The Ukrainian Who Wrote What Was Called Russian Masterpieces

 

Most often the amazing and absolutely ingenious Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852) is called a "Russian writer", but he was born in Ukraine although he died and was buried in Russia. He was a very prolific writer and both wrote novels, short stories and plays, all of it with the mark of something special that should be recognized even today. In some ways he resembles George Orwell and will definitely be loved by those who love his works. My own favorites are his later writings which satirise the utter political and moral corruption of his contemporary, Feudal Russia. Actually, I think that his novel "Dead Souls" portrays what might be called a precocity of the abominable system of the oligarchs we see today, and which I see as a development of or maybe even "rebirth" of the old Feudal system.

"Dead Souls" was first published in 1842, and Gogol himself called it a"poem in prose". It's a well-turned satire about a sleek conman, Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov, who has a plan of gaining riches in a very special manner: He is out to buy "dead souls", i.e. dead serfs, from landed nobility. That may look VERY strange, but it's a genious way of telling what the Feudal System was all about. 

It's a fact that the Russian nobility had "serfs", and they were called "souls". These people were not "slaves" like in e.g. the American African-based slavery, but they were connected to the property of the noblemen who owned it. The system has been called "chattel slavery" which may - or may not - be a proper description of what was going on at the time.

One might gain social status by having many "souls". An ad in a newspaper my look like this: "Sale by Count X: 300-acre country estate, including a mansion, a pond for ducks and geese, shops as well as 200 souls." These "souls" were part of the estate, as they were bound to it. Every 4-5 years the official government census noted the number of "souls" a landowner had when the taxes were set. In the meantime some of these "souls" may have died, but were still counted for tax purposes. This was seen as very unfair by the landed aristocracy so in the novel they are depicted as very happy to sell the dead "souls" to the devious conman, Chichikov. His purpose, on the other hand, is to obtain as many "dead souls" as possible so that he may use them as collateral for a huge (scam) loan. 

"Dead Souls" is only the first, unfinished part of the three-volumed work Gogol had planned to write, but never did. For some reason he burned the second part shortly before his death. However, most critics see "Dead Souls" as a finished work as it is laid out. 

 

https://youtu.be/Xn4X5fC5Pd0?feature=shared 

 

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1081 

 

Britannica

 

Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cuteness

 

I had a discussion about cuteness with a friend. Not that we disagreed very much, but still, either did we agree on everything. Both of us found this small, furry one extremely charming and thus also cute. That conclusion led us to the notion that everything furry simply is cute by nature, but what if we compare this adorable animal with a human baby? Which one is the cutest?

Cute? Well, yes, but the chinchilla may be cuter 

Some people even find human babies "ugly". I don't agree, but I have to say that I find most puppies and kittens cuter than a human baby. However, as it is, every kind of small creatures are born with a set of "vibes" that set off a cuteness alarm in many/most people. Why? Is it maternal feelings that make themselves seen? If so, this special cuteness should also go for something like this:

Everybody would shun something like this tick unless they have a scientifical interest in insects of all kinds or are masochists. It means that it's not the smallness in itself that triggers one's cuteness-detector, but something else. For instance, this insect has its own fans who swear by it and even find it very charming:

The picture reminds me of some pets I had as a child: Snails. I don't remember any of my childhood friends taking to snails, but I did, and I still like them, although not finding them "cute". Weird? Maybe, but so is almost everything when it comes to nailing the cuteness term. My friend and I didn't agree about what is - or what isn't - cute. For instance, she would have chosen the human baby over the puppies or kittens, which I didn't.

However, we agreed that this scenery is extremely cute, even though the situation may be problematic for the family of the dog who returned home with new friends. So, WHY is this cute? I think it's because it shows signs of personality and original feelings in these animals: If the story is true, they did choose each other for an unusual friendship. That's cute, it really is!

This is cute too, but I would worry that she might hurt herself being that near the flames. When asking myself WHY it's cute, it is because of her dedication: She is a very, very young child, but she is out to perform the exploit of a much older individual. That's cute, no doubt about it!

The Concept of Sexuality

The Murder of Cupid

 

I've always found it very strange - as well as telling - that human sexuality in the Patriarchy is so extremely different from what animals experience as natural. As it is, in some respects, human sexuality moves along paths that can't even be called natural or just biologically based: They obviously are culturally based, fitting a Patriarchal system that basically goes against Nature. 

Mommy LOVES you!!!

 

Had this Mommy bear not had that precious baby, she may have felt that her "romantic moment" with that one of the several male bears she mated with was a waste of time - or maybe not. As it is, the very idea that the female doesn't want sex in the mating season is ridiculous, but when reading about animals and their sex-life it's often described as if the male is promiscuous, and "the female sometimes have more partners" as if that was something very strange. However, the female is the one with the biological clock, claiming SEX as her body directs her to do. The male may have sex if he fits into her agenda of breeding. If not, then he will have to go without sex, as nothing in Nature takes heed of his urges out of the female based mating season. 

In a human Patriarchy, the male is seen as the one who sort of outlines what sexuality is. That makes me suspect that somewhere along the lines of history, when men grabbed power, and the Patriarchy was formed, their sexuality came to represent the common, human sexuality of both sexes. However, that doesn't make it NATURAL, as culture isn't Nature.

 

In confined spaces, like e.g. on a farm, male animals may get "ideas", so to speak, but Nature it's not. Actually, I think the same goes for humans, which may speak against the one man and one woman kind of romance and matrimony. However, society being what society is at this moment in history (i.e. 2025), most women still want to get married, also because the age of kids growing up to adulthood is set very high in many Western countries. That being the case, the parent, who is obliged by the law to take care of the child, is stuck in a very severe manner, although they themselves may not see it that way.

 

 

In a Patriarchy, it seems quite normal for a man to claim sex, whereas the woman isn't met with the same kind of tolerance. Much is to be said about that system, but at this point I shall just point to one fact of Nature: Women - just as animal females - are not to be used as some kind of "sex toys". They are not set to gain access to sex or influence through looks, as the males are: No animal breed goes by a system where the female is bound to be the pretty one, luring on males who may look like shit, and still have sex. On the contrary.

Male peacock flaunting his stuff

 

 

 

https://www.bearsmart.com/about-bears/reproduction 

 

 

"Sexus Animalis. There Is Nothing Unnatural In Nature" by Emmanuelle Poydebat; The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2022

 

 

Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Karma Game

 

True, but what if you feel a FALSE HAPPINESS at something which ought to make you ANGRY for moral or personal reasons? As it is, the world being what it is, happiness isn't a fixed and perfect state of mind, but much more like an ongoing process. Sometimes one doesn't even know that a certain time in one's life contains a (rare) amount of HAPPINESS because one doesn't recognize it as such. The reason for that may be that one's focus is on something that, after all, is of less importance in the long run. To see something not good as "happiness" tie us down, and we don't even know. 

Some would say that this is the photo of a poor child in strained circumstances. I would say that being young and open to adventures makes this child happy. Should he fight the squalor? Yes, in the long run, but not at this age when he is fully enjoying the opportunities for entertainment it gives him.

So they say, yes, so they say, but I'm not too sure about that kind of justice by fate. Too many murderers got away with their crimes for me to believe in Karma. Some people simply are lucky to get away with everything. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

 

The Daughter of Rasputin

 

Maria Rasputin, during an interview (1930)

The world knew the Russian monk Rasputin as a somber influence on the wife of the last tsar, Nicholas II (1868-1918). How did he gain that much power over the otherwise sedate and prudish tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna (1872-1918), who was the grandchild of Queen Victoria of England?

Rasputin with Alexandra Feodorovna and the Romanov children 

Well, the tsarina believed that he was a "holy man" who was the only one to be able to save her beloved, only son, tsarevich Alexei Nikolevich. When Rasputin - and later on the Romanovs too - was murdered his children had to fend for themselves. 

Only three of Rasputin's seven children survived to adulthood, and two of them died after The Revolution. The one surviving child was his daughter Matryona, who changed her name into "Maria" and somehow got new documents for herself and her husband, the officer Boris Solovyov. That made it possible for the couple to leave Russia, entering a dangerous and difficult journey that took two years before they settled in Berlin for four years until moving to Paris. Difficult as it was, this escape saved the life of Maria, making her the only surviving Rasputin-child. 

Her life as an exile reads like something out of a fantasy as she moved around the world, working as a cabaret dancer, a circus performer as well as a lion tamer. At no point did she admit that her father held any guilt whatsoever which is something that doesn't hold water, so to speak. His influence on the Romanov family wasn't healthy, to say the least. As to Maria then, she died in Los Angeles in 1977.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-many-lives-of-maria-rasputin-daughter-of-the-mad-monk 

 

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10570848/bio/ 

 

Wikipedia

 

The Chicken Raping Father of Four

 

I'm wondering at this case: When the fake asylum seeker in UK, Rehan Baig, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for sexually abusing his chickens as well as other animals, I wondered at the - in my opinion - much too short sentence. When raping the chickens, he killed them in a painful manner, something which was recorded on his computer along with child pornography. Still, his sentence was reduced - WHY??? 

And what about his wife, who seems to have engaged in some acts of a dubious character? (He alternated between having sex with the animals and his wife, which may be the reason why she preferred to see him engage in his animal abuse instead of using her as a sex toy).

According to "Quora" sex with animals is OK for Muslims: "Homosexual & sex with animals (zoophilia bestiality) are permitted in islam. Just wash your genital after that. From the website at the bottom you scroll down until you find "Commentary of Imam Al Nawawi on the Hadith of Sahih Muslim, book 003, number 0684, "Our companions have said that if the penile (penis) head has penetrated A WOMAN’S ANUS, or A MAN’S ANUS, or AN ANIMAL’S VAGINA or ITS ANUS then it is necessary to wash whether the one being penetrated is alive OR DEAD, YOUNG OR OLD, whether it was done intentionally or absentmindedly, whether it was done willfully or forcefully. This also applies if the woman places the male member inside her while the man is asleep, whether the penis is erect or not, whether the penis is circumcised or uncircumcised. All these situations require that the person committing the act and the one the act is committed on must wash themselves, unless the person committing the act or the person the act is committed on is a young male or female. In that case it cannot be said that the person must wash, for they do not have the responsibility, rather it is said that this person is in a state of impurity. If that person can discern (the sexual act) then his guardian can.....". The rest you read it by yourself. It's also written & explained by CP “The Deception of Allah” on p. 153, "Women are Sex Toys". Here's the webs The Quran’s Confused Stance on Sexual Ethics "

"Confused"??? That's for sure and what's more, living in a Western country means following the laws of that country, not some Muslim rules!!!! 

However, somehow Mr. Baig got off what should have been a much less lenient punishment for what he did, also as to other offences, e.g. concerning children: WHY??? 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8856287/Pervert-37-jailed-three-years-having-sex-CHICKENS.html 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-54608083 

 

Penis Broodings

 

The joys of the penis

Freud thought the female sex suffered from what he called "penis envy". That crazy idea seems to stem from his belief that women were just being imperfect men. Something which reminds me of the name for the female sex organs, e.g. in the time of Shakespeare: "Nothing". 

Yup, women "don't have anything down there" as it can't be seen the way a penis can. Somehow, men are in awe of moveables changing form and becoming visible even though it's not in itself an accomplishment, especially not when compared to women getting pregnant, giving birth and breastfeeding their babies: That takes stamina, determination and love, also because it's a genuine strain on the body. The erection, on the other hand, is nothing but a physical reaction, in many ways much like the urge to go to the bathroom and relieve oneself of what needs to go. No matter what, there is nothing impressive in bowel movements, right? However, a male mythology has arisen in connection with the penis and the erection, which go on a lot of biassed notions of male achievements.   

Henry VIII of England (1491-1547)

In his attempt to father a legitimate son, two wives of Henry VIII were executed. That's a high price to pay for his vanity, but without a male heir his royal name and house would evaporate at his death, which was one of his main concerns. It was with great pride he told his doctors of his being able to have three nightly sperm releases in his sleep, as that was something he saw as a grand proof of his masculinity and virility. Nothing pleased him more than his own maleness and the way he saw it. Actually, that interpretation of what's mere bodily functions is quite important to understand what's going on ideologically: Erections are seen as achievements. I bet rhinoceroses, who have been hunted mercilessly for their horns, which are seen as good for the male potency, will disagree. 

What also has been hunted by men in need of getting rid of what is pushing to get out are "virgins": The pedophile's dream is very, very young girls who presumably have no sexual experiences whatsoever. These kinds of girls don't compare them to former lovers, and they may not even know what an orgasm is. They become a sort of "cum-socks with a pulse", a toy or just means to combat those "blue balls" they hate. 

The interpretation of the penis and its functions also opens up to a special power game: Language itself reveals the male dreams of conquering and subjecting women with their penis. It's not "my penis went into that deep, dark room called a vagina and was gone". No, it's more like "I got her, subjected her or had my way with her": The act is first and foremost seen from his perspective and not hers. Actually, she might call him her "scratcher" or something else on that line, but instead she is interpreted as a "hole" or something just as derogatory. 

When it comes to anatomy, it seems that many young men have no idea of what one of the main difference between male and female sex organs is. I've seen heated discussions on e.g. Reddit where some young man simply refuses to understand that women have one more "hole" than a man. As it is, all women have three: 1) Anus, 2) The Vagina, and 3) The Urethrae. He, being a man, only has two, just like the Monotreme: 1) Anus and 2) Penis for semen as well as urine. 

 

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/sigmund-freud-and-penis-envy-failure-courage 

 

https://boobytrapec.blogspot.com/2024/06/blue-as-balls.html 

 

https://boobytrapec.blogspot.com/2025/01/bodily-discharges.html 

 

Wikipedia