I squatted 345 pounds today! I’ve been honestly just riding that high the entire day. I’m just so proud of myself man. Not even for the PR, but for the person I try to be. I just am really grateful to past me for a lot of the effort that I’ve put in in order to be the person I am today.

On the second floor of the United Nations Headquarters in New York, in a chamber whose acoustics were engineered for the carefully measured cadence of diplomats, an Mbororo pastoralist from Chad delivered a sentence diplomats are not in the habit of hearing. AI, Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim told the room, becomes harmful when it is imposed without free, prior, and informed consent. The line was lifted from her own report, prepared for the twenty-fifth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which opened on 21 April and runs until 1 May. It landed with the dull thump of something said many times before, in many forums, about many extractive industries, and that has not yet changed the rules of the game.

Outside the chamber, on the same continent, the rules of the game were being written by a different hand. On 17 April, an Alberta regulator dismissed the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation's appeal against a water licence allowing six million cubic metres of annual withdrawal from the Smoky River, water destined to cool a proposed seventy-billion-dollar AI data centre marketed by the celebrity investor Kevin O'Leary as “Wonder Valley”. The nation said it had not been meaningfully consulted; the Aboriginal Consultation Office said no consultation was required. The Smoky watershed is the source of the nation's drinking water and the location of ceremonial and traditional land use sites roughly five kilometres downstream from the proposed diversion point. The trapline, the prayer, and the river all sit at a slightly lower elevation than the cooling tower.

This is the shape of the present, in late April 2026, for indigenous peoples whose territories and knowledge are being absorbed into the infrastructure of artificial intelligence. The forum chamber and the riverbank are the same story told in two languages, one of them legalese, the other hydrology. The arrival of AI on indigenous land is not an isolated event. It is the latest chapter in a five-hundred-year sequence of extractive industries deciding what was on indigenous territory was theirs for the taking. What is new, in 2026, is that the resource being extracted is not a mineral or a forest. It is the cognitive substrate of the communities themselves: their knowledge of plants, of weather, of governance, of language, of what is sacred and what is not.

A Forum, A River, A Crawler

The twenty-fifth session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, known as UNPFII, took as its overarching theme the protection of indigenous peoples' health, including in the context of conflict. AI was not in the title. It was, however, threaded through the proceedings with an urgency that surprised observers expecting the usual catalogue of mining grievances. Ibrahim, a former chair of the forum, presented a study commissioned to map AI's effects on indigenous communities. Her conclusion, which she repeated in interviews with Mongabay and Grist, was that the technology represents a double-edged sword. AI can be a powerful ally to indigenous stewardship, she said, if it is used on our terms. The conditional was load-bearing.

The terms, in 2026, are not yet ours. Generative AI systems trained on web-scale corpora have already absorbed enormous quantities of indigenous-origin material: oral histories deposited in academic archives, ethnobotanical taxonomies recorded by colonial-era anthropologists, sacred narratives transcribed and uploaded by missionaries or by community members themselves under conditions of trust that did not anticipate machine ingestion. Indigenous languages, often digitised by linguists in preservation projects, now sit inside multilingual models whose outputs are deployed back into indigenous communities as the only available translation infrastructure. Kate Finn, Osage Nation citizen and executive director of the Tallgrass Institute, told the forum the question is no longer whether the extraction has happened. The data is gone. The question is what an enforceable framework of indigenous data sovereignty would look like now, and whether anything like restitution is possible for what has already been taken.

Two arXiv papers published on 23 April, the day after Ibrahim's address, gave the question particular sharpness. The first, “Why are all LLMs Obsessed with Japanese Culture? On the Hidden Cultural and Regional Biases of LLMs”, introduced a benchmark called CROQ, comprising 31,680 open cultural questions across 24 languages, eleven major topics, and 66 subtopics. Its authors documented that frontier language models, when asked to answer a culturally underspecified question, default not to a neutral response but to a small handful of dominant cultural reference points, with Japan emerging as a surprising attractor and Western, English-language assumptions saturating the rest. The bias, they found, is induced predominantly during the post-training and instruction-tuning phase: it is not just a property of the data but a property of the alignment regime the data is filtered through.

The second paper, “Multilinguality at the Edge: Developing Language Models for the Global South” by Lester James V. Miranda, Songbo Hu, Roi Reichart and Anna Korhonen, surveyed 232 papers attempting to build language models for non-English-speaking, hardware-constrained communities. They called the underlying challenge “the last mile”: the place where multilinguality and edge deployment goals align in principle but compete in practice, because the corpora, the compute, and the institutional support do not exist on equivalent terms. Read together, the two papers describe the cognitive infrastructure indigenous peoples will inherit if the current trajectory continues. It is an infrastructure that has already absorbed their knowledge, that does not yet speak their languages well enough to give it back, and whose default settings are not theirs.

Digital Extractivism and Its Older Cousins

The phrase indigenous organisers are using for what is happening to them is data colonialism. Krystal Two Bulls, the Oglala Lakota and Northern Cheyenne executive director of Honor the Earth, used it on Democracy Now! during the forum's opening week and has used it in the organising language of the Stop Data Colonialism coalition, a group of indigenous-led organisations now tracking somewhere between 103 and 160 proposed hyperscale data centres on or adjacent to Native lands in North America. The phrase is not a metaphor. It is a technical claim about the structural similarity between the historical practice of treating indigenous land as a frontier of unowned resources to be incorporated into a colonial economy and the current practice of treating indigenous knowledge as an unowned resource to be incorporated into a commercial AI economy.

The structural similarity is not lost on indigenous organisers, who have lived through the previous iterations. In Oklahoma, the Seminole Nation has unanimously passed a moratorium on hyperscale data centres on its land. In Alberta, the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is preparing to take its appeal against the Wonder Valley water licence to the province's superior trial court. In Querétaro, Mexico, residents downstream of new hyperscale facilities are documenting wastewater contamination and groundwater depletion. In Pennsylvania, in Thailand's Chonburi and Rayong provinces, in the U.S. Southwest where mega-projects are siting next to drought-stricken aquifers, the same pattern repeats: facility proposed, water licence applied for, consultation declared adequate by the state, communities not adequately consulted, electricity prices in surrounding areas climbing as much as 267 percent in some Bloomberg analyses, and the gigawatts and the gallons flowing out.

Existing hyperscale data centres have been documented to consume between 300,000 and 2.7 million gallons of water a year per facility, with cooling water and the secondary water embedded in their electricity supply both contributing to a footprint that places enormous load on the watersheds chosen to host them. Those watersheds are not random. They are, very often, the watersheds where land is cheap, water rights are weakly defended, and political resistance is structurally underweighted: in plain language, the watersheds nearest to indigenous, rural, and racialised communities. There is a name for this pattern in the environmental justice literature, and the name is environmental racism. The name has not changed because the pattern has not changed.

What is new, on top of this, is the second extraction. The data centre on the Smoky River is, in addition to a water consumer, a node in a planetary system that absorbs the very knowledge of the communities whose water it is using. This is the recursion that gives data colonialism its peculiar bite. A nation watches a facility built upstream of its trapline, knows the facility's compute is being used to train models that have already ingested the linguistic and ecological knowledge of the trapline, and is then offered the resulting AI assistant as a productivity tool to access government services in the language of the colonising state. The water, the knowledge, and the service are all running in the same direction.

What Was Taken, And How

The taxonomy of what has been taken is concrete. Traditional ecological knowledge, often abbreviated TEK, comprises millennia of accumulated observation about ecosystems: which plants flower when, which fish run with which tides, which soils respond to which fires, which weather patterns precede which migrations. Ethnobotanical knowledge encompasses the medicinal and nutritional properties of thousands of plant species, knowledge that pharmaceutical companies have spent decades attempting to extract through bioprospecting and that AI systems, trained on the resulting academic literature and on community-uploaded forums, can now retrieve in seconds. Oral histories, the substrate of governance and law in many indigenous nations, were transcribed throughout the twentieth century and deposited in archives whose access policies were written before web crawlers existed. Indigenous languages, in projects often initiated with explicit consent of speakers but with no anticipation of generative AI, have been digitised, tokenised, and absorbed into multilingual model corpora.

Some of what has been taken was never meant to leave its community. Sacred or restricted knowledge, governed by indigenous protocols specifying who may speak it, when, and to whom, has often been recorded by outsiders, deposited in archives, and crawled. Under the protocols of the originating nation, this knowledge was never publicly available even if it was technically accessible. The distinction between “publicly available” and “publicly available under the protocols of the originating community” is the distinction the entire commercial AI training pipeline has been built on ignoring. To say that something was on the open web is, in the context of indigenous knowledge, often to say nothing more than that a colonial process of recording and depositing was completed at some earlier date and that no subsequent process of consent has been required.

This matters for restitution because traditional knowledge is, in nearly all indigenous legal traditions, held collectively rather than individually. A song, a story, a botanical recipe, a place name: these have custodians, often specified by lineage or role, but their ownership is the nation's, not the individual's. Western intellectual property regimes, optimised for the individual author and the corporate licensee, are structurally incapable of recognising this form of ownership. The General Data Protection Regulation, often invoked as a model for data rights, is built on individual data subjects exercising individual consent, and provides no purchase for a collective right held by a people. The Convention on Biological Diversity's Nagoya Protocol, adopted in 2010, made the radical move of recognising that traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources triggers benefit-sharing obligations and required parties to obtain prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities for access to such knowledge. It applies, however, narrowly to genetic resources, and operates through state mechanisms that have been uneven in their enforcement.

The instruments closest to a binding standard for the broader case are Articles 11 and 31 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007. Article 31 states that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, including their sciences, technologies and cultures, and to maintain, control and develop their intellectual property over such heritage. Article 11 obliges states to provide redress, including restitution, for cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without free, prior and informed consent. UNDRIP is a declaration rather than a treaty, and its implementation depends on domestic legislative will, which is precisely the weakness AI training has exploited. The World Intellectual Property Organisation's Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore adopted a treaty in May 2024 requiring patent applicants to disclose the country of origin of genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge underlying their application. By the standards of WIPO, an extraordinary achievement. By the standards of the AI training pipeline, a small object travelling slowly through a window already broken.

The CARE That Is Already Written

A more precise instrument exists, and it has been written by indigenous data scientists rather than by treaty negotiators. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance, released in September 2019 by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance under the International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group within the Research Data Alliance, encode a deliberately different premise from the FAIR principles that have dominated open-science discourse since 2016. FAIR asks that data be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. CARE asks that it serve Collective benefit, that those affected have Authority to control it, that those handling it bear Responsibility for the relationships data creates, and that the entire system be subject to indigenous Ethics.

The shift is not cosmetic. FAIR is data-oriented and asks how data can move more freely. CARE is people-oriented and asks for whose benefit, under whose authority, with what accountability, and according to whose ethics. CARE explicitly addresses the asymmetry FAIR's authors did not address: that the move to maximally open data has, in practice, accelerated the extraction of indigenous knowledge by parties with no relationship of obligation to the communities of origin. CARE is intended to be implemented in tandem with FAIR, but its operative force lies in making the openness of FAIR conditional on the consent and benefit structures of CARE.

Apply CARE to AI training data and the shape of an enforceable framework comes into focus. Collective benefit would require that indigenous communities materially benefit from any commercial use of their knowledge, with benefit defined collectively rather than as fees to individual researchers. Authority to control would require communities to be the gatekeepers of inclusion: training corpora would need community-level consent before indigenous-origin material could be incorporated, and ongoing authority to withdraw or restrict that material thereafter. Responsibility would require parties handling the data, model developers, hosting providers, downstream deployers, to take on relational obligations to communities of origin that survive the technical operation of training. Ethics would require that the protocols governing the data be the ethics of the originating community, not the standardised research ethics of the institution doing the training.

This is, on the face of it, an enormous demand. It is also, on a clear reading of UNDRIP Article 31, the existing legal demand of an instrument 144 states have already endorsed. The novelty of CARE is not the principle but the operationalisation. Te Mana Raraunga in Aotearoa New Zealand, the United States Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network, the First Nations Information Governance Centre in Canada, and Maiam nayri Wingara in Australia are already operationalising versions of this framework at the national level. None of the major foundation model providers have signed on to anything resembling it.

Free, Prior, Informed, And Currently Hypothetical

Free, prior and informed consent, abbreviated FPIC, is the operative phrase recurring across UNDRIP, the Nagoya Protocol, and the indigenous data sovereignty movement. The four words are doing a great deal of work. Free means uncoerced by economic dependency or political pressure. Prior means before the act, with enough time for genuine deliberation through the community's own decision-making processes. Informed means with full understanding of what is proposed, including downstream consequences. Consent means refusal must be a real option. In the context of AI training data, the four words are currently hypothetical. No major commercial AI system, in 2026, has obtained anything resembling FPIC for the indigenous-origin material in its training corpus.

A workable framework would need legal recognition of collective indigenous data rights in the jurisdictions hosting the largest AI providers, which means at minimum the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, China, and the rest of the OECD. It would need a mandatory training-data provenance disclosure regime, of the sort the EU AI Act gestures towards but does not yet rigorously implement, capable of identifying indigenous-origin material in corpora at the point of training. It would need a mechanism for community-level FPIC operating at the speed and scale of commercial AI development, likely requiring automated tooling built and governed by indigenous data sovereignty bodies rather than by model developers themselves. It would need a right of withdrawal that survives training, which technically requires either model unlearning or retraining without the withdrawn data. It would need a right to negotiate licences on community terms, and crucially the right to refuse altogether. And it would need an enforcement architecture with teeth: regulators willing to fine, courts willing to order takedowns, and procurement regimes that exclude non-compliant systems from public contracts.

None of this is technically impossible. Most of it has been written about in the indigenous data sovereignty literature for at least a decade. The reason it has not been built is not technical. It is that the parties best positioned to build it are also the parties whose business models would be most disrupted by it.

Restitution Is The Hard Part

If the framework above is the prospective question, the harder question is retrospective. What does restitution look like for knowledge already absorbed into Llama, GPT-class models, Gemini, Claude, and the rest? The honest answer is that the menu is short, technically uneven, and politically untested.

The first option is model unlearning, the technical procedure of inducing a trained model to forget specific data without retraining from scratch. The state of the art on unlearning, as of early 2026, is improving rapidly but remains contested in its guarantees. It is one thing to remove an individual user's records from a model. It is quite another to remove the contribution of a community's entire cultural archive, distributed across a vast pretraining corpus, in a way that can be verified to have actually happened. Several recent papers have shown unlearning can leave residual signal recoverable through targeted prompting. Until verifiable unlearning is robust, claims that a model has unlearned indigenous-origin data are claims of intent, not of fact.

The second option is forced retraining, in which providers retrain models without the disputed data, at very large compute cost, and absorb that cost as a condition of operation. This is technically straightforward and politically explosive. It is, however, the option most consistent with the legal logic of UNDRIP Article 11's restitution requirement. If a thing has been taken without consent and cannot be unmade in place, the thing must be unmade and remade.

The third option is compulsory licensing with back-payment to community trusts: existing models continue to operate but providers pay licensing fees, calibrated to scale of use, into trusts controlled by the communities of origin. This is the most politically tractable option and the one most likely to be adopted in any near-term framework. It has obvious shortcomings: it monetises rather than reverses the extraction, places communities in the position of accepting payment for a thing they did not agree to sell, and creates incentives for downstream model providers to argue endlessly about which knowledge counts as indigenous-origin. It also has the advantage of being implementable now.

The fourth option is community ownership stakes in the systems built on top of indigenous knowledge: equity, governance seats, audit rights. This is the most structurally ambitious option and the one most consistent with the indigenous critique that the issue is not the price but the relationship. It would require statutory innovation rather than contractual elaboration, and it would change what an AI company is in a way the industry will resist.

The fifth option is mandatory disclosure of training-data provenance, sufficient to allow communities to identify what has been included and to negotiate from that point. This is the most modest proposal and arguably the precondition for any of the other four.

The sixth option, less concrete but recurring in indigenous testimony, is a reparations fund: a pooled levy on AI providers, administered by indigenous data sovereignty bodies, used to repair the cognitive infrastructure damage the extraction has done. When a multilingual model trained on a community's language is deployed back into the community as the only available digital tool, and when its outputs encode Western assumptions in the community's own grammar, the result is a slow erosion of the community's own ways of meaning. A reparations fund would, on this view, finance indigenous-controlled language technology, indigenous-controlled knowledge management, and indigenous-controlled AI development, on the principle that the appropriate response to colonised cognitive infrastructure is to fund the building of sovereign cognitive infrastructure.

Some of these options are feasible in the near term and others are aspirational. Provenance disclosure is feasible. Compulsory licensing is feasible if political will is generated. Reparations funds are feasible at modest scale. Verified unlearning, forced retraining at scale, and community ownership stakes are aspirational. They define the horizon against which the feasible options should be judged.

The Double Bind

Underneath the legal and technical questions is a deeper one. Even if every framework above were implemented tomorrow, the extraction has happened. The training has occurred. The models exist. The deployment is global. And, increasingly, the AI systems in question are the only available technology in the communities whose knowledge made them possible. Telephony, mapping, translation, education, agricultural advisory, even spiritual chat companions, are migrating to AI substrates whose default settings encode the Western, English-language assumptions documented in the CROQ paper. The community asking an AI assistant about a medicinal plant is asking a system that was, in part, trained on its own ancestors' descriptions of that plant, refracted back through a cultural lens that is not its own.

This is the double bind. The framework that would make the extraction unlawful would not, by itself, undo it. The systems that absorbed indigenous knowledge are now being deployed as essential infrastructure in the territories of the communities they extracted from. To refuse the systems is to refuse the infrastructure. To accept the systems is to accept the colonial overlay. Indigenous AI labs, of which Lars Ailo Bongo's Sámi AI Lab at UiT The Arctic University in Norway is one of a small but growing number, are working on the third option: building indigenous-governed AI on indigenous terms, with indigenous data, for indigenous purposes. Bongo notes the people exist; the funding does not. The Microsoft-Imazon partnership in the Katukina/Kaxinawá Indigenous Reserve in Brazil's Acre state, in which agroforestry agents like Siã Shanenawa use AI tools to monitor deforestation, demonstrates that AI on indigenous terms is possible. It does not, by itself, demonstrate that the broader pipeline can be redirected.

The double bind is not resolvable by clever framework design. It is resolvable, if at all, by a long process of building parallel and sovereign cognitive infrastructure, funded in part by the proceeds of restitution from the extracting industry, in which indigenous communities exercise the right to refuse non-compliant systems and to insist on compliant ones. This is a generational project. It requires the framework be put in place now, in 2026, so that the work of building can begin under the protection of law rather than against it.

What Would Be Required

Any honest editorial position on this matter has to begin with a refusal of the comforting framing that what is needed is more research, more dialogue, more fora. The research has been done. The dialogue has been held. The fora are filled with documentation. What is missing is an enforcement architecture and the political will to install it.

Any workable framework has, at minimum, the following shape. It begins with the legal recognition, in the major AI-hosting jurisdictions, of collective indigenous data rights as a category distinct from individual data subject rights. This is statutory work. It requires legislatures, not voluntary corporate codes. The EU AI Act and the GDPR can be the basis for this in Europe, but they require explicit amendment to recognise collective subjects. In the United States, tribal sovereignty already provides a legal foundation that has been systematically underused.

It requires a mandatory provenance disclosure regime granular enough that indigenous-origin material can be identified and that communities can exercise meaningful FPIC. It requires that FPIC be obtained before training, not after, and at the level of the originating community rather than from an individual or from a state acting on behalf of the community. It requires the right of withdrawal, with a workable technical pathway for fulfilment, whether through unlearning, retraining, or operational restriction. It requires that the CARE Principles be elevated from a research community framework to a regulatory baseline. The Global Indigenous Data Alliance has done the operationalisation work; the remaining task is binding adoption.

It requires a restitution architecture for the knowledge already taken. The most realistic near-term shape is a compulsory licensing regime, with payments flowing into community-controlled trusts, combined with provenance disclosure that allows communities to identify what has been used. The more ambitious shape, which the editorial position of this article supports, is a reparations levy whose proceeds fund indigenous-governed AI infrastructure, on the principle that the appropriate response to colonised cognitive substrate is sovereign cognitive substrate.

And it requires, at the level of physical infrastructure, that data centre siting be subject to the same FPIC standard as the data inside the centres. The Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation's appeal of the Wonder Valley water licence is the test case in the Canadian context. The Seminole Nation's hyperscale moratorium is the test case in the American one. The result of these cases will indicate whether courts and regulators are prepared to apply the same logic to data centres that the Nagoya Protocol applied to bioprospecting.

The honest closing observation is that none of this will happen because the AI industry chooses it. It will happen, if it happens, because indigenous nations, environmental justice coalitions, and the regulators willing to be moved by them, force it to happen. Krystal Two Bulls and Honor the Earth are organising for that. Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim is presenting reports for it at the UN. Kate Finn and the Tallgrass Institute are working with investors who have the leverage to demand it. The Global Indigenous Data Alliance has written the operational template. The CROQ benchmark has documented the cultural bias the framework would have to correct. The Multilinguality at the Edge survey has mapped the technical landscape on which sovereign indigenous AI will have to be built. The materials are present. What is needed is the decision to use them, and the political pressure to make that decision unavoidable.

The knowledge that sustains a community's relationship with its land, its language, and its identity was never the AI industry's to take. It has been taken. The question is no longer whether that was wrong. The question is whether the framework that would prevent it from happening again, and the restitution that would begin to repair the damage already done, will be built in time to matter. The river above the data centre is still flowing. The community downstream is still there. The forum chamber is still in session. The clock is louder than any of them.

---

References & Sources

1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. “United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 25th Session.” https://social.desa.un.org/issues/indigenous-peoples/unpfii/25th-session
2. Mongabay. “AI is a double-edged sword for Indigenous stewardship, say U.N. experts.” April 2026. https://news.mongabay.com/2026/04/ai-is-a-double-edged-sword-for-indigenous-stewardship-say-u-n-experts/
3. Mongabay. “War, climate change, and AI on the agenda at this year's U.N. Indigenous forum.” April 2026. https://news.mongabay.com/2026/04/war-climate-change-and-ai-on-the-agenda-at-this-years-u-n-indigenous-forum/
4. Grist. “AI is a double-edged sword for Indigenous land protection, UN experts warn.” April 2026. https://grist.org/indigenous/ai-is-a-double-edged-sword-for-indigenous-land-protection-un-experts-warn/
5. Grist. “Indigenous land defenders are being killed, and AI is scraping their knowledge.” April 2026. https://grist.org/indigenous/indigenous-land-defenders-are-being-killed-ai-is-scraping-their-knowledge/
6. Grist. “For Indigenous communities, AI brings peril and promise.” https://grist.org/indigenous/indigenous-peoples-examine-impact-of-ai-on-communities/
7. Democracy Now! “Data Colonialism: Native Communities Fight AI Data Centers on Indigenous Land.” 22 April 2026. https://www.democracynow.org/2026/4/22/krystal_twobulls_indigenous_lands_data_centers
8. Mongabay. “AI data center revolution sucks up world's energy, water, materials.” November 2025. https://news.mongabay.com/2025/11/ai-data-center-revolution-sucks-up-worlds-energy-water-materials/
9. Mongabay. “Thai data center boom sparks fears of water shortage, air pollution.” March 2026. https://news.mongabay.com/2026/03/thai-data-center-boom-sparks-fears-of-water-shortage-air-pollution/
10. Mongabay. “The Cloud vs. drought: Water hog data centers threaten Latin America, critics say.” November 2023. https://news.mongabay.com/2023/11/the-cloud-vs-drought-water-hog-data-centers-threaten-latin-america-critics-say/
11. Miranda, Lester James V., Songbo Hu, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. “Multilinguality at the Edge: Developing Language Models for the Global South.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.21637, 23 April 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21637
12. “Why are all LLMs Obsessed with Japanese Culture? On the Hidden Cultural and Regional Biases of LLMs.” arXiv preprint, 23 April 2026. https://arxiv.org/html/2604.21751
13. Global Indigenous Data Alliance. “CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” September 2019. https://www.gida-global.org/care
14. Carroll, Stephanie Russo, et al. “The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” Data Science Journal, vol. 19, no. 43, 2020. https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2020-043
15. Carroll, Stephanie Russo, et al. “Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures.” Scientific Data, 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00892-0
16. United Nations. “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” 2007. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
17. Convention on Biological Diversity. “Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing.” Entered into force 12 October 2014. https://www.cbd.int/abs/
18. World Intellectual Property Organisation. “Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore.” https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/
19. Canada's National Observer. “'Absolute failure': First Nation slams Alberta and Kevin O'Leary's data centre moves.” 24 April 2026. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2026/04/24/news/wonder-valley-kevin-o'leary-alberta-first-nation
20. CBC News. “Alberta First Nation voices 'grave concern' over Kevin O'Leary's proposed $70B AI data centre.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-first-nation-voices-grave-concern-over-kevin-o-leary-s-proposed-70b-ai-data-centre-1.7431550
21. ICT News. “In Indian Country, data centers come with a familiar threat of colonialism. These organizers are fighting back.” https://ictnews.org/news/in-indian-country-data-centers-come-with-a-familiar-threat-of-colonialism-these-organizers-are-fighting-back/
22. Honor the Earth. “Stop Data Colonialism Campaign.” https://www.honorearth.org/stopdatacolonialism
23. High Country News. “War, climate change and AI are at stake at the 2026 UN Indigenous forum.” April 2026. https://www.hcn.org/articles/war-climate-change-and-ai-are-at-stake-at-the-2026-un-indigenous-forum/
24. Futurism. “Tech Companies Are Using Insidious Tactics to Build Data Centers on Indigenous Lands, Activists Say.” https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/data-centers-tribal-communities

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast

In Summary: * Watching live coverage of the F1 Academy Race is proving to be a pretty good balance to the baseball game I followed earlier this afternoon. And it helps psych me for tomorrow's Indy 500.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night. Details of that regimen are linked to my link tree, which is linked to my profile page here.

Starting Ash Wednesday, 2026, I've added this daily prayer as part of the Prayer Crusade Preceding the 2026 SSPX Episcopal Consecrations.

Health Metrics: * bw= 231.49 lbs. * bp= 166/97 (63)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups

Diet: * 06:45 – 1 banana * 07:10 – pizza * 13:20 – fresh pineapple chunks * 13:50 – home made stew * 16:30 – pizza

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 06:10 – bank accounts activity monitored. * 06:40 – read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, nap, * 13:20 – listening to MLB Game: Chicago Cubs vs Houston Astros * 15:40 – Houston wins: Astros 3. Cubs 0. * 15:45 – follow news reports from various sources, listen to relaxing music * 17:10 – watching F1 Academy Race * 18:00 – now watching MLB Tonight on MLB Network * 19:00 – listening to relaxing music

Chess: * 16:10 – moved in all pending CC games

Why Gen X is the real loser generation Don’t cry for millennials or Gen Z. Save your pity for those in their 50s

— @daily-reads-TheEconomist on mastodon via Daily Reads

I am a Gen Xer, and I do not consider myself part of a loser generation.

I do think my generation came up during a time when the family was under assault from companies, the economy, and a culture that made it harder and harder for one parent to stay home. I know my mother and father resisted that pressure for as long as they could.

My mother was a stay-at-home mother for most of my childhood, and I am grateful for that. I also get to spend time with her now in her 70s, and I appreciate every bit of that time. My father worked and was the primary breadwinner for our household.

But after I graduated, my parents took on two more mouths to feed. My aunt on my mom’s side died young, and her two kids, my cousins, were being raised by my maternal grandmother. When my grandmother died, my parents took over raising them. That, along with other factors, eventually led to my mom entering the workforce.

So no, I do not think of Gen X as a loser generation.

We saw the birth of some amazing things, and we helped bring some great inventions into the world that today’s generations benefit from. I guess every generation can claim that in some way, but we were there for the rise of the personal computer, mobile phones, the internet, and so much more.

The things I do think Gen X lost out on were more serious. We saw the rise of latchkey kids. We saw families stretched thinner. And now, many of us are facing a retirement system that is much less secure than the one our parents expected.

We will probably have to work longer. We have less retirement security because corporate pensions largely disappeared and were replaced by 401(k) plans that many employers under-fund. The responsibility shifted from companies to workers, and a lot of people were not prepared for that. Social Security in a death spiraled only expected to pay full benefits until 2033 right when I will be drawing on it.

The article argues that Gen X has had slower income growth than other generations at similar ages, and I believe that. Even now, I am making the most money I have ever made, yet it still does not feel like enough. My spending is not up. In fact, it is down. But the cost of everything keeps climbing, and it feels like we are always trying to catch up.

So while I do not think my generation, or my siblings’ generation, are losers, I do think we have been more disadvantaged than people realize.

Gen X is not the loser generation.

We are a disadvantaged generation that has not been given the respect it deserves.

And there is a big difference.

#family #opinion #retirement

Going by what we humans have learned about the universe so far; it seems impossible that earth could be the only planet with sentient creatures. There must be countless other planets out there in the vastness of space that are similar to earth, all doing their own things with unique strange versions of all we have here. To me there is no doubt.

What I question though is whether any other sentient beings have ever found their way to earth. Like they say. Some believe that aliens have been here for years. I find it difficult to truly believe.

I've been alive for over 50 years, and I have seen nothing with my own eyes that I would consider irrefutable evidence of non-human beings among us. Never seen an unidentifiable flying object. Never seen anyone eat a banana without peeling it, or a turd with big eyes and a long neck that can make kids on bikes levitate. Always grainy photos, shaky videos, and abstract theories. But I do wonder. Wondering is what I do. Like, what if they are here, and have been for who knows how long?

To me that would imply that they are not here with malicious intent. They most likely would have done something by now if they were. So what then? Are they trapped here? Did they crash land? Are they secretly coming and going? Are they studying us?

If they are here just studying us like we are an evolving science project, they must think we are so f'n stupid. Our biggest flaw I would say, one flaw of many, is that our entire society revolves around currency that we all magically and continuously agree has value. A very tiny minority of us hoards most of that currency for no other reason than to have more of it than they had yesterday. With that wealth they manipulate themselves into positions of power. And most of that tiny minority of us hoarding the wealth, and who have all the power, are the absolute worst of the worst of us. Everything they do is centered around feeding the insatiable lust and greed for more wealth and more power. They use it to manipulate and control the vast majority of us, and they do not care at all how much suffering their activities are causing.

And now, especially over the last year or so, the entire corrupt and lopsided system is in a state of chaos from one intellectually stunted convicted felon who has always been a malicious narcissist, and now is also elderly and senile. He should be in a nursing home or prison, but the ultra wealthy used their power, and their hoard of wealth, to purchase him the position as the most powerful world leader.

Everything he says and does is having a negative impact on hundreds of millions of people. He posts ridiculous things on his social media late at night that are like from an insomniac that woke up mid-texting after momentarily dozing into a fever dream. What he texts in those moments causes the price of gas to fluctuate, and get higher and higher, and that causes the cost of everything else to also keep inching higher and higher.

His nonsense has to be taken very seriously though because he has control over one of the most powerful military organizations in the world. He has surrounded himself with bootlicker idiots that could stop him, but they never will. They are just as incompetent, cowardly and self centered as he is, and like him they will stop at nothing to cover their own asses, and will never admit that they were wrong.

I can't imagine an alien being thinking any of this is anything but ridiculous.

Blood in the vineyard pools at the root seeping into dry desert dirt

Hairs underground drink the vermillion red rich with iron and wine

Veins ferry the deathsweet sap to leaf buds and meristems waiting for juice from below

They push out the sky in ripening time before rising into a cascade of orbs

Green becomes purple swollen and ripe enticing fearful armed men

To seize body and limbs Crush out the life forgetting that they too are blood on the vine

the night isn’t so dark this time of the year

The moon shines on a turquoise gray sky with clouds

And its raining

And during the day I am outside when the sun shines.

I am happy then,

But on the other hand, I am happy during this rainy night also

And I have eaten tacos, of course.

The hen I buried in the compost heap last year is now mostly turned to soil.

All I saw of her remains was one single grey feather

I wonder is she looking down on us from her roost in heaven

Or whether she’s just gone back to the shapeless void?

She is of course still alive in my memory

But one day I too will die,

then what?

This is the first in a series of essays about music by Daryl Hall and John Oates. Theirs is, of course, a well-known, and much-discussed catalog of albums and songs. The approach and voice I will use will be primarily personal but also sociologically inclined. I can’t promise to cover all of their music, or any particular part of it, even. I will cover a song or album if I have some personal history or relationship with it, or otherwise find it useful in making some broader point about H2O’s music.

What am I trying to accomplish here? After recently diving into episodes of the now-concluded(?) Out of Touch: A Hall and Oates Podcast, along with reading a thoughtful essay at Picking Up Rocks, I got to thinking about how an extended examination of H2O might resonate with others. I hope to expose some readers to the sophistication and complexity in H2O’s music, and to reassure existing fans that they’ve been right all along about Daryl Hall and John Oates: that there are meaningful reasons why this music continues to resonate with us culturally and personally.

I’m starting off with a post about their 1983 song “Adult Education”. When envisioning this project, it was the first song to come to mind.

—————

“Adult Education” is an unusual moment for Daryl Hall and John Oates. It was released as one of two newly recorded tracks on a long-playing collection of former hits, Rock & Soul Part 1 (1983). It is musically darker and tonally more serious than most of their other songs. It almost functions like an evil twin to its more congenial AM radio-friendly sibling, “Say It Isn’t So” (the other newly recorded track on the collection). But while it is an unusual song for the legendary pop duo, it is also arguably one of their most interesting, for its thematic complexity and its innovative sound design.

In terms of sound design, it certainly stands out amidst their catalog. “Adult Education” ventures into unusual aesthetic territory for the duo. Forget the music video for a moment, and close your eyes.

The opening sounds are the backup vocal tracks, chanting “adult”, pronounced in two different ways. Then the listener hears the most prominent musical motif in the song – a guest guitar riff by Nile Rodgers, played on a clean Fender Stratocaster. When the rest of the ingredients in the main groove are added in, we see that this riff leads and dominates the song, imposing an art-funk style [1].

The song is mid-tempo, upbeat, but in a minor key, which is unusual for the duo at this point in their career. Rhythmically, it comes off very mechanical, almost industrial (reflecting its institutional/prison-like setting). It lacks the rounded soul and blues rhythms and tonalities normally present in H2O songs, and it also lacks the affection, sweetness, or warmth that a Hall & Oates song usually showers listeners with. It is all about “long halls and grey walls”; it is cold as high school. The rhythms also evoke a “late night prowl” kind of vibe. On top of it all, the narrator (Hall) seems to take a somewhat paternal tone toward his subject matter, as if giving teenagers lectures about how to live their lives.

The thunderous drum production (likely the work of producer Bob Clearmountain) gives depth to the mix, a sort of explosive core to the song. The chorused electric guitar strumming brings this rhythmic core into a somewhat more controlled, human-scaled, organic space than it would otherwise be in on its own. The bass is heavily sustained and used to build texture, as are the synthetic horn-like instrument sounds. There are only a few more ornamental elements – arpeggiated accents in the second verse, power chords, gate-reverbed drums, the cheerleader chanting, G.E. Smith’s rock guitar solo, and Hall’s soulfully sung -if defiant- narration.

The “cheerleading” sounds work a bit cinematically here. It sounds almost like the song is being performed as part of a high school musical, on the high school’s playing field, right before a game, as if to warn the students about their terrible predicament in this mixed up “education” they’re receiving, where “adulthood” as an idea is rendered more chaotic and confusing, not less. The truncated “oh-oh” samples of chanting women perfectly punctuate the narrator’s key points in the second verse. The “oh yeah-oh yeah” response to Hall’s line “student body’s got a bad reputation” concurs with him, reinforcing Hall’s insistence that the students deserve a better education than this.

Perched at the peak of H2O’s fame, it sits atop their catalog as a pivot point. It looks forward, toward the funk-inflected Big Bam Boom album (1984), and away from the smooth, soulful pop arrangements of prior hits “One on One” and “I Can’t Go For That”. It stands in obvious contrast to the trademark driving piano tropes present in hits like “Kiss on My List” and “Private Eyes”.

But what is the song about?

I think the answer partly lies in the word “adult”. “Adulthood” is the central thematic concept in the song’s lyrics. The “adult/adult” backing vocal is also a rhythmic anchor for the song musically. And, whether intentional or not, the alternating pronunciations of “adult” (featured prominently at the opening of the song) create a strange semantic instability inside the song itself.

According to Merriam-Webster, the term “adult” is “borrowed from French & Latin; French adulte, going back to Middle French, borrowed from Latin adultus, from past participle of adolēscere, adulēscere “to become mature, grow up,” from ad- AD- + alēscere “to be nourished, grow up,” probably inchoative derivative of *alēre”, to grow,” stative derivative of alere “to nurse, feed, nourish”.

Why point out this difference? Is it meaningful? Is the word “adult” even semantically distinct based on its pronunciation? Etymologists are silent on this, pinning the different pronunciations solely on regional differences — with American English speakers preferring emphasis on syllable 2 (iambic), with the UK and Canada being the sites for an accent on syllable 1 (trochaic).

Based on how I’ve heard the variants used, here’s how I interpret them. The trochaic version sounds more formal than the iambic version. The iambic pronunciation seems to connote “forbidden” in a way that the trochaic version does not. The iambic also lends itself well to the word’s use as an adjective – we don’t usually say “A-dult films”. We say “uh-DULT movies”. But we do say “act like an A-dult”. Then again, we now say “uh-DULTing” (a verb form of the word that didn’t exist in 1983).

Does this tell us something? If so, the logic might read as follows: the trochaic “adult” is a noun, and a model for us to emulate, a model of a mature, responsible human. The iambic “adult” is a more promiscuous signifier – at once a noun, an adjective, and perhaps also a verb – flirting with all the taboo aspects of adulthood. Adulthood is about responsibility (in terms of how you are supposed to learn it in high school), but it’s also inevitably a world of corruption, promiscuity, and debauchery.

This aligns well with the dualism expressed in the lyrical description of a high school where the real lessons are hard, ugly truths about adults who do not provide strong modeling for young people. And since the song is concerned centrally with what adolescents learn in the highly sexualized, competitive world of high school (while formally training them to be responsible adults), the dual connotations that may attach to different pronunciations lend support to the overall theme.

But there’s an additional layer to the word “adult” – its original Latin form is derived from the concept of adolescence (not the other way around, which one might intuitively expect). Adolescence is the central concept; “adult” is a modification, meaning “post-adolescence”.

It is in this sense that adulthood is positioned as something one must be ritually transformed into. This comes across as a kind of variant on the PSA: “believe it or not, there’s life after high school”, a proto-“it gets better” reassurance from the narrator of the song. High school is where that transition is ritually performed on you.

“Adult Education” confronts the confusing dualities – the madness – of high school, repeatedly contrasting institutional ideals of discipline and maturity with the chaotic emotional and sexual realities of teenage life. Hall and Oates interrogate high school, and find a bleak, competitive reproduction of the adult world within it. In response, they shrug, saying “deal with it” – a distinctly Gen X version of reassurance — less hopeful than “it gets better,” but in roughly the same spirit.

Eight years later, Nirvana issued a more apocalyptic evacuation order for the same American high school paradigm, in “Smells Like Teen Spirit”. Hall and Oates issue a warning and reassurance, rather than a call to abandon the project of adulthood. High school is here, it’s big and it’s bad, and there’s nothing you can do except cope and hopefully live through it. Compared to other iconic “high school” songs, the message that “high school sucks, adulthood sucks, deal with it” is a far cry from Nirvana’s “entertain us” fatalism, and from Pink Floyd’s “We Don’t Need No Education” refusal.

So what, in the end, made this recorded song unique? Was it Bob Clearmountain’s production work? Or the influence of Nile Rodgers (who contributed the song’s distinctive, agenda-setting guitar riff)? Or was it simply setting us up to look for more binary oppositions with these conspicuous pronunciation variations of “adult”?

I’m not sure, but I’m leaning toward a broader theory: that H2O were trying to build upon a somewhat darker thematic thread that weaves in and out of their first twelve LPs of material. This thread consists of elements of occult and American gothic aesthetics and subjects. I am working on another essay in which I explore this thread more closely.

“Adult Education” sits in the H2O catalog as a rare minor key song, somewhat didactic in tone, with little of the trappings of soul or R&B. It’s rock, not soul. And it provides a helpful PSA for early 80s middle schoolers, trying to make sense of the contradictory models of adulthood that they would see in institutionalized life every day.

—————

As a bookend for this reflection, I want to add that “Adult Education” is an interesting perch from which to observe broader changes afoot in music and popular culture in the early 1980s. It looks forward to the emerging future (funk, digital samplers, MTV) and away from the past (roots music, the Fender Rhodes, LP records). As I will discuss in a later chapter, this historical context brings additional layers of meaning to the song itself.

N’Oates

[1] Notably, this guitar riff is very similar to – and occupies a similar space in the music and sound mix to – another riff Rodgers created, for David Bowie’s “China Girl”, in the same year.

Chicago Cubs vs Houston Astros

Starting my sports Saturday with a MLB Game, Chicago Cubs vs Houston Astros. I'm listening now to the Pregame Show on The Chicago Cubs Radio Network and I'll stay with this station for the radio call of the game. Opening pitch is only minutes away.

And the adventure continues.

Der Tag begann früh, um 8 Uhr fuhr der Kleinbus von Berschad los nach Voronovytsia zum Ethnokultur & Folklore Festival. Das sollte eigentlich in Berschad stattfinden, und ich wollte bei der Vorbereitung helfen, aber die Stadtverwaltung hat den Plänen von Nika und dem Youth Folklore Club einen Strich durch die Rechnung gemacht. Es soll jetzt am Tag der Jugend im Herbst stattfinden.

Also ab nach Voronovytsia, das sind 3 Stunden Fahrt. Unterwegs bin ich in die Unterhaltung mit Katja vertieft, und vergesse ganz die tägliche Schweigeminute um 9 Uhr, peinlich. Angekommen ging es direkt zu einer kleinen, 300 Jahre alten Holzkirche, die ohne einen Nagel gebaut ist. Davor standen der Pfarrer, einige Männer in Kosakenuniform, oder Militärkleidung. Zu mir hieß es, ich würde einen Kosakenritus beobachten dürfen. Vor Ort stellte sich heraus, dass der Ritus daraus besteht, mich zur Kosakin zu taufen. o.O

Mir wurde vorgemacht wie der Ablauf ist, und bevor ich verstanden habe was passiert, war ich schon mittendrin. Mir wurde viel vorgesprochen, worauf ich dann geschworen habe. Auf jeden Fall die ukrainische Sprache und Kultur verteidigen, und noch vieles mehr. Ich schwöre “prysjahaju”. Dann runter aufs rechte Knie, ukrainische Flagge küssen. Dann den Kopf nach unten, ein Schwert wurde mir auf die rechte Schulter gehalten. Dann wurde mir 3 mal auf den Rücken gepeitscht. So schnell wurde ich Kosatschka! Dazu gab es 2 Zertifikate, und 2 Patches für die Oberarme.

Dann ging es wieder zurück zum Palast, dort liefen die letzten Vorbereitungen für das Festival. Essensstände wurden aufgebaut, sowie die Ausstellungen aufgebaut. Es gab viel zu bestaunen: Alte und neue kosakische Waffen und Bogenschießen, bestickte Tücher und sehr alte Gefäße aus Ton, traditionelle Malerei, und handgemachte Perlenketten. Eine Perlenkette hatte als Motiv alle Zutaten für Borschtsch, genial. Es gab Workshops zur Malerei, sowie Kerzengestaltung.

Auf der Bühne wurde das Festival eröffnet, und es ging los mit dem Programm. Die Veranstaltenden sowie die Programme (Erasmus+) wurden vorgestellt, und in diesem Rahmen auch ich. Darauf folgten verschiedene Tanzgruppen, Musikgruppen, und es wurden einige Gegenstände versteigert. Auch eine Vorführung eines Kampfes mit historischen Waffen gab es. Das war echt vielfältig, und spannend anzuschauen. Das traditionelle kosakische Gericht “Kulisch” habe ich auch probiert, sehr lecker. Schnell hatte ich auch Horilka (Wodka) in der Hand, und war im Gespräch mit dem Bürgermeister von Voronovytsia. Auch sonst hatte ich viele interessante Gespräche, und noch viel mehr neue Eindrücke. Es war ein sehr schönes Fest, und es gab sehr viele neue Eindrücke.

Geendet hat der Tag für mich mit dem Abschied von Nika, Katia und Vika. Das war schon ein bisschen traurig, aber ich habe mich auch schon auf das Camp in Stina gefreut. Für mich ging es dann nach Vinnytsia, wo ich den Montag überbrückt habe.

---

The day started early — at 8am the minibus left Berschad heading to Voronovytsia for the Ethnoculture & Folklore Festival. It was originally supposed to take place in Berschad, and I wanted to help with the preparations, but the city administration put a stop to Nika's and the Youth Folklore Club's plans. It's now scheduled for Youth Day in autumn.

So off to Voronovytsia, a 3-hour drive. On the way I got so caught up in conversation with Katja that I completely forgot the daily minute of silence at 9am — embarrassing. Once we arrived, we went straight to a small 300-year-old wooden church built without a single nail. In front of it stood the priest, some men in Cossack uniforms or military clothing. I was told I'd be allowed to observe a Cossack ritual. Turns out the ritual consisted of initiating me as a Cossack woman. o.O

I was shown how the ceremony would go, and before I even understood what was happening, I was already in the middle of it. A lot was recited to me, and I swore along. Among other things, to defend the Ukrainian language and culture, and much more. I swear — “prysiahaiu”. Then down on the right knee, kiss the Ukrainian flag. Then head down, a sword was held to my right shoulder. Then I was whipped three times on the back. And just like that, I was a Kosatchka! I also received 2 certificates and 2 patches for the upper arms.

Then it was back to the palace, where the final preparations for the festival were underway. Food stands were being set up alongside the exhibitions. There was a lot to take in: old and new Cossack weapons and archery, embroidered cloths and very old clay vessels, traditional painting, and handmade bead necklaces. One necklace had all the ingredients for borscht as its motif — brilliant. There were also workshops on painting and candle-making.

The festival was opened on stage and the program kicked off. The organizers and the programs (Erasmus+) were introduced, and in that context, so was I. This was followed by various dance groups, music groups, and some items were auctioned off. There was also a demonstration of a fight with historical weapons. It was really diverse and exciting to watch. I also tried the traditional Cossack dish “Kulish” — very tasty. Before long I had a Horilka (vodka) in hand and found myself in conversation with the mayor of Voronovytsia. Beyond that I had many other interesting conversations and even more new impressions. It was a really lovely festival.

The day ended for me with saying goodbye to Nika, Katia and Vika. That was a little sad, but I was also already looking forward to the camp in Stina. From there I headed to Vinnytsia, where I spent Monday.

---

Ein Blick in die Kirche

frisch als Kosatschka

kulturelles Programm

Gruppenfoto – hinten: Chor aus der Nähe von Berschad

vorn: Leitung und Aktive aus verschiedenen youth-folklore-clubs, Bürgermeister von Voronovytsia, Djana (Organisatorin des Festivals aus dem youth-folklore-club vor Ort), ich

Adventurers

Character	Race	Class	Description
Alaric	Human	Paladin level 3	Big, doe eyed country boy with wavy blond hair and willingness to do the right thing. Paladin of Tyr.
Ambros	Human	Cleric level 7	Follower of Aniu, Lord of Time.
Beorg the Gravedigger	Human	Fighter level 5	Inspired to adventure after burying several adventurers.
Ignaeus	Elf	Fighter level 4 / magic-user level 5	A slightly weathered looking elf with dull blonde hair and chiseled features. Seeks wealth and knowledge.
Jacob Vin	Human	Assassin level 3	Slick black hair, inconspicuous dress, youthful for his age, and of keen instincts.
Kenso San	Human	Fighter level 4	An arrogant and self-assured sellsword wandering Wilderlands to prove he can best anyone.
Tam o' Shanter	Human	Cleric level 4	A boisterous wine-lover of Losborst on a Great Crusade of the Grape.
Tarkus the Promising	Human	Cleric level 5	Follower of Bachontoi, God of Red Wisdom.
Thorinda Bung	Human	Monk level 3	She has blonde hair done up in a tight pony tail and wears light, loose suit.
Thorm	Dwarf	Fighter level 4 / thief level 5	Ashen hair, beard, and eyes. Left his own clan due to financial trouble.
Warmund Abendeurer	Human	Fighter level 1	A burly blonde barbarian; Wilbalt's older brother and the stronger of the two.
Wilbalt Abendeurer	Human	Fighter level 1	A burly blonde barbarian; Warmund's younger brother and a better swordsman of the two.

Coldrain 2nd, Waterday

“Begone, Evil!” Ambros thundered.

Wight that sucked Agathon dry turned to dust, carried away by the underground stream.

“Chop him up, quick!”

Kenso cut off Agathon's head. Ignaeus loped off the leg.

The corpse contorted and jerked, throwing itself at Kenso.

The boy, even in death, strived to best his master.

Kenso slashed accross the torso, and then drove the dragonblade into the heart. Corpse formerly known as Agathon ceased to move.

Adventurers completed the dismemberment. Then they chucked the body parts into the stream, casting them into the watery oblivion.

“So, uh... who will swim accross to fetch that bag of coins?”

“Screw it! I'll do it!”

Tam volunteered. He stripped off his armour. He elected to keep chemberpot on his head. Adventurers tied a rope around his waist, not neck, and he jumped into the chilly stream.

He was promptly speared and cut by three troglodytes that happened to be diving there at that time. One of the foul reptiles hurt him good; spears were wickedly barbed and did more damage while coming out than when coming in.

As Tam screamed and cried in pain trogs went limp and were carried away by the stream. Ignaeus had put them to sleep. As well as Alaric. They dragged Tam out, who in turn jumped at the elf, gave him a big hug and a sloppy, sloppy kiss. Ignaeus regretted his decision to save the man.

Freshly awoken Alaric volunteered to go instead of half-dead Tam. Young and strong, he too took off his armour. How else could he swim across? As before, a rope was tied around his waist. And as before, he jumped into the stream. This time it was not swimming reptiles.

No, it was a gang of skeletons approaching the party from behind. Little did they know how divine divine Ambros is. They were turned to dust.

Alaric succesfully retrieved a sack with five hundred gold pieces.

The party decided to exit the dungeon and rest before continuing. It was well past midnight by the time they were out.

Coldrain 3rd, Earthday

“Hail and well met!”

Around noon the party was joined by Tarkus the Promising, Beorg the Gravedigger, Jacob Vin, Thorinda Bung, Warmund and Wilbalt Abendeurer. Now counting twelve adventurers in total, they were confident about hitting the deepest level of Castle Yukanthur.

Or so they thought.

Whilst passing through the first level, five giant ticks fell from above. Although the adventurers were not surprised, the ticks were right in their midst.

With their thick carapaces, giant ticks had proven to be more of a nuissance than a real threat to adventurers. Still, several of them got bitten, sucked, and potentially, diseased. It remains to be seen. Warmund and Jacob suffered the most, nearly dying in the process.

Alaric killed two, Kenso cut one in half, Tarkus smashed one, and Tam used his jug to crush the final one.

Moving on, they ran into six pig-faced orcs. Neither side was surprised. Beorg unleashed hell upon them, skewering four in total. Ignaeus and Kenso barely managed to kill one each.

From then on they moved forth unopposed. Once on the second level, they went into the fireblasted chamber, courtesy of Ignaeus, then south, then north in the domed chamber with fire, got perplexed and frustrated once more, went out north, then east into the hydrchamber, then north, left, and then right down the long stairs.

It is worth noting that there was an ongoing conversation if they should use stairs or one of the pit traps leading down. Stairs, as might be obvious by now, had won the popular vote.

Deeper level, at last.

Twelve of adventurers, carrying three torches and one lantern, stood little chance of surprising anyone or anything. Let alone a wall.

A t-junction split left and right. To the left was a large rectangular chamber with grimy, stained, and spent flagstones. The right was a fifty foot long corridor terminating with a right turn. Midway were open doors, hanging to the side. Torchlight flickered from beyond. Silent weeping and sobbing could be heard.

Feeling heroic, adventurers rushed towards it.

The doors were hanging by the hinges. Wood appeared to be damaged as if by some strong acid. The chamber beyond was rectangular. In the middle of it stood a man dressed in robes and a pointy hat. He held torch in on hand, and waved the other towards north-east corner. His face was red and puffy, tears streaming down.

In the corner was a half-dissolved man dressed in bubbly leather armour. He was engulfed by transparent and shimmering liquid. Magic-user spoke some words and a spear of light flew from his hands and into the mass.

Ignaeus recognised the spell as a varian of Magic Missile. He joined in, and cast teh same spell at the ooze. Beorg cast his own spell, “military oil,” vapourising the ooze as well as the man engulfed.

Then he took a deep whiff and grunted “I love the smell of military oil in the morning. It is the smell of victory.”

Ambros approached the man while others spread out to investigate the chamber. It was forty-five by thirty feet, with exit to the south and west. Besides one dissolved corpse in the north-east corner, there was another by west doors. This one was dressed in half-corroded plate mail, holding onto a heavy mace. Next to it was an intact gold chalice.

“You can help yourself to it, after all you have saved my life.” the man generously offered. He introduced himself as Diocletian Farseer, a man capable of seeing far. “We have been delving for hours. I said we should go back, but no, they were “oh come one, just one more doors, just one more.” And then we ran into this ooze which just wrecked my dear friends. Horrible. Horrible.”

He agreed to join the party for a part of his share. There is safety in numbers.

As adventurers discussed, the bottom of west doors begane to sizzle and bubble.

“Oh, no—” Diocletian screamed “—not again!”

Thorinda, Kenso, and Beorg dispatched of the ooze before it became a threat. They were apparently much more capable then two men Diocletian had adventured with.

“Let's move on.”

Pushing through west doors led to the aforementioned rectangular chamber with grime caked flagstones, albeit from the north side.

There were five exits from this chamber: corridors to the north, east, and south, mined tunnel to the west, and a tunneled crawlsspace to the south-west. On the south wall was etched drawing of a circle with a squiggly line.

Adventurers entered reluctantly. Thorm, being a dwarf, elected to study the west tunnel. It was most definitely hewn. Narrow, but wide enough for a single file. It obviously, well, obviously to a dwarf, at least, slopped downwards. Entrance to it was flanked by numerous bone fragments.

Crawlspace in the south-west corner was barely wide enough for one person to crawl through. It was not particulalry high, and one would need to go all the way on their belly.

“Hey, look at that...”

Alaric shone his bullseye lantern down the south corridor.

Two red gems shone in the dark, just beyond his range. Moving forward revealed the horror—a baleful dead with bright-red gaze.

Alaric the Brave charged forth, only to be checked by two more undead waiting in the darkness. Kenso, Thorm, and Beorg backed the paladin, following him into the fray.

Ambros turned the furthest undead, since that was the only one whom had witnessed his holy symbol. Thorm destroyed one with a series of blows. Kenso felt the chilly touch of one. He felt weaker, as if drained. Luckily for him, the undead broke of its grip in the overwhelming presences of Ambros and Tarkus.

Alaric, Wilbalt, Thorm, Ambros, Kenso, Tarkus, and Ignaeus stood in what looked to be an anthechamber of sorts. There were doors to the west, “VERMIN” scribbled over them. That is where the undead whom had drained Kenso fled. There was archway leading south. That's where the first undead had fled to.

Diocletian, Jacob, Thorinda, Beorg were just behind, in the corridor connecting this chamber and the rectangular chamber with five exits. Tam and Warmund were in that chamber, keeping watch.

They were not twelve anymore. They were thirteen now.

Will that be enough to survive the depths of Castle Yukanthur?

Poster by Lord Jubalon Flux.

Discuss at Dragonsfoot forum.

#Wilderlands #SessionReport

Russ på busser fra Østfold har forfulgt og utøvd vold mot russ fra Oslo-området, melder NRK. NRK viderebringer videoer av harde slåsskamper med sladdede ansikter. Flere russ har blitt sendt til sykehus, og det har blitt brukt slagvåpen. Dette er alvorlige hendelser, og det er jo verdt å merke seg hvordan de omtales, eller rettere sagt IKKE omtales, i kontrast til andre voldshendelser som involverer russ den siste tiden.

Lederen for Stortingets justiskomité Jon Helgheim har ikke delt usladdede videoer av østfold-russ i basketak med andre russ. Han har ikke spekulert i motivasjonene deres eller argumentert for at dette er symptomatisk for kulturen i Østfold, eller oppfordret folk i Østfold-miljøene om å ta et oppgjør. Eller argumentert for at vi alle har vært for naive overfor østfoldsk ukultur.

Men det gjør Helgheim altså når ungdommer med minoritetsbakgrunn er involvert. Ikke bare det: han får gjentatte ganger ros av ytringsfrihetsekspert og professor Anine Kierulf for å gjøre det, etter litt mild korreks. Helgheim løfter visstnok en “viktig debatt” (hvilken da? ) når han velger å spekulere vilt i en voldshendelse som stadig er under etterforskning.

Norske ungdommer begår forbrytelser, utøver vold og gjør andre dumme ting. Noen ungdommer behandles som individer med rettigheter som fortjener en skikkelig rettegang, andre behandles som representanter for hele folkegrupper, som fritt kan henges ut for folkemobben av noen av våre fremste politikere. Vi vet alle hvorfor. Det er en skam.

今日は妻と下北沢へ。 古着を見に行く。

ベックスにはたまにしか行かないが、行くたびにモーニングはちょうどいいなと思う。 トースト、サラダ、グラノーラ、コーヒー。 一人で用意するには少し手間なセットが揃っている。 ただ、一人席が多く、妻とは横並びで座ることになった。

平日は普段マスクをして通勤しているのに、なぜか休日になると気が緩み、マスクをせずに電車へ乗ってしまう。 人が少ないわけでもないのに。

下北ではアウトドア用の靴や古着をいくつか見たが、まあいつも通りというか、結局は眺めるだけで買わなかった。 普段買わないタイプの服を買うのは難しい。

そのまま昼は下北沢のホルモン焼肉屋へ。 ここのホルモンは美味しい。 カルビ、ホルモン、もやし、ライスの中。 酒も良いよなと思いつつ、焼肉はやっぱり米で食べたほうが満足感がある。 米が足りなくなったので、初めてネギ塩味のハツを注文。 食べやすい。まあ肉の解像度が低いから、結局なんでも美味しく感じるのだけど。

家の近所にラーメン屋がオープンしたので、夜はそこへ行こうとしていた。 焼肉からラーメンへ。 平日、みんなと同じように働いているのだから、このくらいの贅沢はまあいいかと思っていたが、そのラーメン屋は土日は夜営業をしていなかったので断念。 我が家では節約もしていかないといけない、という話も同時並行で進んでいたので、近所のスーパーで冷凍の鮭を購入した。 身はいつもより少し硬く、脂も少なめだったが、美味しかった。

Quand quelque chose te touche fort, ne réagis pas tout de suite comme si ta première réaction disait toute la vérité.

Regarde trois choses.

Ton corps.

Ton émotion.

Ta pensée.

Ton corps, c’est ce que tu sens physiquement. Gorge serrée. Ventre noué. Mâchoire tendue. Cœur qui accélère. Fatigue d’un coup. Envie de fuir. Envie d’attaquer.

Ton émotion, c’est ce qui monte en toi. Peur. Colère. Honte. Tristesse. Jalousie. Dégoût. Soulagement. Tendresse.

Ta pensée, c’est l’histoire que ton cerveau raconte avec tout ça. Il peut dire : elle m’abandonne. Il me ment. Je suis nul. On me manque de respect. Je dois me défendre. Je dois tout comprendre maintenant.

Le problème, c’est qu’un seul des trois peut se tromper.

Ton corps peut paniquer parce qu’une situation ressemble à une ancienne blessure, même si le danger actuel n’est pas si grand.

Ton émotion peut être très forte, mais viser la mauvaise personne ou la mauvaise scène.

Ta pensée peut inventer une histoire très convaincante pour justifier ta peur ou ta colère.

Donc tu vérifies.

Exemple simple : quelqu’un ne répond pas à ton message.

Ton corps se tend.

Ton émotion dit : j’ai peur.

Ta pensée dit : elle s’en fout de moi.

Là, tu ne pars pas directement en accusation. Tu regardes les faits. Est ce que cette personne t’ignore souvent ? Est ce qu’elle est juste occupée ? Est ce que tu as déjà vécu un abandon avant, et que ton corps réagit trop vite ? Est ce que ta peur parle plus fort que la réalité ?

Autre exemple : quelqu’un te parle mal plusieurs fois.

Ton corps se ferme à chaque fois.

Ton émotion devient lourde.

Ta pensée observe que ça se répète.

Là, les trois vont dans le même sens. Ce n’est pas juste une réaction passagère. Il faut poser une limite.

Le but de la triade, c’est ça : ne pas laisser une seule partie de toi décider à la place des autres.

Quand ton corps, ton émotion et ta pensée disent tous la même chose, écoute sérieusement.

Quand un seul des trois crie très fort, ralentis.

Quand ton corps panique, regarde les faits.

Quand ton cerveau explique trop, écoute ton corps.

Quand ton émotion veut exploser, attends que la pensée revienne.

Ce n’est pas compliqué.

Avant de réagir, tu te demandes juste :

Qu’est ce que mon corps fait ?

Qu’est ce que je ressens ?

Quelle histoire mon cerveau est en train de raconter ?

C’est ça, la triade. Une manière simple de ne pas te mentir, de ne pas accuser trop vite, de ne pas t’écraser non plus, et de poser une limite quand la réalité le demande.

J’étais prêt à défendre mes enfants contre tout. Même contre moi.

Cette phrase, je la sens dans le corps. Elle ne vient pas d’une posture. Elle vient d’une peur très sérieuse, presque sacrée. La peur de transmettre ce qui m’a blessé. La peur de devenir sans le voir une pièce de plus dans le trauma. La peur que les enfants portent, à leur tour, ce que les adultes n’ont jamais su arrêter. Je voulais que ça s’arrête avec moi. Que la violence, la confusion, les accusations, les loyautés impossibles, les silences malades, tout ce qui abîme une enfance, trouve enfin une limite dans ma propre chair.

Je voulais être capable de me regarder moi aussi comme un danger possible. De ne pas me protéger derrière mon amour. De ne pas dire : puisque j’aime mes enfants, je ne peux pas leur faire de mal. L’amour ne suffit pas toujours à rendre un geste juste. Je le savais. Je voulais rester vigilant. Je voulais garder la vérité plus haute que mon image de père. Même si cette vérité devait un jour me demander de me corriger, de reculer, de demander pardon, de changer.

Et elle était ma partenaire.

Elle aurait dû voir cela, au moins un peu. Elle aurait dû sentir l’effort. La peur propre. La volonté de ne pas répéter. La main tendue vers quelque chose de plus sain que nous. Elle n’avait pas besoin de tout comprendre parfaitement. Elle n’avait pas besoin de me sauver. Mais elle tenait ma main dans cette traversée, et un jour, elle l’a lâchée.

Ce lâcher là fait plus mal que la solitude.

Parce qu’il transforme celui qui voulait protéger en suspect. Celui qui voulait arrêter le trauma devient une pièce du trauma. Celui qui essayait de tenir le réel devient celui qu’on accuse de le tordre. Alors le corps encaisse une douleur plus forte que ce qu’on lui avait donné au départ. Une douleur doublée. La première blessure, puis l’inversion. Le mal reçu, puis l’accusation d’être le mal.

À force, on n’a plus envie de philosopher. On n’a plus envie de chercher les grands mécanismes, les cercles, les blessures, les systèmes nerveux, les projections, les traumas, les récits. On n’a plus envie de comprendre chacun, de reformuler, de tenir compte de toutes les couches. On n’a plus envie de passer sa douleur au tamis de l’analyse pour qu’elle devienne présentable.

On veut qu’on nous fiche la paix. Une paix simple. Qu’on arrête d’entrer dans notre tête. Qu’on arrête de nous demander d’expliquer encore. Qu’on arrête de transformer chaque réaction en symptôme, chaque limite en violence, chaque colère en immaturité. Le corps réclame un silence. Une porte fermée. Une journée sans devoir prouver qu’on n’est pas un monstre. Une heure où personne ne vient gratter la plaie pour vérifier si elle saigne encore.

J’ai envie de réagir, oui. Réagir avec mes mains, avec mes pieds, avec mon corps entier qui dit stop. Réagir en me retirant de ce qui me détruit. Réagir en posant une limite sans écrire dix pages autour. Réagir en refusant de discuter avec ceux qui ont déjà choisi leur version. Réagir en protégeant mes enfants sans supplier qu’on reconnaisse mon intention. Réagir en retrouvant ma taille, mon souffle, mon axe.

Et si on dit que je fais comme un enfant, tant pis. Un enfant, parfois, sait très bien dire quand ça fait mal. Il ne sait pas encore habiller sa douleur avec des mots élégants. Il ne sait pas encore la rendre acceptable. Il pleure, il crie, il recule, il tend les bras, il refuse. Quelque part, ce n’est pas toujours une faiblesse. Le corps retourne à la vérité nue. Celle qui dit : je ne peux plus porter ça. Je ne peux plus continuer à penser à la place de tout le monde. Je ne peux plus transformer ma douleur en thèse pour que les autres se sentent moins coupables.