to protect those communities. Statements like this one no doubt helped to make this book controversial:
Wherever Jews lived, there were recognized Jewish leaders, and this leadership, almost without exception, cooperated in one way or another, for one reason or another, with the Nazis. The whole truth was that if the Jewish people had really been unorganized and leaderless, there would have been chaos and plenty of misery, but the total number of victims would hardly have been between four and a half and six million people. (p. 173)
These passages from the book made me terribly uncomfortable. Perhaps there is no way not to feel terribly uncomfortable when considering history鈥檚 most hideous example of genocide. I would not be surprised if Arendt wants us to feel uncomfortable 鈥� profoundly uncomfortable, with no safe space in which to hide, no heroes to whose example we can appeal, no comforting beliefs to which we can retreat.
Elon called his foreword to Eichmann in Jerusalem 鈥淭he Excommunication of Hannah Arendt.鈥� I sensed, in this title, an allusion to the life and career of Baruch Spinoza. Like Arendt, Spinoza was raised in the Jewish community of an affluent West European democracy; like her, he faced criticism for telling the truth as he saw it. Spinoza ultimately faced actual excommunication 鈥� formal expulsion from the Amsterdam Jewish community of which he had been a member. Elon seems to feel that Arendt, at the time of the publication of Eichmann in Jerusalem, faced a sort of metaphorical excommunication, from a community that might not then have been ready to hear what she had to say.
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil is one of the most powerful, and one of the most difficult, books that I have ever read.
October 21, 2023
丌丿賵賱賮 丌蹖卮賲賳 賲爻卅賵賱 芦丕丿丕乇賴 丕賲賵乇 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳禄 丿乇 芦丕丿丕乇賴 丕賲賳蹖鬲 乇丕蹖卮禄 亘賵丿. 倬爻 丕夭 噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 賮乇丕乇 賵 倬爻 丕夭 爻讴賵賳鬲 賵 诏匕卮鬲賳 丕夭 趩賳丿 讴卮賵乇 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘丕 賴賵蹖鬲 噩毓賱蹖 丿乇 丌乇跇丕賳鬲蹖賳 爻讴賳蹖 诏夭蹖丿. 丿乇 爻丕賱 郾酃鄱郯 鬲賵爻胤 賲賵爻丕丿 卮賳丕爻丕蹖蹖 賵 乇亘賵丿賴 卮丿 賵 倬爻 丕夭 趩賳丿 乇賵夭 亘賴 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱 賲賳鬲賯賱 卮丿. 丿乇 丕賵丕禺乇 郾酃鄱郾 賲丨丕讴賲賴鈥屰� 賵蹖 丿乇 鬲賱鈥屫①堐屬� 丌睾丕夭 卮丿. 倬爻 丕夭 诏匕卮鬲 趩賳丿蹖賳 賵 趩賳丿 噩賱爻賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘賴 丕毓丿丕賲 賲丨讴賵賲 賵 丿乇 跇賵卅賳 郾酃鄱鄄 丕蹖賳 丨讴賲 丕噩乇丕 卮丿. 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 爻賵蹖 賲噩賱賴鈥屰� 賳蹖賵蹖賵乇讴乇 賲爻卅賵賱 賳賵卮鬲賳 诏夭丕乇卮 丕蹖賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘毓丿 賴丕 丕蹖賳 诏夭丕乇卮丕鬲 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 蹖毓賳蹖 芦丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲禄 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿. 丌乇賳鬲 丿乇 倬蹖 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕蹖賳 诏夭丕乇卮丕鬲 賲賵乇丿 賴噩賵賲 卮丿蹖丿 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 賲禺氐賵氐丕賸 氐賴蹖賵賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 賵丕賯毓 卮丿. 丌乇賳鬲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕亘鬲丿丕 乇賵賳丿 丌睾丕夭 丿丕丿诏丕賴 賵 丕鬲賴丕賲鈥屬囏� 乇賵 卮乇丨 丿丕丿賴 賵 亘賴 賳賯丿 賳丨賵賴鈥屰� 亘乇诏夭丕乇蹖 賵 賯氐丿 賵 賳蹖鬲 丿賵賱鬲 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱 丕夭 亘乇诏夭丕乇蹖 丕蹖賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 亘賴 卮讴賱 蹖讴 賳賲丕蹖卮 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴. 丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 倬爻 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賲賵丕乇丿 賵 丿賮丕毓蹖丕鬲 丌蹖卮賲賳 賵 賵讴蹖賱卮貙 亘賴 乇賮鬲丕乇 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏� 亘丕 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 賵 馗賱賲蹖 讴賴 亘賴 丕賵賳賴丕 乇賵丕 卮丿賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘蹖賳 丕夭 賳賯卮 卮賵乇丕賴丕蹖 蹖賴賵丿 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 丕蹖賳 噩乇蹖丕賳丕鬲 爻禺賳 诏賮鬲賴 讴賴 賴賲蹖賳 亘禺卮 亘丕毓孬 鬲讴賮蹖乇 丕賵賳 丕夭 爻賵蹖 氐賴蹖賵賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 卮丿. 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 诏乇蹖夭蹖 亘賴 氐賱丕丨蹖鬲 丿丕丿诏丕賴 亘乇丕蹖 亘乇诏夭丕乇蹖 丕蹖賳 賲丨丕讴賲賴 賵 賳丨賵賴鈥屰� 丕噩乇丕蹖 丨讴賲 夭丿賴 賵 丿乇 爻禺賳 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 亘丨孬 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 乇賵 賲胤乇丨 讴乇丿賴. 亘賴 胤賵乇 禺賱丕氐賴 丌乇賳鬲 賲毓鬲賯丿賴 卮乇賴丕蹖 亘夭乇诏 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳賴 鬲賵爻胤 丕賮乇丕丿 亘爻蹖丕乇 禺丕氐 丕鬲賮丕賯 丕賮鬲丕丿賴 賵 賳賴 毓丕賲賱 丕賵賳 亘蹖賲丕乇蹖 賵 賲卮讴賱丕鬲 乇賵丕賳蹖 亘賵丿 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 賵爻蹖賱賴鈥屰� 賲乇丿賲 毓丕丿蹖 丕鬲賮丕賯 丕賮鬲丕丿賴 讴賴 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱鈥屬囏й� 丨讴賵賲鬲 禺賵丿 乇賵 倬匕蹖乇賮鬲賴 賵 亘賴 丕噩乇丕 丿乇 丌賵乇丿賳 賵 丕夭 賳馗乇卮賵賳 丕蹖賳 乇賮鬲丕乇 胤亘蹖毓蹖 亘賵丿賴.賴
讴鬲丕亘 禺蹖賱蹖 乇賵丕賳 亘蹖丕賳 卮丿賴 賵 禺賵卮 禺賵丕賳賴.賴
鬲賮讴乇
賮讴乇 讴賳蹖丿 蹖讴 卮禺氐 亘賱賳丿 倬丕蹖賴 丿爻鬲賵乇 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇蹖 賵 賯鬲賱 蹖讴 賳賮乇 乇賵 氐丕丿乇 讴乇丿賴. 卮禺氐 丿賵賲 丕賵賳 賮乇丿 乇賵 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇 賵 丿爻鬲賵乇 賯鬲賱 乇賵 亘賴 夭蹖乇丿爻鬲 禺賵丿卮 賲賳鬲賯賱 讴乇丿賴. 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕 卮禺氐 爻賵賲 丿爻鬲賵乇 賯鬲賱 乇賵 丕噩乇丕 讴乇丿賴. 丨丕賱丕 诏賳丕賴 賴乇 蹖讴 丕夭 爻賴 賳賮乇 趩賯丿乇賴責 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖 讴賴 卮禺氐 丿賵賲 賵 爻賵賲 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 賲蹖賱卮賵賳 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 乇賵 讴乇丿賴 亘丕卮賳 趩蹖責 丨丕賱丕 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳蹖丿 蹖讴 卮禺氐 趩賴丕乇賲 亘丕 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屫臂屫槽� 讴丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賴 讴賴 卮禺氐 丕賵賱 賮乇賲丕賳 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇蹖 賵 賯鬲賱 乇賵 氐丕丿乇 讴賳賴貙 丨丕賱丕 讴蹖 賲賯氐乇 丕氐賱蹖賴 責
讴鬲丕亘 禺蹖賱蹖 乇賵丕賳 亘蹖丕賳 卮丿賴 賵 禺賵卮 禺賵丕賳賴.賴
鬲賮讴乇
賮讴乇 讴賳蹖丿 蹖讴 卮禺氐 亘賱賳丿 倬丕蹖賴 丿爻鬲賵乇 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇蹖 賵 賯鬲賱 蹖讴 賳賮乇 乇賵 氐丕丿乇 讴乇丿賴. 卮禺氐 丿賵賲 丕賵賳 賮乇丿 乇賵 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇 賵 丿爻鬲賵乇 賯鬲賱 乇賵 亘賴 夭蹖乇丿爻鬲 禺賵丿卮 賲賳鬲賯賱 讴乇丿賴. 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕 卮禺氐 爻賵賲 丿爻鬲賵乇 賯鬲賱 乇賵 丕噩乇丕 讴乇丿賴. 丨丕賱丕 诏賳丕賴 賴乇 蹖讴 丕夭 爻賴 賳賮乇 趩賯丿乇賴責 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖 讴賴 卮禺氐 丿賵賲 賵 爻賵賲 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 賲蹖賱卮賵賳 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 乇賵 讴乇丿賴 亘丕卮賳 趩蹖責 丨丕賱丕 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳蹖丿 蹖讴 卮禺氐 趩賴丕乇賲 亘丕 亘乇賳丕賲賴鈥屫臂屫槽� 讴丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賴 讴賴 卮禺氐 丕賵賱 賮乇賲丕賳 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇蹖 賵 賯鬲賱 乇賵 氐丕丿乇 讴賳賴貙 丨丕賱丕 讴蹖 賲賯氐乇 丕氐賱蹖賴 責
May 26, 2016
What has come to light is neither nihilism nor cynicism, as one might have expected, but a quite extraordinary confusion over elementary questions of morality鈥攁s if an instinct in such matters were truly the last thing to be taken for granted in our time.I've been entertained by my fair share of WWII/Nazi/Holocaust media, a glut in the marketable masses of reality's intersection with fiction the never fails to rear its head every year. Of course, that's the US for you, with its isolation and capitalism and pride. It's no use saying that I wish I had never sought out such things to fill my time, for reasons of a complete undermining of reception of this book if nothing else. But oh, how I would like to.
For politics is not like the nursery; in politics obedience and support are the same.What I have faith in these days is a future of ever increasing alignment between morality and legality. In the present I only supplicate in front of a reassurance that there indeed exists a concept of progress between my modern day and the ones before. A progress more aligned with my personal sensibility of ethics and individual level of comfort, at any rate.
...and if he suffers, he must suffer for what he has done, not for what he has caused others to suffer.What we have here, in this book, is a collusion of time, place, and people. Hannah Arendt went to Jerusalem to report on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, doing so through means of fact, analysis, and the lines of legal and politic that governments trundle along their way on. As a result of my reading, my thinking has undergone a paradigm shift on the level that it did upon encountering . The subject material differs, but my interpretation is the same: I can never afford to become cynical, for that implies I've learned enough to be so. Fear, anger, and a burning desire to know more? That's acceptable.
And if he did not always like what he had to do...he never forgot what the alternative would have been. Not only in Argentina, leading the unhappy existence of a refugee, but also in the courtroom in Jerusalem, with his life as good as forfeited, he might have still preferred鈥攊f anybody had asked him鈥攖o be hanged as Obersturmbannf眉hrer a.D. (in retirement) rather than living out his life quietly and normally as a traveling salesman for the Vacuum Oil Company.According to the primary evidence Arendt utilized, Eichmann was deemed both sane and normal by six psychologists. He suffered from neither guilt nor anger, but from at most the frustration of one who has always been down on their luck, someone who joined a movement in history in hopes of a promising potential and never quite fulfilled it. His memory consisted not of the timeline of the war, but of the timeline of this potential: his study of Jewish texts, his interaction with fellow members of the S.S., the hows and wherefores of his coming to be and the end all question of his reasons for staying on.
The net effect of this language system was not to keep these people ignorant of what they were doing, but to prevent them from equating it with their old, "normal" knowledge of murder and lies. Eichmann's great susceptibility to catch words and stock phrases, combined with his incapacity for ordinary speech, made him, of course, an ideal subject for "language rules."Eichmann was banal in the least sense of the word. His lack of intelligence not only spelled his doom due to little caution and less attention paid to his bragging tongue, it also made him perfectly happy to appropriate the words the far more discreet Nazi Party told him and construct his thinking with such. In view of the Jewish Question, he termed himself both "expert" and "idealist", the former a lie and the latter a peculiar trait that led to largely respectful collaborations with Jewish Elders all over Europe regarding evacuations/deportations and related matters. Using these phrases, working towards a higher rank in the S.S., claiming responsibility for millions of deaths with both complete lack of guilt and oddly lofty sense of history; all of that, each and every time, made him "elated."
In [Eichmann's] mind, there was no contradiction between "I will jump into my grave laughing," appropriate for the end of the war, and "I shall gladly hang myself in public as a warning example for all anti-Semites on this earth," which now, under vastly different circumstances, fulfilled exactly the same function of giving him a lift.The facts here are ugly, awkward, and fucking sadistic. Eichmann's trial by sheer happenstance touches on, amidst so much more, the defining of "crimes against humanity", genocide versus "administrative massacres", the history of anti-Semitism and subsequent conflict between the Jewish understanding of pogroms and the world's views of crime and punishment, and the limits of current laws of warfare, and indeed the very terms of "justice", in the face of World War Two. Here, the trial in Jerusalem faltered in the face of a completely legal indictment and subsequent explanation of such, as did every other trial of WWII war criminals and lesser collaborators. Here, history will repeated, not because we do not know it but because we now know the punishment and, as such, can act accordingly. Here, the world took action, and one wonders whether that result was worth the trigger, and whether worse things could have happened had not the final push occurred.
Evil in the Third Reich had lost the quality by which most people recognize it鈥攖he quality of temptation.A banality of evil is the necessity of mid-civilization crises of morality like this when it comes to eliciting a legal, political, worldwide recognition of what humanity cries for, religion aspires to, and human instinct, well. I don't have much faith in that last bit anymore.
But this was a moral question, and the answer to it may not have been legally relevant.
August 13, 2013
This book is amazing. In it, Arendt struggles with three major issues: 1) the guilt and evil of the ordinary, bureaucratic, obedient German people (like Eichmann) who contributed to the attempted genocide of the Jewish people, 2) the complicity of some jews in the genocide (through organization, mobilization, passive obedience, and negotiations with the Nazis, 3) the logical absurdity the Eichmann and Nuremberg Trials, etc.
In this book (and the original 'New Yorker' essays it came from) Hannah Arendt isn't going for easy, clich茅 answers. She isn't asking rhetorical or weightless questions. While some of her positions might not be fully supportable, the very act of asking tough questions (that don't fall into easy boxes) is a gift to humanity. Arendt's tactic of giving no one an automatic free pass, while also not allowing people like Eichmann to become cartoonish characters of evil, allows her the room to push the idea that the potential for evil exists not just in dark, scary places, but in well-lit, and very efficient bureaucracies and we all (even Israel) might be asked to push or pull a lever if we aren't paying close attention.
In this book (and the original 'New Yorker' essays it came from) Hannah Arendt isn't going for easy, clich茅 answers. She isn't asking rhetorical or weightless questions. While some of her positions might not be fully supportable, the very act of asking tough questions (that don't fall into easy boxes) is a gift to humanity. Arendt's tactic of giving no one an automatic free pass, while also not allowing people like Eichmann to become cartoonish characters of evil, allows her the room to push the idea that the potential for evil exists not just in dark, scary places, but in well-lit, and very efficient bureaucracies and we all (even Israel) might be asked to push or pull a lever if we aren't paying close attention.
February 13, 2023
丌蹖卮賲賳貙 氐 227: 芦賮乇賲丕賳鈥屭藏ж� 丨讴賵賲鬲 禺賵亘貙 禺賵卮鈥屫簇з嗀� 丕爻鬲 賵 賮乇賲丕賳鈥屭藏ж� 丨讴賵賲鬲 亘丿貙 亘丿卮丕賳爻. 賲賳 卮丕賳爻 賳蹖丕賵乇丿賲禄
丌乇賳鬲貙 氐 157: 芦賲诏乇 丕賵 讴賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘禺賵丕賴丿 賯囟丕賵鬲 讴賳丿責 賲诏乇 丕賵 讴賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘禺賵丕賴丿 丕賮讴丕乇 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿責禄
賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 爻毓蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘丕乇 鬲賯氐蹖乇 乇丕 丕夭 丿賵卮 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘乇丿丕乇丿 蹖丕 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 丕氐賱蹖 讴丕乇賴丕蹖 禺賵丿 丕賵 乇丕 亘賴 诏乇丿賳 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 亘蹖賳丿丕夭丿貙 亘賱讴賴 丕夭 賳爻亘鬲 丿丕丿賳 芦卮乇禄 亘賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘蹖夭丕乇 丕爻鬲 賵 芦卮乇禄 噩丿蹖丿蹖 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 卮乇賾蹖 賲亘鬲匕賱 賵 乇蹖卮賴鈥屭辟佖� 丕夭 亘乇丿賴鈥屰� 爻蹖爻鬲賲 亘賵丿賳 賵 賮讴乇 讴乇丿賳 乇丕 亘賴 賲丕賮賵賯鈥屬囏� 爻倬購乇丿賳.
亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 丕讴孬乇 丕賳鬲禺丕亘鈥屬囏й� 賲丕 賵丕賯毓丕賸 芦丕賳鬲禺丕亘禄 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿 賵 鬲丕孬蹖乇诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 鬲讴鈥屫� 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 賲丨蹖胤 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵 乇卮丿 賵 鬲乇亘蹖鬲賲丕賳鈥屫з嗀� 丌蹖丕 丌蹖卮賲賳 賵丕賯毓丕賸 賴蹖趩 丕賳鬲禺丕亘蹖 噩夭 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 乇卅蹖爻 丕丿丕乇賴鈥屰� 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 卮賵丿貙 賳丿丕卮鬲責
_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=
蹖丕丿賲 賳蹖爻鬲 丿賯蹖賯丕賸 亘丨孬 丿乇亘丕乇賴 趩蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 爻蹖賳丕 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 亘賴賲 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 讴乇丿貙 丕賲丕 丿乇亘丕乇賴 卮禺氐蹖鬲 蹖賴 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賲 亘賵丿. 賮讴乇 讴賳賲 趩賵賳 丕賵賳 卮禺氐蹖鬲賴 賴賲 亘丿賵賳 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 禺賵丿卮 亘禺賵丕丿 毓囟賵 蹖賴 爻蹖爻鬲賲 爻乇讴賵亘 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 賵 丕賵丕賲乇卮 乇賵 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫ж� 爻蹖賳丕 亘賴 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 鬲卮亘蹖賴卮 讴乇丿. 賴賲賲賲 賲胤賲卅賳 賳蹖爻鬲賲 賵賱蹖 賮讴乇 讴賳賲 卮禺氐蹖鬲賲 亘丕 丌诏丕賴蹖 亘賴 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 趩賴 诏賳丿蹖 丿丕乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁� 賵 丕夭 丿乇丿 賳丕賳 丕賵賳 讴丕乇賴丕 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屭┴必� 鬲丕 趩蹖夭賽 丿蹖诏乇. 賵 丕鬲賮丕賯丕賸 讴賱 倬賵蹖賳鬲 賲賳 丕蹖賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕鬲賴丕賲 丕氐賱蹖 亘賴 爻賲鬲 爻蹖爻鬲賲賴 賳賴 賲丨氐賵賱鈥屬囏ж� 丿乇 丨丕賱蹖 讴賴 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 讴賱丕賸 爻毓蹖 丿丕乇賴 賳賵毓 噩丿蹖丿蹖 丕夭 卮乇 鬲毓乇蹖賮 讴賳賴. 亘賴鈥屬囏必з� 亘爻蹖 爻倬丕爻诏夭丕乇賲 丕夭 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿卮.
May 30, 2019
賴賳丕賱賰 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 禺丕胤卅 亘兀賳 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘丕賱賲毓乇賮丞貙 賵噩乇賶 亘賳丕亍 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 鬲爻賵賷賯 賲氐胤賱丨 丕賱賲孬賯賮 毓賱賶 兀賳賴 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱匕賷 賷毓乇賮 賰孬賷乇賸丕貙 丨鬲賶 兀氐亘丨鬲 丕賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 賱賱卮禺氐 賲賯賷丕爻賸丕 賱丿賶 丕賱亘毓囟 賱孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱賮乇丿. 卮禺氐賷賸丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 亘兀賳 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賲賵賯賮 兀禺賱丕賯賷 賵廿賳爻丕賳賷 兀賲丕 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵丕賱毓賱賵賲 賲噩乇丿 兀丿賵丕鬲 丿丕毓賲丞 賱賴丕.
賱賳兀禺匕 賲孬丕賱丕賸 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱兀賲乇賷賰賷 噩賷賲爻 賵丕鬲爻賵賳貙 丕賱匕賷 丕賰鬲卮賮 丕賱亘賳賷丞 丕賱賱賵賱亘賷丞 賱賱DNA貙 丨賷孬 氐乇丨 亘兀賳 "丕賱亘賷囟 兀賰孬乇 匕賰丕亍賸 賲賳 丕賱爻賵丿" 賵兀孬丕乇 毓丕氐賮丞 賲賳 乇丿丕鬲 丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱睾丕囟亘丞貙 兀賲丕 毓乇亘賷賸丕 賮賯丿 賳卮乇 丕賱賲賮賰乇 丕賱爻賵乇賷 賮乇丕爻 丕賱爻賵丕丨 賲丐禺乇賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賷爻亘賵賰 賲賳卮賵乇賸丕 賷賯賵賱 賮賷賴 亘兀賳賴 賱賳 賷賯亘賱 氐丿丕賯丞 丕賱賲丨噩亘丕鬲 "賱兀賳 丨噩丕亘 丕賱乇兀爻 賷毓賳賷 丨噩丕亘 丕賱毓賯賱". 丕賱兀賵賱 毓丕賱賲 賵丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓丕乇賮 賵賰賱丕賴賲丕 賱賱兀爻賮 亘毓賷丿丕賳 賰賱 丕賱亘毓丿 毓賳 兀禺賱丕賯 丕賱賲孬賯賮 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷.
廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 爻兀賯丿賲 賳賲賵匕噩賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賲孬賯賮 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 賮賱賳 兀噩丿 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮丞 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞 丨賳丞 丌乇丿賳鬲貙 賮賲賳匕 賯乇兀鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵兀賳丕 賱丕 兀爻鬲胤賷毓 廿亘毓丕丿賴丕 毓賳 鬲賮賰賷乇賷 賵賱丕 廿亘毓丕丿 賳賮爻賷 毓賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 賲賯丿丕乇 丕賱丨賰賲丞 賵丕賱卮噩丕毓丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕賲鬲賱賰鬲賴丕 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱鬲鬲氐丿賶 亘賰賱 噩乇兀丞 賱丕賳鬲賯丕丿 廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 丕賱氐賵乇賷丞貙 兀賵 丕賱鬲賲孬賷賱賷丞 亘丨爻亘 賵氐賮 丌乇賳丿鬲貙 丕賱鬲賷 兀賯丕賲鬲賴丕 廿爻乇丕卅賷賱 賱賱囟丕亘胤 丕賱賳丕夭賷 兀丿賵賱賮 兀賷禺賲丕賳.
亘丿兀鬲 丕賱丨賰丕賷丞 毓賳丿賲丕 賯丕賲 丕賱賲賵爻丕丿 丕賱廿爻乇丕卅賷賱賷 亘丕禺鬲胤丕賮 兀賷禺賲丕賳 賲賳 丕賱兀乇噩賳鬲賷賳貙 丨賷孬 賰丕賳 賲禺鬲亘卅賸丕 亘毓丿 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱丨乇亘 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷丞 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞貙 賵丕丨囟丕乇賴 賱賱賯丿爻 亘賴丿賮 賲丨丕賰賲鬲賴 兀賲丕賲 兀賳馗丕乇 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賱鬲賴賲 毓丿賷丿丞 兀賴賲賴丕 噩乇丕卅賲賴 囟丿 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵噩乇丕卅賲賴 囟丿 丕賱賷賴賵丿.
賲丕 廿賳 爻賲毓鬲 丨賳丞 丌乇賳丿鬲 亘兀禺亘丕乇 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 丨鬲賶 丕爻鬲賯賱鬲 胤丕卅乇丞 賱賱賯丿爻 賱鬲賯賵賲 亘鬲睾胤賷丞 噩賱爻丕鬲賴丕 賱氐丕賱丨 賲噩賱丞 匕賴 賳賷賵 賷賵乇賰乇貙 賵賲賳匕 丕賱亘丿亍 兀丿乇賰鬲 丌乇賳丿鬲 亘兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 賱賷爻鬲 廿賱丕 丕爻鬲毓乇丕囟賸丕 賱毓囟賱丕鬲 "亘賳 睾賵乇賷賵賳" 丕賱匕賷 氐乇丨 亘兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 爻鬲賯鬲氐 賲賳 賰賱 兀毓丿丕亍 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賱賷賰賵賳賵丕 毓亘乇丞 賱賲賳 賷毓鬲亘乇 賵禺氐賵氐賸丕 賱賱毓乇亘.
兀孬丕乇鬲 賲賯丕賱丕鬲賴丕 賮賵乇 賳卮乇賴丕 噩丿賱丕賸 丨丕丿丕賸 賵鬲毓乇囟鬲 丌乇賳丿鬲 賱賴噩賵賲 丨丕丿 賵毓賲賱鬲 丕賱丌賱丞 丕賱丿毓丕卅賷丞 丕賱氐賴賷賵賳賷丞 毓賱賶 丕睾鬲賷丕賱 卮禺氐賷鬲賴丕 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賵氐賮賴丕 亘兀賳賴丕 賷賴賵丿賷丞 賰丕乇賴丞 賱匕丕鬲賴丕貙 賵賲毓丕丿賷丞 賱賱賷賴賵丿 賵丕賱氐賴賷賵賳賷丞貙 賵賲賳丨丕夭丞 賱賱賳丕夭賷丞 .. 廿賱禺 廿賱禺
賷賲賰賳 丕禺鬲氐丕乇 丕賱賲丌禺匕 毓賱賶 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 丌乇賳丿鬲 賵丕賱鬲賷 噩賲毓鬲 賱丕丨賯賸丕 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘 鬲丨鬲 毓賳賵丕賳 "兀賷禺賲丕賳 賮賷 丕賱賯丿爻: 鬲賯乇賷乇 毓賳 鬲賮丕賴丞 丕賱卮乇" (賰丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲賳賵毓賸丕 賮賷 廿爻乇丕卅賷賱 賵賱賲 賷鬲乇噩賲 廿賱賶 丕賱毓亘乇賷丞 賵賷賮爻丨 廿賱丕 賮賷 毓丕賲 佗贍贍贍) 賮賷 孬賱丕孬丞 噩賵丕賳亘:
丕賱兀賵賱: 丕賳鬲賯丕丿賴丕 賱廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 乇兀鬲 亘兀賳賴丕 睾賷乇 賯丕賳賵賳賷丞 賵丕乇鬲賰亘鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀禺胤丕亍 賲賳匕 丕禺鬲胤丕賮 兀賷禺賲丕賳 賵丨鬲賶 廿毓賱丕賳 丕賱丨賰賲貙 賲毓 兀賳賴丕 乇兀鬲 亘兀賳 丨賰賲 丕賱廿毓丿丕賲 賰丕賳 賳鬲賷噩丞 胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵賲爻鬲丨賯丞 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賮毓丕賱 丕賱賲噩乇賲.
丕賱孬丕賳賷: 賮噩乇鬲 丌乇賳丿鬲 賮囟賷丨丞 毓賳丿賲丕 賰卮賮鬲 毓賳 丿賵乇 丕賱賲噩丕賱爻 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓丕賵賳鬲 賲毓 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳貙 賮賷 丕賱廿亘丕丿丕鬲 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷丞 賵賵氐賮鬲賴丕 亘兀賳賴丕 兀賰孬乇 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 馗賱賲丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱亘卮乇賷貙 賵匕賴亘鬲 兀亘毓丿 賲賳 匕賱賰 毓賳丿賲丕 夭毓賲鬲 亘兀賳賴 賱賵賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賲噩丕賱爻貙 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳 賷卮賰賱賴丕 丕賱賳丕夭賷賵賳 賱鬲爻賴賷賱 毓賲賱賷丕鬲 卮丨賳 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賱賲毓爻賰乇丕鬲 丕賱廿亘丕丿丞貙 賱賰丕賳 毓丿丿 丕賱囟丨丕賷丕 兀賯賱 亘賰孬賷乇.
丕賱孬丕賱孬: 丕賱丕賳胤亘丕毓 丕賱匕賷 卮賰賱鬲賴 丨賳丞 丌乇賳丿鬲 毓賳 兀丿賵賮 兀賷禺賲丕賳貙 賮毓賳丿賲丕 匕賴亘鬲 賱賱賯丿爻 鬲賵賯毓鬲 亘兀賳賴丕 爻鬲卮丕賴丿 賲爻禺賸丕 亘卮乇賷賸丕 賷賳囟丨 丕賱卮乇 賲賳 賰丕賮丞 賲爻丕賲丕鬲 噩爻丿賴貙 賵賱賰賳賴丕 乇兀鬲 卮賷卅丕賸 賲禺鬲賱賮丕賸貙 乇兀鬲 賲噩乇賲賸丕 兀賯賱 賲丕 賷賵氐賮 亘賴 兀賳賴 鬲丕賮賴貙 毓丕噩夭 毓賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 (賵丕賱毓噩夭 毓賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賱賷爻 賲乇丕丿賮賸丕 賱賱睾亘丕亍)貙 賵賱丕 賷丿乇賰 禺胤賵乇丞 兀賮毓丕賱賴 賵賱丕 賷賯亘賱 鬲丨賲賱 賲爻丐賵賱賷鬲賴丕貙 賵毓賱賶 丕爻鬲毓丿丕丿 賱兀賳 賷乇鬲賰亘 兀毓馗賲 丕賱卮乇賵乇貙 賵賱賰賳听賱賷爻 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱兀賷丿賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱賳丕夭賷丞 兀賵 亘爻亘亘 胤亘賷毓鬲賴 丕賱卮乇賷貙 賵廿賳賲丕 賱爻亘亘 鬲丕賮賴 噩丿賸丕 .. 賱兀噩賱 兀賳 賷丨氐賱 毓賱賶 賲賳氐亘 乇賮賷毓 賮賷 賵馗賷賮鬲賴貙 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 兀胤賱賯鬲 毓賱賷賴 丌乇賳丿鬲 賲氐胤賱丨 "鬲賮丕賴丞 丕賱卮乇" 賵丕賱匕賷 兀丨丿孬 孬賵乇丞 賲賮丕賴賷賲賷丞 賮賷 丨賯賱 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 賵丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞.
賲氐胤賱丨 "鬲賮丕賴丞 丕賱卮乇" 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱爻賷丕賯 賷毓賳賷 亘兀賳 丕賱賲乇亍 丕賱匕賷 賷乇鬲賰亘 丕賱卮乇賵乇 賱丕 賷賯賵賲 亘匕賱賰 亘賳丕亍 毓賱賶 丿賵丕賮毓 毓賲賷賯丞 賵賵毓賷 賮賰乇賷貙 亘賱 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻 賲賳 匕賱賰 賮丕賱丿賵丕賮毓 鬲賰賵賳 睾丕賱亘賸丕 爻胤丨賷丞 賵鬲丕賮賴丞貙 賵賲丕 賷賲賳毓 丕賱賲乇亍 賲賳 廿丿乇丕賰賴 賱毓賵丕賯亘 兀賮毓丕賱賴 賴賵 毓噩夭賴 毓賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賰廿賳爻丕賳 賱丕 賰丌賱丞 兀賵 賲賵馗賮 亘賷乇賵賯乇丕胤賷 賷賳賮匕 毓賲賱賴 亘賰賱 廿鬲賯丕賳 賵鬲賮丕賳.
丕賱兀賲乇 丕賱丌禺乇 丕賱匕賷 兀卮丕乇鬲 賱賴 丌乇賳丿鬲 毓賳丿 丨丿賷孬賴丕 毓賳 丕賱丿賵賱 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 卮丕乇賰鬲 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳 賮賷 噩乇丕卅賲賴賲貙 賴賵 兀賴賲賷丞 賵噩賵丿 賵毓賷 廿賳爻丕賳賷 賱丿賶 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賷賲賳毓賴丕 賲賳 丕賱鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 賯胤毓丕賳 賲賳 丕賱賵丨賵卮. 賮丕賱丿賳賲丕乇賰賷賷賳 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賵賯賮賵丕 丨噩乇 毓孬乇丞 賮賷 賵噩賴 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳 賵乇賮囟賵丕 鬲爻賱賷賲 丕賱賷賴賵丿貙 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳賵丕 賲賳 賲賵丕胤賳賷賳 兀賵 賱丕噩卅賷賳貙 廿賱賶 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳貙 亘賱 乇丿賵丕 亘賰賱 卮噩丕毓丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱賳丕夭賷 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷噩亘乇 丕賱賷賴賵丿 毓賱賶 賵囟毓 賳噩賲丞 丿丕賵賵丿 氐賮乇丕亍 毓賱賶 兀乇丿賷鬲賴賲 賱鬲賲賷賷夭賴賲貙 賯丕卅賱賷賳 亘兀賳 賲賱賰 丕賱丿賳賲丕乇賰 爻賷賰賵賳 兀賵賱 賲賳 賷囟毓 賴匕賴 丕賱賳噩賲丞. 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻 賲賳 乇賵賲丕賳賷丕 丕賱鬲賷 亘丿兀鬲 亘廿亘丕丿丞 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賯亘賱 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳 鬲賲賱賯賸丕 賱賴賲貙 賵賮乇賳爻丕 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 (賵賱丕 鬲夭丕賱) 賲氐丕亘丞 亘賱賵孬丞 賵胤賳賷丞 卮賵賮賷賳賷丞 賮賯丕賲鬲 亘鬲賯丿賷賲 丕賱賷賴賵丿 丕賱兀噩丕賳亘 賮賷 賮乇賳爻丕 毓賱賶 胤亘賯 賲賳 匕賴亘 賱賱賳丕夭賷賷賳.
賲卮賰賱鬲賷 丕賱賵丨賷丿丞 賲毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賴賷 賲卮賰賱鬲賷 賵賱賷爻鬲 賲卮賰賱丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 兀賳賳賷 賯乇兀鬲賴 賮賷 乇賲囟丕賳 廿賲丕 氐亘丕丨賸丕 亘丿賵賳 鬲乇賰賷夭 賱兀賳賳賷 賱賲 兀鬲賳丕賵賱 賯賴賵鬲賷貙 兀賵 賲爻丕亍 亘毓丿 丕賱廿賮胤丕乇 亘丿賵賳 鬲乇賰賷夭 兀賷囟賸丕 賱兀賳賳賷 兀賰賵賳 賲氐丕亘賸丕 亘丕賱鬲禺賲丞貙 賲賲丕 丿賮毓賳賷 賱廿毓丕丿丞 賯乇丕亍丞 亘毓囟 丕賱賮氐賵賱 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞.
兀禺賷乇賸丕貙 賱賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賮賷賱賲 賮賷 丕賱賷賵鬲賷賵亘 亘毓賳賵丕賳 "丨賳丞 兀乇賳丿鬲" 賲鬲乇噩賲 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵賴賵 賲爻鬲賵丨賶 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
賱賳兀禺匕 賲孬丕賱丕賸 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱兀賲乇賷賰賷 噩賷賲爻 賵丕鬲爻賵賳貙 丕賱匕賷 丕賰鬲卮賮 丕賱亘賳賷丞 丕賱賱賵賱亘賷丞 賱賱DNA貙 丨賷孬 氐乇丨 亘兀賳 "丕賱亘賷囟 兀賰孬乇 匕賰丕亍賸 賲賳 丕賱爻賵丿" 賵兀孬丕乇 毓丕氐賮丞 賲賳 乇丿丕鬲 丕賱賮毓賱 丕賱睾丕囟亘丞貙 兀賲丕 毓乇亘賷賸丕 賮賯丿 賳卮乇 丕賱賲賮賰乇 丕賱爻賵乇賷 賮乇丕爻 丕賱爻賵丕丨 賲丐禺乇賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賷爻亘賵賰 賲賳卮賵乇賸丕 賷賯賵賱 賮賷賴 亘兀賳賴 賱賳 賷賯亘賱 氐丿丕賯丞 丕賱賲丨噩亘丕鬲 "賱兀賳 丨噩丕亘 丕賱乇兀爻 賷毓賳賷 丨噩丕亘 丕賱毓賯賱". 丕賱兀賵賱 毓丕賱賲 賵丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓丕乇賮 賵賰賱丕賴賲丕 賱賱兀爻賮 亘毓賷丿丕賳 賰賱 丕賱亘毓丿 毓賳 兀禺賱丕賯 丕賱賲孬賯賮 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷.
廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 爻兀賯丿賲 賳賲賵匕噩賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賲孬賯賮 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 賮賱賳 兀噩丿 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮丞 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞 丨賳丞 丌乇丿賳鬲貙 賮賲賳匕 賯乇兀鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵兀賳丕 賱丕 兀爻鬲胤賷毓 廿亘毓丕丿賴丕 毓賳 鬲賮賰賷乇賷 賵賱丕 廿亘毓丕丿 賳賮爻賷 毓賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 賲賯丿丕乇 丕賱丨賰賲丞 賵丕賱卮噩丕毓丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕賲鬲賱賰鬲賴丕 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱鬲鬲氐丿賶 亘賰賱 噩乇兀丞 賱丕賳鬲賯丕丿 廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 丕賱氐賵乇賷丞貙 兀賵 丕賱鬲賲孬賷賱賷丞 亘丨爻亘 賵氐賮 丌乇賳丿鬲貙 丕賱鬲賷 兀賯丕賲鬲賴丕 廿爻乇丕卅賷賱 賱賱囟丕亘胤 丕賱賳丕夭賷 兀丿賵賱賮 兀賷禺賲丕賳.
亘丿兀鬲 丕賱丨賰丕賷丞 毓賳丿賲丕 賯丕賲 丕賱賲賵爻丕丿 丕賱廿爻乇丕卅賷賱賷 亘丕禺鬲胤丕賮 兀賷禺賲丕賳 賲賳 丕賱兀乇噩賳鬲賷賳貙 丨賷孬 賰丕賳 賲禺鬲亘卅賸丕 亘毓丿 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱丨乇亘 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷丞 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞貙 賵丕丨囟丕乇賴 賱賱賯丿爻 亘賴丿賮 賲丨丕賰賲鬲賴 兀賲丕賲 兀賳馗丕乇 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賱鬲賴賲 毓丿賷丿丞 兀賴賲賴丕 噩乇丕卅賲賴 囟丿 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵噩乇丕卅賲賴 囟丿 丕賱賷賴賵丿.
賲丕 廿賳 爻賲毓鬲 丨賳丞 丌乇賳丿鬲 亘兀禺亘丕乇 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 丨鬲賶 丕爻鬲賯賱鬲 胤丕卅乇丞 賱賱賯丿爻 賱鬲賯賵賲 亘鬲睾胤賷丞 噩賱爻丕鬲賴丕 賱氐丕賱丨 賲噩賱丞 匕賴 賳賷賵 賷賵乇賰乇貙 賵賲賳匕 丕賱亘丿亍 兀丿乇賰鬲 丌乇賳丿鬲 亘兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 賱賷爻鬲 廿賱丕 丕爻鬲毓乇丕囟賸丕 賱毓囟賱丕鬲 "亘賳 睾賵乇賷賵賳" 丕賱匕賷 氐乇丨 亘兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 爻鬲賯鬲氐 賲賳 賰賱 兀毓丿丕亍 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賱賷賰賵賳賵丕 毓亘乇丞 賱賲賳 賷毓鬲亘乇 賵禺氐賵氐賸丕 賱賱毓乇亘.
兀孬丕乇鬲 賲賯丕賱丕鬲賴丕 賮賵乇 賳卮乇賴丕 噩丿賱丕賸 丨丕丿丕賸 賵鬲毓乇囟鬲 丌乇賳丿鬲 賱賴噩賵賲 丨丕丿 賵毓賲賱鬲 丕賱丌賱丞 丕賱丿毓丕卅賷丞 丕賱氐賴賷賵賳賷丞 毓賱賶 丕睾鬲賷丕賱 卮禺氐賷鬲賴丕 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賵氐賮賴丕 亘兀賳賴丕 賷賴賵丿賷丞 賰丕乇賴丞 賱匕丕鬲賴丕貙 賵賲毓丕丿賷丞 賱賱賷賴賵丿 賵丕賱氐賴賷賵賳賷丞貙 賵賲賳丨丕夭丞 賱賱賳丕夭賷丞 .. 廿賱禺 廿賱禺
賷賲賰賳 丕禺鬲氐丕乇 丕賱賲丌禺匕 毓賱賶 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 丌乇賳丿鬲 賵丕賱鬲賷 噩賲毓鬲 賱丕丨賯賸丕 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘 鬲丨鬲 毓賳賵丕賳 "兀賷禺賲丕賳 賮賷 丕賱賯丿爻: 鬲賯乇賷乇 毓賳 鬲賮丕賴丞 丕賱卮乇" (賰丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲賳賵毓賸丕 賮賷 廿爻乇丕卅賷賱 賵賱賲 賷鬲乇噩賲 廿賱賶 丕賱毓亘乇賷丞 賵賷賮爻丨 廿賱丕 賮賷 毓丕賲 佗贍贍贍) 賮賷 孬賱丕孬丞 噩賵丕賳亘:
丕賱兀賵賱: 丕賳鬲賯丕丿賴丕 賱廿噩乇丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 乇兀鬲 亘兀賳賴丕 睾賷乇 賯丕賳賵賳賷丞 賵丕乇鬲賰亘鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀禺胤丕亍 賲賳匕 丕禺鬲胤丕賮 兀賷禺賲丕賳 賵丨鬲賶 廿毓賱丕賳 丕賱丨賰賲貙 賲毓 兀賳賴丕 乇兀鬲 亘兀賳 丨賰賲 丕賱廿毓丿丕賲 賰丕賳 賳鬲賷噩丞 胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵賲爻鬲丨賯丞 賳馗乇賸丕 賱兀賮毓丕賱 丕賱賲噩乇賲.
丕賱孬丕賳賷: 賮噩乇鬲 丌乇賳丿鬲 賮囟賷丨丞 毓賳丿賲丕 賰卮賮鬲 毓賳 丿賵乇 丕賱賲噩丕賱爻 丕賱賷賴賵丿賷丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓丕賵賳鬲 賲毓 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳貙 賮賷 丕賱廿亘丕丿丕鬲 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷丞 賵賵氐賮鬲賴丕 亘兀賳賴丕 兀賰孬乇 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 馗賱賲丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱亘卮乇賷貙 賵匕賴亘鬲 兀亘毓丿 賲賳 匕賱賰 毓賳丿賲丕 夭毓賲鬲 亘兀賳賴 賱賵賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賲噩丕賱爻貙 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳 賷卮賰賱賴丕 丕賱賳丕夭賷賵賳 賱鬲爻賴賷賱 毓賲賱賷丕鬲 卮丨賳 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賱賲毓爻賰乇丕鬲 丕賱廿亘丕丿丞貙 賱賰丕賳 毓丿丿 丕賱囟丨丕賷丕 兀賯賱 亘賰孬賷乇.
丕賱孬丕賱孬: 丕賱丕賳胤亘丕毓 丕賱匕賷 卮賰賱鬲賴 丨賳丞 丌乇賳丿鬲 毓賳 兀丿賵賮 兀賷禺賲丕賳貙 賮毓賳丿賲丕 匕賴亘鬲 賱賱賯丿爻 鬲賵賯毓鬲 亘兀賳賴丕 爻鬲卮丕賴丿 賲爻禺賸丕 亘卮乇賷賸丕 賷賳囟丨 丕賱卮乇 賲賳 賰丕賮丞 賲爻丕賲丕鬲 噩爻丿賴貙 賵賱賰賳賴丕 乇兀鬲 卮賷卅丕賸 賲禺鬲賱賮丕賸貙 乇兀鬲 賲噩乇賲賸丕 兀賯賱 賲丕 賷賵氐賮 亘賴 兀賳賴 鬲丕賮賴貙 毓丕噩夭 毓賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 (賵丕賱毓噩夭 毓賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賱賷爻 賲乇丕丿賮賸丕 賱賱睾亘丕亍)貙 賵賱丕 賷丿乇賰 禺胤賵乇丞 兀賮毓丕賱賴 賵賱丕 賷賯亘賱 鬲丨賲賱 賲爻丐賵賱賷鬲賴丕貙 賵毓賱賶 丕爻鬲毓丿丕丿 賱兀賳 賷乇鬲賰亘 兀毓馗賲 丕賱卮乇賵乇貙 賵賱賰賳听賱賷爻 賲賳 兀噩賱 丕賱兀賷丿賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱賳丕夭賷丞 兀賵 亘爻亘亘 胤亘賷毓鬲賴 丕賱卮乇賷貙 賵廿賳賲丕 賱爻亘亘 鬲丕賮賴 噩丿賸丕 .. 賱兀噩賱 兀賳 賷丨氐賱 毓賱賶 賲賳氐亘 乇賮賷毓 賮賷 賵馗賷賮鬲賴貙 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 兀胤賱賯鬲 毓賱賷賴 丌乇賳丿鬲 賲氐胤賱丨 "鬲賮丕賴丞 丕賱卮乇" 賵丕賱匕賷 兀丨丿孬 孬賵乇丞 賲賮丕賴賷賲賷丞 賮賷 丨賯賱 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 賵丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞.
賲氐胤賱丨 "鬲賮丕賴丞 丕賱卮乇" 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱爻賷丕賯 賷毓賳賷 亘兀賳 丕賱賲乇亍 丕賱匕賷 賷乇鬲賰亘 丕賱卮乇賵乇 賱丕 賷賯賵賲 亘匕賱賰 亘賳丕亍 毓賱賶 丿賵丕賮毓 毓賲賷賯丞 賵賵毓賷 賮賰乇賷貙 亘賱 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻 賲賳 匕賱賰 賮丕賱丿賵丕賮毓 鬲賰賵賳 睾丕賱亘賸丕 爻胤丨賷丞 賵鬲丕賮賴丞貙 賵賲丕 賷賲賳毓 丕賱賲乇亍 賲賳 廿丿乇丕賰賴 賱毓賵丕賯亘 兀賮毓丕賱賴 賴賵 毓噩夭賴 毓賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賰廿賳爻丕賳 賱丕 賰丌賱丞 兀賵 賲賵馗賮 亘賷乇賵賯乇丕胤賷 賷賳賮匕 毓賲賱賴 亘賰賱 廿鬲賯丕賳 賵鬲賮丕賳.
丕賱兀賲乇 丕賱丌禺乇 丕賱匕賷 兀卮丕乇鬲 賱賴 丌乇賳丿鬲 毓賳丿 丨丿賷孬賴丕 毓賳 丕賱丿賵賱 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 卮丕乇賰鬲 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳 賮賷 噩乇丕卅賲賴賲貙 賴賵 兀賴賲賷丞 賵噩賵丿 賵毓賷 廿賳爻丕賳賷 賱丿賶 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賷賲賳毓賴丕 賲賳 丕賱鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 賯胤毓丕賳 賲賳 丕賱賵丨賵卮. 賮丕賱丿賳賲丕乇賰賷賷賳 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賵賯賮賵丕 丨噩乇 毓孬乇丞 賮賷 賵噩賴 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳 賵乇賮囟賵丕 鬲爻賱賷賲 丕賱賷賴賵丿貙 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳賵丕 賲賳 賲賵丕胤賳賷賳 兀賵 賱丕噩卅賷賳貙 廿賱賶 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳貙 亘賱 乇丿賵丕 亘賰賱 卮噩丕毓丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱賳丕夭賷 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 賷噩亘乇 丕賱賷賴賵丿 毓賱賶 賵囟毓 賳噩賲丞 丿丕賵賵丿 氐賮乇丕亍 毓賱賶 兀乇丿賷鬲賴賲 賱鬲賲賷賷夭賴賲貙 賯丕卅賱賷賳 亘兀賳 賲賱賰 丕賱丿賳賲丕乇賰 爻賷賰賵賳 兀賵賱 賲賳 賷囟毓 賴匕賴 丕賱賳噩賲丞. 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賰爻 賲賳 乇賵賲丕賳賷丕 丕賱鬲賷 亘丿兀鬲 亘廿亘丕丿丞 丕賱賷賴賵丿 賯亘賱 丕賱賳丕夭賷賷賳 鬲賲賱賯賸丕 賱賴賲貙 賵賮乇賳爻丕 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 (賵賱丕 鬲夭丕賱) 賲氐丕亘丞 亘賱賵孬丞 賵胤賳賷丞 卮賵賮賷賳賷丞 賮賯丕賲鬲 亘鬲賯丿賷賲 丕賱賷賴賵丿 丕賱兀噩丕賳亘 賮賷 賮乇賳爻丕 毓賱賶 胤亘賯 賲賳 匕賴亘 賱賱賳丕夭賷賷賳.
賲卮賰賱鬲賷 丕賱賵丨賷丿丞 賲毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賴賷 賲卮賰賱鬲賷 賵賱賷爻鬲 賲卮賰賱丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 兀賳賳賷 賯乇兀鬲賴 賮賷 乇賲囟丕賳 廿賲丕 氐亘丕丨賸丕 亘丿賵賳 鬲乇賰賷夭 賱兀賳賳賷 賱賲 兀鬲賳丕賵賱 賯賴賵鬲賷貙 兀賵 賲爻丕亍 亘毓丿 丕賱廿賮胤丕乇 亘丿賵賳 鬲乇賰賷夭 兀賷囟賸丕 賱兀賳賳賷 兀賰賵賳 賲氐丕亘賸丕 亘丕賱鬲禺賲丞貙 賲賲丕 丿賮毓賳賷 賱廿毓丕丿丞 賯乇丕亍丞 亘毓囟 丕賱賮氐賵賱 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞.
兀禺賷乇賸丕貙 賱賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賮賷賱賲 賮賷 丕賱賷賵鬲賷賵亘 亘毓賳賵丕賳 "丨賳丞 兀乇賳丿鬲" 賲鬲乇噩賲 亘丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵賴賵 賲爻鬲賵丨賶 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
December 1, 2020
賲卮讴賱 丌蹖卮賲賳 丿賯蹖賯丕 賴賲蹖賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕賮乇丕丿 夭蹖丕丿蹖 卮亘蹖賴 丕賵 亘賵丿賳丿 讴賴 賳賴 賲賳丨乇賮 亘賵丿賳丿 賵 賳賴 爻丕丿蹖爻鬲貙 丌賳賴丕 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 丕爻賮亘丕乇 賵 賴賵賱賳丕讴 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 亘賵丿賴 賵 賴爻鬲賳丿.
丕夭 賲賳馗乇 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 丨賯賵賯蹖 賵 賲毓蹖丕乇賴丕蹖 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 賯囟丕賵鬲貙 丕蹖賳 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 亘賵丿賳 亘賴 賲乇丕鬲亘 丕夭 讴賱 賮噩丕蹖毓蹖 讴賴 乇禺 丿丕丿賴 亘賵丿 賵丨卮鬲賳丕讴 鬲乇 亘賵丿貙 丕蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴 鬲賱賵蹖丨丕賸 亘丿蹖賳 賲毓賳丕 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 噩丿蹖丿 丕夭 賲噩乇賲貙 讴賴 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 讴賱賲賴 丿卮賲賳 鬲賲丕賲 亘卮乇蹖鬲 丕爻鬲貙 鬲丨鬲 卮乇丕蹖胤蹖 丿爻鬲 亘賴 丕乇鬲讴丕亘 噩乇賲 賲蹖 夭賳丿 讴賴 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕賸 賲丨丕賱 丕爻鬲 亘丿丕賳丿 蹖丕 丕丨爻丕爻 讴賳丿 讴賴 丿丕乇丿 讴丕乇 睾賱胤蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖 丿賴丿.
丕夭 賲賳馗乇 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 丨賯賵賯蹖 賵 賲毓蹖丕乇賴丕蹖 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 賯囟丕賵鬲貙 丕蹖賳 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 亘賵丿賳 亘賴 賲乇丕鬲亘 丕夭 讴賱 賮噩丕蹖毓蹖 讴賴 乇禺 丿丕丿賴 亘賵丿 賵丨卮鬲賳丕讴 鬲乇 亘賵丿貙 丕蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴 鬲賱賵蹖丨丕賸 亘丿蹖賳 賲毓賳丕 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 噩丿蹖丿 丕夭 賲噩乇賲貙 讴賴 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 讴賱賲賴 丿卮賲賳 鬲賲丕賲 亘卮乇蹖鬲 丕爻鬲貙 鬲丨鬲 卮乇丕蹖胤蹖 丿爻鬲 亘賴 丕乇鬲讴丕亘 噩乇賲 賲蹖 夭賳丿 讴賴 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕賸 賲丨丕賱 丕爻鬲 亘丿丕賳丿 蹖丕 丕丨爻丕爻 讴賳丿 讴賴 丿丕乇丿 讴丕乇 睾賱胤蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖 丿賴丿.
September 15, 2021
丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴卮賵乇 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賵乇丕賳 鬲丕乇蹖讴 卮丿蹖丿丕 噩丕蹖 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 禺丕賱蹖 賴爻鬲卮.
賲丕 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖 賴丕 賴賲 亘賴 蹖讴 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 賳蹖丕夭賲賳丿蹖賲(卮丕蹖丿 氐丿賴丕 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲)貙鬲毓丿丕丿 丌蹖卮賲賳 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 氐乇賮丕 丕賳噩丕賲 賵馗蹖賮賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖 賵 鬲丕乇蹖讴蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 讴賱賲賴 賳賲丕丿 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 賴爻鬲賳丿 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴卮賵乇 讴賲鈥屸€� 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿.亘蹖乇丕賴 賳蹖爻鬲 丕诏乇 亘诏賵卅蹖賲 丕蹖賳 丕賮乇丕丿 爻丕賱賴丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賯賱蹖鬲 賲丨爻賵亘 賳賲蹖卮賵賳丿.
蹖讴 乇賵夭蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴卮賵乇 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕蹖 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘賴 賲丕賳賳丿 丌蹖卮賲賳 賲丨丕讴賲賴 禺賵丕賴賳丿 卮丿 賵 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 禺賵賳 賴丕蹖 乇蹖禺鬲賴 卮丿賴貙 亘蹖 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲蹖 賴丕貙 禺蹖丕賳鬲 賴丕貙 丿夭丿蹖 賴丕 賵 鬲賲丕賲蹖 馗賱賲 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲乇丿賲 卮丿賴 賲賵乇丿 亘丕夭禺賵丕爻鬲 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟嗀�.丿乇 丕賵賳 乇賵夭 亘賴 讴爻丕賳蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 丌乇賳鬲 讴賴 亘蹖 胤乇賮丕賳賴 賵 氐乇賮丕 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕賲賵乇 賵丕賯毓 丕賯丿丕賲 亘賴 蹖丕丿丕卮鬲 亘乇丿丕乇蹖 賵 鬲丨賱蹖賱 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賳蹖丕夭 禺賵丕賴蹖賲 丿丕卮鬲貙 鬲丕 鬲丕乇蹖禺 乇丕 亘丕乇 丿蹖诏乇 鬲讴乇丕乇 賳讴賳蹖賲.
賵 賲賳 丌賳 乇賵夭 乇丕 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賲蹖讴卮賲貙 丨鬲蹖 乇賵夭蹖 讴賴 賳亘丕卮賲.
賲丕 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖 賴丕 賴賲 亘賴 蹖讴 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 賳蹖丕夭賲賳丿蹖賲(卮丕蹖丿 氐丿賴丕 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲)貙鬲毓丿丕丿 丌蹖卮賲賳 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 氐乇賮丕 丕賳噩丕賲 賵馗蹖賮賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 丿乇 禺丿賲鬲 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖 賵 鬲丕乇蹖讴蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 讴賱賲賴 賳賲丕丿 丕亘鬲匕丕賱 卮乇 賴爻鬲賳丿 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴卮賵乇 讴賲鈥屸€� 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿.亘蹖乇丕賴 賳蹖爻鬲 丕诏乇 亘诏賵卅蹖賲 丕蹖賳 丕賮乇丕丿 爻丕賱賴丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賯賱蹖鬲 賲丨爻賵亘 賳賲蹖卮賵賳丿.
蹖讴 乇賵夭蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴卮賵乇 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕蹖 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘賴 賲丕賳賳丿 丌蹖卮賲賳 賲丨丕讴賲賴 禺賵丕賴賳丿 卮丿 賵 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 禺賵賳 賴丕蹖 乇蹖禺鬲賴 卮丿賴貙 亘蹖 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲蹖 賴丕貙 禺蹖丕賳鬲 賴丕貙 丿夭丿蹖 賴丕 賵 鬲賲丕賲蹖 馗賱賲 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲乇丿賲 卮丿賴 賲賵乇丿 亘丕夭禺賵丕爻鬲 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟嗀�.丿乇 丕賵賳 乇賵夭 亘賴 讴爻丕賳蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 丌乇賳鬲 讴賴 亘蹖 胤乇賮丕賳賴 賵 氐乇賮丕 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕賲賵乇 賵丕賯毓 丕賯丿丕賲 亘賴 蹖丕丿丕卮鬲 亘乇丿丕乇蹖 賵 鬲丨賱蹖賱 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賳蹖丕夭 禺賵丕賴蹖賲 丿丕卮鬲貙 鬲丕 鬲丕乇蹖禺 乇丕 亘丕乇 丿蹖诏乇 鬲讴乇丕乇 賳讴賳蹖賲.
賵 賲賳 丌賳 乇賵夭 乇丕 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賲蹖讴卮賲貙 丨鬲蹖 乇賵夭蹖 讴賴 賳亘丕卮賲.
May 8, 2024
Hannah Arendt's Study Of The Eichmann Trial
I had long wanted to read Hannah Arendt's (1906 -- 1975) study of the Eichmann trial, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil" and was prompted at last to do so when I found the book on sale at my local library. As I read, the controversial nature of Arendt's book was brought home to me. I decided I needed to read Arendt in tandem with a recent study of the trial, "The Eichmann Trial" (2011) by historian Deborah Lipstadt. Lipstadt devotes a lengthy chapter to analyzing Arendt's book. Lipstadt, perhaps with the passage of time, sees the trial and its significance differently than does Arendt. Her treatment of Arendt is critical but balanced. She offers many of the criticisms of Arendt's book that were made when the book was published but finds a good deal to praise in Arendt's account. Although Arendt's and Lipstadt's book take opposing positions in many respects, this is not at all unusual in serious historical study. There is much to be learned from both books. They are better read, I believe, as complementary, rather than as opposed. For all its flaws and datedness, Arendt's book remains tough minded, provocative, and deeply thoughtful. Even for readers who disagree with Arendt or who become angry with her, the book is worth reading and pondering.
Arendt was a political philosopher who received an extraordinary education in pre WW II Germany. Her teachers included the philosophers Martin Heidegger (with whom she had an affair) and Karl Jaspers. Arendt immigrated to the United States in 1941 and soon became a famous public intellectual.
On May 11,1960, Adolph Eichmann was captured by Israeli operatives in Argentina and brought back to Israel to stand trial for his activities in the Holocaust. The capture and kidnapping of Eichmann resulted in substantial international controversy as did the trial. Eichmann's trial began in April, 1961, with the accused sitting in a bullet-proof glass booth which became famous in itself. The trial was held before three distinguished Israeli Judges, each of whom had received his legal training in Germany. The chief prosecutor was Israeli Attorney General Gideon Hausner. Eichmann was defended by counsel of his choice, Robert Servatius, who had also been a lawyer for Nuremberg defendants. After a lengthy trial, in which Eichmann testified and was cross-examined in great detail, the court found Eichmann guilty and sentenced him to death in December, 1961. The Israeli Supreme Court rejected Eichmann's appeal on May 29, 1962; and Eichmann was hanged two days later on May 31, 1962. Arendt covered the trial for "The New Yorker". Critics point out that she was not present for the entire trial. Her book is based not only on observation of the trial but upon Arendt's reading of the transcripts, affidavits and other materials, including Eichmann's extensive pretrial statements, that Israel's government made available to the media at the time as well as upon additional sources.
With all the criticism the book received at the time, Arendt's account of the trial was careful. The book is difficult to read and, in spite of her protestations to the contrary, is as much a work of political philosophy as it is a journalistic account of a trial. Arendt criticized the kidnapping of Eichmann and the manner in which prosecutor Hausner conducted the trial. She praised the Israeli judges and their approach to the case. It is sometimes overlooked that Arendt found that the Israelis were in the right in kidnapping Eichmann and in trying him before an Israeli court. Arendt found that Eichmann amply deserved the sentence of death, and she approved of the Israelis carrying the sentence out expeditiously in the face of widespread arguments for commutation.
Among other things, Arendt is criticized for applying the term "banal" to Eichmann. He appeared to her and to others as a mediocrity interested in his own career and in carrying out his orders rather than as a rabid Nazi and anti-Semite. She emphasized as do many modern writers the pervasive character of evil in WW II Germany and the lack of resistance. Documents that were not available to Arendt suggest to some historians that she overstated Eichmann's "banality", and that he was a far more committed Nazi and vicious anti-Semite than she realized. Arendt was also criticized for emphasizing the lack of resistance of the Jewish victims and the alleged cooperation of the Jewish leaders with Eichmann in carrying out the transports to the camps. Her manner of presentation was thought to be insensitive and ahistorical. Arendt attempted, with some plausibility, to respond to these criticisms. I don't think Arendt was as insensitive or as mistaken as her strongest critics suggest. There is still, as Lipstadt acknowledges, a great deal of historical discussion about the means in which the Holocaust was carried out. Arendt's tone, however, was that of a detached academic, and it sometimes became provocative and unduly combative.
The main issues raised with Arendt's book seem to me her understanding of the purpose of the trial and her view of the nature of the Holocaust and of Eichmann's crimes. The prosecutor, Hausner, wanted to use the trial to educate the world further about the nature of the Holocaust. He put on the stand 100 witnesses, most of whom were Holocaust survivors. Many of these witnesses offered testimony that had little to do with Eichmann or that was unreliable. The Israeli court frequently grew impatient with Hausner and criticized his conduct of the trial, describing it as "picture painting." For Arendt, the trial was a legal proceeding that should have been focused on a single question, the actions of the accused and his guilt or innocence of the charges. She found overwhelming evidence to convict Eichmann. In this, the Israeli court at the time agreed with her. Many more recent scholars, including Lipstadt praise Hausner's approach to the trial.
Arendt saw Eichmann's guilt as a "crime against humanity" directed against the Jewish people against the background of a long history of anti-Semitism. Her approach tended towards universalism. Lipstadt and Hausner, in contrast, see the Holocaust as the final and direct result of centuries of anti-Semitism and violence. She, of course, does not deny the universal character of the Holocaust. The different approaches are important but matters of emphasis. It is here that I think that Arendt and Lipstadt may both be right.
Arendt's book remains worth reading as a historical document and for the views, sometimes ingraciously expressed, about the nature of law, government, evil, and personal responsibility.
Robin Friedman
I had long wanted to read Hannah Arendt's (1906 -- 1975) study of the Eichmann trial, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil" and was prompted at last to do so when I found the book on sale at my local library. As I read, the controversial nature of Arendt's book was brought home to me. I decided I needed to read Arendt in tandem with a recent study of the trial, "The Eichmann Trial" (2011) by historian Deborah Lipstadt. Lipstadt devotes a lengthy chapter to analyzing Arendt's book. Lipstadt, perhaps with the passage of time, sees the trial and its significance differently than does Arendt. Her treatment of Arendt is critical but balanced. She offers many of the criticisms of Arendt's book that were made when the book was published but finds a good deal to praise in Arendt's account. Although Arendt's and Lipstadt's book take opposing positions in many respects, this is not at all unusual in serious historical study. There is much to be learned from both books. They are better read, I believe, as complementary, rather than as opposed. For all its flaws and datedness, Arendt's book remains tough minded, provocative, and deeply thoughtful. Even for readers who disagree with Arendt or who become angry with her, the book is worth reading and pondering.
Arendt was a political philosopher who received an extraordinary education in pre WW II Germany. Her teachers included the philosophers Martin Heidegger (with whom she had an affair) and Karl Jaspers. Arendt immigrated to the United States in 1941 and soon became a famous public intellectual.
On May 11,1960, Adolph Eichmann was captured by Israeli operatives in Argentina and brought back to Israel to stand trial for his activities in the Holocaust. The capture and kidnapping of Eichmann resulted in substantial international controversy as did the trial. Eichmann's trial began in April, 1961, with the accused sitting in a bullet-proof glass booth which became famous in itself. The trial was held before three distinguished Israeli Judges, each of whom had received his legal training in Germany. The chief prosecutor was Israeli Attorney General Gideon Hausner. Eichmann was defended by counsel of his choice, Robert Servatius, who had also been a lawyer for Nuremberg defendants. After a lengthy trial, in which Eichmann testified and was cross-examined in great detail, the court found Eichmann guilty and sentenced him to death in December, 1961. The Israeli Supreme Court rejected Eichmann's appeal on May 29, 1962; and Eichmann was hanged two days later on May 31, 1962. Arendt covered the trial for "The New Yorker". Critics point out that she was not present for the entire trial. Her book is based not only on observation of the trial but upon Arendt's reading of the transcripts, affidavits and other materials, including Eichmann's extensive pretrial statements, that Israel's government made available to the media at the time as well as upon additional sources.
With all the criticism the book received at the time, Arendt's account of the trial was careful. The book is difficult to read and, in spite of her protestations to the contrary, is as much a work of political philosophy as it is a journalistic account of a trial. Arendt criticized the kidnapping of Eichmann and the manner in which prosecutor Hausner conducted the trial. She praised the Israeli judges and their approach to the case. It is sometimes overlooked that Arendt found that the Israelis were in the right in kidnapping Eichmann and in trying him before an Israeli court. Arendt found that Eichmann amply deserved the sentence of death, and she approved of the Israelis carrying the sentence out expeditiously in the face of widespread arguments for commutation.
Among other things, Arendt is criticized for applying the term "banal" to Eichmann. He appeared to her and to others as a mediocrity interested in his own career and in carrying out his orders rather than as a rabid Nazi and anti-Semite. She emphasized as do many modern writers the pervasive character of evil in WW II Germany and the lack of resistance. Documents that were not available to Arendt suggest to some historians that she overstated Eichmann's "banality", and that he was a far more committed Nazi and vicious anti-Semite than she realized. Arendt was also criticized for emphasizing the lack of resistance of the Jewish victims and the alleged cooperation of the Jewish leaders with Eichmann in carrying out the transports to the camps. Her manner of presentation was thought to be insensitive and ahistorical. Arendt attempted, with some plausibility, to respond to these criticisms. I don't think Arendt was as insensitive or as mistaken as her strongest critics suggest. There is still, as Lipstadt acknowledges, a great deal of historical discussion about the means in which the Holocaust was carried out. Arendt's tone, however, was that of a detached academic, and it sometimes became provocative and unduly combative.
The main issues raised with Arendt's book seem to me her understanding of the purpose of the trial and her view of the nature of the Holocaust and of Eichmann's crimes. The prosecutor, Hausner, wanted to use the trial to educate the world further about the nature of the Holocaust. He put on the stand 100 witnesses, most of whom were Holocaust survivors. Many of these witnesses offered testimony that had little to do with Eichmann or that was unreliable. The Israeli court frequently grew impatient with Hausner and criticized his conduct of the trial, describing it as "picture painting." For Arendt, the trial was a legal proceeding that should have been focused on a single question, the actions of the accused and his guilt or innocence of the charges. She found overwhelming evidence to convict Eichmann. In this, the Israeli court at the time agreed with her. Many more recent scholars, including Lipstadt praise Hausner's approach to the trial.
Arendt saw Eichmann's guilt as a "crime against humanity" directed against the Jewish people against the background of a long history of anti-Semitism. Her approach tended towards universalism. Lipstadt and Hausner, in contrast, see the Holocaust as the final and direct result of centuries of anti-Semitism and violence. She, of course, does not deny the universal character of the Holocaust. The different approaches are important but matters of emphasis. It is here that I think that Arendt and Lipstadt may both be right.
Arendt's book remains worth reading as a historical document and for the views, sometimes ingraciously expressed, about the nature of law, government, evil, and personal responsibility.
Robin Friedman
May 2, 2012
Hannah (sometimes) in Jerusalem: a Report on the Banality of a Book
A new group of deportees has arrived at Auschwitz. There they are, men, women and children, all fearful, all apprehensive. A truck drives by, piled high with corpses. The arms of the dead are hanging loose over the sides, waving as if in grim farewell. The people scream. But no sooner has the vehicle turned a corner than the horror has been edited out of their minds. Even on the brink of death there are some things too fantastic for the human imagination to absorb.
This is a true account, though unfortunately I can鈥檛 remember exactly where I read it. I think it was Anus Mundi, Wiesaw Kielar鈥檚 memoir of the five years he spent in the death camp, but I can鈥檛 be certain. It came to mind on reading Hannah Arendt鈥檚 Eichmann in Jerusalem; A Report on the Banality of Evil. Why, you may wonder? Simply because Hannah Arendt had a prefect, retrospective knowledge; she is wise after the event. She knows what the outcome is going to be for those people on that platform. They did not, even so far as that final stage. But Arendt assumes that they and their leaders did; that they collaborated with the machinery of death. That is the worst failure of the greater failure in her account of the Eichmann trial.
This is not a review; it鈥檚 a literary post-mortem. Arendt鈥檚 book is too well-known, a controversial 鈥榗lassic鈥� over which a prefect avalanche of words has descended. These are my own, an exposure of what I consider to be possibly the worst example of bad-faith, dissimulation and prejudgement ever penned. It鈥檚 a dishonest book that attempts to hide its dishonesty in the way that Eichmann attempted to hide his guilt. It is a book, if I can put it like, this that was 鈥榦nly obeying orders.鈥�
What do I mean exactly? Precisely this: before a word of evidence had been heard in that court in Jerusalem Arendt had set an agenda. She came armed with preconceptions, all drawn from The Origins of Totalitarianism, her magnum opus. In a sense Eichmann鈥檚 guilt or innocence were irrelevant to the main point, which was to repackage him as a perfect example of 鈥榯otalitarian man鈥�, a cog in a machine, programmed simply to obey orders.
One thing worked in her favour: people came to Jerusalem expecting to see a monster. What they saw was a rather tawdry, balding, bespectacled middle-aged German of wholly forgettable appearance. This was the sort of individual one would pass in the street without a second glance. He was disappointingly banal, which gave Arendt her leitmotiv, the theme she played throughout Eichmann in Jerusalem.
What she gave us in the end was an account that did much to obscure the real Eichmann, even so far as setting aside altogether the anti-Semitism which formed such a part of his character and political outlook. Eichmann may have been a colourless mediocrity, but his actions, the evil behind his actions, was most assuredly anything but banal.
There is opportunism here that also has to be understood, the opportunism not just of Arendt, who also had an anti-Zionist agenda, but the opportunism of those who latched their wagons to her star. The person who comes first to mind here is Stanley Milgram, author of a famous experiment on obedience and authority, so flawed in methodology and scientific rigour that it verges on the fraudulent. People like Eichmann, he concluded, were not sadistic monsters. They were simply individuals who had abdicated all moral choice to a greater authority. Had Arendt not proved this to be so?
What we were given was a form of psychological profiling devoid of history, of context, of politics, of ideology and of all cultural preconceptions. But the Arendt-Milgram Axis, if I can express it so, worked. It was a great influence on those who needed excuses, those who sought to dissolve a particular set of historical factors into a more 鈥榰niversal鈥� explanation, one which served to relativise the Holocaust, robbing it of all uniqueness. The Holocaust, as David Cesarani says in Eichmann and his Crimes, was simply depicted as a function of modernity.
Arendt did not spend long in Jerusalem; she did not need to; she had already made up her mind, exposed initially in reports which were not reports in the New Yorker. She vacuum-packed the Holocaust for a modern audience, for people who were trying to make sense of the complexity of it all; people who were trying to make sense of the colourless executioner in Jerusalem. She gave people an Eichmann who was 鈥榣ike us鈥�, who demonstrated a latent potential present in everyman.
The best critique of the disingenuousness of Eichmann in Jerusalem comes, in my view, from Yaacov Lozowick, a one-time admirer of the book;
There was very little that was banal about Eichmann or any of his accomplices, and the little that could be found was not relevant to what they had done. Arendt鈥檚 point of departure was wrong. Although she was primarily a philosopher, she had written an historical analysis 鈥� and without checking the facts. Moreover, she had refrained from taking into account much potentially relevant information. Above all, her position was the result of ideological considerations, not careful scholarship.
There was also a paradox, that of a Jew who herself had anti-Semitic, not just anti-Zionist tendencies. In a letter to Karl Jaspers dated April, 1961 she describes Gideon Hauser, the chief prosecutor at the Eichmann trial, as a 鈥渢ypical Galician Jew, very unsympathetic, is always making mistakes.鈥� Of Israel and Israelis in general she wrote that 鈥淭he country鈥檚 interest in the trial has been artificially whetted. An oriental mob that would hang around any place where something is going on is hanging around the front of the courthouse." She goes on like this, fulminations against 鈥榦riental Jews鈥� that would not have been out of place in the Third Reich.
Arendt created the myth of the twentieth century 鈥� the myth of the desk-bound killer and his supine, cattle-like victims. Her Jews, as I said, collaborated in their own destruction. The various Jewish Councils established by the Nazis in the ghettos of occupied Europe were little more than the adjutants of death. Jewish complicity here was necessary to prove the 鈥榤oral collapse鈥� that was one of the essential features of her particular totalitarian model. All evidence to the contrary, all evidence of Jewish resistance is ignored. But by far the most important omission is the forms of deception the Nazis practiced, to be carried right to the threshold of destruction, something Vasily Grossman alighted on in his essay The Hell of Treblinka.
Eichmann in Jerusalem is a book that comes close to justifying the monster who was a man, close to excusing him of all practical and moral responsibility. Arendt鈥檚 understanding of Eichmann and his times is impoverished in the extreme. She obscured the real Eichmann in the way that he himself deliberately tried to obscure the facts. If there was a Jewish collaborator with Nazism after the fact she is no better example. Elegantly written Eichmann in Jerusalem may have been, but this should not be allowed to obscure its worthlessness as an account of the man, the motives and the crimes. Only one judgement remains: as a book Eichmann in Jerusalem is banal.
A new group of deportees has arrived at Auschwitz. There they are, men, women and children, all fearful, all apprehensive. A truck drives by, piled high with corpses. The arms of the dead are hanging loose over the sides, waving as if in grim farewell. The people scream. But no sooner has the vehicle turned a corner than the horror has been edited out of their minds. Even on the brink of death there are some things too fantastic for the human imagination to absorb.
This is a true account, though unfortunately I can鈥檛 remember exactly where I read it. I think it was Anus Mundi, Wiesaw Kielar鈥檚 memoir of the five years he spent in the death camp, but I can鈥檛 be certain. It came to mind on reading Hannah Arendt鈥檚 Eichmann in Jerusalem; A Report on the Banality of Evil. Why, you may wonder? Simply because Hannah Arendt had a prefect, retrospective knowledge; she is wise after the event. She knows what the outcome is going to be for those people on that platform. They did not, even so far as that final stage. But Arendt assumes that they and their leaders did; that they collaborated with the machinery of death. That is the worst failure of the greater failure in her account of the Eichmann trial.
This is not a review; it鈥檚 a literary post-mortem. Arendt鈥檚 book is too well-known, a controversial 鈥榗lassic鈥� over which a prefect avalanche of words has descended. These are my own, an exposure of what I consider to be possibly the worst example of bad-faith, dissimulation and prejudgement ever penned. It鈥檚 a dishonest book that attempts to hide its dishonesty in the way that Eichmann attempted to hide his guilt. It is a book, if I can put it like, this that was 鈥榦nly obeying orders.鈥�
What do I mean exactly? Precisely this: before a word of evidence had been heard in that court in Jerusalem Arendt had set an agenda. She came armed with preconceptions, all drawn from The Origins of Totalitarianism, her magnum opus. In a sense Eichmann鈥檚 guilt or innocence were irrelevant to the main point, which was to repackage him as a perfect example of 鈥榯otalitarian man鈥�, a cog in a machine, programmed simply to obey orders.
One thing worked in her favour: people came to Jerusalem expecting to see a monster. What they saw was a rather tawdry, balding, bespectacled middle-aged German of wholly forgettable appearance. This was the sort of individual one would pass in the street without a second glance. He was disappointingly banal, which gave Arendt her leitmotiv, the theme she played throughout Eichmann in Jerusalem.
What she gave us in the end was an account that did much to obscure the real Eichmann, even so far as setting aside altogether the anti-Semitism which formed such a part of his character and political outlook. Eichmann may have been a colourless mediocrity, but his actions, the evil behind his actions, was most assuredly anything but banal.
There is opportunism here that also has to be understood, the opportunism not just of Arendt, who also had an anti-Zionist agenda, but the opportunism of those who latched their wagons to her star. The person who comes first to mind here is Stanley Milgram, author of a famous experiment on obedience and authority, so flawed in methodology and scientific rigour that it verges on the fraudulent. People like Eichmann, he concluded, were not sadistic monsters. They were simply individuals who had abdicated all moral choice to a greater authority. Had Arendt not proved this to be so?
What we were given was a form of psychological profiling devoid of history, of context, of politics, of ideology and of all cultural preconceptions. But the Arendt-Milgram Axis, if I can express it so, worked. It was a great influence on those who needed excuses, those who sought to dissolve a particular set of historical factors into a more 鈥榰niversal鈥� explanation, one which served to relativise the Holocaust, robbing it of all uniqueness. The Holocaust, as David Cesarani says in Eichmann and his Crimes, was simply depicted as a function of modernity.
Arendt did not spend long in Jerusalem; she did not need to; she had already made up her mind, exposed initially in reports which were not reports in the New Yorker. She vacuum-packed the Holocaust for a modern audience, for people who were trying to make sense of the complexity of it all; people who were trying to make sense of the colourless executioner in Jerusalem. She gave people an Eichmann who was 鈥榣ike us鈥�, who demonstrated a latent potential present in everyman.
The best critique of the disingenuousness of Eichmann in Jerusalem comes, in my view, from Yaacov Lozowick, a one-time admirer of the book;
There was very little that was banal about Eichmann or any of his accomplices, and the little that could be found was not relevant to what they had done. Arendt鈥檚 point of departure was wrong. Although she was primarily a philosopher, she had written an historical analysis 鈥� and without checking the facts. Moreover, she had refrained from taking into account much potentially relevant information. Above all, her position was the result of ideological considerations, not careful scholarship.
There was also a paradox, that of a Jew who herself had anti-Semitic, not just anti-Zionist tendencies. In a letter to Karl Jaspers dated April, 1961 she describes Gideon Hauser, the chief prosecutor at the Eichmann trial, as a 鈥渢ypical Galician Jew, very unsympathetic, is always making mistakes.鈥� Of Israel and Israelis in general she wrote that 鈥淭he country鈥檚 interest in the trial has been artificially whetted. An oriental mob that would hang around any place where something is going on is hanging around the front of the courthouse." She goes on like this, fulminations against 鈥榦riental Jews鈥� that would not have been out of place in the Third Reich.
Arendt created the myth of the twentieth century 鈥� the myth of the desk-bound killer and his supine, cattle-like victims. Her Jews, as I said, collaborated in their own destruction. The various Jewish Councils established by the Nazis in the ghettos of occupied Europe were little more than the adjutants of death. Jewish complicity here was necessary to prove the 鈥榤oral collapse鈥� that was one of the essential features of her particular totalitarian model. All evidence to the contrary, all evidence of Jewish resistance is ignored. But by far the most important omission is the forms of deception the Nazis practiced, to be carried right to the threshold of destruction, something Vasily Grossman alighted on in his essay The Hell of Treblinka.
Eichmann in Jerusalem is a book that comes close to justifying the monster who was a man, close to excusing him of all practical and moral responsibility. Arendt鈥檚 understanding of Eichmann and his times is impoverished in the extreme. She obscured the real Eichmann in the way that he himself deliberately tried to obscure the facts. If there was a Jewish collaborator with Nazism after the fact she is no better example. Elegantly written Eichmann in Jerusalem may have been, but this should not be allowed to obscure its worthlessness as an account of the man, the motives and the crimes. Only one judgement remains: as a book Eichmann in Jerusalem is banal.
May 8, 2019
This book is a highly educational and very neutral report about the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem with comprehensive information about the administrative processes that enabled the holocaust.
Full reading recommendation.
---------------------------------
Dieses Buch ist eine Gerichtsreportage 眉ber den Eichmann-Prozess in Jerusalem. Hanna Arendt beschreibt sehr genau den Fortgang des Prozesses, die handelnden Personen (Richter, Staatsanw盲lte, Verteidiger, den Angeklagten und auch einige der aufgerufenen Zeugen) sowie sehr detailreich die politischen und historischen Hintergr眉nde.
Arendt schreibt nicht in einer gef眉hlvollen, im Sinne einer auf emotionale R眉hrung ausgerichteten Sprache, sondern auf den ersten Blick sehr n眉chtern und sachlich, manche m枚gen vielleicht sogar sagen kalt und unger眉hrt. Aber schlie脽lich handelt es sich um eine Reportage und ich f眉r meinen Teil h盲tte es nicht ertragen, dieses Buch zu lesen, w盲re der Schreibstil emotionaler gewesen.
Besonders gut hat mir auch Arendts (aus meiner Sicht ideologisch) unverstellter Blick auf die Dinge gefallen und auch ihr Mut, ihre Kritikpunkte durchaus in alle Richtungen anzubringen. Sie sagt beispielsweise, dass der Prozess in Jerusalem letztlich ein Schauprozess war und sie weigert sich, Eichmann als das personifizierte B枚se darzustellen, was ihn an vielen Stellen 眉bel genommen wurde.
Ich habe aus diesem Buch enorm viel mitgenommen, sowohl unglaublich viele Informationen als auch in der Gesamtheit ein viel umfassenderes Verst盲ndnis dar眉ber, was im Holocaust geschehen ist.
Ich habe w盲hrend des Lesens sehr viel dar眉ber nachgedacht, wie es zu einem faschistischen Schreckensregime kommen konnte, das dann darin gipfelte, dass Millionen von Menschen mit 枚ffentlicher Billigung oder Duldung umgebracht wurden. Mit ihrer Analyse von Eichmanns Pers枚nlichkeit hat Hannah Arendt mir gezeigt, wie leicht das geht.
Full reading recommendation.
---------------------------------
Dieses Buch ist eine Gerichtsreportage 眉ber den Eichmann-Prozess in Jerusalem. Hanna Arendt beschreibt sehr genau den Fortgang des Prozesses, die handelnden Personen (Richter, Staatsanw盲lte, Verteidiger, den Angeklagten und auch einige der aufgerufenen Zeugen) sowie sehr detailreich die politischen und historischen Hintergr眉nde.
Arendt schreibt nicht in einer gef眉hlvollen, im Sinne einer auf emotionale R眉hrung ausgerichteten Sprache, sondern auf den ersten Blick sehr n眉chtern und sachlich, manche m枚gen vielleicht sogar sagen kalt und unger眉hrt. Aber schlie脽lich handelt es sich um eine Reportage und ich f眉r meinen Teil h盲tte es nicht ertragen, dieses Buch zu lesen, w盲re der Schreibstil emotionaler gewesen.
Besonders gut hat mir auch Arendts (aus meiner Sicht ideologisch) unverstellter Blick auf die Dinge gefallen und auch ihr Mut, ihre Kritikpunkte durchaus in alle Richtungen anzubringen. Sie sagt beispielsweise, dass der Prozess in Jerusalem letztlich ein Schauprozess war und sie weigert sich, Eichmann als das personifizierte B枚se darzustellen, was ihn an vielen Stellen 眉bel genommen wurde.
Ich habe aus diesem Buch enorm viel mitgenommen, sowohl unglaublich viele Informationen als auch in der Gesamtheit ein viel umfassenderes Verst盲ndnis dar眉ber, was im Holocaust geschehen ist.
Ich habe w盲hrend des Lesens sehr viel dar眉ber nachgedacht, wie es zu einem faschistischen Schreckensregime kommen konnte, das dann darin gipfelte, dass Millionen von Menschen mit 枚ffentlicher Billigung oder Duldung umgebracht wurden. Mit ihrer Analyse von Eichmanns Pers枚nlichkeit hat Hannah Arendt mir gezeigt, wie leicht das geht.
May 23, 2023
Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem reads like a murder mystery wherein there is no doubt about the culprit responsible for the homicides, in the case of Adolf Eichmann, the systematic extermination of Europe's Jews.
The point of this amazing Holocaust case study is that Eichmann does not seem to fit the image of a mass-murderer, never himself having murdered anyone, even suggesting that he was incapable of killing anyone. He is portrayed to the reader as a menial functionary, quite miscast in his role within the Third Reich, performing primarily as a "conveyor belt" to the gas chambers, while even seeming not to be particularly anti-Semitic.
But if not a mindless beast, "a dirty bastard in the depths of his heart", who exactly was Adolf Eichmann? How can the reader of this book or the judges in Jerusalem assess abnormal behavior in someone declared to be "normal"?
Throughout her life, Hannah Arendt seems a quintessential free spirit, including her presence at the trial proceedings in Jerusalem & with it, the quest to comprehend both the trial formalities and the persona of Adolf Eichmann, the fabled "man in the glass booth". Her witness to the trial testimony represents a masterful attempt at clarity but more than that, an unflinchingly objective rendering of her observations.
Otto Adolf Eichmann was a misfit in a middle class German family, a failure at almost everything he did in life, except following orders as a Nazi and completely submerging his own identity within that of his F眉hrer, with his loyalty not to Germany but irrevocably to Adolf Hitler. Thus, Eichmann had at all times done his best to make the "Final Solution", final.
As Eichmann himself put it: "Hitler may have been wrong but he was able to work himself up from a lance corporal to F眉hrer of 80 million people and this proved to me that I should subordinate myself to this man."
In fact, when Germany was on the verge of utter defeat in WWII, with Himmler declaring that the concentration camps should be dismantled & Hitler bypassed in the command structure, Eichmann considered Himmler a traitor. Only after Hitler's suicide did Eichmann seem to regain a sliver of his own identity.
Eichmann in Jerusalem also examines the role of Jews in their own destruction, another topic that made Hannah Arendt anathema to so many Jews & others after the book's publication.
Arendt praised the 3 judges presiding at the trial, while being very critical of the legal efforts of both the prosecution & the defense. But almost more than that, she is disconcerted by the questions that were never asked during the long trial and the attempt by Prime Minister Ben Gurion to use the trial for diplomatic gain.
Equally baffling is Eichmann's seeming complicity in his own capture while in Argentina. He knew that he was being stalked & even knew that those who were tracking him were Jews. And yet, Eichmann declared that he chose not to interfere with his own capture & sub-legal deportation to Israel. (He had never obtained an Argentinian passport.)
*Within my review are images of Hannah Arendt, including a German postage stamp and also 2 images of Adolf Eichmann, the 2nd showing his false Italian passport, under the name of Ricardo Klement, used when he fled to Argentina.
The point of this amazing Holocaust case study is that Eichmann does not seem to fit the image of a mass-murderer, never himself having murdered anyone, even suggesting that he was incapable of killing anyone. He is portrayed to the reader as a menial functionary, quite miscast in his role within the Third Reich, performing primarily as a "conveyor belt" to the gas chambers, while even seeming not to be particularly anti-Semitic.
But if not a mindless beast, "a dirty bastard in the depths of his heart", who exactly was Adolf Eichmann? How can the reader of this book or the judges in Jerusalem assess abnormal behavior in someone declared to be "normal"?
As for base motives, he had only done what he was ordered to do--to ship millions of men, women & children to their death with great zeal & the most meticulous care. Half a dozen psychiatrists had certified him as "normal"--"More normal at any rate than I am after having examined him", one was said to have exclaimed.And, in rereading Hannah Arendt's book, one comes to understand the reason for her subtitle, "the banality of evil", a phrasing that caused so much grief for this gifted writer, with a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Heidelberg, with her dissertation on the subject of love in Saint Augustine.
Another found that Eichmann's psychological outlook, his attitude toward his wife & children, mother & father, brothers, sisters & friends was "not only normal but most desirable." And finally, the minister who had paid regular visits to him in prison declared Eichmann to be "a man of positive ideas."
Throughout her life, Hannah Arendt seems a quintessential free spirit, including her presence at the trial proceedings in Jerusalem & with it, the quest to comprehend both the trial formalities and the persona of Adolf Eichmann, the fabled "man in the glass booth". Her witness to the trial testimony represents a masterful attempt at clarity but more than that, an unflinchingly objective rendering of her observations.
Otto Adolf Eichmann was a misfit in a middle class German family, a failure at almost everything he did in life, except following orders as a Nazi and completely submerging his own identity within that of his F眉hrer, with his loyalty not to Germany but irrevocably to Adolf Hitler. Thus, Eichmann had at all times done his best to make the "Final Solution", final.
As Eichmann himself put it: "Hitler may have been wrong but he was able to work himself up from a lance corporal to F眉hrer of 80 million people and this proved to me that I should subordinate myself to this man."
In fact, when Germany was on the verge of utter defeat in WWII, with Himmler declaring that the concentration camps should be dismantled & Hitler bypassed in the command structure, Eichmann considered Himmler a traitor. Only after Hitler's suicide did Eichmann seem to regain a sliver of his own identity.
Eichmann in Jerusalem also examines the role of Jews in their own destruction, another topic that made Hannah Arendt anathema to so many Jews & others after the book's publication.Without Jewish help in administrative & police work--the rounding up of Jews, done entirely by Jewish police--there would have been either complete chaos or an impossibly severe drain on German manpower.In Arendt's view, the prosecution, the judges & those in the courtroom were constantly trying to understand a mass murderer and to prove individual murder on someone who had not personally killed anyone.
The Nazis gave enormous power to members of the Jewish Councils, the locally recognized Jewish leaders--until, they, too were deported to Theresienstadt or Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz. To a Jew, this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of our own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story.
Arendt praised the 3 judges presiding at the trial, while being very critical of the legal efforts of both the prosecution & the defense. But almost more than that, she is disconcerted by the questions that were never asked during the long trial and the attempt by Prime Minister Ben Gurion to use the trial for diplomatic gain.
Equally baffling is Eichmann's seeming complicity in his own capture while in Argentina. He knew that he was being stalked & even knew that those who were tracking him were Jews. And yet, Eichmann declared that he chose not to interfere with his own capture & sub-legal deportation to Israel. (He had never obtained an Argentinian passport.)It became an essential point of my inner life, around which many thoughts crystallized. This is why I did not escape. After conversations about the guilt among young people in Germany, which made a deep impression on me, I felt I no longer had the right to disappear.Eichmann in Jerusalem is a profoundly moving book, even more so with a 2nd reading. Following the execution of Adolf Eichmann just before midnight on July 31st, 1961, Hannah Arendt offers the reader a ray of hope by detailing the risks some good people took in sheltering Jews during WWII. "For the lesson of such stories is simple & within everyone's grasp. Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can be reasonably asked for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation".
This is why I offered, in a written statement, at the beginning of this examination...to hang myself in public. I wanted to do my part in lifting the guilt from the German youth, for those young people are innocent of all events & of the acts of their fathers during the last war, which incidentally was forced on the German people.
*Within my review are images of Hannah Arendt, including a German postage stamp and also 2 images of Adolf Eichmann, the 2nd showing his false Italian passport, under the name of Ricardo Klement, used when he fled to Argentina.
June 20, 2021
丕蹖賳賲 噩夭 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 賴囟賲卮 讴賳賲 鬲丕 丿乇賲賵乇丿卮 亘賳賵蹖爻賲
丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 丨丿 讴賴 毓丕賱蹖 亘賵丿 讴丕賮蹖賴
丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 丨丿 讴賴 毓丕賱蹖 亘賵丿 讴丕賮蹖賴
May 1, 2025
鈥澬� 懈蟹泻谢褞褔械薪懈械 薪邪 薪械芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪芯褌芯 褋懈 褍褋褗褉写懈械 写邪 谐芯薪懈 褋芯斜褋褌胁械薪芯褌芯 褋懈 锌芯胁懈褕械薪懈械, 褌芯泄 薪褟屑邪褕械 薪懈泻邪泻胁懈 写褉褍谐懈 屑芯褌懈胁懈. [鈥 袣邪蟹邪薪芯 褋 锌褉芯褋褌懈 写褍屑懈, 褌芯泄 薪懈泻芯谐邪 薪械 械 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪谢 泻邪泻胁芯 胁褗褉褕懈.鈥�
孝芯泄 械 袗写芯谢褎 袗泄褏屑邪薪, 锌芯谢泻芯胁薪懈泻 芯褌 小小, 谢芯谐懈褋褌懈泻褗褌 薪邪 啸芯谢芯泻芯褋褌邪. 袙 褌械褔械薪懈械 薪邪 褔械褌懈褉懈 谐芯写懈薪懈 (1941 - 1945 谐.) 褌芯泄 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪 懈 泻芯芯褉写懈薪懈褉邪 胁谢邪泻芯胁懈褌械 泻芯屑锌芯蟹懈褑懈懈 泻褗屑 袗褍褕胁懈褑 懈 芯褋褌邪薪邪谢懈褌械 谢邪谐械褉懈 薪邪 褋屑褗褉褌褌邪. 小褗胁械褋褌械薪, 褍褋褗褉写械薪 懈 薪械锌芯写泻褍锌械薪. 小褗卸邪谢褟胁邪 械写懈薪褋褌胁械薪芯, 褔械 褍褋褗褉写懈械褌芯 薪械 屑褍 械 写芯薪械褋谢芯 写芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 胁懈褋芯泻芯 锌芯胁懈褕械薪懈械. 袧懈泻芯谐邪 胁 卸懈胁芯褌邪 褋懈 薪械 械 褍斜懈胁邪谢 褔芯胁械泻, 卸邪谢芯褋褌懈胁 械 懈 屑褍 锌褉懈谢芯褕邪胁邪 锌褉懈 胁懈写邪 薪邪 泻褉褗胁. 袩芯褉褟写褗褔械薪 谐褉邪卸写邪薪懈薪, 胁懈薪邪谐懈 械 褋锌邪蟹胁邪谢 蟹邪泻芯薪懈褌械 薪邪 褋褌褉邪薪邪褌邪 懈 褉械卸懈屑邪 褋懈, 薪懈褌芯 械写薪芯 薪械谐芯胁芯 写械泄褋褌胁懈械 薪械 械 斜懈谢芯 薪械蟹邪泻芯薪芯褋褗芯斜褉邪蟹薪芯 懈谢懈 薪械锌芯写锌谢邪褌械薪芯 褋褗褋 褋褗芯褌胁械褌薪懈褌械 蟹邪锌芯胁械写懈.
袣芯谐邪褌芯 懈蟹褉邪械谢褋泻懈褌械 褌邪泄薪懈 褋谢褍卸斜懈 芯褌胁谢懈褔邪褌 袗泄褏屑邪薪 芯褌 袗褉卸械薪褌懈薪邪 锌褉械蟹 1960 谐., 蟹邪 写邪 谐芯 懈蟹锌褉邪胁褟褌 锌褉械写 褋褗写 胁 袡械褉褍褋邪谢懈屑, 褌芯胁邪 锌褉械写懈蟹胁懈泻胁邪 薪械屑邪谢泻芯 锌褉芯斜谢械屑懈 胁 屑械卸写褍薪邪褉芯写械薪 锌谢邪薪.
袦邪褖邪斜薪懈褟褌 锌褉芯褑械褋 (薪邪斜谢褞写邪胁邪薪 谢懈褔薪芯 芯褌 懈蟹褉邪械谢褋泻懈褟 锌褉械屑懈械褉 懈 褋褗芯褋薪懈胁邪褌械谢 薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪褌邪 袠蟹褉邪械谢 袘械薪 袚褍褉懈芯薪) 械 褋胁械褌芯胁薪芯 褋褗斜懈褌懈械, 薪邪 泻芯械褌芯 褋邪 锌芯泻邪薪械薪懈 卸褍褉薪邪谢懈褋褌懈 芯褌 褑褟谢 褋胁褟褌. 小褉械写 褌褟褏 械 懈 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写, 薪械屑褋泻邪 械胁褉械泄泻邪, 锌芯褋胁械褌懈谢邪 褋e 薪邪 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎懈褟褌邪 锌芯褔褌懈 泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 褋胁芯懈褌械 褍褔懈褌械谢懈 懈 锌褉懈褟褌械谢懈 袣邪褉谢 携褋锌械褉褋 懈 袦邪褉褌懈薪 啸邪泄写械谐械褉. 小 芯锌褉械写械谢械薪 懈薪褌械褉械褋 懈 褌褉褍写芯胁械 锌芯 褌械屑邪褌邪 蟹邪 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉懈蟹屑邪 懈 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉薪邪褌邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪. 袩褉械写邪胁邪, 褌邪泻邪 写邪 褋械 泻邪卸械, 薪邪 卸懈胁芯 芯褌 褋褗写械斜薪邪褌邪 蟹邪谢邪. 袠 褋械 芯锌懈褌胁邪 写邪 芯褋屑懈褋谢懈 胁褋懈褔泻懈 锌褉芯斜谢械屑懈, 泻芯懈褌芯 褌芯蟹懈 锌芯泻邪蟹械薪 锌褉芯褑械褋 胁褗锌谢褗褖邪胁邪. 袗 褌械 褋邪 薪械胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯 屑薪芯谐芯.
袩褗褉胁芯, 锌褉械褋褌褗锌薪懈泻褗褌 械 薪械芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪. 袘邪薪邪谢械薪. 袘褍褉屑懈褔泻邪 胁 褋褌褉芯谐邪褌邪 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪薪邪 懈 褉邪蟹写褍褌邪 斜褞褉芯泻褉邪褑懈褟 锌芯 褍斜懈泄褋褌胁邪褌邪. 袟邪泻芯薪褗褌 懈薪邪写屑懈薪懈褋褌褉邪褌懈胁薪懈褟褌 褉械写 蟹邪屑械褋褌胁邪褌 褋褗胁械褋褌褌邪 屑褍. 小褗胁械褋褌褌邪 屑褍 胁懈薪邪谐懈 蟹邪胁懈褋懈 芯褌 芯泻芯谢薪懈褌械. 孝芯泄 薪械 械 懈蟹泻谢褞褔械薪懈械 - 锌芯褔褌懈 胁褋懈褔泻懈 薪械谐芯胁懈 褋褗薪邪褉芯写薪懈褑懈 褉械邪谐懈褉邪褌 锌芯 褋褗褖懈褟 薪邪褔懈薪. 孝芯泄 械 褋褗胁褋械屑 薪芯褉屑邪谢械薪, 泻邪泻褌芯 写芯泻邪蟹胁邪褌 懈 锌褋懈褏懈邪褌褉懈褔薪懈褌械 械泻褋锌械褉褌懈蟹懈.
袙褌芯褉芯, 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械褌芯 械 薪械芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪芯 锌芯 褋胁芯懈褌械 屑邪褖邪斜懈. 袩芯写锌芯屑邪谐邪薪芯 芯褌 懈薪写褍褋褌褉懈邪谢懈蟹邪褑懈褟褌邪 懈 褌械褏薪芯谢芯谐懈褔薪懈褟 薪邪锌褉械写褗泻, 褌芯 胁芯写懈 写芯 斜械蟹锌褉械褑械写械薪褌械薪 斜褉芯泄 懈蟹斜懈褌懈 - 锌褉械写懈屑薪芯 械胁褉械懈. 袧芯 锌芯-褋褗褖械褋褌胁械薪芯褌芯 械, 褔械 薪械 械 锌褉械写懈蟹胁懈泻邪薪芯 芯褌 胁芯械薪薪懈褌械 写械泄褋褌胁懈褟. 孝褗泻屑芯 芯斜褉邪褌薪芯褌芯 - 褑褟谢邪褌邪 谢芯谐懈褋褌懈泻邪 褋 芯褌薪械屑邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 谐褉邪卸写邪薪褋褌胁芯 薪邪 械胁褉械懈褌械, 泻芯薪褑械薪褌褉懈褉邪薪械褌芯 懈屑 胁 谐械褌邪, 写械锌芯褉褌懈褉邪薪械褌芯 懈 懈蟹斜懈胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 屑懈褉薪懈 褏芯褉邪 胁褋褗褖薪芯褋褌 械 锌褉械褔泻邪 蟹邪 谐械褉屑邪薪褑懈褌械 胁 褏芯写邪 薪邪 胁芯泄薪邪褌邪. 袧懈泻芯械 蟹邪泻芯薪芯写邪褌械谢褋褌胁芯, 胁泻谢褞褔懈褌械谢薪芯 屑械卸写褍薪邪褉芯写薪芯褌芯, 胁褋械 芯褖械 薪械 械 写芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 锌褉械褑懈蟹懈褉邪薪芯 褋锌褉褟屑芯 褌芯胁邪 薪芯胁芯 褟胁谢械薪懈械.
孝褉械褌芯, 锌褉芯褑械褋褗褌 褋械 胁芯写懈 薪械 锌褉芯褋褌芯 芯褌 锌芯斜械写懈褌械谢懈褌械 (泻芯械褌芯 械 锌褉芯斜谢械屑 懈 蟹邪 袧褞褉薪斜械褉谐褋泻懈褟 锌褉芯褑械褋), 邪 芯褌 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪, 蟹邪 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈褟 褋褉械褖褍 薪邪褉芯写, 泻芯泄褌芯 锌芯 胁褉械屑械褌芯 薪邪 褏芯谢芯泻芯褋褌邪 薪械 械 懈屑邪谢 褋芯斜褋褌胁械薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪. 袠 锌芯褋褌械锌械薪薪芯 芯斜褏胁邪褌褗褌 屑褍 褋械 锌褉械屑械褋褌胁邪 芯褌 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋褉械褖褍 褔芯胁械褔械褋褌胁芯褌芯 泻褗屑 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋褉械褖褍 械胁褉械泄褋泻懈褟 薪邪褉芯写. 孝械蟹邪, 泻芯褟褌芯 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 褟褉芯褋褌薪芯 邪褌邪泻褍胁邪, 锌芯泻邪蟹胁邪泄泻懈, 褔械 褋 褌芯胁邪 褋褌械褋薪械薪芯 褌褗谢泻褍胁邪薪械 斜械蟹 锌褉懈褋褗写邪 芯褋褌邪胁邪褌 写械褟薪懈褟褌邪, 薪械薪邪褋芯褔械薪懈 褋褉械褖褍 械胁褉械懈, 薪芯 褉械邪谢薪芯 懈蟹胁褗褉褕械薪懈 芯褌 芯斜胁懈薪褟械屑懈褟.
效械褌胁褗褉褌芯, 锌芯写褏芯写褗褌 薪邪 芯斜胁懈薪械薪懈械褌芯 懈 锌褉芯泻褍褉芯褉邪 械 褔械褋褌芯 褌胁褗褉写械 谐械薪械褉邪谢械薪 胁屑械褋褌芯 薪邪褋芯褔械薪 泻褗屑 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪芯 懈蟹胁褗褉褕械薪懈褌械 芯褌 袗泄褏屑邪薪 写械泄褋褌胁懈褟. 小锌褉邪胁械写谢懈胁芯褋褌褌邪, 薪邪褋褌芯褟胁邪 袗褉械薪写, 械 胁懈薪邪谐懈 屑薪芯谐芯 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪邪. 袙 褑褟谢芯褌芯 褌芯胁邪 鈥溞貉娧€胁邪胁芯 褕芯褍鈥� 褌褟 芯褑械薪褟胁邪 胁懈褋芯泻芯 锌褉芯褎械褋懈芯薪邪谢懈蟹屑邪 懈 斜械蟹屑懈谢芯褋褌薪邪褌邪 斜械蟹锌褉懈褋褌褉邪褋褌薪芯褋褌 薪邪 褌褉懈屑邪褌邪 褋褗写懈懈.
啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 褋械 锌褉懈写褗褉卸邪 褋褌褉芯谐芯 泻褗屑 褌械屑懈褌械 锌芯 锌褉芯褑械褋邪. 袠 械 谢芯谐懈褔薪芯-斜械蟹锌褉懈褋褌褉邪褋褌薪邪. 袣芯械褌芯 褲 褋褌芯胁邪褉胁邪 屑薪芯谐芯 泻褉懈褌懈泻懈, 薪邪泄-胁械褔械 泻褗屑 薪械泄薪芯褌芯 锌芯褋芯褔胁邪薪械 薪邪 胁懈薪邪褌邪 薪邪 褋邪屑懈褌械 械胁褉械懈. 袩邪褉邪写芯泻褋邪谢薪芯, 薪芯 谐芯谢褟屑邪 褔邪褋褌 芯褌 械胁褉械懈褌械 锌芯写锌芯屑邪谐邪褌 邪泻褌懈胁薪芯 谐械薪芯褑懈写邪 褋褉械褖褍 褋械斜械 褋懈. 袝胁褉械泄褋泻懈褌械 褋褗胁械褌懈 褋褗写械泄褋褌胁邪褌 薪邪 薪邪褑懈褋褌懈褌械 褋褗褋 褋锌懈褋褗褑懈 薪邪 械写薪芯胁械褉褑懈褌械 褋懈 懈 褋 锌芯械屑邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹邪褑懈褟褌邪 蟹邪 胁褗写胁芯褉褟胁邪薪械褌芯 懈屑 胁 谐械褌邪 懈 锌芯褋谢械写胁邪褖芯褌芯 写械锌芯褉褌懈褉邪薪械 泻褗屑 孝褉械斜谢懈薪泻邪 懈 袗褍褕胁懈褑.
小褗褖芯 褌邪泻邪 褌褟 写芯泻邪蟹胁邪, 褔械 褌芯胁邪 褋褗写械泄褋褌胁懈械 薪械 械 斜懈谢芯 褔邪泻 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 薪械懈蟹斜械卸薪芯, 胁褗锌褉械泻懈 褉懈褋泻芯胁械褌械, 懈 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褟 袛邪薪懈褟 懈 袘褗谢谐邪褉懈褟 泻邪褌芯 写胁械褌械 写褗褉卸邪胁懈, 泻褗写械褌芯 鈥溞拘盒拘窖囆把傂敌恍叫狙傂� 褉械褕械薪懈械鈥� 薪邪 啸懈褌谢械褉 泻邪褌邪褋褌褉芯褎懈褉邪. (袦邪泻邪褉 芯褌 芯泻褍锌懈褉邪薪懈褌械 芯褌 斜褗谢谐邪褉褋泻邪褌邪 胁芯泄褋泻邪 褉邪泄芯薪懈 懈蟹胁褗薪 褋褌邪褉邪 袘褗谢谐邪褉懈褟 11,000 械胁褉械懈 写邪 褋邪 懈蟹谢芯胁械薪懈 懈 写械锌芯褉褌懈褉邪薪懈 褋 锌芯屑芯褖褌邪 薪邪 斜褗谢谐邪褉褋泻邪褌邪 邪褉屑懈褟, 邪 写邪褌褋泻懈 械胁褉械懈 写邪 褋械 芯蟹芯胁邪胁邪褌 胁 锌芯-鈥溞恍敌盒秆忊€� 泻芯薪褑械薪褌褉邪褑懈芯薪械薪 谢邪谐械褉 孝械褉械蟹懈械薪褖邪褌). 小邪屑懈褌械 谐械褉屑邪薪褑懈 褋械 芯泻邪蟹胁邪褌 薪械褋锌芯褋芯斜薪懈 写邪 写芯胁械写邪褌 锌芯谢懈褌懈泻邪褌邪 褋懈 褌邪屑 写芯泻褉邪泄.
啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 写褗谢斜邪械 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 薪邪胁褗褌褉械, 褔械 泻芯褋懈褌械 薪邪 褔懈褌邪褌械谢褟 褋械 懈蟹锌褉邪胁褟褌. 袟邪褖芯褌芯 斜邪薪邪谢薪芯褋褌褌邪 薪邪 蟹谢芯褌芯 屑芯卸械 写邪 褋械 锌芯胁褌芯褉懈, 懈 胁褋褗褖薪芯褋褌 褌芯胁邪 锌芯胁褌芯褉械薪懈械 斜懈 斜懈谢芯 写芯褋褌邪 谢械褋薪芯. 袛芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 械 写邪 褋械 褋械褌懈屑 蟹邪 械泻褋锌械褉懈屑械薪褌邪 薪邪 袦懈谢谐褉邪屑 懈 小褌邪薪褎芯褉写褋泻懈褟 蟹邪褌胁芯褉薪懈褔械褋泻懈 械泻褋锌械褉懈屑械薪褌. 袙褋褟泻邪 械写薪邪 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪 锌褉械胁褉褗褖邪 褎褍薪泻褑懈芯薪械褉懈褌械 褋懈 胁 锌芯写芯斜懈褟 薪邪 袗泄褏屑邪薪. 袛芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 械 写邪 胁褗胁械写械 蟹邪 褑械谢褌邪 鈥溞敌沸感盒拘残� 锌褉邪胁懈谢邪鈥� 懈 写邪 薪邪褉械褔械 懈蟹斜懈胁邪薪械褌芯 褋 写邪谢械褔 锌芯-褌械褏薪芯泻褉邪褌褋泻懈褟 懈 薪械褍褌褉邪谢械薪 褌械褉屑懈薪 鈥溞拘盒拘窖囆把傂敌恍叫� 褉械褕械薪懈械鈥�. 袩褉芯褌械褋褌懈褉邪褌 褋邪屑芯 芯薪械蟹懈, 泻芯懈褌芯 薪械 胁谢懈蟹邪褌 胁 泻邪褌械谐芯褉懈褟褌邪 鈥溞叫狙€屑邪谢薪懈鈥�.
鈥澬澬感盒拘� 薪邪泻邪蟹邪薪懈械 薪械 锌褉懈褌械卸邪胁邪 写芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 胁褗蟹锌懈褉邪褖邪 褋懈谢邪, 蟹邪 写邪 锌褉械写芯褌胁褉邪褌懈 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 薪芯胁懈 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈褟. 孝褗泻屑芯 芯斜褉邪褌薪芯褌芯 - 泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 懈 褋褍褉芯胁芯 写邪 械 薪邪泻邪蟹邪薪懈械褌芯, 褋谢械写 泻邪褌芯 写邪写械薪芯 褋锌械褑懈褎懈褔薪芯 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋械 械 锌芯褟胁懈谢芯 蟹邪 锌褗褉胁懈 锌褗褌, 薪械谐芯胁芯褌芯 锌芯胁褌芯褉薪芯 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪薪械 械 屑薪芯谐芯 锌芯-胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯, 芯褌泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 锌褗褉胁芯薪邪褔邪谢薪邪褌邪 锌芯褟胁邪.鈥�
4,5 猸愶笍
孝芯泄 械 袗写芯谢褎 袗泄褏屑邪薪, 锌芯谢泻芯胁薪懈泻 芯褌 小小, 谢芯谐懈褋褌懈泻褗褌 薪邪 啸芯谢芯泻芯褋褌邪. 袙 褌械褔械薪懈械 薪邪 褔械褌懈褉懈 谐芯写懈薪懈 (1941 - 1945 谐.) 褌芯泄 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪 懈 泻芯芯褉写懈薪懈褉邪 胁谢邪泻芯胁懈褌械 泻芯屑锌芯蟹懈褑懈懈 泻褗屑 袗褍褕胁懈褑 懈 芯褋褌邪薪邪谢懈褌械 谢邪谐械褉懈 薪邪 褋屑褗褉褌褌邪. 小褗胁械褋褌械薪, 褍褋褗褉写械薪 懈 薪械锌芯写泻褍锌械薪. 小褗卸邪谢褟胁邪 械写懈薪褋褌胁械薪芯, 褔械 褍褋褗褉写懈械褌芯 薪械 屑褍 械 写芯薪械褋谢芯 写芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 胁懈褋芯泻芯 锌芯胁懈褕械薪懈械. 袧懈泻芯谐邪 胁 卸懈胁芯褌邪 褋懈 薪械 械 褍斜懈胁邪谢 褔芯胁械泻, 卸邪谢芯褋褌懈胁 械 懈 屑褍 锌褉懈谢芯褕邪胁邪 锌褉懈 胁懈写邪 薪邪 泻褉褗胁. 袩芯褉褟写褗褔械薪 谐褉邪卸写邪薪懈薪, 胁懈薪邪谐懈 械 褋锌邪蟹胁邪谢 蟹邪泻芯薪懈褌械 薪邪 褋褌褉邪薪邪褌邪 懈 褉械卸懈屑邪 褋懈, 薪懈褌芯 械写薪芯 薪械谐芯胁芯 写械泄褋褌胁懈械 薪械 械 斜懈谢芯 薪械蟹邪泻芯薪芯褋褗芯斜褉邪蟹薪芯 懈谢懈 薪械锌芯写锌谢邪褌械薪芯 褋褗褋 褋褗芯褌胁械褌薪懈褌械 蟹邪锌芯胁械写懈.
袣芯谐邪褌芯 懈蟹褉邪械谢褋泻懈褌械 褌邪泄薪懈 褋谢褍卸斜懈 芯褌胁谢懈褔邪褌 袗泄褏屑邪薪 芯褌 袗褉卸械薪褌懈薪邪 锌褉械蟹 1960 谐., 蟹邪 写邪 谐芯 懈蟹锌褉邪胁褟褌 锌褉械写 褋褗写 胁 袡械褉褍褋邪谢懈屑, 褌芯胁邪 锌褉械写懈蟹胁懈泻胁邪 薪械屑邪谢泻芯 锌褉芯斜谢械屑懈 胁 屑械卸写褍薪邪褉芯写械薪 锌谢邪薪.
袦邪褖邪斜薪懈褟褌 锌褉芯褑械褋 (薪邪斜谢褞写邪胁邪薪 谢懈褔薪芯 芯褌 懈蟹褉邪械谢褋泻懈褟 锌褉械屑懈械褉 懈 褋褗芯褋薪懈胁邪褌械谢 薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪褌邪 袠蟹褉邪械谢 袘械薪 袚褍褉懈芯薪) 械 褋胁械褌芯胁薪芯 褋褗斜懈褌懈械, 薪邪 泻芯械褌芯 褋邪 锌芯泻邪薪械薪懈 卸褍褉薪邪谢懈褋褌懈 芯褌 褑褟谢 褋胁褟褌. 小褉械写 褌褟褏 械 懈 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写, 薪械屑褋泻邪 械胁褉械泄泻邪, 锌芯褋胁械褌懈谢邪 褋e 薪邪 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎懈褟褌邪 锌芯褔褌懈 泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 褋胁芯懈褌械 褍褔懈褌械谢懈 懈 锌褉懈褟褌械谢懈 袣邪褉谢 携褋锌械褉褋 懈 袦邪褉褌懈薪 啸邪泄写械谐械褉. 小 芯锌褉械写械谢械薪 懈薪褌械褉械褋 懈 褌褉褍写芯胁械 锌芯 褌械屑邪褌邪 蟹邪 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉懈蟹屑邪 懈 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉薪邪褌邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪. 袩褉械写邪胁邪, 褌邪泻邪 写邪 褋械 泻邪卸械, 薪邪 卸懈胁芯 芯褌 褋褗写械斜薪邪褌邪 蟹邪谢邪. 袠 褋械 芯锌懈褌胁邪 写邪 芯褋屑懈褋谢懈 胁褋懈褔泻懈 锌褉芯斜谢械屑懈, 泻芯懈褌芯 褌芯蟹懈 锌芯泻邪蟹械薪 锌褉芯褑械褋 胁褗锌谢褗褖邪胁邪. 袗 褌械 褋邪 薪械胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯 屑薪芯谐芯.
袩褗褉胁芯, 锌褉械褋褌褗锌薪懈泻褗褌 械 薪械芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪. 袘邪薪邪谢械薪. 袘褍褉屑懈褔泻邪 胁 褋褌褉芯谐邪褌邪 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪薪邪 懈 褉邪蟹写褍褌邪 斜褞褉芯泻褉邪褑懈褟 锌芯 褍斜懈泄褋褌胁邪褌邪. 袟邪泻芯薪褗褌 懈薪邪写屑懈薪懈褋褌褉邪褌懈胁薪懈褟褌 褉械写 蟹邪屑械褋褌胁邪褌 褋褗胁械褋褌褌邪 屑褍. 小褗胁械褋褌褌邪 屑褍 胁懈薪邪谐懈 蟹邪胁懈褋懈 芯褌 芯泻芯谢薪懈褌械. 孝芯泄 薪械 械 懈蟹泻谢褞褔械薪懈械 - 锌芯褔褌懈 胁褋懈褔泻懈 薪械谐芯胁懈 褋褗薪邪褉芯写薪懈褑懈 褉械邪谐懈褉邪褌 锌芯 褋褗褖懈褟 薪邪褔懈薪. 孝芯泄 械 褋褗胁褋械屑 薪芯褉屑邪谢械薪, 泻邪泻褌芯 写芯泻邪蟹胁邪褌 懈 锌褋懈褏懈邪褌褉懈褔薪懈褌械 械泻褋锌械褉褌懈蟹懈.
袙褌芯褉芯, 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械褌芯 械 薪械芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪芯 锌芯 褋胁芯懈褌械 屑邪褖邪斜懈. 袩芯写锌芯屑邪谐邪薪芯 芯褌 懈薪写褍褋褌褉懈邪谢懈蟹邪褑懈褟褌邪 懈 褌械褏薪芯谢芯谐懈褔薪懈褟 薪邪锌褉械写褗泻, 褌芯 胁芯写懈 写芯 斜械蟹锌褉械褑械写械薪褌械薪 斜褉芯泄 懈蟹斜懈褌懈 - 锌褉械写懈屑薪芯 械胁褉械懈. 袧芯 锌芯-褋褗褖械褋褌胁械薪芯褌芯 械, 褔械 薪械 械 锌褉械写懈蟹胁懈泻邪薪芯 芯褌 胁芯械薪薪懈褌械 写械泄褋褌胁懈褟. 孝褗泻屑芯 芯斜褉邪褌薪芯褌芯 - 褑褟谢邪褌邪 谢芯谐懈褋褌懈泻邪 褋 芯褌薪械屑邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 谐褉邪卸写邪薪褋褌胁芯 薪邪 械胁褉械懈褌械, 泻芯薪褑械薪褌褉懈褉邪薪械褌芯 懈屑 胁 谐械褌邪, 写械锌芯褉褌懈褉邪薪械褌芯 懈 懈蟹斜懈胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 屑懈褉薪懈 褏芯褉邪 胁褋褗褖薪芯褋褌 械 锌褉械褔泻邪 蟹邪 谐械褉屑邪薪褑懈褌械 胁 褏芯写邪 薪邪 胁芯泄薪邪褌邪. 袧懈泻芯械 蟹邪泻芯薪芯写邪褌械谢褋褌胁芯, 胁泻谢褞褔懈褌械谢薪芯 屑械卸写褍薪邪褉芯写薪芯褌芯, 胁褋械 芯褖械 薪械 械 写芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 锌褉械褑懈蟹懈褉邪薪芯 褋锌褉褟屑芯 褌芯胁邪 薪芯胁芯 褟胁谢械薪懈械.
孝褉械褌芯, 锌褉芯褑械褋褗褌 褋械 胁芯写懈 薪械 锌褉芯褋褌芯 芯褌 锌芯斜械写懈褌械谢懈褌械 (泻芯械褌芯 械 锌褉芯斜谢械屑 懈 蟹邪 袧褞褉薪斜械褉谐褋泻懈褟 锌褉芯褑械褋), 邪 芯褌 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪, 蟹邪 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈褟 褋褉械褖褍 薪邪褉芯写, 泻芯泄褌芯 锌芯 胁褉械屑械褌芯 薪邪 褏芯谢芯泻芯褋褌邪 薪械 械 懈屑邪谢 褋芯斜褋褌胁械薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪. 袠 锌芯褋褌械锌械薪薪芯 芯斜褏胁邪褌褗褌 屑褍 褋械 锌褉械屑械褋褌胁邪 芯褌 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋褉械褖褍 褔芯胁械褔械褋褌胁芯褌芯 泻褗屑 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋褉械褖褍 械胁褉械泄褋泻懈褟 薪邪褉芯写. 孝械蟹邪, 泻芯褟褌芯 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 褟褉芯褋褌薪芯 邪褌邪泻褍胁邪, 锌芯泻邪蟹胁邪泄泻懈, 褔械 褋 褌芯胁邪 褋褌械褋薪械薪芯 褌褗谢泻褍胁邪薪械 斜械蟹 锌褉懈褋褗写邪 芯褋褌邪胁邪褌 写械褟薪懈褟褌邪, 薪械薪邪褋芯褔械薪懈 褋褉械褖褍 械胁褉械懈, 薪芯 褉械邪谢薪芯 懈蟹胁褗褉褕械薪懈 芯褌 芯斜胁懈薪褟械屑懈褟.
效械褌胁褗褉褌芯, 锌芯写褏芯写褗褌 薪邪 芯斜胁懈薪械薪懈械褌芯 懈 锌褉芯泻褍褉芯褉邪 械 褔械褋褌芯 褌胁褗褉写械 谐械薪械褉邪谢械薪 胁屑械褋褌芯 薪邪褋芯褔械薪 泻褗屑 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪芯 懈蟹胁褗褉褕械薪懈褌械 芯褌 袗泄褏屑邪薪 写械泄褋褌胁懈褟. 小锌褉邪胁械写谢懈胁芯褋褌褌邪, 薪邪褋褌芯褟胁邪 袗褉械薪写, 械 胁懈薪邪谐懈 屑薪芯谐芯 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪邪. 袙 褑褟谢芯褌芯 褌芯胁邪 鈥溞貉娧€胁邪胁芯 褕芯褍鈥� 褌褟 芯褑械薪褟胁邪 胁懈褋芯泻芯 锌褉芯褎械褋懈芯薪邪谢懈蟹屑邪 懈 斜械蟹屑懈谢芯褋褌薪邪褌邪 斜械蟹锌褉懈褋褌褉邪褋褌薪芯褋褌 薪邪 褌褉懈屑邪褌邪 褋褗写懈懈.
啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 褋械 锌褉懈写褗褉卸邪 褋褌褉芯谐芯 泻褗屑 褌械屑懈褌械 锌芯 锌褉芯褑械褋邪. 袠 械 谢芯谐懈褔薪芯-斜械蟹锌褉懈褋褌褉邪褋褌薪邪. 袣芯械褌芯 褲 褋褌芯胁邪褉胁邪 屑薪芯谐芯 泻褉懈褌懈泻懈, 薪邪泄-胁械褔械 泻褗屑 薪械泄薪芯褌芯 锌芯褋芯褔胁邪薪械 薪邪 胁懈薪邪褌邪 薪邪 褋邪屑懈褌械 械胁褉械懈. 袩邪褉邪写芯泻褋邪谢薪芯, 薪芯 谐芯谢褟屑邪 褔邪褋褌 芯褌 械胁褉械懈褌械 锌芯写锌芯屑邪谐邪褌 邪泻褌懈胁薪芯 谐械薪芯褑懈写邪 褋褉械褖褍 褋械斜械 褋懈. 袝胁褉械泄褋泻懈褌械 褋褗胁械褌懈 褋褗写械泄褋褌胁邪褌 薪邪 薪邪褑懈褋褌懈褌械 褋褗褋 褋锌懈褋褗褑懈 薪邪 械写薪芯胁械褉褑懈褌械 褋懈 懈 褋 锌芯械屑邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹邪褑懈褟褌邪 蟹邪 胁褗写胁芯褉褟胁邪薪械褌芯 懈屑 胁 谐械褌邪 懈 锌芯褋谢械写胁邪褖芯褌芯 写械锌芯褉褌懈褉邪薪械 泻褗屑 孝褉械斜谢懈薪泻邪 懈 袗褍褕胁懈褑.
小褗褖芯 褌邪泻邪 褌褟 写芯泻邪蟹胁邪, 褔械 褌芯胁邪 褋褗写械泄褋褌胁懈械 薪械 械 斜懈谢芯 褔邪泻 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 薪械懈蟹斜械卸薪芯, 胁褗锌褉械泻懈 褉懈褋泻芯胁械褌械, 懈 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褟 袛邪薪懈褟 懈 袘褗谢谐邪褉懈褟 泻邪褌芯 写胁械褌械 写褗褉卸邪胁懈, 泻褗写械褌芯 鈥溞拘盒拘窖囆把傂敌恍叫狙傂� 褉械褕械薪懈械鈥� 薪邪 啸懈褌谢械褉 泻邪褌邪褋褌褉芯褎懈褉邪. (袦邪泻邪褉 芯褌 芯泻褍锌懈褉邪薪懈褌械 芯褌 斜褗谢谐邪褉褋泻邪褌邪 胁芯泄褋泻邪 褉邪泄芯薪懈 懈蟹胁褗薪 褋褌邪褉邪 袘褗谢谐邪褉懈褟 11,000 械胁褉械懈 写邪 褋邪 懈蟹谢芯胁械薪懈 懈 写械锌芯褉褌懈褉邪薪懈 褋 锌芯屑芯褖褌邪 薪邪 斜褗谢谐邪褉褋泻邪褌邪 邪褉屑懈褟, 邪 写邪褌褋泻懈 械胁褉械懈 写邪 褋械 芯蟹芯胁邪胁邪褌 胁 锌芯-鈥溞恍敌盒秆忊€� 泻芯薪褑械薪褌褉邪褑懈芯薪械薪 谢邪谐械褉 孝械褉械蟹懈械薪褖邪褌). 小邪屑懈褌械 谐械褉屑邪薪褑懈 褋械 芯泻邪蟹胁邪褌 薪械褋锌芯褋芯斜薪懈 写邪 写芯胁械写邪褌 锌芯谢懈褌懈泻邪褌邪 褋懈 褌邪屑 写芯泻褉邪泄.
啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 写褗谢斜邪械 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 薪邪胁褗褌褉械, 褔械 泻芯褋懈褌械 薪邪 褔懈褌邪褌械谢褟 褋械 懈蟹锌褉邪胁褟褌. 袟邪褖芯褌芯 斜邪薪邪谢薪芯褋褌褌邪 薪邪 蟹谢芯褌芯 屑芯卸械 写邪 褋械 锌芯胁褌芯褉懈, 懈 胁褋褗褖薪芯褋褌 褌芯胁邪 锌芯胁褌芯褉械薪懈械 斜懈 斜懈谢芯 写芯褋褌邪 谢械褋薪芯. 袛芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 械 写邪 褋械 褋械褌懈屑 蟹邪 械泻褋锌械褉懈屑械薪褌邪 薪邪 袦懈谢谐褉邪屑 懈 小褌邪薪褎芯褉写褋泻懈褟 蟹邪褌胁芯褉薪懈褔械褋泻懈 械泻褋锌械褉懈屑械薪褌. 袙褋褟泻邪 械写薪邪 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪 锌褉械胁褉褗褖邪 褎褍薪泻褑懈芯薪械褉懈褌械 褋懈 胁 锌芯写芯斜懈褟 薪邪 袗泄褏屑邪薪. 袛芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 械 写邪 胁褗胁械写械 蟹邪 褑械谢褌邪 鈥溞敌沸感盒拘残� 锌褉邪胁懈谢邪鈥� 懈 写邪 薪邪褉械褔械 懈蟹斜懈胁邪薪械褌芯 褋 写邪谢械褔 锌芯-褌械褏薪芯泻褉邪褌褋泻懈褟 懈 薪械褍褌褉邪谢械薪 褌械褉屑懈薪 鈥溞拘盒拘窖囆把傂敌恍叫� 褉械褕械薪懈械鈥�. 袩褉芯褌械褋褌懈褉邪褌 褋邪屑芯 芯薪械蟹懈, 泻芯懈褌芯 薪械 胁谢懈蟹邪褌 胁 泻邪褌械谐芯褉懈褟褌邪 鈥溞叫狙€屑邪谢薪懈鈥�.
鈥澬澬感盒拘� 薪邪泻邪蟹邪薪懈械 薪械 锌褉懈褌械卸邪胁邪 写芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 胁褗蟹锌懈褉邪褖邪 褋懈谢邪, 蟹邪 写邪 锌褉械写芯褌胁褉邪褌懈 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 薪芯胁懈 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈褟. 孝褗泻屑芯 芯斜褉邪褌薪芯褌芯 - 泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 懈 褋褍褉芯胁芯 写邪 械 薪邪泻邪蟹邪薪懈械褌芯, 褋谢械写 泻邪褌芯 写邪写械薪芯 褋锌械褑懈褎懈褔薪芯 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋械 械 锌芯褟胁懈谢芯 蟹邪 锌褗褉胁懈 锌褗褌, 薪械谐芯胁芯褌芯 锌芯胁褌芯褉薪芯 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪薪械 械 屑薪芯谐芯 锌芯-胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯, 芯褌泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 锌褗褉胁芯薪邪褔邪谢薪邪褌邪 锌芯褟胁邪.鈥�
4,5 猸愶笍
August 20, 2021
鈥炐澬敌垦€懈褟褌薪芯褌芯 胁 褋谢褍褔邪褟 褋 袗泄褏屑邪薪 斜械 褌褗泻屑芯 褌芯胁邪, 褔械 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 屑薪芯谐芯 斜褟褏邪 褋褗褖懈褌械 泻邪褌芯 薪械谐芯 懈 胁褋懈褔泻懈 褌械 薪械 斜褟褏邪 薪懈褌芯 锌械褉胁械褉蟹薪懈, 薪懈褌芯 褋邪写懈褋褌懈 鈥� 褌械 斜褟褏邪, 邪 懈 胁褋械 芯褖械 褋邪 褍卸邪褋薪芯 薪芯褉屑邪谢薪懈. 袨褌 谐谢械写薪邪 褌芯褔泻邪 薪邪 薪邪褕懈褌械 锌褉邪胁薪懈 懈薪褋褌懈褌褍褑懈懈 懈 薪邪褕懈褌械 屑芯褉邪谢薪懈 褋褌邪薪写邪褉褌懈 蟹邪 锌褉械褑械薪泻邪, 褌邪蟹懈 薪芯褉屑邪谢薪芯褋褌 斜械 屑薪芯谐芯 锌芯-褍卸邪褋褟胁邪褖邪 芯褌 胁褋懈褔泻懈 泻谢邪薪械褌邪, 胁蟹械褌懈 蟹邪械写薪芯, 褌褗泄 泻邪褌芯 褌褟 芯蟹薪邪褔邪胁邪 鈥� 锌芯泻邪蟹邪薪芯 胁 袧褞褉薪斜械褉谐 褋褌芯褌懈褑懈 锌褗褌懈 芯褌 芯斜胁懈薪褟械屑懈褌械 懈 褌械褏薪懈褌械 邪写胁芯泻邪褌懈, - 褔械 褌芯蟹懈 薪芯胁 褌懈锌 锌褉械褋褌褗锌薪懈泻, 泻芯泄褌芯 胁 褋褗褖薪芯褋褌褌邪 褋懈 械 鈥瀐osatis generis humant鈥� 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈褟褌邪 褋懈 锌褉懈 芯斜褋褌芯褟褌械谢褋褌胁邪, 泻芯懈褌芯 锌褉邪胁褟褌 锌芯褔褌懈 薪械胁褗蟹屑芯卸薪芯 写邪 褋械 褍褋械褌懈 懈谢懈 褉邪蟹斜械褉械, 褔械 胁褗褉褕懈 蟹谢芯.鈥�
袩褉械蟹 1961 谐. 胁 袡械褉褍褋邪谢懈屑 蟹邪锌芯褔胁邪 褋褗写械斜薪芯 写械谢芯, 锌芯 泻芯械褌芯 薪懈褌芯 锌褉械褋褌褗锌薪懈泻褗褌, 薪懈褌芯 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械褌芯 褋邪 褋褉械写 芯斜懈褔邪泄薪懈褌械. 小谢械写 泻邪褌芯 褋械 械 褍泻褉懈胁邪谢 锌芯胁械褔械 芯褌 写械褋械褌懈谢械褌懈械 胁 袗褉卸械薪褌懈薪邪, 袗写芯谢褎 袗泄褏屑邪薪 鈥� 薪邪褑懈褋褌褗褌, 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪谢 褋谢芯卸薪邪褌邪 谢芯谐懈褋褌懈泻邪 锌芯 写械锌芯褉褌懈褉邪薪械褌芯 懈 懈蟹斜懈胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 械胁褉械懈 胁 鈥炐恍靶承笛€懈褌械 薪邪 褋屑褗褉褌褌邪鈥�, 械 蟹邪谢芯胁械薪 芯褌 懈蟹褉邪械谢褋泻懈 邪谐械薪褌懈 懈 懈蟹锌褉邪胁械薪 锌褉械写 褋褗写邪. 肖懈谢芯褋芯褎褗褌 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 芯褌褉邪蟹褟胁邪 锌褉芯写褗谢卸懈谢懈褌械 锌芯胁械褔械 芯褌 锌械褌 屑械褋械褑邪 褋褗写械斜薪懈 蟹邪褋械写邪薪懈褟, 薪邪斜谢褞写械薪懈褟褌邪 薪邪写 泻芯懈褌芯 胁芯写褟褌 写芯 褉邪卸写邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 褌械褉屑懈薪邪 鈥炐毙靶叫靶恍叫� 蟹谢芯鈥�.
袩芯 胁褉械屑械 薪邪 锌褉芯褑械褋邪, 锌褉懈胁谢褟泻褗谢 胁薪懈屑邪薪懈械褌芯 薪邪 褋胁械褌芯胁薪邪褌邪 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械薪芯褋褌, 芯褔邪泻胁邪薪懈褟褌邪 薪邪 胁褋懈褔泻懈 褋邪, 褔械 芯斜胁懈薪褟械屑懈褟褌 械 褔褍写芯胁懈褖械, 锌褋懈褏芯锌邪褌, 邪褉褏懈-蟹谢芯写械泄. 小褗褋 褋懈谐褍褉薪芯褋褌 薪褟屑邪 泻邪泻 褔芯胁械泻褗褌, 懈蟹锌褉邪褌懈谢 屑懈谢懈芯薪懈 薪邪 褋屑褗褉褌, 写邪 械 薪芯褉屑邪谢械薪? 袣邪泻褗胁 械 胁褋械芯斜褖懈褟褌 锌芯褌褉械褋 泻芯谐邪褌芯 褋械 懈蟹褟褋薪褟胁邪 芯斜邪褔械, 褔械 袗泄褏屑邪薪 薪械 褋邪屑芯 薪褟屑邪 薪邪褋懈谢薪懈褔械褋泻懈 懈 褋邪写懈褋褌懈褔薪懈 芯褌泻谢芯薪械薪懈褟, 薪芯 懈 械 褋褗胁褋械屑 芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪, 锌芯褋褉械写褋褌胁械薪, 斜械蟹谢懈褔械薪 斜褞褉芯泻褉邪褌 芯褌 褋褉械写薪懈褟 薪邪褑懈褋褌泻懈 械褕械谢芯薪, 褔懈泄褌芯 褋谢芯胁械褋械薪 邪锌邪褉邪褌 械 薪邪褌褗锌泻邪薪 褋 泻谢懈褕械褌邪, 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 锌褉邪胁芯谢懈薪械械薪, 褔械 褖械褕械 写邪 械 泻芯屑懈褔薪芯, 邪泻芯 薪褟屑邪褕械 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 褌褉邪谐懈褔薪懈 锌芯褋谢械写懈褑懈. 袧械褖芯 锌芯胁械褔械 鈥� 鈥炑€邪斜芯褌邪褌邪鈥� 薪邪 袗泄褏屑邪薪 懈 薪械芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪芯褌芯 褍褋褗褉写懈械, 褋 泻芯械褌芯 褟 胁褗褉褕懈, 薪械 械 褉械蟹褍谢褌邪褌 芯褌 邪薪褌懈褋械屑懈褌懈蟹褗屑, 蟹谢芯斜邪 懈谢懈 懈写械芯谢芯谐懈褟. 效懈褋褌邪褌邪 邪屑斜懈褑懈褟 蟹邪 懈蟹褉邪褋褌胁邪薪械 胁 薪邪褑懈褋褌泻邪褌邪 泄械褉邪褉褏懈褟, 薪褍卸写邪褌邪 写邪 锌褉懈薪邪写谢械卸懈 泻褗屑 薪械褖芯 锌芯-谐芯谢褟屑芯, 懈 鈥炐恍感垦佇把傂� 薪邪 屑懈褋褗谢鈥�, 锌芯 写褍屑懈褌械 薪邪 袗褉械薪写, 薪芯 薪械 胁 褋屑懈褋褗谢邪 薪邪 薪械胁褗蟹屑芯卸薪芯褋褌 蟹邪 芯褋褗蟹薪邪胁邪薪械 薪邪 褋芯斜褋褌胁械薪懈褌械 写械谢邪, 邪 谢懈锌褋邪 薪邪 泻褉懈褌懈褔薪邪 屑懈褋褗谢 懈 褋锌芯褋芯斜薪芯褋褌 蟹邪 屑芯褉邪谢薪邪 锌褉械褑械薪泻邪, 械 褉邪蟹写械谢懈褌械谢薪邪褌邪 谢懈薪懈褟 屑械卸写褍 懈蟹锌褗谢薪懈褌械谢薪懈褟 褎褍薪泻褑懈芯薪械褉 懈 屑邪褋芯胁懈褟 锌褉械褋褌褗锌薪懈泻. 袨斜褖邪褌邪 邪褌屑芯褋褎械褉邪 薪邪 锌芯褉褍谐邪薪懈 屑芯褉邪谢薪懈 懈屑锌械褉邪褌懈胁懈 胁 孝褉械褌懈褟 袪邪泄褏 褋褗褖芯 械 写芯锌褉懈薪械褋谢邪 薪械谐芯胁芯褌芯 锌芯胁械写械薪懈械 写邪 斜褗写械 懈蟹胁懈薪械薪芯 胁 褋芯斜褋褌胁械薪懈褌械 屑褍 芯褔懈, 斜懈写械泄泻懈 锌褉邪胁懈谢芯褌芯, 邪 薪械 懈蟹泻谢褞褔械薪懈械褌芯.
袨褌褉邪蟹褟胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 锌褉芯褑械褋邪 芯褌 袗褉械薪写 锌褉械芯斜褉褗褖邪 胁褌胁褗褉写械薪懈 泻芯薪褑械锌褑懈懈 蟹邪 锌褉懈褉芯写邪褌邪 薪邪 蟹谢芯褌芯 懈 薪邪 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉薪懈褟 褔芯胁械泻 胁 屑邪褋芯胁芯褌芯 褋褗蟹薪邪薪懈械 鈥� 薪械褖芯, 泻芯械褌芯 袧褞褉薪斜械褉谐褋泻懈褌械 锌褉芯褑械褋懈 褌邪泻邪 懈 薪械 褍褋锌褟胁邪褌 写邪 写芯胁械写邪褌 褍褋锌械褕薪芯 写芯 泻褉邪泄. 袨斜懈褔邪泄薪芯 芯褌 蟹邪谢芯胁械薪懈褌械 薪邪褑懈褋褌懈 褋械 褔褍胁邪褌 械写薪懈 懈 褋褗褖懈 蟹邪褖懈褌薪懈 芯锌芯褉泻懈 鈥� 褋褗胁械褋褌褌邪 屑懈 械 褔懈褋褌邪, 邪蟹 褋邪屑芯 褋谢械写胁邪褏 蟹邪锌芯胁械写懈, 薪械 蟹薪邪械褏 薪懈褖芯. 小锌芯褉械写 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 褎邪泻褌褗褌, 褔械 褋褗褋褌芯褟薪懈械褌芯 薪邪 锌褉邪胁芯褌芯 泻褗屑 芯薪蟹懈 屑芯屑械薪褌, 薪械 械 屑芯谐谢芯 写邪 芯斜械屑械 胁 褋械斜械 褋懈 薪邪锌褗谢薪芯 薪芯胁芯褌芯 蟹邪 褔芯胁械褕泻邪褌邪 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋褉械褖褍 褔芯胁械褔械褋褌胁芯褌芯, 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪薪芯 懈 芯褋褗褖械褋褌胁褟胁邪薪芯 芯褌 鈥炐毙靶叫靶恍叫糕€� 褏芯褉邪, 薪械 械 懈蟹胁懈薪械薪懈械 蟹邪 锌褉芯懈蟹胁芯谢薪芯褌芯 懈蟹锌芯谢蟹胁邪薪械 薪邪 褌械褉屑懈薪懈 泻邪褌芯 鈥炐盒拘恍敌貉傂感残叫� 胁懈薪邪鈥� 懈 鈥炐啃拘囱囆感叫敌叫感� 薪邪 蟹邪锌芯胁械写懈鈥�, 蟹邪写 泻芯懈褌芯 写邪 褋械 褋泻褉懈械 谢懈褔薪邪褌邪 芯褌谐芯胁芯褉薪芯褋褌. 袩褉懈谢芯卸械薪懈 薪邪 锌褉邪泻褌懈泻邪 写芯 邪斜褋芯谢褞褌薪邪 泻褉邪泄薪芯褋褌, 褌械蟹懈 锌芯薪褟褌懈褟 斜懈褏邪 芯蟹薪邪褔邪胁邪谢懈, 褔械 薪邪 锌芯写褋褗写懈屑邪褌邪 褋泻邪屑械泄泻邪 褌褉褟斜胁邪 写邪 蟹邪褋褌邪薪邪褌 懈谢懈 胁褋懈褔泻懈 谐械褉屑邪薪褑懈, 懈谢懈 褋邪屑芯 啸懈褌谢械褉.
(袛褉褍谐 械 胁褗锌褉芯褋褗褌, 懈 褌芯胁邪 械 褋邪屑芯 谢懈褔薪芯 屑薪械薪懈械, 褔械 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉薪邪褌邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪 锌褉邪胁懈 芯褌 胁褋懈褔泻懈褌械 褋懈 谐褉邪卸写邪薪懈 屑芯褉邪谢薪懈 褋褗褍褔邪褋褌薪懈褑懈, 斜械蟹 芯谐谢械写 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪邪褌邪 胁懈薪邪 懈谢懈 谢懈褋邪褌邪 薪邪 褌邪泻邪胁邪, 泻邪褌芯 芯斜褉褗褖邪 薪邪芯锌邪泻懈 锌褉械蟹褍屑锌褑懈褟褌邪 蟹邪 薪械胁懈薪薪芯褋褌 鈥� 褖芯屑 褋懈 斜懈谢 褌邪屑, 褔邪褋褌 芯褌 褌芯胁邪 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯 锌芯 褌芯胁邪 胁褉械屑械, 蟹薪邪褔懈 褋懈 鈥炐沸叫靶敌烩€� 鈥� 锌褋懈褏芯谢芯谐懈褔械褋泻懈褌械 械褎械泻褌懈 薪邪 泻芯械褌芯 屑芯卸械褏邪 写邪 褋械 胁懈写褟褌 懈 胁褋械 芯褖械 褋械 胁懈卸写邪褌, 泻芯谐邪褌芯 锌褍褋薪邪褏邪 薪邪 褋胁芯斜芯写邪 锌芯褉芯斜械薪懈褌械 芯褌 褋褗胁械褌褋泻邪褌邪 胁谢邪褋褌 薪邪褉芯写懈 懈 褌械 褌褉褗谐薪邪褏邪 锌芯 褕懈褉芯泻懈褟 褋胁褟褌 懈 芯褌薪芯褕械薪懈械褌芯, 褋 泻芯械褌芯 褋械 褋斜谢褗褋泻邪褏邪, 薪械写胁褍褋屑懈褋谢械薪芯 锌芯泻邪蟹邪, 褔械 褏芯褉邪褌邪 芯褌 袟邪锌邪写邪 锌褉懈褉邪胁薪褟胁邪褌 芯斜谢懈泻邪 薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪褌邪 褋 薪械泄薪懈褌械 谐褉邪卸写邪薪懈).
袪械锌芯褉褌邪卸褗褌 薪邪 袗褉械薪写 胁褌褉械褖褟胁邪 懈 褋 写褉褍谐芯 芯褌泻褉懈褌懈械 鈥� 褉芯谢褟褌邪, 泻芯褟褌芯 褋邪 懈蟹懈谐褉邪谢懈 械胁褉械泄褋泻懈褌械 褋褗胁械褌懈 胁 锌褉械写邪胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 鈥炑佇残拘秆傂碘€� 薪邪 蟹邪泻芯谢械薪懈械 鈥� 薪械褖芯, 蟹邪褉邪写懈 泻芯械褌芯 邪胁褌芯褉泻邪褌邪 械 褋懈谢薪芯 锌芯褉懈褑邪胁邪薪邪 芯褌 薪褟泻芯懈 械胁褉械泄褋泻懈 褋褉械写懈. 袗褉械薪写 薪械 褋锌械褋褌褟胁邪 懈 泻褉懈褌懈泻懈褌械 褋懈 泻褗屑 锌褉芯褑械褋邪 芯褌泻褗屑 褞褉懈写懈褔械褋泻懈-褎芯褉屑邪谢薪邪褌邪 屑褍 褋褌褉邪薪邪 鈥� 褋褗写械斜薪邪褌邪 锌褉芯褑械写褍褉邪 懈 褞褉懈褋写懈泻褑懈褟 薪邪 褋褗写邪, 泻邪泻褌芯 懈 胁懈褋芯泻懈褟 锌芯谢懈褌懈褔械褋泻懈 蟹邪褉褟写, 泻芯泄褌芯 械 写懈泻褌褍胁邪谢 (胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯 薪械懈蟹斜械卸薪芯) 写薪械胁薪懈褟 褉械写. 袧褟屑邪 褋褗屑薪械薪懈械, 褔械 懈 薪邪泄-谐芯谢械屑懈褟褌 锌褉械褋褌褗锌薪懈泻 蟹邪褋谢褍卸邪胁邪 褋锌褉邪胁械写谢懈胁 锌褉芯褑械褋 鈥� 锌褉懈 泻芯泄褌芯 褋械 写邪胁邪 胁褗蟹屑芯卸薪芯褋褌 蟹邪 懈蟹褋谢褍褕胁邪薪械 懈 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褟薪械 薪邪 写芯泻邪蟹邪褌械谢褋褌胁邪 泻邪泻褌芯 薪邪 芯斜胁懈薪械薪懈械褌芯, 褌邪泻邪 懈 薪邪 蟹邪褖懈褌邪褌邪. 袛芯褉懈 懈 褌褍泻, 胁 褌芯蟹懈 褋谢褍褔邪泄, 锌褉懈 泻芯泄褌芯 胁懈薪邪褌邪 懈 写械褟薪懈械褌芯 薪邪 芯斜胁懈薪褟械屑懈褟 褋邪 薪械褋褗屑薪械薪懈 芯褖械 锌褉械写懈 薪邪褔邪谢芯褌芯 薪邪 褋褗写械斜薪懈褌械 锌褉械薪懈褟, 邪 锌褉芯褑械褋褗褌 褋谢褍卸懈 蟹邪 锌褍斜谢懈褔薪芯 胁褗蟹屑械蟹写褟胁邪薪械 薪邪 卸械褉褌胁懈褌械.
袧芯 褌芯胁邪, 蟹邪褉邪写懈 泻芯械褌芯 薪邪懈褋褌懈薪邪 薪械 屑芯谐邪褌 写邪 泄 锌褉芯褋褌褟褌, 械 褔械 械 胁懈写褟谢邪 胁 袗泄褏屑邪薪 褔芯胁械褕泻芯 褋褗褖械褋褌胁芯, 谢懈褕械薪芯 芯褌 芯褉械芯谢邪 薪邪 泻谢邪褋懈褔械褋泻懈褟 蟹谢芯写械泄, 锌褉芯蟹褉褟谢邪 械 薪械谐芯胁邪褌邪 褍卸邪褋褟胁邪褖邪 芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪芯褋褌. 袧芯 泻邪泻 褌芯褔薪芯 褌褉褟斜胁邪 写邪 懈蟹谐谢械卸写邪 蟹谢芯褌芯?
袨褋胁械薪 褔械 薪邪写谐褉邪卸写邪 懈 褍锌谢褗褌薪褟胁邪 褌械芯褉懈褟褌邪 泄 蟹邪 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉懈蟹屑邪, 褉械锌芯褉褌邪卸褗褌 薪邪 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 锌褉械写褍锌褉械卸写邪胁邪, 锌芯写芯斜薪芯 薪邪 袩褉懈屑芯 袥械胁懈, 褋褉械褖褍 斜褗写械褖懈 锌芯褋械谐邪褌械谢褋褌胁邪 薪邪写 褔芯胁械褔械褋褌胁芯褌芯, 芯褋芯斜械薪芯 泻芯谐邪褌芯 褋邪 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪薪懈 芯褌 锌褉械褋褌褗锌械薪 写褗褉卸邪胁械薪 邪锌邪褉邪褌:
鈥炐澬感盒拘� 薪邪泻邪蟹邪薪懈械 薪械 锌褉懈褌械卸邪胁邪 写芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 胁褗蟹锌懈褉邪褖邪 褋懈谢邪, 蟹邪 写邪 锌褉械写芯褌胁褉邪褌懈 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 薪芯胁懈 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈褟. 孝褗泻屑芯 芯斜褉邪褌薪芯褌芯 鈥� 泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 懈 褋褍褉芯胁芯 写邪 械 薪邪泻邪蟹邪薪懈械褌芯, 褋谢械写 泻邪褌芯 写邪写械薪芯 褋锌械褑懈褎懈褔薪芯 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋械 械 锌芯褟胁懈谢芯 蟹邪 锌褗褉胁懈 锌褗褌, 薪械谐芯胁芯褌芯 锌芯胁褌芯褉薪芯 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪薪械 械 屑薪芯谐芯 锌芯-胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯 芯褌泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 锌褗褉胁芯薪邪褔邪谢薪邪褌邪 锌芯褟胁邪.鈥�
袩褉械蟹 1961 谐. 胁 袡械褉褍褋邪谢懈屑 蟹邪锌芯褔胁邪 褋褗写械斜薪芯 写械谢芯, 锌芯 泻芯械褌芯 薪懈褌芯 锌褉械褋褌褗锌薪懈泻褗褌, 薪懈褌芯 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械褌芯 褋邪 褋褉械写 芯斜懈褔邪泄薪懈褌械. 小谢械写 泻邪褌芯 褋械 械 褍泻褉懈胁邪谢 锌芯胁械褔械 芯褌 写械褋械褌懈谢械褌懈械 胁 袗褉卸械薪褌懈薪邪, 袗写芯谢褎 袗泄褏屑邪薪 鈥� 薪邪褑懈褋褌褗褌, 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪谢 褋谢芯卸薪邪褌邪 谢芯谐懈褋褌懈泻邪 锌芯 写械锌芯褉褌懈褉邪薪械褌芯 懈 懈蟹斜懈胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 械胁褉械懈 胁 鈥炐恍靶承笛€懈褌械 薪邪 褋屑褗褉褌褌邪鈥�, 械 蟹邪谢芯胁械薪 芯褌 懈蟹褉邪械谢褋泻懈 邪谐械薪褌懈 懈 懈蟹锌褉邪胁械薪 锌褉械写 褋褗写邪. 肖懈谢芯褋芯褎褗褌 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 芯褌褉邪蟹褟胁邪 锌褉芯写褗谢卸懈谢懈褌械 锌芯胁械褔械 芯褌 锌械褌 屑械褋械褑邪 褋褗写械斜薪懈 蟹邪褋械写邪薪懈褟, 薪邪斜谢褞写械薪懈褟褌邪 薪邪写 泻芯懈褌芯 胁芯写褟褌 写芯 褉邪卸写邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 褌械褉屑懈薪邪 鈥炐毙靶叫靶恍叫� 蟹谢芯鈥�.
袩芯 胁褉械屑械 薪邪 锌褉芯褑械褋邪, 锌褉懈胁谢褟泻褗谢 胁薪懈屑邪薪懈械褌芯 薪邪 褋胁械褌芯胁薪邪褌邪 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械薪芯褋褌, 芯褔邪泻胁邪薪懈褟褌邪 薪邪 胁褋懈褔泻懈 褋邪, 褔械 芯斜胁懈薪褟械屑懈褟褌 械 褔褍写芯胁懈褖械, 锌褋懈褏芯锌邪褌, 邪褉褏懈-蟹谢芯写械泄. 小褗褋 褋懈谐褍褉薪芯褋褌 薪褟屑邪 泻邪泻 褔芯胁械泻褗褌, 懈蟹锌褉邪褌懈谢 屑懈谢懈芯薪懈 薪邪 褋屑褗褉褌, 写邪 械 薪芯褉屑邪谢械薪? 袣邪泻褗胁 械 胁褋械芯斜褖懈褟褌 锌芯褌褉械褋 泻芯谐邪褌芯 褋械 懈蟹褟褋薪褟胁邪 芯斜邪褔械, 褔械 袗泄褏屑邪薪 薪械 褋邪屑芯 薪褟屑邪 薪邪褋懈谢薪懈褔械褋泻懈 懈 褋邪写懈褋褌懈褔薪懈 芯褌泻谢芯薪械薪懈褟, 薪芯 懈 械 褋褗胁褋械屑 芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪, 锌芯褋褉械写褋褌胁械薪, 斜械蟹谢懈褔械薪 斜褞褉芯泻褉邪褌 芯褌 褋褉械写薪懈褟 薪邪褑懈褋褌泻懈 械褕械谢芯薪, 褔懈泄褌芯 褋谢芯胁械褋械薪 邪锌邪褉邪褌 械 薪邪褌褗锌泻邪薪 褋 泻谢懈褕械褌邪, 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 锌褉邪胁芯谢懈薪械械薪, 褔械 褖械褕械 写邪 械 泻芯屑懈褔薪芯, 邪泻芯 薪褟屑邪褕械 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 褌褉邪谐懈褔薪懈 锌芯褋谢械写懈褑懈. 袧械褖芯 锌芯胁械褔械 鈥� 鈥炑€邪斜芯褌邪褌邪鈥� 薪邪 袗泄褏屑邪薪 懈 薪械芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪芯褌芯 褍褋褗褉写懈械, 褋 泻芯械褌芯 褟 胁褗褉褕懈, 薪械 械 褉械蟹褍谢褌邪褌 芯褌 邪薪褌懈褋械屑懈褌懈蟹褗屑, 蟹谢芯斜邪 懈谢懈 懈写械芯谢芯谐懈褟. 效懈褋褌邪褌邪 邪屑斜懈褑懈褟 蟹邪 懈蟹褉邪褋褌胁邪薪械 胁 薪邪褑懈褋褌泻邪褌邪 泄械褉邪褉褏懈褟, 薪褍卸写邪褌邪 写邪 锌褉懈薪邪写谢械卸懈 泻褗屑 薪械褖芯 锌芯-谐芯谢褟屑芯, 懈 鈥炐恍感垦佇把傂� 薪邪 屑懈褋褗谢鈥�, 锌芯 写褍屑懈褌械 薪邪 袗褉械薪写, 薪芯 薪械 胁 褋屑懈褋褗谢邪 薪邪 薪械胁褗蟹屑芯卸薪芯褋褌 蟹邪 芯褋褗蟹薪邪胁邪薪械 薪邪 褋芯斜褋褌胁械薪懈褌械 写械谢邪, 邪 谢懈锌褋邪 薪邪 泻褉懈褌懈褔薪邪 屑懈褋褗谢 懈 褋锌芯褋芯斜薪芯褋褌 蟹邪 屑芯褉邪谢薪邪 锌褉械褑械薪泻邪, 械 褉邪蟹写械谢懈褌械谢薪邪褌邪 谢懈薪懈褟 屑械卸写褍 懈蟹锌褗谢薪懈褌械谢薪懈褟 褎褍薪泻褑懈芯薪械褉 懈 屑邪褋芯胁懈褟 锌褉械褋褌褗锌薪懈泻. 袨斜褖邪褌邪 邪褌屑芯褋褎械褉邪 薪邪 锌芯褉褍谐邪薪懈 屑芯褉邪谢薪懈 懈屑锌械褉邪褌懈胁懈 胁 孝褉械褌懈褟 袪邪泄褏 褋褗褖芯 械 写芯锌褉懈薪械褋谢邪 薪械谐芯胁芯褌芯 锌芯胁械写械薪懈械 写邪 斜褗写械 懈蟹胁懈薪械薪芯 胁 褋芯斜褋褌胁械薪懈褌械 屑褍 芯褔懈, 斜懈写械泄泻懈 锌褉邪胁懈谢芯褌芯, 邪 薪械 懈蟹泻谢褞褔械薪懈械褌芯.
袨褌褉邪蟹褟胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 锌褉芯褑械褋邪 芯褌 袗褉械薪写 锌褉械芯斜褉褗褖邪 胁褌胁褗褉写械薪懈 泻芯薪褑械锌褑懈懈 蟹邪 锌褉懈褉芯写邪褌邪 薪邪 蟹谢芯褌芯 懈 薪邪 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉薪懈褟 褔芯胁械泻 胁 屑邪褋芯胁芯褌芯 褋褗蟹薪邪薪懈械 鈥� 薪械褖芯, 泻芯械褌芯 袧褞褉薪斜械褉谐褋泻懈褌械 锌褉芯褑械褋懈 褌邪泻邪 懈 薪械 褍褋锌褟胁邪褌 写邪 写芯胁械写邪褌 褍褋锌械褕薪芯 写芯 泻褉邪泄. 袨斜懈褔邪泄薪芯 芯褌 蟹邪谢芯胁械薪懈褌械 薪邪褑懈褋褌懈 褋械 褔褍胁邪褌 械写薪懈 懈 褋褗褖懈 蟹邪褖懈褌薪懈 芯锌芯褉泻懈 鈥� 褋褗胁械褋褌褌邪 屑懈 械 褔懈褋褌邪, 邪蟹 褋邪屑芯 褋谢械写胁邪褏 蟹邪锌芯胁械写懈, 薪械 蟹薪邪械褏 薪懈褖芯. 小锌芯褉械写 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 褎邪泻褌褗褌, 褔械 褋褗褋褌芯褟薪懈械褌芯 薪邪 锌褉邪胁芯褌芯 泻褗屑 芯薪蟹懈 屑芯屑械薪褌, 薪械 械 屑芯谐谢芯 写邪 芯斜械屑械 胁 褋械斜械 褋懈 薪邪锌褗谢薪芯 薪芯胁芯褌芯 蟹邪 褔芯胁械褕泻邪褌邪 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋褉械褖褍 褔芯胁械褔械褋褌胁芯褌芯, 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪薪芯 懈 芯褋褗褖械褋褌胁褟胁邪薪芯 芯褌 鈥炐毙靶叫靶恍叫糕€� 褏芯褉邪, 薪械 械 懈蟹胁懈薪械薪懈械 蟹邪 锌褉芯懈蟹胁芯谢薪芯褌芯 懈蟹锌芯谢蟹胁邪薪械 薪邪 褌械褉屑懈薪懈 泻邪褌芯 鈥炐盒拘恍敌貉傂感残叫� 胁懈薪邪鈥� 懈 鈥炐啃拘囱囆感叫敌叫感� 薪邪 蟹邪锌芯胁械写懈鈥�, 蟹邪写 泻芯懈褌芯 写邪 褋械 褋泻褉懈械 谢懈褔薪邪褌邪 芯褌谐芯胁芯褉薪芯褋褌. 袩褉懈谢芯卸械薪懈 薪邪 锌褉邪泻褌懈泻邪 写芯 邪斜褋芯谢褞褌薪邪 泻褉邪泄薪芯褋褌, 褌械蟹懈 锌芯薪褟褌懈褟 斜懈褏邪 芯蟹薪邪褔邪胁邪谢懈, 褔械 薪邪 锌芯写褋褗写懈屑邪褌邪 褋泻邪屑械泄泻邪 褌褉褟斜胁邪 写邪 蟹邪褋褌邪薪邪褌 懈谢懈 胁褋懈褔泻懈 谐械褉屑邪薪褑懈, 懈谢懈 褋邪屑芯 啸懈褌谢械褉.
(袛褉褍谐 械 胁褗锌褉芯褋褗褌, 懈 褌芯胁邪 械 褋邪屑芯 谢懈褔薪芯 屑薪械薪懈械, 褔械 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉薪邪褌邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪 锌褉邪胁懈 芯褌 胁褋懈褔泻懈褌械 褋懈 谐褉邪卸写邪薪懈 屑芯褉邪谢薪懈 褋褗褍褔邪褋褌薪懈褑懈, 斜械蟹 芯谐谢械写 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪邪褌邪 胁懈薪邪 懈谢懈 谢懈褋邪褌邪 薪邪 褌邪泻邪胁邪, 泻邪褌芯 芯斜褉褗褖邪 薪邪芯锌邪泻懈 锌褉械蟹褍屑锌褑懈褟褌邪 蟹邪 薪械胁懈薪薪芯褋褌 鈥� 褖芯屑 褋懈 斜懈谢 褌邪屑, 褔邪褋褌 芯褌 褌芯胁邪 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯 锌芯 褌芯胁邪 胁褉械屑械, 蟹薪邪褔懈 褋懈 鈥炐沸叫靶敌烩€� 鈥� 锌褋懈褏芯谢芯谐懈褔械褋泻懈褌械 械褎械泻褌懈 薪邪 泻芯械褌芯 屑芯卸械褏邪 写邪 褋械 胁懈写褟褌 懈 胁褋械 芯褖械 褋械 胁懈卸写邪褌, 泻芯谐邪褌芯 锌褍褋薪邪褏邪 薪邪 褋胁芯斜芯写邪 锌芯褉芯斜械薪懈褌械 芯褌 褋褗胁械褌褋泻邪褌邪 胁谢邪褋褌 薪邪褉芯写懈 懈 褌械 褌褉褗谐薪邪褏邪 锌芯 褕懈褉芯泻懈褟 褋胁褟褌 懈 芯褌薪芯褕械薪懈械褌芯, 褋 泻芯械褌芯 褋械 褋斜谢褗褋泻邪褏邪, 薪械写胁褍褋屑懈褋谢械薪芯 锌芯泻邪蟹邪, 褔械 褏芯褉邪褌邪 芯褌 袟邪锌邪写邪 锌褉懈褉邪胁薪褟胁邪褌 芯斜谢懈泻邪 薪邪 写褗褉卸邪胁邪褌邪 褋 薪械泄薪懈褌械 谐褉邪卸写邪薪懈).
袪械锌芯褉褌邪卸褗褌 薪邪 袗褉械薪写 胁褌褉械褖褟胁邪 懈 褋 写褉褍谐芯 芯褌泻褉懈褌懈械 鈥� 褉芯谢褟褌邪, 泻芯褟褌芯 褋邪 懈蟹懈谐褉邪谢懈 械胁褉械泄褋泻懈褌械 褋褗胁械褌懈 胁 锌褉械写邪胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 鈥炑佇残拘秆傂碘€� 薪邪 蟹邪泻芯谢械薪懈械 鈥� 薪械褖芯, 蟹邪褉邪写懈 泻芯械褌芯 邪胁褌芯褉泻邪褌邪 械 褋懈谢薪芯 锌芯褉懈褑邪胁邪薪邪 芯褌 薪褟泻芯懈 械胁褉械泄褋泻懈 褋褉械写懈. 袗褉械薪写 薪械 褋锌械褋褌褟胁邪 懈 泻褉懈褌懈泻懈褌械 褋懈 泻褗屑 锌褉芯褑械褋邪 芯褌泻褗屑 褞褉懈写懈褔械褋泻懈-褎芯褉屑邪谢薪邪褌邪 屑褍 褋褌褉邪薪邪 鈥� 褋褗写械斜薪邪褌邪 锌褉芯褑械写褍褉邪 懈 褞褉懈褋写懈泻褑懈褟 薪邪 褋褗写邪, 泻邪泻褌芯 懈 胁懈褋芯泻懈褟 锌芯谢懈褌懈褔械褋泻懈 蟹邪褉褟写, 泻芯泄褌芯 械 写懈泻褌褍胁邪谢 (胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯 薪械懈蟹斜械卸薪芯) 写薪械胁薪懈褟 褉械写. 袧褟屑邪 褋褗屑薪械薪懈械, 褔械 懈 薪邪泄-谐芯谢械屑懈褟褌 锌褉械褋褌褗锌薪懈泻 蟹邪褋谢褍卸邪胁邪 褋锌褉邪胁械写谢懈胁 锌褉芯褑械褋 鈥� 锌褉懈 泻芯泄褌芯 褋械 写邪胁邪 胁褗蟹屑芯卸薪芯褋褌 蟹邪 懈蟹褋谢褍褕胁邪薪械 懈 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褟薪械 薪邪 写芯泻邪蟹邪褌械谢褋褌胁邪 泻邪泻褌芯 薪邪 芯斜胁懈薪械薪懈械褌芯, 褌邪泻邪 懈 薪邪 蟹邪褖懈褌邪褌邪. 袛芯褉懈 懈 褌褍泻, 胁 褌芯蟹懈 褋谢褍褔邪泄, 锌褉懈 泻芯泄褌芯 胁懈薪邪褌邪 懈 写械褟薪懈械褌芯 薪邪 芯斜胁懈薪褟械屑懈褟 褋邪 薪械褋褗屑薪械薪懈 芯褖械 锌褉械写懈 薪邪褔邪谢芯褌芯 薪邪 褋褗写械斜薪懈褌械 锌褉械薪懈褟, 邪 锌褉芯褑械褋褗褌 褋谢褍卸懈 蟹邪 锌褍斜谢懈褔薪芯 胁褗蟹屑械蟹写褟胁邪薪械 薪邪 卸械褉褌胁懈褌械.
袧芯 褌芯胁邪, 蟹邪褉邪写懈 泻芯械褌芯 薪邪懈褋褌懈薪邪 薪械 屑芯谐邪褌 写邪 泄 锌褉芯褋褌褟褌, 械 褔械 械 胁懈写褟谢邪 胁 袗泄褏屑邪薪 褔芯胁械褕泻芯 褋褗褖械褋褌胁芯, 谢懈褕械薪芯 芯褌 芯褉械芯谢邪 薪邪 泻谢邪褋懈褔械褋泻懈褟 蟹谢芯写械泄, 锌褉芯蟹褉褟谢邪 械 薪械谐芯胁邪褌邪 褍卸邪褋褟胁邪褖邪 芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪芯褋褌. 袧芯 泻邪泻 褌芯褔薪芯 褌褉褟斜胁邪 写邪 懈蟹谐谢械卸写邪 蟹谢芯褌芯?
袨褋胁械薪 褔械 薪邪写谐褉邪卸写邪 懈 褍锌谢褗褌薪褟胁邪 褌械芯褉懈褟褌邪 泄 蟹邪 褌芯褌邪谢懈褌邪褉懈蟹屑邪, 褉械锌芯褉褌邪卸褗褌 薪邪 啸邪薪邪 袗褉械薪写 锌褉械写褍锌褉械卸写邪胁邪, 锌芯写芯斜薪芯 薪邪 袩褉懈屑芯 袥械胁懈, 褋褉械褖褍 斜褗写械褖懈 锌芯褋械谐邪褌械谢褋褌胁邪 薪邪写 褔芯胁械褔械褋褌胁芯褌芯, 芯褋芯斜械薪芯 泻芯谐邪褌芯 褋邪 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹懈褉邪薪懈 芯褌 锌褉械褋褌褗锌械薪 写褗褉卸邪胁械薪 邪锌邪褉邪褌:
鈥炐澬感盒拘� 薪邪泻邪蟹邪薪懈械 薪械 锌褉懈褌械卸邪胁邪 写芯褋褌邪褌褗褔薪芯 胁褗蟹锌懈褉邪褖邪 褋懈谢邪, 蟹邪 写邪 锌褉械写芯褌胁褉邪褌懈 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 薪芯胁懈 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈褟. 孝褗泻屑芯 芯斜褉邪褌薪芯褌芯 鈥� 泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 懈 褋褍褉芯胁芯 写邪 械 薪邪泻邪蟹邪薪懈械褌芯, 褋谢械写 泻邪褌芯 写邪写械薪芯 褋锌械褑懈褎懈褔薪芯 锌褉械褋褌褗锌谢械薪懈械 褋械 械 锌芯褟胁懈谢芯 蟹邪 锌褗褉胁懈 锌褗褌, 薪械谐芯胁芯褌芯 锌芯胁褌芯褉薪芯 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪薪械 械 屑薪芯谐芯 锌芯-胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯 芯褌泻芯谢泻芯褌芯 锌褗褉胁芯薪邪褔邪谢薪邪褌邪 锌芯褟胁邪.鈥�
September 30, 2020
乇賵丕蹖鬲賽 噩匕丕亘貙 鬲讴丕賳 丿賴賳丿賴 賵 鬲丕賲賱 亘乇丕賳诏蹖夭賽 賴丕賳丕 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丌丿賵賱賮 丌蹖卮賲賳.
.丕賵 讴蹖爻鬲責 賲鬲禺氐氐 丕賲賵乇 蹖賴賵丿.
鬲禺氐氐 丿乇 趩賴責! 賮乇丕乇蹖 丿丕丿賳貙 丕禺乇丕噩 賵 亘賴鈥屬呚迟勜� 爻倬乇丿賳賽 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳賽 亘蹖鈥屬举嗀з� 丿乇 诏乇賲丕诏乇賲賽 噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲.
賲丕 丿乇 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 趩賴 亘賵丿蹖賲責! 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲丨讴賽 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 賯囟丕蹖蹖 丿乇 鬲丨賯賯 卮毓丕乇賽 丿蹖乇賵夭 賵 丕賲乇賵夭卮丕賳貙 蹖毓賳蹖 亘乇倬丕 丿丕卮鬲賽 毓丿丕賱鬲貨 丌賳賴賲 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 噩乇賲賽 賲噩乇賲蹖 讴賴 賵爻毓鬲 賵 丕亘毓丕丿卮 賯丿賽 丿賴丕賳賽 賴蹖趩 賯丕囟蹖 賵 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 賵 賵讴蹖賱 賲丿丕賮毓蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
丌蹖卮賲賳 蹖讴 賲乇丿賽 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 亘丕 賴蹖亘鬲蹖 賲鬲賵爻胤 賵 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屬囏й� 讴丕賲賱丕賸 乇丕蹖噩貙 賴賲趩賵賳 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屫促嗀ж驰屫� 賯丕賳賵賳鈥屬呚ж臂屫� 讴丕乇丌賲丿蹖 賵 丕賳丿讴蹖 卮賴乇鬲貙 讴賴 诏賳丕賴 亘夭乇诏卮 丕蹖賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 胤毓賲 賯丿乇鬲 讴賲 讴賲 亘賴鈥屫囏з嗀� 賲夭賴 讴乇丿 賵 賳丿丕蹖 賵噩丿丕賳卮 乇丕 禺丕賲賵卮 讴乇丿貨 丨丕賱丕 丿乇 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 賲鬲賴賲 丿乇噩賴 丕賵賱賽 "噩賳丕蹖鬲 毓賱蹖賴 亘卮乇蹖鬲" 賵 賳賲丕丿 夭賳丿賴 丕亘鬲匕丕賱賽 卮乇貙 丿乇 丕鬲丕賯讴 卮蹖卮賴鈥屫й� 丕蹖爻鬲丕丿賴 丕爻鬲.
.
噩丕蹖诏丕賴 卮蹖卮賴鈥屫й� 讴賵趩讴蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 鬲賲丕賲 丌賳 賲賱賱蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賳丕禺賵丿丌诏丕賴鈥屫簇з� 禺胤 賯乇賲夭蹖 賮乇囟蹖 亘丕 賲乇丿賲丕賳 丕賯賱蹖鬲賽 讴卮賵乇卮丕賳 讴卮蹖丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 賵 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲蹖 卮蹖乇賴 噩丕賳卮丕賳 亘賵丿 噩丕 賳丿丕卮鬲貨 賯丿乇 賴賲賴 丌賳 賲乇丿賲蹖 讴賴 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 丕禺乇丕噩 賵 賯鬲賱 毓丕賲賽 賴賲爻丕蹖賴貙 丿賵爻鬲貙 賴賲讴丕乇貙 賴賲鈥屬堌焚� 賵 賴賲鈥屬嗁堌关簇з� 亘賴鈥屫辟� 蹖賴賵丿蹖鬲貙 賲賴乇 爻讴賵鬲 亘乇 賱亘 夭丿賳丿貙 丌賵丕乇诏蹖 賵 噩丕賳 丿丕丿賳 賲蹖賱蹖賵賳鈥屬囏� 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 丿蹖丿賳丿 賵 讴賱丕賴鈥屫簇з� 乇丕 爻賮鬲鈥屫� 趩爻亘蹖丿賳丿貨 鬲賲丕賲 丌賳 丕賮爻乇丕賳 賵 爻乇亘丕夭丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵卮 乇賯氐蹖貙 趩乇禺鈥屬囏й� 丕蹖賳 賲丕卮蹖賳 讴卮鬲丕乇 乇丕 乇賵睾賳鈥屭┴ж臂� 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 "賴丕蹖賱 賴蹖鬲賱乇" 诏賵蹖丕賳 卮亘 賵 乇賵夭 乇丕 亘丕 卮賵賯 賵 丕賮鬲禺丕乇賽 禺丿賲鬲诏匕丕乇蹖賽 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴 亘賴鈥屬呟屬囐� 賵 丕賴丿丕賮 賵丕賱丕蹖 倬蹖卮賵丕 诏匕乇丕賳丿賳丿.
丿丕丿诏丕賴賽 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲 丿乇 丕賳亘丕乇賽 讴丕賴賽 賴夭丕乇鬲賵蹖賽 毓賵丕賲賱貙 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屬囏ж� 毓賵丕胤賮 賵 倬蹖趩蹖丿诏蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕賳爻丕賳 丿賳亘丕賱 爻賵夭賳蹖 亘賴鈥屬嗀з� 毓丿丕賱鬲 亘賵丿 賵 鬲丕 丌乇跇丕賳鬲蹖賳 丿乇 倬蹖賽 丌丿賵賱賮 丌蹖卮賲賳賽 賴賲賴鈥屭┴ж辟囏� 賵 亘賴鈥屬囐呚з� 丕賳丿丕夭賴 賴蹖趩 讴丕乇賴貙 丿乇 賯囟蹖賴 蹖賴賵丿 乇丕賴 丕賮鬲丕丿.
丿丕丿诏丕賴 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲蹖 讴賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 丿丕丿诏丕賴賽 亘乇賱蹖賳 卮賵丿貙 丕诏乇 噩賳诏 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲. .
乇丕蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 丕賮鬲禺丕乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘丕卮丿 賵 丌蹖卮賲賳 賯賴乇賲丕賳 賱賯亘 亘诏蹖乇丿 丕诏乇 賴蹖鬲賱乇 賴賵爻賽 丨賲賱賴 亘賴鈥屫辟堌驰屬� 乇丕 賳讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿.
丕蹖賳 爻賳丿蹖 亘乇 丕孬亘丕鬲賽 鬲夭賱夭賱賽 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 毓丿丕賱鬲 丕爻鬲貨 賵賯鬲蹖 卮毓丕毓 讴卮賮 丨賯蹖賯鬲 亘賴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 賵 賯丕囟蹖 賲丨丿賵丿 卮賵丿 賵 丕賲乇 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 亘丕 賵夭賳賴 毓賵丕賲賱 賲鬲睾蹖乇 賵 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖 丿乇 讴賮賴 鬲乇丕夭賵 賯乇丕乇 亘诏蹖乇丿.
鬲乇丕夭賵蹖 丨賯蹖賯鬲貙 賯賱亘 丕賳爻丕賳 丕爻鬲. 丕诏乇 亘丕 爻讴賵鬲卮貙 馗賱賲 乇丕 鬲睾匕蹖賴 賳讴賳丿 賵 賲賯丕亘賱 鬲亘毓蹖囟 賵 噩賳丕蹖鬲貙 賱丨馗丕鬲蹖 亘丕 賵噩丿丕賳 亘賴鈥屬傌敦з堌� 亘賳卮蹖賳丿.
亘丕 倬丕 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 亘乇 氐丿丕蹖 賵噩丿丕賳貙 賴乇蹖讴 丕夭 賲丕 亘賴鈥屫迟囐� 禺賵丿貙 賲鬲賴賲 亘賴 噩賳丕蹖鬲 毓賱蹖賴 亘卮乇蹖鬲 賴爻鬲蹖賲.
丿丕丿诏丕賴 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲 氐丿丕蹖 丨賯鈥屫堌з囒� 賯賵賲 蹖賴賵丿 亘賵丿貙 丌蹖卮賲賳 乇丕 亘賴鈥屫焚嗀ж� 丿丕乇 爻倬乇丿 丕賲丕 毓丿丕賱鬲 乇丕 賳蹖丕賮鬲. 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丌賳 氐丿丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕丿 丌丿賲蹖 賮乇蹖丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇� 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 囟噩賴鈥屬囏й屰� 禺賮賴 賵 诏賳诏 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 丕禺賱丕賯 賵 丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲 乇丕 诏賵卮夭丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 乇賮鬲賴 乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 賳丕 賲蹖鈥屫з佖� 鬲丕 賲丕 乇丕 亘賴鈥屫池� 賲鬲丨乇讴 賵 賲爻鬲毓丿賽 毓馗蹖賲鈥屫臂屬� 噩賳丕蹖丕鬲 亘卮乇蹖 賲亘丿賱 讴賳丿.
. 賲胤丕賱毓賴 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 鬲賵氐蹖賴 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁呚� 禺賵丕賳丿賳卮 乇丕 鬲讴賱蹖賮蹖 丿乇 噩賴鬲 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁�.
.丕賵 讴蹖爻鬲責 賲鬲禺氐氐 丕賲賵乇 蹖賴賵丿.
鬲禺氐氐 丿乇 趩賴責! 賮乇丕乇蹖 丿丕丿賳貙 丕禺乇丕噩 賵 亘賴鈥屬呚迟勜� 爻倬乇丿賳賽 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳賽 亘蹖鈥屬举嗀з� 丿乇 诏乇賲丕诏乇賲賽 噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲.
賲丕 丿乇 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 趩賴 亘賵丿蹖賲責! 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲丨讴賽 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖 賯囟丕蹖蹖 丿乇 鬲丨賯賯 卮毓丕乇賽 丿蹖乇賵夭 賵 丕賲乇賵夭卮丕賳貙 蹖毓賳蹖 亘乇倬丕 丿丕卮鬲賽 毓丿丕賱鬲貨 丌賳賴賲 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 噩乇賲賽 賲噩乇賲蹖 讴賴 賵爻毓鬲 賵 丕亘毓丕丿卮 賯丿賽 丿賴丕賳賽 賴蹖趩 賯丕囟蹖 賵 丿丕丿爻鬲丕賳 賵 賵讴蹖賱 賲丿丕賮毓蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
丌蹖卮賲賳 蹖讴 賲乇丿賽 賲毓賲賵賱蹖 亘丕 賴蹖亘鬲蹖 賲鬲賵爻胤 賵 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屬囏й� 讴丕賲賱丕賸 乇丕蹖噩貙 賴賲趩賵賳 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屫促嗀ж驰屫� 賯丕賳賵賳鈥屬呚ж臂屫� 讴丕乇丌賲丿蹖 賵 丕賳丿讴蹖 卮賴乇鬲貙 讴賴 诏賳丕賴 亘夭乇诏卮 丕蹖賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 胤毓賲 賯丿乇鬲 讴賲 讴賲 亘賴鈥屫囏з嗀� 賲夭賴 讴乇丿 賵 賳丿丕蹖 賵噩丿丕賳卮 乇丕 禺丕賲賵卮 讴乇丿貨 丨丕賱丕 丿乇 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 賲鬲賴賲 丿乇噩賴 丕賵賱賽 "噩賳丕蹖鬲 毓賱蹖賴 亘卮乇蹖鬲" 賵 賳賲丕丿 夭賳丿賴 丕亘鬲匕丕賱賽 卮乇貙 丿乇 丕鬲丕賯讴 卮蹖卮賴鈥屫й� 丕蹖爻鬲丕丿賴 丕爻鬲.
.
噩丕蹖诏丕賴 卮蹖卮賴鈥屫й� 讴賵趩讴蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 鬲賲丕賲 丌賳 賲賱賱蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賳丕禺賵丿丌诏丕賴鈥屫簇з� 禺胤 賯乇賲夭蹖 賮乇囟蹖 亘丕 賲乇丿賲丕賳 丕賯賱蹖鬲賽 讴卮賵乇卮丕賳 讴卮蹖丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 賵 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲蹖 卮蹖乇賴 噩丕賳卮丕賳 亘賵丿 噩丕 賳丿丕卮鬲貨 賯丿乇 賴賲賴 丌賳 賲乇丿賲蹖 讴賴 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 丕禺乇丕噩 賵 賯鬲賱 毓丕賲賽 賴賲爻丕蹖賴貙 丿賵爻鬲貙 賴賲讴丕乇貙 賴賲鈥屬堌焚� 賵 賴賲鈥屬嗁堌关簇з� 亘賴鈥屫辟� 蹖賴賵丿蹖鬲貙 賲賴乇 爻讴賵鬲 亘乇 賱亘 夭丿賳丿貙 丌賵丕乇诏蹖 賵 噩丕賳 丿丕丿賳 賲蹖賱蹖賵賳鈥屬囏� 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 丿蹖丿賳丿 賵 讴賱丕賴鈥屫簇з� 乇丕 爻賮鬲鈥屫� 趩爻亘蹖丿賳丿貨 鬲賲丕賲 丌賳 丕賮爻乇丕賳 賵 爻乇亘丕夭丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵卮 乇賯氐蹖貙 趩乇禺鈥屬囏й� 丕蹖賳 賲丕卮蹖賳 讴卮鬲丕乇 乇丕 乇賵睾賳鈥屭┴ж臂� 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 "賴丕蹖賱 賴蹖鬲賱乇" 诏賵蹖丕賳 卮亘 賵 乇賵夭 乇丕 亘丕 卮賵賯 賵 丕賮鬲禺丕乇賽 禺丿賲鬲诏匕丕乇蹖賽 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴 亘賴鈥屬呟屬囐� 賵 丕賴丿丕賮 賵丕賱丕蹖 倬蹖卮賵丕 诏匕乇丕賳丿賳丿.
丿丕丿诏丕賴賽 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲 丿乇 丕賳亘丕乇賽 讴丕賴賽 賴夭丕乇鬲賵蹖賽 毓賵丕賲賱貙 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屬囏ж� 毓賵丕胤賮 賵 倬蹖趩蹖丿诏蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕賳爻丕賳 丿賳亘丕賱 爻賵夭賳蹖 亘賴鈥屬嗀з� 毓丿丕賱鬲 亘賵丿 賵 鬲丕 丌乇跇丕賳鬲蹖賳 丿乇 倬蹖賽 丌丿賵賱賮 丌蹖卮賲賳賽 賴賲賴鈥屭┴ж辟囏� 賵 亘賴鈥屬囐呚з� 丕賳丿丕夭賴 賴蹖趩 讴丕乇賴貙 丿乇 賯囟蹖賴 蹖賴賵丿 乇丕賴 丕賮鬲丕丿.
丿丕丿诏丕賴 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲蹖 讴賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲 丿丕丿诏丕賴賽 亘乇賱蹖賳 卮賵丿貙 丕诏乇 噩賳诏 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲. .
乇丕蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池� 丕賮鬲禺丕乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘丕卮丿 賵 丌蹖卮賲賳 賯賴乇賲丕賳 賱賯亘 亘诏蹖乇丿 丕诏乇 賴蹖鬲賱乇 賴賵爻賽 丨賲賱賴 亘賴鈥屫辟堌驰屬� 乇丕 賳讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿.
丕蹖賳 爻賳丿蹖 亘乇 丕孬亘丕鬲賽 鬲夭賱夭賱賽 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 毓丿丕賱鬲 丕爻鬲貨 賵賯鬲蹖 卮毓丕毓 讴卮賮 丨賯蹖賯鬲 亘賴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 賵 賯丕囟蹖 賲丨丿賵丿 卮賵丿 賵 丕賲乇 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 亘丕 賵夭賳賴 毓賵丕賲賱 賲鬲睾蹖乇 賵 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖 丿乇 讴賮賴 鬲乇丕夭賵 賯乇丕乇 亘诏蹖乇丿.
鬲乇丕夭賵蹖 丨賯蹖賯鬲貙 賯賱亘 丕賳爻丕賳 丕爻鬲. 丕诏乇 亘丕 爻讴賵鬲卮貙 馗賱賲 乇丕 鬲睾匕蹖賴 賳讴賳丿 賵 賲賯丕亘賱 鬲亘毓蹖囟 賵 噩賳丕蹖鬲貙 賱丨馗丕鬲蹖 亘丕 賵噩丿丕賳 亘賴鈥屬傌敦з堌� 亘賳卮蹖賳丿.
亘丕 倬丕 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 亘乇 氐丿丕蹖 賵噩丿丕賳貙 賴乇蹖讴 丕夭 賲丕 亘賴鈥屫迟囐� 禺賵丿貙 賲鬲賴賲 亘賴 噩賳丕蹖鬲 毓賱蹖賴 亘卮乇蹖鬲 賴爻鬲蹖賲.
丿丕丿诏丕賴 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲 氐丿丕蹖 丨賯鈥屫堌з囒� 賯賵賲 蹖賴賵丿 亘賵丿貙 丌蹖卮賲賳 乇丕 亘賴鈥屫焚嗀ж� 丿丕乇 爻倬乇丿 丕賲丕 毓丿丕賱鬲 乇丕 賳蹖丕賮鬲. 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丌賳 氐丿丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕丿 丌丿賲蹖 賮乇蹖丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇� 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 囟噩賴鈥屬囏й屰� 禺賮賴 賵 诏賳诏 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 丕禺賱丕賯 賵 丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲 乇丕 诏賵卮夭丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 乇賮鬲賴 乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 賳丕 賲蹖鈥屫з佖� 鬲丕 賲丕 乇丕 亘賴鈥屫池� 賲鬲丨乇讴 賵 賲爻鬲毓丿賽 毓馗蹖賲鈥屫臂屬� 噩賳丕蹖丕鬲 亘卮乇蹖 賲亘丿賱 讴賳丿.
. 賲胤丕賱毓賴 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 鬲賵氐蹖賴 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁呚� 禺賵丕賳丿賳卮 乇丕 鬲讴賱蹖賮蹖 丿乇 噩賴鬲 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁�.
October 24, 2023
丌賲丿賲 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇蹖賵蹖賵 亘賳賵蹖爻賲:禺胤 夭丿賲 賵 禺胤 夭丿賲 賵... 丿乇 丌禺乇 鬲乇噩蹖丨 丿丕丿賲 丿爻鬲 噩乇丿賳 倬蹖鬲乇爻賵賳 乇賵丕賳卮賳丕爻 賵 賲鬲賮讴乇 讴丕賳丕丿丕蹖蹖 乇丕 亘诏蹖乇賲...
賲氐丕丨亘賴鈥屬囏й� 丕賵 乇丕 诏賵卮 丿丕丿賲貙亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳噩丕 賲蹖丌賵乇賲:
賲丕 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 讴賴 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴 丕夭 丕賮乇丕丿 爻鬲賲 丿蹖丿賴 賵 亘蹖鈥屭嗀з囒� 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮丿賳 讴賴 鬲丨鬲 讴賳鬲乇賱賽 卮丿蹖丿賽 蹖賴 丕賴乇蹖賲賳賽 卮蹖胤丕賳蹖 賴爻鬲賳.賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 鬲賲丕賲 賮噩丕蹖毓 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 爻乇丕夭蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫促� 丕賲丕 賲賳 賮讴乇 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 丕蹖賳 丿乇爻鬲 亘丕卮賴.亘蹖卮鬲乇 卮亘蹖賴 蹖賴 爻丕禺鬲丕乇賽 爻賴 亘購毓丿蹖賴 讴賴 丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿貙丿乇 鬲讴 鬲讴 爻胤賵丨卮 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.丕夭 賱丨丕馗 乇賵丕賳蹖 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.丿乇 丿乇賵賳 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.丿乇 爻胤丨 賵丕爻胤賴鈥屰� 爻丕夭賲丕賳 賴丕 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.
賲孬賱丕 丿乇 丌賱賲丕賳 卮乇賯蹖貙丕夭 賴乇 鄢 賳賮乇貙蹖讴 賳賮乇 噩丕爻賵爻 丨讴賵賲鬲 亘賵丿.蹖毓賳蹖 丕诏賴 蹖賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 鄱 賳賮乇賴 丿丕卮鬲蹖 亘賴 鄄 賳賮乇卮賵賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堎嗀池� 丕毓鬲賲丕丿 讴賳蹖.倬爻 賳賲蹖鈥屫堎嗃屬� 亘诏蹖賲 丕蹖賳 賮賯胤 賳鬲蹖噩賴 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳賴.丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿 趩蹖夭蹖賴 讴賴 賵賯鬲蹖 賲爻賱胤 卮丿貙丿蹖诏賴 賴賲夭賲丕賳 賴賲賴 噩丕 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.丌丿賲鈥屬囏� 乇丕丨鬲 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 亘诏賳:芦賲賳 賮賯胤 丿爻鬲賵乇丕鬲 乇賵 丕噩乇丕 讴乇丿賲禄.
賲賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕丿毓丕 讴賳賲 讴賴 丕诏賴 賲賳 鬲賵蹖 趩賳蹖賳 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲蹖 亘賵丿賲 丿爻鬲賵乇丕鬲 乇賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 胤乇蹖賯 丕噩乇丕 賳賲蹖鈥屭┴必�.賵賯鬲蹖 禺賵丿鬲 丿乇 丕賵賳 卮乇丕蹖胤 亘丕卮蹖 賮賯胤 禺丿丕 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 趩蹖 賲蹖卮賴貙丿乇 丕蹖賳 卮讴蹖 賳蹖爻鬲.丕賲丕 賲胤丕賱毓賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘丕毓孬 卮丿 讴賴 鬲賵噩賴賲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 乇賵蹖 囟乇賵乇鬲 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 賮乇丿蹖 鬲賲乇讴夭 亘卮賴.亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 乇爻蹖丿賲 讴賴 賲爻卅賵賱 讴賴 賲爻卅賵賱 丕賴乇蹖賲賳 賴丕蹖 亘夭乇诏 賯乇賳 亘蹖爻鬲賲貙鬲讴 鬲讴 丌丿賲鈥屬囏� 亘賵丿賳 讴賴 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 丕蹖賳 蹖賴 乇丕賴 賲毓賯賵賱 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 賲爻卅賱賴 亘丕卮賴.
丿乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 亘丕夭 賴賲 丕蹖賳 鬲讴 鬲讴 丌丿賲 賴丕 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 賲爻卅賵賱 賴乇 賳賵毓 禺蹖乇 丿乇 亘卮乇 賴爻鬲賳丿 .禺蹖乇賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 讴賲讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕夭 趩賳蹖賳 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴 噩賱賵诏蹖乇蹖 讴賳蹖賲.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏й� 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴 丕蹖賳胤賵乇蹖 乇卮丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 賲賻乇丿賲 亘蹖 禺蹖丕賱賽 丨賯賽 亘賵丿賳卮賵賳 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀屫� 夭賳丿賴 亘賵丿賳 亘丕 丕賮讴丕乇 禺賵丿卮賵賳.
丿乇賵睾鈥� 賲蹖鈥屭� .
鬲讴 鬲讴 賲賻乇丿賲 乇賵丨卮賵賳 乇賵 賯乇亘丕賳蹖 丿爻鬲賵乇丕鬲 丨讴賵賲鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.賵 丕蹖賳胤賵乇蹖賴 讴賴 賴賲賴 趩蹖 亘丿 倬蹖卮 賲蹖乇賴.賲賳 趩賳丿 丿賴 爻丕賱 乇賵 氐乇賮 賲胤丕賱毓賴 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴蹖 讴乇丿賲.
賲卮讴賱 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 賳蹖爻鬲.丕蹖賳胤賵乇蹖 賳蹖爻賳 讴賴 賳丕夭蹖 賴丕 丿爻鬲賵乇 亘丿賳 賵 卮賲丕 賴賲 賲胤蹖毓 亘蹖 诏賳丕賴 賵丕蹖爻鬲蹖丿貙丕蹖賳胤賵乇 賳蹖爻鬲.
鬲賵 亘賵丿賳鬲 乇賵 賲禺丿賵卮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃�.匕乇賴 匕乇賴.賵 亘賴 噩丕蹖蹖 賲蹖鈥屫必驰� 讴賴 賵丕賯毓丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌й�.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
亘丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴蹖鬲賱乇 賵 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳 卮禺氐蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 賳丕丿乇蹖 亘賵丿賳 丕賲丕 蹖賴 匕乇賴 丕夭 賴蹖鬲賱乇 賵 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳 丿乇 賴乇讴爻蹖 賴爻鬲...賲噩乇蹖[賵丕賯毓丕責責 蹖賴 匕乇賴 丕夭 賴蹖鬲賱乇 丿乇賵賳 賴乇讴爻蹖 賴爻鬲責責責]
倬蹖鬲乇爻賵賳: 蹖賴 匕乇賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇.趩乇丕 賳丕夭蹖爻賲 丕賵賳胤賵乇蹖 乇卮丿 讴乇丿責 賲賻乇丿賲 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賲卮讴賱 丕夭 亘丕賱丕爻鬲貙丕夭 亘丕賱丕 賳蹖爻鬲.亘丕 賴賵卮 鬲乇蹖賳 鬲丨賱蹖賱鈥屭辟囏й� 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏й� 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴貙賲孬賱 爻賵賱跇賳蹖鬲爻蹖賳 賵 禺蹖賱蹖 丕夭 鬲丨賱蹖賱鈥屭辟囏й� 乇賵丕賳卮賳丕爻 賲孬賱 蹖賵賳诏 讴賴 賲孬丕賱 禺賵亘蹖賴 禺蹖賱蹖 賵丕囟丨 诏賮鬲賳 讴賴 鬲丕 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 賴乇 讴爻蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 賵 丿乇 賴賲賴 賵賯鬲貙丨丕囟乇 亘賴 丿乇賵睾 賳亘丕卮賴 賳賲蹖卮賴 蹖賴 丿賵賱鬲 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴 鬲卮讴蹖賱 亘卮賴.賲蹖卮賴 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賴賲 亘賴卮 賮讴乇 讴乇丿.趩賵賳 乇賴亘乇 賴丕 賴賲 丿乇賵睾 賲蹖鈥屭�.賵 丕诏乇 鬲賵 賴賲 丿乇賵睾 賳诏蹖 賲噩丕夭丕鬲鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.丕賲丕 丕蹖賳胤賵乇蹖 亘賴卮 賮讴乇 讴賳 讴賴 乇賵丨 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴蹖貙丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 爻胤賵丨 噩丕賲毓賴 賳賮賵匕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.賵 丿乇 蹖賴 丿賵賱鬲 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴賽 賵丕賯毓蹖貙卮賵賴乇 賴丕 亘賴 賴賲爻乇賴丕卮賵賳 丿乇賵睾 賲蹖鈥屭嗀屬堌з勜屬� 亘賴 亘趩賴鈥屬囏ж促堎� 丿乇賵睾 賲蹖鈥屭�.
丿賵賱鬲 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴 丿乇 賵丕賯毓貙賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屰� 賴賲賴 诏蹖乇蹖 丿乇賵睾賴.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
丕蹖賳 賴丕 卮丕蹖丿 賳賵丿 賵 賳賴 丿乇氐丿 丌賳趩賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 亘诏賵蹖丿.
丕賲丕 丿乇 [爻禺賳 丌禺乇] 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇賲 丌禺乇蹖賳 氐賮丨賴 賵 丌禺乇蹖賳 爻禺賳丕賳 賯丕囟蹖 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 蹖讴 賯丕鬲賱 亘卮乇蹖鬲 乇丕 亘蹖丕賵乇賲:
丿乇 卮乇丕蹖胤. 亘賴鬲乇貙賵丕賯毓丕 亘毓蹖丿 亘賵丿 诏匕丕乇 卮賲丕 亘賴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 賲丕 蹖丕 賴乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴 讴蹖賮乇蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘蹖賮鬲丿.亘乇丕蹖 倬蹖卮亘乇丿 亘丨孬貙賮乇囟 讴賳蹖賲 賮賯胤 賵 賮賯胤 亘丿 丕賯亘丕賱蹖 亘丕毓孬 卮丿 讴賴 卮賲丕 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 丕亘夭丕乇蹖 丨丕囟乇 賵 丌賲丕丿賴 丿乇 鬲卮讴蹖賱丕鬲 讴卮鬲丕乇 噩賲毓蹖 亘卮賵蹖丿貨亘丕夭 丕蹖賳 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 亘賴 賵賯鬲 禺賵丿 亘丕賯蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 卮賲丕 爻蹖丕爻鬲 讴卮鬲丕乇 噩賲毓蹖 乇丕 丕噩乇丕 讴乇丿賴 賵 賱匕丕 賮毓丕賱丕賳賴 丕夭 丌賳 丨賲丕蹖鬲 讴乇丿賴鈥屫й屫�.趩賵賳 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賲賴丿讴賵丿讴 賳蹖爻鬲貨丿乇 爻蹖丕爻鬲 丕胤丕毓鬲 賵 丨賲丕蹖鬲 蹖讴爻丕賳鈥屫з嗀�.賵 丿乇爻鬲 賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 卮賲丕 丨丕賲蹖 賵 賲噩乇蹖 爻蹖丕爻鬲蹖 亘賵丿蹖丿 讴賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 夭賲蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 賲乇丿賲 蹖賴賵丿 賵 賲乇丿賲 趩賳丿 賲賱鬲 丿蹖诏乇 爻賴蹖賲 亘丕卮丿_诏賵蹖蹖 卮賲丕 賵 賲丕 賮賵賯鈥屬囏й屫з� 丕爻丕爻丕賸 丨賯 丿丕卮鬲蹖丿 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 趩賴 讴爻蹖 亘丕蹖丿 蹖丕 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿_賲丕 賴賲 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 乇爻蹖丿賴鈥屫й屬� 讴賴 丕夭 賴蹖趩鈥屭┴池屰屫官嗃� 丕夭 賴蹖趩 蹖讴 丕夭 丕毓囟丕蹖 賳跇丕丿 丕賳爻丕賳貙賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丿丕卮鬲 讴賴 亘禺賵丕賴丿 夭賲蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 卮賲丕 爻賴蹖賲 亘丕卮丿.亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱貙賵 賮賯胤 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱貙卮賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丿丕乇 丌賵蹖禺鬲賴 卮賵蹖丿.
賲氐丕丨亘賴鈥屬囏й� 丕賵 乇丕 诏賵卮 丿丕丿賲貙亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳噩丕 賲蹖丌賵乇賲:
賲丕 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 讴賴 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴 丕夭 丕賮乇丕丿 爻鬲賲 丿蹖丿賴 賵 亘蹖鈥屭嗀з囒� 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮丿賳 讴賴 鬲丨鬲 讴賳鬲乇賱賽 卮丿蹖丿賽 蹖賴 丕賴乇蹖賲賳賽 卮蹖胤丕賳蹖 賴爻鬲賳.賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 鬲賲丕賲 賮噩丕蹖毓 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 爻乇丕夭蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫促� 丕賲丕 賲賳 賮讴乇 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 丕蹖賳 丿乇爻鬲 亘丕卮賴.亘蹖卮鬲乇 卮亘蹖賴 蹖賴 爻丕禺鬲丕乇賽 爻賴 亘購毓丿蹖賴 讴賴 丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿貙丿乇 鬲讴 鬲讴 爻胤賵丨卮 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.丕夭 賱丨丕馗 乇賵丕賳蹖 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.丿乇 丿乇賵賳 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.丿乇 爻胤丨 賵丕爻胤賴鈥屰� 爻丕夭賲丕賳 賴丕 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.
賲孬賱丕 丿乇 丌賱賲丕賳 卮乇賯蹖貙丕夭 賴乇 鄢 賳賮乇貙蹖讴 賳賮乇 噩丕爻賵爻 丨讴賵賲鬲 亘賵丿.蹖毓賳蹖 丕诏賴 蹖賴 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 鄱 賳賮乇賴 丿丕卮鬲蹖 亘賴 鄄 賳賮乇卮賵賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堎嗀池� 丕毓鬲賲丕丿 讴賳蹖.倬爻 賳賲蹖鈥屫堎嗃屬� 亘诏蹖賲 丕蹖賳 賮賯胤 賳鬲蹖噩賴 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳賴.丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿 趩蹖夭蹖賴 讴賴 賵賯鬲蹖 賲爻賱胤 卮丿貙丿蹖诏賴 賴賲夭賲丕賳 賴賲賴 噩丕 丨囟賵乇 丿丕乇賴.丌丿賲鈥屬囏� 乇丕丨鬲 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 亘诏賳:芦賲賳 賮賯胤 丿爻鬲賵乇丕鬲 乇賵 丕噩乇丕 讴乇丿賲禄.
賲賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕丿毓丕 讴賳賲 讴賴 丕诏賴 賲賳 鬲賵蹖 趩賳蹖賳 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲蹖 亘賵丿賲 丿爻鬲賵乇丕鬲 乇賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 胤乇蹖賯 丕噩乇丕 賳賲蹖鈥屭┴必�.賵賯鬲蹖 禺賵丿鬲 丿乇 丕賵賳 卮乇丕蹖胤 亘丕卮蹖 賮賯胤 禺丿丕 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗁� 趩蹖 賲蹖卮賴貙丿乇 丕蹖賳 卮讴蹖 賳蹖爻鬲.丕賲丕 賲胤丕賱毓賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘丕毓孬 卮丿 讴賴 鬲賵噩賴賲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 乇賵蹖 囟乇賵乇鬲 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 賮乇丿蹖 鬲賲乇讴夭 亘卮賴.亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 乇爻蹖丿賲 讴賴 賲爻卅賵賱 讴賴 賲爻卅賵賱 丕賴乇蹖賲賳 賴丕蹖 亘夭乇诏 賯乇賳 亘蹖爻鬲賲貙鬲讴 鬲讴 丌丿賲鈥屬囏� 亘賵丿賳 讴賴 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 丕蹖賳 蹖賴 乇丕賴 賲毓賯賵賱 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 賲爻卅賱賴 亘丕卮賴.
丿乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 亘丕夭 賴賲 丕蹖賳 鬲讴 鬲讴 丌丿賲 賴丕 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 賲爻卅賵賱 賴乇 賳賵毓 禺蹖乇 丿乇 亘卮乇 賴爻鬲賳丿 .禺蹖乇賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 讴賲讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕夭 趩賳蹖賳 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴 噩賱賵诏蹖乇蹖 讴賳蹖賲.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏й� 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴 丕蹖賳胤賵乇蹖 乇卮丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 賲賻乇丿賲 亘蹖 禺蹖丕賱賽 丨賯賽 亘賵丿賳卮賵賳 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀屫� 夭賳丿賴 亘賵丿賳 亘丕 丕賮讴丕乇 禺賵丿卮賵賳.
丿乇賵睾鈥� 賲蹖鈥屭� .
鬲讴 鬲讴 賲賻乇丿賲 乇賵丨卮賵賳 乇賵 賯乇亘丕賳蹖 丿爻鬲賵乇丕鬲 丨讴賵賲鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.賵 丕蹖賳胤賵乇蹖賴 讴賴 賴賲賴 趩蹖 亘丿 倬蹖卮 賲蹖乇賴.賲賳 趩賳丿 丿賴 爻丕賱 乇賵 氐乇賮 賲胤丕賱毓賴 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴蹖 讴乇丿賲.
賲卮讴賱 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 賳蹖爻鬲.丕蹖賳胤賵乇蹖 賳蹖爻賳 讴賴 賳丕夭蹖 賴丕 丿爻鬲賵乇 亘丿賳 賵 卮賲丕 賴賲 賲胤蹖毓 亘蹖 诏賳丕賴 賵丕蹖爻鬲蹖丿貙丕蹖賳胤賵乇 賳蹖爻鬲.
鬲賵 亘賵丿賳鬲 乇賵 賲禺丿賵卮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃�.匕乇賴 匕乇賴.賵 亘賴 噩丕蹖蹖 賲蹖鈥屫必驰� 讴賴 賵丕賯毓丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌й�.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
亘丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴蹖鬲賱乇 賵 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳 卮禺氐蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 賳丕丿乇蹖 亘賵丿賳 丕賲丕 蹖賴 匕乇賴 丕夭 賴蹖鬲賱乇 賵 丕爻鬲丕賱蹖賳 丿乇 賴乇讴爻蹖 賴爻鬲...賲噩乇蹖[賵丕賯毓丕責責 蹖賴 匕乇賴 丕夭 賴蹖鬲賱乇 丿乇賵賳 賴乇讴爻蹖 賴爻鬲責責責]
倬蹖鬲乇爻賵賳: 蹖賴 匕乇賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇.趩乇丕 賳丕夭蹖爻賲 丕賵賳胤賵乇蹖 乇卮丿 讴乇丿責 賲賻乇丿賲 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賲卮讴賱 丕夭 亘丕賱丕爻鬲貙丕夭 亘丕賱丕 賳蹖爻鬲.亘丕 賴賵卮 鬲乇蹖賳 鬲丨賱蹖賱鈥屭辟囏й� 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏й� 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴貙賲孬賱 爻賵賱跇賳蹖鬲爻蹖賳 賵 禺蹖賱蹖 丕夭 鬲丨賱蹖賱鈥屭辟囏й� 乇賵丕賳卮賳丕爻 賲孬賱 蹖賵賳诏 讴賴 賲孬丕賱 禺賵亘蹖賴 禺蹖賱蹖 賵丕囟丨 诏賮鬲賳 讴賴 鬲丕 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 賴乇 讴爻蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 賵 丿乇 賴賲賴 賵賯鬲貙丨丕囟乇 亘賴 丿乇賵睾 賳亘丕卮賴 賳賲蹖卮賴 蹖賴 丿賵賱鬲 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴 鬲卮讴蹖賱 亘卮賴.賲蹖卮賴 丕夭 亘丕賱丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賴賲 亘賴卮 賮讴乇 讴乇丿.趩賵賳 乇賴亘乇 賴丕 賴賲 丿乇賵睾 賲蹖鈥屭�.賵 丕诏乇 鬲賵 賴賲 丿乇賵睾 賳诏蹖 賲噩丕夭丕鬲鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.丕賲丕 丕蹖賳胤賵乇蹖 亘賴卮 賮讴乇 讴賳 讴賴 乇賵丨 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴蹖貙丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 爻胤賵丨 噩丕賲毓賴 賳賮賵匕 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.賵 丿乇 蹖賴 丿賵賱鬲 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴賽 賵丕賯毓蹖貙卮賵賴乇 賴丕 亘賴 賴賲爻乇賴丕卮賵賳 丿乇賵睾 賲蹖鈥屭嗀屬堌з勜屬� 亘賴 亘趩賴鈥屬囏ж促堎� 丿乇賵睾 賲蹖鈥屭�.
丿賵賱鬲 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲 禺賵丕賴 丿乇 賵丕賯毓貙賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屰� 賴賲賴 诏蹖乇蹖 丿乇賵睾賴.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
丕蹖賳 賴丕 卮丕蹖丿 賳賵丿 賵 賳賴 丿乇氐丿 丌賳趩賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 亘诏賵蹖丿.
丕賲丕 丿乇 [爻禺賳 丌禺乇] 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇賲 丌禺乇蹖賳 氐賮丨賴 賵 丌禺乇蹖賳 爻禺賳丕賳 賯丕囟蹖 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 蹖讴 賯丕鬲賱 亘卮乇蹖鬲 乇丕 亘蹖丕賵乇賲:
丿乇 卮乇丕蹖胤. 亘賴鬲乇貙賵丕賯毓丕 亘毓蹖丿 亘賵丿 诏匕丕乇 卮賲丕 亘賴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 賲丕 蹖丕 賴乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴 讴蹖賮乇蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘蹖賮鬲丿.亘乇丕蹖 倬蹖卮亘乇丿 亘丨孬貙賮乇囟 讴賳蹖賲 賮賯胤 賵 賮賯胤 亘丿 丕賯亘丕賱蹖 亘丕毓孬 卮丿 讴賴 卮賲丕 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 丕亘夭丕乇蹖 丨丕囟乇 賵 丌賲丕丿賴 丿乇 鬲卮讴蹖賱丕鬲 讴卮鬲丕乇 噩賲毓蹖 亘卮賵蹖丿貨亘丕夭 丕蹖賳 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 亘賴 賵賯鬲 禺賵丿 亘丕賯蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 卮賲丕 爻蹖丕爻鬲 讴卮鬲丕乇 噩賲毓蹖 乇丕 丕噩乇丕 讴乇丿賴 賵 賱匕丕 賮毓丕賱丕賳賴 丕夭 丌賳 丨賲丕蹖鬲 讴乇丿賴鈥屫й屫�.趩賵賳 爻蹖丕爻鬲 賲賴丿讴賵丿讴 賳蹖爻鬲貨丿乇 爻蹖丕爻鬲 丕胤丕毓鬲 賵 丨賲丕蹖鬲 蹖讴爻丕賳鈥屫з嗀�.賵 丿乇爻鬲 賴賲丕賳胤賵乇 讴賴 卮賲丕 丨丕賲蹖 賵 賲噩乇蹖 爻蹖丕爻鬲蹖 亘賵丿蹖丿 讴賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 夭賲蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 賲乇丿賲 蹖賴賵丿 賵 賲乇丿賲 趩賳丿 賲賱鬲 丿蹖诏乇 爻賴蹖賲 亘丕卮丿_诏賵蹖蹖 卮賲丕 賵 賲丕 賮賵賯鈥屬囏й屫з� 丕爻丕爻丕賸 丨賯 丿丕卮鬲蹖丿 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 趩賴 讴爻蹖 亘丕蹖丿 蹖丕 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿_賲丕 賴賲 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 乇爻蹖丿賴鈥屫й屬� 讴賴 丕夭 賴蹖趩鈥屭┴池屰屫官嗃� 丕夭 賴蹖趩 蹖讴 丕夭 丕毓囟丕蹖 賳跇丕丿 丕賳爻丕賳貙賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丿丕卮鬲 讴賴 亘禺賵丕賴丿 夭賲蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 卮賲丕 爻賴蹖賲 亘丕卮丿.亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱貙賵 賮賯胤 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱貙卮賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丿丕乇 丌賵蹖禺鬲賴 卮賵蹖丿.
November 23, 2020
丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲貙 賵丕噩亘鈥屫� 丕夭 賳丕賳 卮亘
噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲 乇丕 賴蹖鬲賱乇 卮乇賵毓 讴乇丿 賵 噩丕賳卮 乇丕 賴賲 倬丕蹖 丌賳 丿丕丿. 丕賲丕 亘乇 爻乇 倬丕蹖丕賳 亘賳丿蹖 丌賳 鬲丕 亘賴 丕賲乇賵夭 賴賲趩賳丕賳 丿毓賵丕爻鬲. 趩倬鈥屬囏� 丕蹖賳 倬丕蹖丕賳 乇丕 丕夭 丌賳 丕鬲丨丕丿 噩賲丕賴蹖乇 卮賵乇賵蹖 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀� 賵 睾乇亘蹖鈥屬囏� 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 亘乇 丨爻亘 毓賱丕蹖賯卮丕賳 丌賳 乇丕 倬丕蹖 乇賵夭賵賱鬲貙 鬲乇賵賲賳貙 趩乇趩蹖賱 賵 丌蹖夭賳賴丕賵乇 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟嗀�. 丕賱亘鬲賴 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖鈥屬囏� 賴賲 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丿賵诏賱 乇丕 毓賱賲 讴賳賳丿 丕賲丕 讴爻蹖 噩丿蹖 卮丕賳 賳賲蹖鈥屭屫必�.
賲賳 賴賲 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇.
丕賲丕 賵丕賯毓丕 倬丕蹖丕賳 乇卮鬲賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賵賯丕蹖毓 讴賴 亘丕 鬲賵丕賮賯 賲賵賱賵鬲賵賮-乇蹖亘賳鬲賵乇倬 卮乇賵毓 卮丿 賵 賲丕 丕爻賲卮 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж臂屬� 噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 讴蹖 亘賵丿 責 讴噩丕 亘賵丿責 鬲爻賱蹖賲 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 爻賯賵胤 乇丕蹖卮鬲丕诏責 亘賲亘丕乇丕賳 丕鬲賲蹖鈥屬嗀и┴ж藏и┷� 賵 賴蹖乇賵卮蹖賲丕責 鬲爻賱蹖賲 跇丕倬賳 責鈥屬囏з嗀� 丌乇賳鬲 乇丨賲賴 丕賱賱賴 毓賱蹖賴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丿乇 1962貙 賵賯鬲蹖 噩賳丕夭賴 蹖 丌丿賵賱賮 丌蹖卮賲賳 丕夭 丿丕乇 賲噩丕夭丕鬲 倬丕蹖蹖賳 讴卮蹖丿賴 卮丿. 賵賯鬲蹖 亘賴 讴賵乇賴 蹖 噩爻丿 爻賵夭蹖 乇賮鬲. 賵賯鬲蹖 禺丕讴爻鬲乇卮 亘賴 亘丕丿 賵 丿乇蹖丕 爻倬乇丿賴 卮丿.
賵賯鬲蹖 乇卅蹖爻 倬乇賵跇賴 蹖 乇丕賴 丨賱 賳賴丕蹖蹖貙 鬲賵爻胤 賯賵賲 蹖賴賵丿 亘賴 噩賴賳賲 賮乇爻鬲丕丿賴 卮丿.
亘賳 诏賵乇蹖賵賳 賳禺爻鬲 賵夭蹖乇 乇跇蹖賲 賲賳丨賵爻 賵 噩毓賱蹖 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱貙 丌賳 乇賵夭賴丕 賴賳賵夭 夭賳丿賴 亘賵丿. 賴賳賵夭 丕爻賲卮 賳卮丿賴 亘賵丿 賳丕賲 賮乇賵丿诏丕賴 賵 亘乇丕蹖 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳 丕賯鬲丿丕乇 丨讴賵賲鬲卮 毓賲賱蹖丕鬲蹖 賲鬲賴賵乇丕賳賴 乇丕 鬲賵爻胤 賲賵爻丕丿 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 丿丕丿 鬲丕 丌賳 诏乇丿賳 讴賱賮鬲 賯丿乇 賯丿乇鬲 丌丿賲讴卮 乇丕 讴賴 丨丕賱丕 賲孬賱 賲賵卮 亘賴 爻賵乇丕禺蹖 丿乇 丌乇跇丕賳鬲蹖賳 禺夭蹖丿賴 亘賵丿 乇丕 夭賳丿賴 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇 讴賳丿 賵 亘乇亘丕蹖丿 賵 亘乇丿丕乇丿 亘蹖丕賵乇丿 鬲丕 賯賵賲 蹖賴賵丿 賲丨丕讴賲賴 丕卮 讴賳賳丿.
亘乇丕蹖 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 丕蹖賳 禺賵丕爻鬲賴鈥屬囏� 賴賲 乇賮鬲 爻乇丕睾 賲乇丨賵賲賴 丌乇賳鬲 鬲丕 亘蹖丕蹖丿 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴 乇賵卮賳賮讴乇 賲胤乇丨 夭賲丕賳賴 賵 诏乇蹖禺鬲賴 丕夭 趩賳诏丕賱 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘乇丕蹖卮 乇倬賵乇鬲丕跇 鬲亘賱蹖睾丕鬲蹖 亘賳賵蹖爻丿.
鬲蹖乇卮 亘賴 爻賳诏 禺賵乇丿. 禺丿丕 賳氐蹖亘 诏乇诏 亘蹖丕亘丕賳 賳讴賳丿.
讴鬲丕亘 丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 诏夭丕乇卮 賵 乇賵夭賳賵卮鬲鈥屬囏й� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丕爻鬲 丕夭 丨囟賵乇 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖鈥屫勜池ж� 蹖讴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 胤賵賱丕賳蹖. 丿丕丿诏丕賴蹖 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 丕亘鬲丿丕 丿乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴 亘賵丿賳卮 賵 亘蹖 胤乇賮蹖 丕卮 鬲卮讴蹖讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丕蹖賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 丕亘鬲丿丕 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丕卮 賲毓賱賵賲 丕爻鬲. 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘丕 賴蹖趩 賮乇囟蹖 賲丨鬲賲賱 賳蹖爻鬲 亘蹖 诏賳丕賴 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮賵丿 賵 賲賲讴賳 賳蹖爻鬲 氐賴蹖賵賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 丕噩丕夭賴 蹖 賴丿乇 乇賮鬲賳 丌賳 賴賲賴 倬賵賱 賵 倬賱賴 丕蹖 讴賴 禺乇噩 賲賵爻丕丿 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿 乇丕 亘丿賴賳丿.
丕賲丕 丌賳趩賴 爻亘亘 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丌乇賳鬲 趩賳蹖賳 丕孬乇 丿乇禺卮丕賳蹖 乇丕 禺賱賯 讴賳丿 賲賵丕噩賴賴 丕卮 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賲丨讴賵賲 亘賴 賲乇诏 丕爻鬲. 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 丌賳趩賴 丕賵 賵 賴賲賴 诏丕賳 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丿丕乇賳丿 丌蹖卮賲賳 賳賴 卮乇 賲噩爻賲 丕爻鬲貙 賳賴 卮丕禺 賵 丿賲 丿丕乇丿 賵 賳賴 丕夭 趩卮賲鈥屬囏й屫� 丌鬲卮 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘж必�.
丌蹖卮賲賳 倬蹖乇賲乇丿蹖 爻鬲 賱丕睾乇 賵 丿乇丕夭貙 亘丕 氐賵乇鬲蹖 鬲讴蹖丿賴貙 夭亘丕賳蹖 丕賱讴賳 賵 亘賴 卮丿鬲 賮乇賲丕賳 倬匕蹖乇. 丌蹖卮賲賳 卮乇 賲亘鬲匕賱 丕爻鬲.
賳丕賲 诏匕丕乇蹖 丿乇禺卮丕賳 鬲乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丌蹖丕 責
丌蹖卮賲賳 丕蹖賳 賯丕鬲賱 讴孬蹖賮貙 丕蹖賳 禺賵賳乇蹖夭 倬賱蹖丿 賵 丕蹖賳 讴卮賳丿賴 蹖 夭賳丕賳 賵 讴賵丿讴丕賳 丿乇 鬲蹖乇丕跇 亘爻蹖丕乇 亘丕賱丕貙 賴蹖趩 禺氐賵賲鬲蹖 蹖丕 讴蹖賳賴 丕蹖 丕夭 賴蹖趩 讴爻蹖 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕氐賱丕 丿乇讴 丿乇爻鬲蹖 丕夭 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖 賵 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賴蹖鬲賱乇蹖 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕氐賱丕 賳賲蹖鈥屬佡囐呚� 丿卮賲賳 賲賱鬲 蹖毓賳蹖 趩賴! 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘乇賵讴乇丕鬲蹖 賮乇賵賲丕蹖賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 氐乇賮丕 亘乇丕蹖 乇卮丿 賵 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 丿乇 丿爻鬲诏丕賴 丨讴賵賲鬲 亘賴 毓囟賵蹖鬲 丨夭亘 賵 丕爻 丕爻 丿乇丌賲丿賴 賵 賮賯胤 賵 賮賯胤 讴丕乇 丕丿丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.
賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 丿乇爻鬲 禺賵丕賳丿蹖丿. 丌蹖卮賲賳 賮賯胤 讴丕乇 丕丿丕乇蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 丿丕丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丌蹖卮賲賳 賯胤丕乇 鬲賴蹖賴 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 亘乇丕蹖 丨賲賱 睾蹖乇 賳馗丕賲蹖丕賳 亘賴 爻賲鬲 卮乇賯.
丌蹖卮賲賳 亘賵丿噩賴 鬲賴蹖賴 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 亘乇丕蹖 鬲丨賯蹖賯 賵 鬲賵爻毓賴 乇賵卮蹖 賲丿乇賳 噩賴鬲 丕夭 亘蹖賳 亘乇丿賳 趩賳丿 賲蹖賱蹖賵賳 噩爻丿.
丌蹖卮賲賳 丕爻鬲毓丿丕丿 蹖丕亘蹖 讴乇丿賴 賵 乇賵丿賵賱賮 賴賵爻 乇丕 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 噩賱爻丕鬲 爻丕夭賲丕賳 亘乇賳丕賲賴 賵 亘賵丿噩賴貙 丿乇禺賵丕爻鬲 賳賵卮鬲賴 賵 丿賮丕毓 讴乇丿賴 亘乇丕蹖 爻丕禺鬲 丌卮賵蹖鬲爻.
丌蹖卮賲賳....
賵 賴賲賴 蹖 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇賴丕 乇丕 讴乇丿賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 丕夭 爻乇賴賳诏 丿賵賲蹖鈥� 丕乇鬲賯丕毓 蹖丕亘丿 亘賴 爻乇賴賳诏 鬲賲丕賲蹖.
亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 賲亘鬲匕賱蹖 讴賴 禺賵丕賳丿蹖丿.
丿乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丿賮丕毓 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賲丨讴賲 亘乇 爻乇 賲賵囟毓 禺賵丿 賲蹖鈥屫й屫池� 讴賴 賲賳 賲丕賲賵乇 亘賵丿賲 賵 賲毓匕賵乇 賵 丕诏乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屫� 賮賯胤 賵 賮賯胤 蹖讴 賳賮乇 乇丕 賲毓乇賮蹖 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 賲賳 讴卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賲.
丕夭 賲賳馗乇蹖 丿蹖诏乇 賴賲 乇丕爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賲诏乇 賳丕賲賴 賳诏丕乇蹖 丕丿丕乇蹖 賵 倬丕爻禺 丿丕丿賳 亘賴 賲讴丕鬲亘丕鬲 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賮毓賱 賯鬲賱 丿乇 賳馗乇 诏乇賮鬲 責
賴賲賴 蹖 丨乇賮 丌乇賳鬲 賴賲 賴賲蹖賳 丕爻鬲. 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囒屬� 亘倬匕蹖乇蹖賲 讴賴 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 賲丕賲賵乇 倬爻 丌賳诏丕賴 賲毓匕賵乇 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 責
賲孬賱丕 卮丕蹖丿 賴賲 蹖讴 賲丕賲賵乇 卮賴乇丿丕乇蹖 丿乇 亘賳丿乇毓亘丕爻 禺賵丿賲丕賳 賴賲 亘诏賵蹖丿 賲賳 賲丕賲賵乇 亘賵丿賲 賵 賲毓匕賵乇 賵 胤亘賯 丿爻鬲賵乇 乇賮鬲賲 禺丕賳賴 丕蹖 乇丕 亘乇 爻乇 丌賳 夭賳 鬲賳賴丕蹖 爻乇倬乇爻鬲 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 禺乇丕亘 讴乇丿賲. 亘賴 賲賳 趩賴 責 賴賲賴 蹖 讴鬲丕亘 倬丕爻禺 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 丕爻鬲. 卮乇 賴爻鬲 賵賱蹖 賳賴 卮丕禺 賵 丿賲 丿丕乇丿 賵 賳賴 趩卮賲丕賳蹖 丌鬲卮蹖賳. 賲亘鬲匕賱 丕爻鬲.
丌賳 賲賱毓賵賳鈥屬囏� 賴賲 噩賱賵蹖 賲禺鬲丕乇 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賴 亘丕卮賳丿 讴賴 亘蹖賳丿丕夭賳丿 诏乇丿賳 蹖夭蹖丿 賵 倬爻乇 爻毓丿 賵 丕亘賳 賲乇噩丕賳賴!
丕賱亘鬲賴 乇丕爻鬲卮 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賴蹖丿 賲賳 賳亘賵丿賲 讴賴 亘亘蹖賳賲. 丕蹖賳 蹖讴蹖 乇丕 丕夭 禺賵丿賲 诏賮鬲賲.
禺賵丿鬲丕賳 亘禺賵丕賳蹖丿 鬲丕 賳馗乇 丌乇賳鬲 乇丕 丿乇 蹖丕亘蹖丿.
賯爻賲鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿卮 丨爻丕亘蹖 噩匕丕亘 丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖鈥屫焚勜ㄘ� 亘丕 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕夭 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴賲 丌卮賳丕 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕诏乇 賳蹖爻鬲蹖丿 丕賳诏蹖夭賴 蹖 賲賳丕爻亘蹖 丕蹖噩丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘乇丕蹖 賲胤丕賱毓賴 蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇.
賲孬賱丕 倬賳丕賴 诏丕賴 丕蹖賳 蹖丕亘賵 丿乇 丌乇跇丕賳鬲蹖賳 乇跇蹖賲 倬乇賵賳 丕爻鬲 賵 倬乇賵賳 賴賲丕賳 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇蹖 爻鬲 讴賴 丌賳賯丿乇 馗賱賲 讴乇丿 鬲丕 丕乇賳爻鬲賵 诏賵丕乇丕蹖 賲亘鬲賱丕 亘賴 丌爻賲 丨丕丿 丿乇爻 賵 賲丿乇爻賴 乇丕 乇賴丕 讴賳丿 鬲丕 亘卮賵丿 趩賴. 賴賲丕賳 趩賴 诏賵丕乇丕蹖 賲毓乇賵賮.
丕蹖賳讴賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 丕夭 亘丿賴 亘爻鬲丕賳鈥屬囏й屫� 亘丕 氐賴蹖賵賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 倬乇丿賴 亘乇丿丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴賲丕賳鈥屬囏� 鬲乇睾蹖亘卮 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 亘賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 鬲丕 亘鬲賵丕賳賳丿 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 丕乇賵倬丕 乇丕 賴乇趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 鬲乇睾蹖亘 讴賳賳丿 亘賴 賲賴丕噩乇鬲 賵 丕卮睾丕賱 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 賮賱爻胤蹖賳. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丿賵 賯胤亘蹖 爻丕夭鈥屬囏й� 賯賴丕乇蹖 亘賵丿賳丿. 賲賴丕噩乇鬲 亘賴 賮賱爻胤蹖賳 蹖丕 丌卮賵蹖鬲爻.
丕夭 亘乇诏賳 丕賳丿 亘賱爻賳 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賴賲丕賳 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丌賳 賮乇丕賳讴 讴卮鬲賴 卮丿. 丕夭鈥尷地й屫臂屫� 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 乇卅蹖爻卮 讴賴 丿乇 毓賲賱蹖丕鬲 丌賳鬲乇賵倬賵蹖丿 亘賴 噩賴賳賲 賮乇爻鬲丕丿賴 卮丿.
丕夭 丌蹖賳夭丕鬲爻 诏乇賵倬賳鈥屬囏й� 禺賵賳乇蹖夭 賵 亘蹖 乇丨賲 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賳丕賲賴 賳诏丕乇蹖鈥屬囏й屫� 亘丕 乇賵丿賵賱賮 賴賵爻 賲賱毓賵賳. 丕诏乇 禺賵丕爻鬲蹖丿 賲乇诏 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇 賲賳 丕爻鬲 丕夭 乇賵亘乇鬲 賲乇賱 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賳蹖丿.
禺賱丕氐賴 讴賳賲 亘禺賵锟斤拷賳蹖丿 丕夭 賳丕賳 卮亘 賵丕噩亘 鬲乇 丕爻鬲.
噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲 乇丕 賴蹖鬲賱乇 卮乇賵毓 讴乇丿 賵 噩丕賳卮 乇丕 賴賲 倬丕蹖 丌賳 丿丕丿. 丕賲丕 亘乇 爻乇 倬丕蹖丕賳 亘賳丿蹖 丌賳 鬲丕 亘賴 丕賲乇賵夭 賴賲趩賳丕賳 丿毓賵丕爻鬲. 趩倬鈥屬囏� 丕蹖賳 倬丕蹖丕賳 乇丕 丕夭 丌賳 丕鬲丨丕丿 噩賲丕賴蹖乇 卮賵乇賵蹖 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀� 賵 睾乇亘蹖鈥屬囏� 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 亘乇 丨爻亘 毓賱丕蹖賯卮丕賳 丌賳 乇丕 倬丕蹖 乇賵夭賵賱鬲貙 鬲乇賵賲賳貙 趩乇趩蹖賱 賵 丌蹖夭賳賴丕賵乇 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟嗀�. 丕賱亘鬲賴 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖鈥屬囏� 賴賲 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丿賵诏賱 乇丕 毓賱賲 讴賳賳丿 丕賲丕 讴爻蹖 噩丿蹖 卮丕賳 賳賲蹖鈥屭屫必�.
賲賳 賴賲 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇.
丕賲丕 賵丕賯毓丕 倬丕蹖丕賳 乇卮鬲賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 賵賯丕蹖毓 讴賴 亘丕 鬲賵丕賮賯 賲賵賱賵鬲賵賮-乇蹖亘賳鬲賵乇倬 卮乇賵毓 卮丿 賵 賲丕 丕爻賲卮 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж臂屬� 噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 讴蹖 亘賵丿 責 讴噩丕 亘賵丿責 鬲爻賱蹖賲 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 爻賯賵胤 乇丕蹖卮鬲丕诏責 亘賲亘丕乇丕賳 丕鬲賲蹖鈥屬嗀и┴ж藏и┷� 賵 賴蹖乇賵卮蹖賲丕責 鬲爻賱蹖賲 跇丕倬賳 責鈥屬囏з嗀� 丌乇賳鬲 乇丨賲賴 丕賱賱賴 毓賱蹖賴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丿乇 1962貙 賵賯鬲蹖 噩賳丕夭賴 蹖 丌丿賵賱賮 丌蹖卮賲賳 丕夭 丿丕乇 賲噩丕夭丕鬲 倬丕蹖蹖賳 讴卮蹖丿賴 卮丿. 賵賯鬲蹖 亘賴 讴賵乇賴 蹖 噩爻丿 爻賵夭蹖 乇賮鬲. 賵賯鬲蹖 禺丕讴爻鬲乇卮 亘賴 亘丕丿 賵 丿乇蹖丕 爻倬乇丿賴 卮丿.
賵賯鬲蹖 乇卅蹖爻 倬乇賵跇賴 蹖 乇丕賴 丨賱 賳賴丕蹖蹖貙 鬲賵爻胤 賯賵賲 蹖賴賵丿 亘賴 噩賴賳賲 賮乇爻鬲丕丿賴 卮丿.
亘賳 诏賵乇蹖賵賳 賳禺爻鬲 賵夭蹖乇 乇跇蹖賲 賲賳丨賵爻 賵 噩毓賱蹖 丕爻乇丕卅蹖賱貙 丌賳 乇賵夭賴丕 賴賳賵夭 夭賳丿賴 亘賵丿. 賴賳賵夭 丕爻賲卮 賳卮丿賴 亘賵丿 賳丕賲 賮乇賵丿诏丕賴 賵 亘乇丕蹖 賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳 丕賯鬲丿丕乇 丨讴賵賲鬲卮 毓賲賱蹖丕鬲蹖 賲鬲賴賵乇丕賳賴 乇丕 鬲賵爻胤 賲賵爻丕丿 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 丿丕丿 鬲丕 丌賳 诏乇丿賳 讴賱賮鬲 賯丿乇 賯丿乇鬲 丌丿賲讴卮 乇丕 讴賴 丨丕賱丕 賲孬賱 賲賵卮 亘賴 爻賵乇丕禺蹖 丿乇 丌乇跇丕賳鬲蹖賳 禺夭蹖丿賴 亘賵丿 乇丕 夭賳丿賴 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇 讴賳丿 賵 亘乇亘丕蹖丿 賵 亘乇丿丕乇丿 亘蹖丕賵乇丿 鬲丕 賯賵賲 蹖賴賵丿 賲丨丕讴賲賴 丕卮 讴賳賳丿.
亘乇丕蹖 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 丕蹖賳 禺賵丕爻鬲賴鈥屬囏� 賴賲 乇賮鬲 爻乇丕睾 賲乇丨賵賲賴 丌乇賳鬲 鬲丕 亘蹖丕蹖丿 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴 乇賵卮賳賮讴乇 賲胤乇丨 夭賲丕賳賴 賵 诏乇蹖禺鬲賴 丕夭 趩賳诏丕賱 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘乇丕蹖卮 乇倬賵乇鬲丕跇 鬲亘賱蹖睾丕鬲蹖 亘賳賵蹖爻丿.
鬲蹖乇卮 亘賴 爻賳诏 禺賵乇丿. 禺丿丕 賳氐蹖亘 诏乇诏 亘蹖丕亘丕賳 賳讴賳丿.
讴鬲丕亘 丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 丕賵乇卮賱蹖賲 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 诏夭丕乇卮 賵 乇賵夭賳賵卮鬲鈥屬囏й� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丕爻鬲 丕夭 丨囟賵乇 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖鈥屫勜池ж� 蹖讴 丿丕丿诏丕賴 胤賵賱丕賳蹖. 丿丕丿诏丕賴蹖 讴賴 丌乇賳鬲 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 丕亘鬲丿丕 丿乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴 亘賵丿賳卮 賵 亘蹖 胤乇賮蹖 丕卮 鬲卮讴蹖讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丕蹖賳 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 丕亘鬲丿丕 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丕卮 賲毓賱賵賲 丕爻鬲. 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘丕 賴蹖趩 賮乇囟蹖 賲丨鬲賲賱 賳蹖爻鬲 亘蹖 诏賳丕賴 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮賵丿 賵 賲賲讴賳 賳蹖爻鬲 氐賴蹖賵賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 丕噩丕夭賴 蹖 賴丿乇 乇賮鬲賳 丌賳 賴賲賴 倬賵賱 賵 倬賱賴 丕蹖 讴賴 禺乇噩 賲賵爻丕丿 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿 乇丕 亘丿賴賳丿.
丕賲丕 丌賳趩賴 爻亘亘 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丌乇賳鬲 趩賳蹖賳 丕孬乇 丿乇禺卮丕賳蹖 乇丕 禺賱賯 讴賳丿 賲賵丕噩賴賴 丕卮 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賲丨讴賵賲 亘賴 賲乇诏 丕爻鬲. 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 丌賳趩賴 丕賵 賵 賴賲賴 诏丕賳 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丿丕乇賳丿 丌蹖卮賲賳 賳賴 卮乇 賲噩爻賲 丕爻鬲貙 賳賴 卮丕禺 賵 丿賲 丿丕乇丿 賵 賳賴 丕夭 趩卮賲鈥屬囏й屫� 丌鬲卮 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘж必�.
丌蹖卮賲賳 倬蹖乇賲乇丿蹖 爻鬲 賱丕睾乇 賵 丿乇丕夭貙 亘丕 氐賵乇鬲蹖 鬲讴蹖丿賴貙 夭亘丕賳蹖 丕賱讴賳 賵 亘賴 卮丿鬲 賮乇賲丕賳 倬匕蹖乇. 丌蹖卮賲賳 卮乇 賲亘鬲匕賱 丕爻鬲.
賳丕賲 诏匕丕乇蹖 丿乇禺卮丕賳 鬲乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丌蹖丕 責
丌蹖卮賲賳 丕蹖賳 賯丕鬲賱 讴孬蹖賮貙 丕蹖賳 禺賵賳乇蹖夭 倬賱蹖丿 賵 丕蹖賳 讴卮賳丿賴 蹖 夭賳丕賳 賵 讴賵丿讴丕賳 丿乇 鬲蹖乇丕跇 亘爻蹖丕乇 亘丕賱丕貙 賴蹖趩 禺氐賵賲鬲蹖 蹖丕 讴蹖賳賴 丕蹖 丕夭 賴蹖趩 讴爻蹖 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕氐賱丕 丿乇讴 丿乇爻鬲蹖 丕夭 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖 賵 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賴蹖鬲賱乇蹖 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕氐賱丕 賳賲蹖鈥屬佡囐呚� 丿卮賲賳 賲賱鬲 蹖毓賳蹖 趩賴! 丌蹖卮賲賳 亘乇賵讴乇丕鬲蹖 賮乇賵賲丕蹖賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 氐乇賮丕 亘乇丕蹖 乇卮丿 賵 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 丿乇 丿爻鬲诏丕賴 丨讴賵賲鬲 亘賴 毓囟賵蹖鬲 丨夭亘 賵 丕爻 丕爻 丿乇丌賲丿賴 賵 賮賯胤 賵 賮賯胤 讴丕乇 丕丿丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.
賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 丿乇爻鬲 禺賵丕賳丿蹖丿. 丌蹖卮賲賳 賮賯胤 讴丕乇 丕丿丕乇蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 丿丕丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丌蹖卮賲賳 賯胤丕乇 鬲賴蹖賴 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 亘乇丕蹖 丨賲賱 睾蹖乇 賳馗丕賲蹖丕賳 亘賴 爻賲鬲 卮乇賯.
丌蹖卮賲賳 亘賵丿噩賴 鬲賴蹖賴 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 亘乇丕蹖 鬲丨賯蹖賯 賵 鬲賵爻毓賴 乇賵卮蹖 賲丿乇賳 噩賴鬲 丕夭 亘蹖賳 亘乇丿賳 趩賳丿 賲蹖賱蹖賵賳 噩爻丿.
丌蹖卮賲賳 丕爻鬲毓丿丕丿 蹖丕亘蹖 讴乇丿賴 賵 乇賵丿賵賱賮 賴賵爻 乇丕 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丌蹖卮賲賳 丿乇 噩賱爻丕鬲 爻丕夭賲丕賳 亘乇賳丕賲賴 賵 亘賵丿噩賴貙 丿乇禺賵丕爻鬲 賳賵卮鬲賴 賵 丿賮丕毓 讴乇丿賴 亘乇丕蹖 爻丕禺鬲 丌卮賵蹖鬲爻.
丌蹖卮賲賳....
賵 賴賲賴 蹖 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇賴丕 乇丕 讴乇丿賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 丕夭 爻乇賴賳诏 丿賵賲蹖鈥� 丕乇鬲賯丕毓 蹖丕亘丿 亘賴 爻乇賴賳诏 鬲賲丕賲蹖.
亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 賲亘鬲匕賱蹖 讴賴 禺賵丕賳丿蹖丿.
丿乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴 丿賮丕毓 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賲丨讴賲 亘乇 爻乇 賲賵囟毓 禺賵丿 賲蹖鈥屫й屫池� 讴賴 賲賳 賲丕賲賵乇 亘賵丿賲 賵 賲毓匕賵乇 賵 丕诏乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屫� 賮賯胤 賵 賮賯胤 蹖讴 賳賮乇 乇丕 賲毓乇賮蹖 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 賲賳 讴卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賲.
丕夭 賲賳馗乇蹖 丿蹖诏乇 賴賲 乇丕爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賲诏乇 賳丕賲賴 賳诏丕乇蹖 丕丿丕乇蹖 賵 倬丕爻禺 丿丕丿賳 亘賴 賲讴丕鬲亘丕鬲 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賮毓賱 賯鬲賱 丿乇 賳馗乇 诏乇賮鬲 責
賴賲賴 蹖 丨乇賮 丌乇賳鬲 賴賲 賴賲蹖賳 丕爻鬲. 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囒屬� 亘倬匕蹖乇蹖賲 讴賴 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 賲丕賲賵乇 倬爻 丌賳诏丕賴 賲毓匕賵乇 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 責
賲孬賱丕 卮丕蹖丿 賴賲 蹖讴 賲丕賲賵乇 卮賴乇丿丕乇蹖 丿乇 亘賳丿乇毓亘丕爻 禺賵丿賲丕賳 賴賲 亘诏賵蹖丿 賲賳 賲丕賲賵乇 亘賵丿賲 賵 賲毓匕賵乇 賵 胤亘賯 丿爻鬲賵乇 乇賮鬲賲 禺丕賳賴 丕蹖 乇丕 亘乇 爻乇 丌賳 夭賳 鬲賳賴丕蹖 爻乇倬乇爻鬲 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 禺乇丕亘 讴乇丿賲. 亘賴 賲賳 趩賴 責 賴賲賴 蹖 讴鬲丕亘 倬丕爻禺 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 爻賵丕賱 丕爻鬲. 卮乇 賴爻鬲 賵賱蹖 賳賴 卮丕禺 賵 丿賲 丿丕乇丿 賵 賳賴 趩卮賲丕賳蹖 丌鬲卮蹖賳. 賲亘鬲匕賱 丕爻鬲.
丌賳 賲賱毓賵賳鈥屬囏� 賴賲 噩賱賵蹖 賲禺鬲丕乇 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賴 亘丕卮賳丿 讴賴 亘蹖賳丿丕夭賳丿 诏乇丿賳 蹖夭蹖丿 賵 倬爻乇 爻毓丿 賵 丕亘賳 賲乇噩丕賳賴!
丕賱亘鬲賴 乇丕爻鬲卮 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賴蹖丿 賲賳 賳亘賵丿賲 讴賴 亘亘蹖賳賲. 丕蹖賳 蹖讴蹖 乇丕 丕夭 禺賵丿賲 诏賮鬲賲.
禺賵丿鬲丕賳 亘禺賵丕賳蹖丿 鬲丕 賳馗乇 丌乇賳鬲 乇丕 丿乇 蹖丕亘蹖丿.
賯爻賲鬲 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿卮 丨爻丕亘蹖 噩匕丕亘 丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖鈥屫焚勜ㄘ� 亘丕 亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕夭 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴賲 丌卮賳丕 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕诏乇 賳蹖爻鬲蹖丿 丕賳诏蹖夭賴 蹖 賲賳丕爻亘蹖 丕蹖噩丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘乇丕蹖 賲胤丕賱毓賴 蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇.
賲孬賱丕 倬賳丕賴 诏丕賴 丕蹖賳 蹖丕亘賵 丿乇 丌乇跇丕賳鬲蹖賳 乇跇蹖賲 倬乇賵賳 丕爻鬲 賵 倬乇賵賳 賴賲丕賳 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇蹖 爻鬲 讴賴 丌賳賯丿乇 馗賱賲 讴乇丿 鬲丕 丕乇賳爻鬲賵 诏賵丕乇丕蹖 賲亘鬲賱丕 亘賴 丌爻賲 丨丕丿 丿乇爻 賵 賲丿乇爻賴 乇丕 乇賴丕 讴賳丿 鬲丕 亘卮賵丿 趩賴. 賴賲丕賳 趩賴 诏賵丕乇丕蹖 賲毓乇賵賮.
丕蹖賳讴賴 丌蹖卮賲賳 丕夭 亘丿賴 亘爻鬲丕賳鈥屬囏й屫� 亘丕 氐賴蹖賵賳蹖爻鬲鈥屬囏� 倬乇丿賴 亘乇丿丕乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴賲丕賳鈥屬囏� 鬲乇睾蹖亘卮 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 亘賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 鬲丕 亘鬲賵丕賳賳丿 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 丕乇賵倬丕 乇丕 賴乇趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 鬲乇睾蹖亘 讴賳賳丿 亘賴 賲賴丕噩乇鬲 賵 丕卮睾丕賱 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 賮賱爻胤蹖賳. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丿賵 賯胤亘蹖 爻丕夭鈥屬囏й� 賯賴丕乇蹖 亘賵丿賳丿. 賲賴丕噩乇鬲 亘賴 賮賱爻胤蹖賳 蹖丕 丌卮賵蹖鬲爻.
丕夭 亘乇诏賳 丕賳丿 亘賱爻賳 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賴賲丕賳 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丌賳 賮乇丕賳讴 讴卮鬲賴 卮丿. 丕夭鈥尷地й屫臂屫� 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 乇卅蹖爻卮 讴賴 丿乇 毓賲賱蹖丕鬲 丌賳鬲乇賵倬賵蹖丿 亘賴 噩賴賳賲 賮乇爻鬲丕丿賴 卮丿.
丕夭 丌蹖賳夭丕鬲爻 诏乇賵倬賳鈥屬囏й� 禺賵賳乇蹖夭 賵 亘蹖 乇丨賲 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賳丕賲賴 賳诏丕乇蹖鈥屬囏й屫� 亘丕 乇賵丿賵賱賮 賴賵爻 賲賱毓賵賳. 丕诏乇 禺賵丕爻鬲蹖丿 賲乇诏 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇 賲賳 丕爻鬲 丕夭 乇賵亘乇鬲 賲乇賱 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賳蹖丿.
禺賱丕氐賴 讴賳賲 亘禺賵锟斤拷賳蹖丿 丕夭 賳丕賳 卮亘 賵丕噩亘 鬲乇 丕爻鬲.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,681 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.