I shared that Kessler guy, because with all his flaws (who's flawless here?) it's an outstanding work, whether it is correct or not, and it would be a bummer if it's lost, because it could be the biggest loss in that Fomenko scandal, when some historic works were made by mathematician and published in the most prominent soviet university and later historic department labelled them as pseudoscientific (look who's talking!) but failing to attach any constructive criticism to his work for at least three years (I was watching that situation closely) maybe even five (so long ago it was, that my memory is not sure about this digit in it) and only after let's say 3 to 5 years an engineer or a mathematician (memory also doubts what version is true) began public intellectual battle with Fomenko, and I wasn't able to follow their conversation, because whether their argumentations required some level of competence I didn't feel like achieving educating myself, or just the interest to this situation faded with time, because what the situation taught me is that fuck academia, those clerks don't know shit, so I was liberated to begin my work from scratch without leaning onto the academia speers. And the same rationalization could be beyond Kessler's attempt to group all the dictionary into lesser semantic groups without bringing reconstructed forms and structures made before them (they can always be wrong, and me personally, I don't believe in established language families, because of how russian and japanese are similar. If I want to preserve the family structure which is wide accepted today, I should attach japanese to slavic languages, but it would be so insane and actually why not to combine chinese to english because of some similarities? wo & we and short words and simple grammar, that probably were the two huge branches we initially were on, but cross-culture communications made russian drift further from japanese and closer to english, just as japanese drifted towards chinese, so it's not a tree, but a jar of aminoacids the way I imagine it.
But after saying all that I decide to not dig into his theory until I develop my own dictionary and let it be better than his, with much less semantic clasters.
I dare to mention Fomenko more and more explicitly in these texts probably because I grew more hostile towards academia, but also because a friend of mine mentioned him as a freak not worth mentioning and I asked him why exactly doesn't he like what he said, and I couldn't receive a coherent answer to that, he simply accepted that academia is always right. Even though history of science here and again prove otherwise.
So about the freaks, we should distinguish between them: there are obvious freaks like Chudinov who's probably there to smear some authentic artifacts like that Bornholm alphabet runestone; then there are those freaks who are whether fools or trolls like Oreshkin; then there are some clinically insane freaks like Lukashevich. Those evaluations are purely subjective, but they allow to understand where I stand.
The other group of linguistic freaks are Vashkevich and Dragunkin, who pull some outrageous conclusions (here I speak as an academic golem. I should be more specific. And more specific is that they claim that one nations were born by the others: Dragunking writes that japanese language is spawn of russian, which is rather outrageous, but should be explored why does he think it is, it could be hidden in the folds of his texts, where I haven't looked. Vashkevich writes that russian language itself is a spawn of arabic, which is even more outrageous, but doesn't contradict the previous claim made by his colleague) out of their observations, but the observations itself may be rather useful for those who learn foreign languages (Vashkevich compare arabic words to greek, russian and whatever else, I didn't even read him (and now I did and he's not as bad as his fans sang me: I just had a look into this text about bees and I found it rather fascinating, even though I stumbled at how he connected bee to comma, but then I understood that thus he united several "dictionary articles" into one рассказ, because fasila sounds as russian пчела, but here's where academic minds lose him (loose him) because that link is rather weak to be called etymologic, even though then he brings some additional links in the form of that other comma standing at the sixth position looks somewhat like inverted 6, but hardly many peer-reviewers have passed through that one freaky part. But to speak seriously, he uses associative thought which is pretty much the opposite of the abstract thought more commonly used in science, thus his work can be some form of poetry, some mnemonic stories at best, but seriously it's not science) Dragunkin compares russian to japanese and to english. All that can be incredibly useful as mnemonic tools. upd: I read some of Vashkevich, he's way freakier than Dragunkin (here I spoke after I read what his fans write, I'm such a prick sometimes. as I said before, I read some of it, and he's not far from Dragunkin, he's actually interesing (until he goes way too far and you get enough of that crap) and I forgot how awkwardly childish Dragunkin's rants can be. look who's speaking! yeah, free minds are freaky, are they in free key) so freakery is some range (по ранжику, о жир потёк. он дано течёт, это море жира. и абажуров из кожи) Dragunkin is alright until he begins to theorize, his dictionaries are directy homonyms (like わた、【綿】 in japanese and вата in russian. another わ た is water: 海、【わ た】) which is much better (more abstract) than Vashkevich's associative mnemonic stories. upd: some of his mnemonics can be actual etymology, if сорока is indeed воровка in arabic, and namus is actually law, and I don't have to memorize it if I see it in astronomy. So, the material he produced can be used for mnemonic dictionaries of arabic or russian, etymologic or not, nobody knows until ai delivers the actual coherent structures of all the languages.
Fomenko also belongs to that second group of semi-correct scientific marginals, and the most prominent reason of his theories not being taken seriously (I'm not even talking of them being accepted) is that he doesn't have education of a historian. (but Vashkevich not only has some linguistic education, he also has some scientific degree in the field, which doesn't stop him from making some not exactly scientifically acceptable propositions) this chapter is на заплате заплата, а потому я перепишу его начисто когда-нибудь. But seriously, if prominent mathematicians use some previously published tools and models to the structure of historic data, that alone demands a proper outlook from scientific society, which didn't happen when he was relatively alright, and now there's even less chance of that being done properly, for that guy whether went trolling or was sold out or whatver happened to him, that the level of his scientific thought dropped from mathematical modelling to mere speculations. Or it could be because it's easier to notice what is wrong with the state of affair happening at the moment, but one has ever-growing tendency to fall short when (s)he tries to describe as it was or what's supposed to be done in the future. Me myself, I'm definitely in that second group of freaks, and some of my assumptions are probably dead wrong, but those main elements of this theory the structures and some other findings may persist and sustain. And I actually except (expect to accept) some academic recognition in the following three years or so. Even though I was recently told that Ignaz Semmelweis was disregarded for awhile because MDs are psychopaths: see Semmelweis effect. Gregor Mendel's founding of genetics was completely ignored for thirty something years I began that path believing that anything can be achieved in mere ten years, also they say history goes faster than before, so I expect it to take society ten years to recognize what it's all about. And it's been over six years now since I went public, so..



Awesome stuff waves of the internets bring my way




Yeah, no use to reform the academia, leave it completely, create your own castle on clearer spot and firmer ground.
My next task on this way is to create some information resource, where all ALL the information on the planet earth.

I will be in freaky nebulas, because I refered to people standart academia doesn't dare to mention. I will be their weak bond to some obscure linguistics of more academic figures, with all the respect academic, my punk rock is justified, but as I said in the very beginning, some of them are alright, some of them are very alright (who?), but i don't know any very alright individual in linguistics, even myself is too weird to be a king, and above whom? fuck them, gosh. But they milk go-t, but insane militaries milk the goat much better, it doesn' make me want' to participate in their deeds. But what if we make military actions agains us ineffective? they are not interested, because they want to reserve the possibility to successfully bomb their own population if they must, for themselves. or am I just way too cynical?
and here I realize (a couple of months later actually, I'm half through this volume now) that business is the new science. Those cool guys who dropped unis they made it not in academia, but in business.
You can change the world via business too. And I watched peterson my man no matter what (or is he? but I'm still indecissive on this one, because the last time whites chimped out it fucked us all up real bad. pepe the frog could be the psy-0p all along, that frog meme began as disgusting frog, when freaks shared some disgusting things they did or imagined like advice-dog one, advice dog gave that new standart I think, many used it and that disgusting frog too, and it grew into numerology and politics when somebody found that frog was some godlike figure. they call him kek, even though heket is her name) he explained that different people have different roles in business: conscientious people are good as managers, and creative people are good at bringing up new ideas. You need managers when you know what you're doing. You need creative people when you don't know what you're doing. I will practice what I just preached, because I was the one who motivated my mom to make business and I wasn't much needed ever since, I guess she knows what to do, she has some creativity herself, even though she's very conscientious unlike me who is irresponsible as fuck.




вера = в ра
русский язык несёт следы египетского влияния, а я сам несу следы задорновского влияния (и у меня есть свои причины оставить здесь эту эпитафию: я не ценил его талант, отправив ему и рецепт лекарства от его хвори, но сделав это грубо, неуважительно, нет у нас не ценят талант, ничего не ценят, нет культуры, одна бычка, а я мог бы сейчас с ним связаться, но я сам отрезал от себя этот плас человеческой культуры. Он продолжал даже будучи осмеян, войдя в прямое столкновение с наукой,
жара пора, гореть возможно тож, жарить. жареть. жирнеть. джа=ра (и жара билингва, но это понятие, что слово может объединять формы разных языков я подрезал в фоменковской царь-батюшка, и возможно там же где-то я и перестал его читать, потому что всё больше полезло логических мягко скажем натяжек, тогда я решил что похоже он продался (мол раз историческая наукаа его не принимает, не наука, то отчего бы ему не заняться тем же чем они занимаются получая во много крат больше чем они, тоже успех.

Т.е. я не боюсь поднимать гипотезы, осмеянные ранее, потому что почти ни одна из них (ни одна из тех дикостей что я знаю) не была адресованна по существу, ран выпустила доклад зелезняка, который по советской риторической традиции их громил, не приводя впрочем никаких обоснований ктоме того что они фу а мы во



The tifinagh canon you can see above follows european alphabets to a degree, but it is different here and there, and these differences demonstrate explanations for some question raised when I described explored though of alphabets without the tifinagh writing system. But is it real? Cannot it be a novice invention of their local nationalists as some russian writing systems appear how would I know that they were fake if I hear of them as a foreigner? I wouldn't. Or rather wiki would tell me that it's fake. I would hear. Let's try to google russian runes. And I opened a private page and switched vpn on just in case.


and look what I found, the two antiheroes and the red flag in between exposing them as commie influencers, and that is the flag of moscow oblast, which is the metropoly of these territories and exactly since commies took over (it is the old capital, the one which raised by selling us to the Golden Horde and they're the horror and shame of our society, and that flag is infamously of the colour of blood, for they shed it a lot, and they intimidate us with not being shy to shed it again.)

Where I took it they literally claim russians could read 200 000 years ago, and they're infamous in russia as freaks, one of them is literally a comedian, they stumped the field of independent linguistic research in russia making it painfully unpopular to deviate from official opinions on language and history, it's a demoralization campaign, I know that comedian has a very jewish mother, I suspect the other one to also be a jew, but more of khazarian than askenazi
and that fraudulent claim they base upon another fraudulent claim about The Roseau Stone, which as I figured is whether fake completely, or at least the claim of it being as old as 200 000 years are fake and gay) and I found that poison spreading further, some americans recommending each-other Chudinov to read, it could be a good indicator of pseuds, but now I feel like I must do something to conquest the flag of russian linguistics out of the claws of the freaks.
then I kept on digging through the other finds on "russian runes"
and I found 41 russian runes (sometimes the same system included only 39 of them) which I call bullshit for some very modern details and I don't elaborate on them not to give the future forgerers the ideas.
and then I found a couple of pages with actual runic scripts found on russian territories, but then the first of them also looks fraudulent. Like what is that metal looking so new? And they seem to know how it was used in detail, which is also suspicious about their integrity and rigor.
but either way, here it is:

I don't know where they see that ᚯ rune, but then the lower chart numbers it 12. And though few other forms are runic, most of the signs are some weird never seen before, so I call it a fake. Didn't I get too ballsy? I also realized myself a hypocryte: I call academia faggots and so on, but I still trust them more than other freaks. But then like Gluhoff said "academia stops some fresh points of view from entering the public view, but they also prevent utter crap from doing so" I would say it performs both of these functions poorly, but then there's some truth to it.
But then where I took it there's a collection of actual runic writings, so I link and mirror them,
these links are not even freaky, they just got into the context, I will probably edit them out of here later.
https://www.arild-hauge.com/ru-e-rusland.htm (mirror)
https://www.arild-hauge.com/europe-rune.htm (mirror)
but I don't place those pictures on the page, because I don't plan speaking about them today. And not here, those artefacts are mostly valid, it's a rudiment from vol.19 where it belonged but ended here just because I better take some rest, smoke some more and return to discussing that tifinagh canon and what it may tell in the context.


word Quattrocento standing for 1400 to 1499 may tell that Fomenko is correct telling that 2022 is only 1022. Or was that word what made him think this way, I'm pretty sure I saw it somewhere among their arguments, this would make a great argument, and if I checked if it was true it alone could pretty much convince me, but they bring all sorts of arguments to prove that weird point of view.



A friend of mine researches merya writing system, here's what he sent me,
and the way it begins might be the most valid piece of whole this file:

Вот раскопка берестяной грамоты XIII века, на территории мерского стана (мерянских поселений)

юмолануоли і нимижи
ноули се хан оли омо боу
юмола соудьни иохови
или
юмолан нуоли інимижи
ноули сека н[у]оли омо боу
юмола соудьнии оковы

"Стрела бога с десятками имён
Божья эта стрела
Вершит божий суд."
или
"Бога стрела, человека
стрела тоже стрела.
[Божьим судом окованы.] "

upd: it's finno-ugric alright, here's another quote about it:
Особый интерес представляет новгородская берестяная грамота № 292 — грамота, найденная в 1957 году при раскопках в Новгороде, являющаяся древнейшим из известных документов на  Чудском финно-угорском языке. (Напомним, что в средневековом Новгороде был Чудский административный район - Чудский конец) Документ датируется началом XIII столетия.

but it goes way weirder from here on:
here is how it started yesterday,  and it might be completely fake,

I will dig into it with time and report on it further
What is weird is wiki writes that the language is unwritten. So keep your scepticism, or rather keep it on (being not a native speaker I am not always sure about the use of this or that word)

So far I will post all he gave me yesterday:

А вот примеры мерянских начертаний (помимо букв, в том числе начертание изображений)
(that's what he said, and though I believe it to be completely novice invention, whoever made it, made it on the basis of the skandinavian runes and the names are based on the permian writing system)


Древнеэрзянская письменность (там использовались руны, как у мерян)
Но язык сохранился в неизменном обличии
это он так сказал, но я поискал источник (картинка кликабельна) и так я и предполагал: Памятники опубликованы в книге В.А.Чудинова «Руница и тайны археологии Руси».

следующая картинка тоже "фантазия художника" прикладываю лишь как иллюстрацию:

Заметил, что у мерян и у эрзян встречаются похожие символы, если брать их древнюю руническую письменность, несмотря даже на то, что они звучат по-разному

«Покштояк ульнесь седе покш пакся»



Это тоже какая-то мерянская письменность (дославянская), тоже рунами ещё до букв
But then pdf he sent me when I asked him for sources didn't contain these images, and the reverse search for the previous image gave me this:
Камни из СкальскаВ 1852 году чешский археолог Вацлав Кролмус прибыл в село Кралск (болеславский край). В это же самое время сельчанин Юзеф Кабша, ремонтировал подвал, в котором хранил пиво. Ударив в одну из стен подвала, он отметил, что удар прозвучал подозрительно глухо — создавалось впечатление, что за стеной была пустота. Кабш пробил стену и оказался в достаточно большом подземном зале. Потолок зала был подперт каменным столбом. Подземелье явно было могильным склепом, поскольку в нем было обнаружено несколько урн. Увидев урны, Кабш понадеялся, что найдет в них деньги, однако его надежды не оправдались. Огорчившись, крестьянин разбил урны и выбросил на свалку. Именно в это время и прибыл Кролмус. Прослышав о разбитых Кабшем урнах, Кролмус нанес ему визит и попросил показать склеп. Осмотр склепа проходил в присутствиинескольких местных жителей. Во время этого осмотра на столбе, подпирающем свод, и были замечены два камня с надписями. Кролмус перерисовал обе надписи и, закончивдругие свои дела, уехал. Однако он не был уверен в достаточной качественности и точности своего рисунка, поскольку во время осмотра камни были покрыты грязью и плесенью. Поэтому Кролмус в 1853 и 1854 годах попросил нескольких человек, чтобы они еще раз скопировали эти надписи. Все присланные копии, за исключением одной, весьма плохо выполненной, совпали между собой.

So my friend seems to be a pseud. But he's a good guy, he's just very, very young.
(even though I have zero idea if this latter quote is legit or not, I have zero idea if this artefact even exists or ever did, but let it lay here for now, it's not the worst of them all, belongs here well)



Lukashevich:

His main idea or at least an idea on the surface (I didn't read into him) is that words have two readings: forwards and backwards:  кот и ток, лоб и ball or something, and I saw that лев is feline, and thus in the only other example I can tell from the top of my head, as two hemispheres, cat in one is ток (electric current) in the other, and because cat is the only animal amongst humans which can give electricity, this pair is simply stunning.

(here from now on I shall collect such pairs. I will not read Lukashevich any time soon, but I give him homage, a misunderstood guy, even by me at first, and still.. I had a dialogue with Hans, whom I at first also considered a little off, but his theory is based upon sanskrit, and sefer yetzirah, but then his theory is so unorthodox, that even though I made a dialogue-pdf with him (he did, actually) I still consider him a little off, but then only a little more off than myself)

кот ~ ток

pot uis top  (probably because it is how it looked on a hook, on a branch, fo of a branch, and also because it is the hot spot, thus does it resemble a mountain, as if a vulcano. pot and hot unite п and h.

of ~ for

siFR,ES,IT ~ yes (is)
(siFR is also if (esliRU)
sicLA

if is si in latin and spannish and french
if is se in italian

si is also so in french, and I guess those are the same si, that only can be translated differently


know ~ own (synonyms)

ah ~ ha (antonyms (but if ah and oh are antonyms, then ah and ha are synonyms))

кот ~ ток (synonyms, in a way, ток would be natural name for a cat, but then somebody inverted cat not to confuse the two, and everybody liked it. But then some ток-like word for cat should exist not too far. But there's not, dog is the opposite of cat, I realized it when I found turkic word for cat: pişik which is probably a cognate of пёсик. little пёс, little бес. Пёс как когда гогната=когда-то! когната puss?
Both piss without any shame. Cat digs it, very good behaviour, he flatters us and likes our side, because he probably learnt that from us. And we feed them, house them, they appreciated that.

Это мы испортили отношения кошек и собак? Назвав их наоборот могло им мозг крутануть, но есть причины и поважнее: мы могли ставить собак сторожить вход. Ну и коды хвостом, я как-то написал о разный хвостоязык у животин подобен различию меж болгарами и русскими, и вообще вроде всеми остальными (кто-то ещё как болгары, вроде, но даже не знаю кто) в общем, кусок стиха: волгары.. но там такое, что по памяте непроцитировать:
So no, it wasn't us. Dogs are bigger, cats are quicker (the fastest animal is feline, canines are nowhere near)
so,

кот ~ dog
(кат и даг в каком-то диалекте английскака (but it's not some hatered towards english, русского also sounds as ruskaka, so is it why russians insist on pronouncing it as russkava? as if coffe isn't shit))
дик~кид (дикий кидается (это всё к дог~кот))

get ~ take (I told you, those are synonyms, от перемены мест слагаемых сумма не изменяется)

was ~ saw (было видел) it's funny that I didn't see is ~ see in this claster. How awesome that I later did.
 (synonyms, they're synonyms. Invertion doesn't invert, reading the other way, as in boustrophedon would not have to be read antonymously, synonymous it would be. дитя~элэд? моё давнее наблюдение про יֶלֶד похожее на дети (ибо l похоже на t)

дом ~ мод? модуль? людом (надо модульным моё строительство называть)



अद्  [ad] есть
  पा [pa] пить



he is, you see. As the semantic reversal, we see wgat what us, is.
we and you are also such reversal.

This idea is definitely growing into something true.
Probably it shall expose the basal lexical corpus.

And only when I brought it here, something made me look this text (probably subconsciousness which could see it when I rolled to this place to insert it) and see was and saw.

















The End of the secret level.