You can call me Ismael Boris.
I am an aspiring apprentice in the field of the Social Sciences. At the moment, I live in Armenia and dream of becoming a journalist and social research agency manager.
On this web site you can find my notes, thoughts and publication in English, Russian*, Ukrainian, French, German and Armenian.
The plan is rather simple:
The question of Marx's ideal of man is quite simple: the whole image he lays forth in his works is overly childish, voluntaristic and outright untenable.
Human knowledge has grown so immensely since the Antiquity, so that the very basic jobs require quite a significant learning period. One cannot simply become an engineer or an analyst, even with a background in the adjacent fields.
The circulating idea about Alexander Pushkin's being no less responsible for the violence and crimes that Ruᛋᛋia indulges in than Putin is indeed deep and full of truth.
Varlam Shalamov was among the first to show that the Russian literature was full of rot and bigotry, and that the moral authorities like Leo Tolstoi and so on made it exactly like that. Cf. his comment about Russian Literature being utterly unable to give a true portrayal of a Russian criminal.
I would characterise the current Russian elites as the criminals that have exploited this very vulnerability in the cultural code. Living by truth and mutual agreement is good only to the point where the truth one lives by becomes a truth of ‘urkas’, and the mutual agreement accepts the form of ‘ponyatia’.
Basically, beyond a few GULAG writers, no one has ever warned the Russian masses about the criminal code of conduct being much more detrimental to their being than the most obtuse and heartless bureaucratic one.
After Prigozhin's mutiny, Ruᛋᛋia has returned to the state of the obscene lawlessness, where the word of a ‘pakhan’, that is of a gang leader, simply negates any kind of law or any semblance of law altogether. And given the warm reception the Wagnerites received at Rostov-on-Don, the perspectives of that society are less than bright.
James Lindsay and his New Disourses project is interesting in its critique of the Left indeed. However, I believe there is a huge mistake which undermines Lindsay's productiveness as a philosopher: he clings to the Leftism as Gnosticism idea (developing some of the Eric Voeglin's insights) while missing the meta-physical side of the questions.
Religions are not just sets of beliefs. They are philosophies, they have metaphysics – each has one of its own (leave aside the fact that the metaphysics of a religion may change under the institutional pressure – see the Catholic church as an example).
Thus, equating the leftism (or any version of Post-Modernism) with Gnosticism is a huge miss.
There is a certain meta-physical background which may be shared by most of the Gnostics and most of the Leftists. But this is an example of the convergent evolution of the ideas.
The difference between the Stalinist and Tsarist Ruᛋᛋia is only in the latter being less bureaucratic about recording its crimes. Were the Tsarist régime recording its victims, Stalin and his henchmen would look like pure infants that have accidentally committed a couple misdemeanours.
The failure to understand that makes one fail to understand the proper scope, function and role of terror in the Ruᛋᛋian history of the XX century.
The Stalinist policies targeted targeted on the peasants bear a striking resemblance to Stolypin's internal policies of the earlier time.
Only in this case the brutality was more or less documented and formalised: the dead were more or less counted, the famine could be seen by those who would never get that far in the 1900s and so on.
This is not to say that Stalin was not a criminal, whose policies killed millions. This is to show why the policies of famine and mass incarceration were not met with an uprising by the people of the country: the very level of violence to which the average Ruᛋᛋian citizen had been hitherto exposed was quite similar to what befell USSR in 1930s.
The opposition to the the official national canons of literature should be focused on recognition of the inherently statist or nationalist character of their composition.
The criteria for forming canons should be intrinsic, not extrinsic – this requirement necessitates the following institutional changes:
Going back to the Ruᛋᛋian canon, it can clearly be seen that it has nothing to do with the literary qualities of the authors. Only the recognition by the Powers-that-Be has caused Pushkin, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky to be taught as the prime examples of the Ruᛋᛋian literature.
My idea of justice is that it is a completely man-made concept, just as the concept of truth. This means that we live in an inherently unjust world, which we can (with more or less success) make more or less just, depending on our volition; however, no one can guarantee that our justice will be compatible with the laws of the world we live in.
We live in the world that is limiting the scope of our a priori knowledge. This, the concepts of both action and praxis are playing a very major role in how we think about the world.
This necessitates the consequentialist view on liberty, because moral absolutism is much more inertious and prone to throwing the good money after the bad, especially in the extremely volatile situations so frequent during the recent times.
So, while formulating the ideas of social theory, it is very important frame one's thinking in proper and precise terms. For my social theory to be consistent, I need to build it in a systemic fashion:
This quite wide scope of enquiry is not an attempt at implementing a generalist approach. This is just a thorough approach to specialisation, which aims at resolving the several very important inconsistencies that plague the modern Humanities.
1. There should be a full glossary for the concepts and terms being in use, verifiable by means of content analysis and logical calculus;
2. All reasoning must be structured in a way that allows for complete linguistic explication;
3. A sub-set of the English language must be developed so that the descriptions of the factual data, as well as the theories present, may become easily analysable by (yet, we will need to use a definite and personalised styles for expressing the ideas and findings to the general audience);
4. The mathematical methods should be applied in a more deliberate fashion and framed more accurately that it is usually done in the modern Social science.
This methodological skeleton requires further theoretical development and formal structuration. This way the polyphony of the sociological thought may be utilised in the most effective way for understanding the happenings of the human interaction.
The divergence of languages is a natural process, which is facilitated among many an axis. Social, demographic, cultural and national changes in the structure of the society.
During the Modern era, the process is being slowed down by the intervention of the State with its particular and pre-determined linguistic policies. That is why the times of the major social upheavals are rather conducive for the linguistic changes to the same extent as they are conducive to the changes of the political sort.
Yaroslav Zolotaryov and his attempt at the re-construction of the Siberian Language is one of the first attempts at breaking down the Ruᛋᛋian Statist Standard (we shall use the term RuSt2 from now on), facilitated, controlled and reproduced by the Nazi Ruᛋᛋian State.
He tried to use the technological crisis of the early Khuilo period to push for the Siberian language into the mainstream. However, the Ruᛋᛋian scum, in its serfish boot-lickery, decided to destroy the Siberian wiki due to their political aspirations. The same Ruᛋᛋian Wikipedia community then become the spearhead of increasing the totalitarian control over the discourses on the Internet.
Despite this setback, I think that the project of the Siberian language is not only highly influential, but also very important for any future linguistic development that seek to undermine the dominance of the RuSt2 and the control of the Nazi Ruᛋᛋian government over the the ways people speak and recognise each other.
There should be more projects started by different communities and individuals that would take their local variations of the language, that would still be mutually understandable by their speakers and would allow them all to differentiate themselves linguistically from the RuSt2 carriers. With time, we can expect the new literatures to emerge. And with this – the long-standing dominance of the statist discourse will be challenged.
The same Nazi state that has long been in control of the RuSt2 provides with the tools of combatting its influence. Here I'd like to break out an example program for anyone who would like to fork their regional variety of ‘Russian’.
Any language reform (albeit small), cannot do without dealing with the:
so before forking a language, you need to get the literature on the local variety you want to build your fork upon. Since I have been exposed to the Pskov group of sub-dialects from the early childhood, I shall use it as an example:
Of course, this list of requirements is not exhaustive and is to be expanded upon the development of the language fork. But you don't need to be a masters in the Ruᛋᛋian language to see the direction.
After the literature is gathered, collect the list of the phonetical, morphological and syntactical differences between your sub-dialect and the RuSt2. It will become important later, because in order to implement it properly, you'll need to make decisions about:
For example, the Pskov sub-dialects have phonetic elements from the Northern sub-dialects and Belarusian language at the same time. And in order to properly address them, the changes to the RuSt2 orthography are necessary. Take jakanie as an example.
Jakanie is a substitution of any non-elevated sound in the first non-stressed sentence with [ja], and since RuSt2 already has a letter for that, we can simply use it to display the phonetic changes: "не надо" thus turns into "ня надо", "беда" into "бяда" and so on.
However, there is no RuSt2 equivalent to the sound [ў] (which replaces [в] at the end of the words), so if I have to implement it, I either need to change the keyboard from the standard ЙЦУКЕН to add a new symbol or to resort to some strange rules like "[ў] = уу". This gives me two different options for "не надо мне дров":
Finally, you don't have to follow the existing dialects blindly, so some low-priority changes may be discarded in favour of some archaic or modern things that will make your fork more distinct (as soon as it can be understood by the speakers of RuSt2).
Finally, as soon as you have the feature list and inspirations, start introducing the changes to your current writing and speaking style little by little (it will be easier for your friends, relatives and colleagues, if this change happens slowly and naturally). And then experiment, experiment and experiment to get the perfect linguistic style that fits you.
You can make your for as close to RuSt2 or as far from it as it is convenient to you and the people around you, and you can burn the asses of the prescriptivists by just using it in everyday life and on-line. It is never late to decolonise even a language colonised as heavily as the RuSt2 is.
Finally, for the semantic enrichment, I highly recommend you to refer to the works of Andrey Platonov, Daniil Andreyev, Futurists (including early Mayakovsky) and other radical poets of the early XX century, since once yo have overcome the linguistic dictatorship of Puskler, it will be easier for you to overcome the political dictatorship of Putler a.k.a. Khuilo.
To my mind, forking a language is an interesting process, that can help you to better understand the RuSt2 variety as well, should you still deed to use it in, say, writing official documents or any sort of public communications on someone else's behalf.
This is not a personal oddity or slight of hand, it is a necessity of our time, which means to combat the Nazi language, Nazi culture and Nazi politics of the Ruᛋᛋian Federation. It is a liberating instrument that is literally available to anyone who speaks the standard Ruᛋᛋian.
The mode of normality widespread in the ex-USSR societies is definitely repressive and dysfunctional.
Being a ‘normal’ person in Ruᛋᛋia, for example, means being a Nazi, or a Nazi collaborator, to believe in bullshit propaganda and be exploited by the insane mob, that treats the people under their control ass infinitely malleable and literally infinite mass.
Normalcy (or normality, if you want) is a statistical category, it cannot hold any value, since no meta-data can be valued outside of the value framework of the analyst.
Of course, any government facilitates the compliance and conformity among the population under its control. However, the Ruᛋᛋian situation is quite a unique one due to:
All these factors contributed to the production of a dysfunctional normativity: dysfunctional in terms of the personal well-being of each of the governed.
The negative dialectics of the modern leftism makes it the most prominent conservative force of our age. It might seem strange or unusual at the first glance, but this is a direct consequence of commodification of the Left discourse and social activism in general. Since 1960s, we see that he participation in acts of civic disobedience and radical activism slowly become:
People go to the activism expecting immediate results, so they have to bring up quite radical claims so to affect the situation in a more or less profound way.
The conservative side of this embedding of the far-left politics into the political sphere are quite surprising and obvious at the same time:
The obvious part is that radical Left call radical Right to life. It's not a ‘horse shoe theory’ it is a simple fact that as soon you introduce a radical position on one end of the spectrum, the disturbed people on the other will also radicalise to a similar extent.
The not so obvious part is that since being a leftist no longer means bearing a social stigma, the participation in the leftist actions has become a form of spectacle (as opposed to life-style), and seriously diluted the intellectual level of the average activist: after all, chanting slogans is much easier than reading a lot of complicated literature on the subject. Radicalism has become cheap and mostly non-demanding, and thus much easier to be taken beyond any limits.
This could not fail to lead to the emergence of a whole caste of narcissistic manipulators taking over the Left and reproducing the same reality under the new discourse (oftentimes unbeknownst to themselves).
In the days of yore, the social segregation was fuelled by the ideas of White supremacy and Black inferiority. But now we move to the same kind of segregation, that comes out of the attitudes of White guilt and Black victimhood. Of course, no one from the modern Left believes that the Black people are inferior to any other people. Yet, the results of their actions leave to segregation, where people are either coming together for a protection from the out-groups, or are separated institutionally with some pædogogic motive.
Living the chaos and being the chaos: these are the only ways of dealing with the world around us. Fear of chaos is the fear of life itself.
Life as it is is neither pleasurable, nor pain-ridden. This is a simple fact, devoid of any value or meaning. We need to focus more on our own values, meanings and goals and thus make our lives truly ours.
The way my brain works seems to be rather autistic.
For my whole life, dealing with people has been the major power drainage no matter how I feel towards them. I may deeply love my mother, care a lot for my friends and be on very friendly grounds with my colleagues, but at the end of the day, I get tired from social communication more than from any other activity.
From 5th to 11th grade in school, I was learning individually, because my psychiatrist was a wonderful woman who quickly recognised this peculiarity of mine. My first attempt at university failed because there were too many people at the same time. My second attempt was severely hampered by that brain drain on processing the unnecessary stuff, but I would have already managed to go through it it if not for the War the Ruᛋᛋians started.
My prime conclusion is that I need to avoid the communal settings despite their prevalence in the academia. So, distance learning seems to be the way - I actually have fewer issues with keeping myself organised than with being around humans without an instrumental need for being around them.
My silence being of quite a lengthy sort, I now have to explain it.
During the whole September, I was working on transferring my Obsidian database from one vault to another while:
I think that there is still a way to speak my mother's tongue without being a PigDogsian, a.k.a. a Ruᛋᛋian, a.k.a. a Moskal.