Not without inner excitement I am publishing the proposed work.

The thoughts
expressed in it, have developed in my mind more than 10 years ago. Since then, I have
talked a lot on these topics with different people, wanting to either test myself or
convince others. Many of these conversations and disputes turned out to be very
useful for me, as they made me think through and deepen my thoughts and arguments
in more detail. But my main points remained unchanged. Of course, it was impossible
to limit ourselves to random conversations, and in order to verify the correctness of
the thoughts I defend, they had to be subjected to a broader discussion, i.e. publish
them. I still haven’t done that. I didn’t do this because, especially at first, from the
many conversations I made the impression that most people with whom I had to meet,
just do not understand my thoughts. And they don’t understand, not because I
expressed myself inconceivably, but because for most European educated people
these thoughts are almost organically unacceptable, as contradicting some unshakable
psychological principles on which European thinking rests. I was considered a lover
of paradoxes, my reasoning was originality. Needless to say, under such conditions,
the dispute lost all meaning and benefit to me, because the dispute can be productive
only when both parties mutually understand each other and speak the same
language. And since at that time I met almost exclusively misunderstanding, then I did
not consider it timely to publish my thoughts, waiting for a more favorable moment. If
now I still decide to speak in print, then this is because that lately, among my
interlocutors, I have increasingly come across not only understanding, but also
agreement with my main points. It turns out that many have already come to the same
conclusions as myself, completely on my own. Obviously, a shift has occurred in the
thinking of many educated people. The great war, and especially the “peace” that
followed, which still has to be written in quotation marks, shook the faith in “civilized
humanity” and opened its eyes to many. We Russians are, of course, in a special
situation. We witnessed how suddenly what we called "Russian culture"
collapsed. Many of us were struck by the speed and ease with which this was
accomplished, and many thought about the causes of this phenomenon. May be, this
brochure will help some of my compatriots sort out their own thoughts on this
subject. Some of my points could be abundantly illustrated with examples from
Russian history and Russian reality. From this, the presentation would perhaps
become more entertaining and livelier. But clarity of the general plan from such
deviations would certainly suffer. Meanwhile, in offering the reader relatively new
thoughts, I cherished the most in order to present them in the most clear and consistent
form. In addition, my thoughts concern not only Russians, but also all other peoples
who somehow perceived European culture, without being themselves either
Romaneses or Germans by origin. And if I publish my book in Russian, it’s just
because my shirt is closer to my body,
Offering my thoughts to the attention of readers, I would therefore like to pose a
problem for these readers, which everyone must solve for himself. One out of
two. Either the thoughts I defend are false — but then they need to be refuted
logically, or these thoughts are true — but then practical conclusions must be drawn
from them.

Recognition of the correctness of the provisions set forth in this brochure obliges
everyone to further work. Having adopted these provisions, they must be developed
and concretized as applied to reality, and from this point of view, a whole series of
questions put forward and put forward by life should be reviewed. A lot of people are
now engaged in "revaluation of values" one way or another. For those who accept the
provisions I am defending, these latter will be one of the indications of the direction in
which this reassessment should be conducted. There is no doubt that the work, both
theoretical and practical, which follows from the adoption of the main provisions,
should be a collective work. Throwing a certain thought, raising a famous banner -
one can. But to develop a whole system based on this thought, to put this thought into
practice - many must. To this collective work, I urge all those who share my
beliefs. That there are such people, - I was convinced of this, thanks to several random
encounters. They only need to rally for friendly teamwork. And if my brochure serves
as an impetus or a means to this unification, I will consider my goal achieved.

On the other hand, certain moral obligations are also imposed on those who reject my
position as false. After all, if the thoughts I defend are really false, then they are
harmful and we must try to refute them; and since (I dare to hope) they are proved
logically, then no less logically they must be refuted. The ego needs to be done to save
those who believe in these thoughts from the error. The author himself, without any
regret, will forever discard these unpleasant, restless thoughts that have been haunting
him for more than 10 years, if only someone logically proves to him that they are not
true.

The positions that every European can take in relation to the national question are
quite numerous, but they are all located between two extremes: chauvinism on the one
hand and cosmopolitanism on the other. Any nationalism is, as it were, a synthesis of
the elements of chauvinism and cosmopolitanism, the experience of reconciling these
two opposites.

There is no doubt that chauvinism and cosmopolitanism seem to Europeans to be just

such opposites, which are fundamentally different points of view from one another.
Meanwhile, it is impossible to agree with such a formulation of the question. It is
worth taking a closer look at chauvinism and cosmopolitanism to notice that there is
no fundamental, fundamental difference between the two, that these are no more than
two steps, two different aspects of the same phenomenon.

The chauvinist proceeds from the a priori position that his people are the best people
in the world. The culture created by his people is better, more perfect than all other
cultures. His people alone have the right to dominate and dominate other nations, who
must obey him, accepting his faith, language and culture and merge with
him. Everything that stands in the way of this ultimate triumph of a great nation must
be swept away by force. So the chauvinist thinks, and, according to this, he acts.

Cosmopolitan denies differences between nationalities. If there are such differences,

they must be destroyed. Civilized humanity must be united and have a single
culture. Uncivilized peoples must embrace this culture, join it and, having entered the
family of civilized peoples, go along with them along the same path of world
progress. Civilization is the highest good, in the name of which one must sacrifice
national characteristics.

In this formulation, chauvinism and cosmopolitanism really seem to be sharply

different from each other. In the first, domination is postulated for the culture of one
ethnographic-anthropological individual, in the second - for culture beyond
ethnographic humanity.

However, let’s see what content European cosmopolitans put into the terms
“civilization” and “civilized humanity”? By "civilization" they mean the culture that
the Romance and Germanic peoples of Europe developed in joint work. Under
civilized nations - first of all, again, the same Romans and Germans, and then those
other peoples who adopted European culture.

Thus, we see that the culture that, according to cosmopolitans, should dominate the
world, having abolished all other cultures, is a culture of the same specific
ethnographic-anthropological unit, as well as the one whose domination the chauvinist
dreams of domination. There is no fundamental difference here. In fact, the national,
ethnographic-anthropological and linguistic unity of each of the peoples of Europe is
only relative. Each of these peoples is a combination of different smaller ethnic
groups having their own dialectical, cultural and anthropological characteristics, but
connected with each other by ties of kinship and common history, which created a
common stock of cultural values for all of them. Thus, the chauvinist, proclaiming his
people the crown of creation and the only bearer of all possible perfections, in fact, is
an advocate of a whole group of ethnic units. Not only that, because the chauvinist
wants other nations to merge with his people, having lost their national
physiognomy. To all representatives of other peoples who have already done so, have
lost their national appearance and have learned the language, faith and culture of their
people, the chauvinist will treat them as his people, he will praise the contributions to
the culture of his people that will be made by these people, of course only if they
correctly acquired the spirit that is pleasant to him, and managed to completely
abandon their previous national psychology. Such aliens, assimilated with the
dominant people, are always somewhat suspicious of the chauvinists, especially if
their communion did not take place very long ago, but not a single chauvinist
fundamentally rejects them: we even know

If we take now European cosmopolitan, we will see that, in essence, he is no different

from a chauvinist. That "civilization", that culture which he considers to be the
highest and in front of which, in his opinion, all other cultures should be blotted out,
also represents a well-known reserve of cultural values shared by several peoples,
connected by ties of kinship and common history. Just as a chauvinist is distracted
from the particular characteristics of individual ethnic groups that make up his people,
cosmopolitan discards the cultural characteristics of individual Romano-Germanic
peoples and takes only what is included in their general cultural stock. He also
recognizes the cultural value of the activities of those non-Romano-Germans, who
have completely accepted the civilization of the Romano-Germans, having cast aside
everything from themselves, which contradicts the spirit of this civilization and
exchanging its national physiognomy for the common Germanic. It’s exactly like a
chauvinist who considers “foreign” those foreigners and foreigners who have
managed to completely assimilate with the ruling people! Even the hostility that
cosmopolitans experience with chauvinists and generally with those principles that
separate the culture of individual Romano-Germanic peoples, even this hostility has a
parallel in the world outlook of chauvinists. Namely, chauvinists are always hostile to
all attempts at separatism emanating from separate parts of their people. They are
trying to erase, obscure all those local features that could violate the unity of their
people. who managed to completely assimilate with the ruling people! Even the
hostility that cosmopolitans experience with chauvinists and generally with those
principles that separate the culture of individual Romano-Germanic peoples, even this
hostility has a parallel in the world outlook of chauvinists. Namely, chauvinists are
always hostile to all attempts at separatism emanating from separate parts of their
people. They are trying to erase, obscure all those local features that could violate the
unity of their people. who managed to completely assimilate with the ruling
people! Even the hostility that cosmopolitans experience with chauvinists and
generally with those principles that separate the culture of individual Romano-
Germanic peoples, even this hostility has a parallel in the world outlook of
chauvinists. Namely, chauvinists are always hostile to all attempts at separatism
emanating from separate parts of their people. They are trying to erase, obscure all
those local features that could violate the unity of their people. chauvinists are always
hostile to all attempts at separatism emanating from parts of their people. They are
trying to erase, obscure all those local features that could violate the unity of their
people. chauvinists are always hostile to all attempts at separatism emanating from
parts of their people. They are trying to erase, obscure all those local features that
could violate the unity of their people.

Thus, the parallelism between chauvinists and cosmopolitans is complete. This is

essentially the same attitude in the culture of that ethnographic-anthropological unit to
which this person belongs. The only difference is that the chauvinist takes a closer
ethnic group than cosmopolitan; but at the same time, the chauvinist still takes a group
that is not completely homogeneous, and the cosmopolitan, for his part, still takes a
certain ethnic group.

So, the difference is only in degree, and not in principle.

When evaluating European cosmopolitanism, one must always remember that the
words "humanity", "universal civilization" and so on are extremely inaccurate
expressions and that very specific ethnographic concepts are hidden behind
them. European culture is not the culture of mankind. It is a product of the history of a
particular ethnic group. Germanic and Celtic tribes, subjected to varying proportions
of the influence of Roman culture and strongly mixed together, created a well-known
common way of life from the elements of their national and Roman culture. Owing to
the general ethnographic and geographical conditions, they lived a common life for a
long time, in their life and history, due to constant communication with each other, the
common elements were so significant that the feeling of Romano-German unity
unconsciously always lived in them. Over time, like so many other nations, they woke
up with a thirst to study the sources of their culture. The clash with the monuments of
Roman and Greek culture brought to the surface the idea of a supernational, world
civilization, an idea inherent in the Greek Roman world. We know that this idea was
again based on ethnographic and geographical reasons. Of course, only “Orbis
terrarum” was understood as “whole world” in Rome, that is, the peoples who
inhabited the Mediterranean basin or stretched to this sea, who, due to constant
communication with each other, developed a number of common cultural values and,
finally, united due to the leveling effect of the Greek and Roman colonization and
Roman military domination. Be that as it may, ancient cosmopolitan ideas in Europe
have become the basis of education.common German chauvinism .

Here are the real historical foundations of European cosmopolitan theories. The
psychological foundation of cosmopolitanism is the same as the foundation of
chauvinism. This is a variation of that unconscious prejudice, that particular
psychology that is best called egocentrism. A person with a pronounced egocentric
psychology unconsciously considers himself the center of the universe, the crown of
creation, the best, most perfect of all creatures. Of the other two creatures, one that is
closer to him, more like him, is better, and one that is further away from him is
worse. Therefore, any natural group of beings to which this person belongs is
recognized by him as the most perfect. His family, his estate, his people, his tribe, his
race are better than everyone else like them. In the same way, the breed to which it
belongs, namely, the human breed is more perfect than all other types of mammals,
the mammals themselves are more perfect than other vertebrates, animals, in turn, are
more perfect than plants, and the organic world is more perfect than the inorganic
one. From this psychology, in one way or another, no one is free.

The egocentric psychology penetrates the whole worldview of so many people. It is

rarely possible for anyone to completely get rid of it. But its extreme manifestations
are easily noticeable, their absurdity is obvious, and therefore they usually cause
condemnation, protest or ridicule. A person who is confident that he is smarter than
everyone, is better, and that everything is fine with him, is ridiculed by others, and if
he is aggressive, he also gets well-deserved clicks. Families naively convinced that all
their members are genius, smart and beautiful, usually serve as a laughing stock for
their friends, telling funny jokes about them. Such extreme manifestations of
egocentrism are rare and are usually met with resistance. The situation is different
when egocentrism extends to a wider group of individuals. There is usually resistance
here, but it is more difficult to break such self-centeredness. Most often, the matter is
resolved by the struggle of two egocentrically minded groups, with the winner
remaining with his conviction. This takes place, for example, in the class or social
struggle. The bourgeoisie, which overthrows the aristocracy, is as confident in its
superiority over all other classes as the overthrow of the aristocracy. The proletariat,
struggling with the bourgeoisie, also considers itself the "salt of the earth", the best of
all classes of the people. However, here the egocentrism is nevertheless clear, and
people with a more conscious head, more “wider”, are usually able to rise above these
prejudices. It is more difficult to free oneself from the same prejudices when it comes
to ethnic groups. Here people find themselves sensitive to understanding the true
essence of egocentric prejudice far from equally. Many Pangerman Prussians sharply
condemn their fellow Prussians, who extolled the Prussian people in front of all other
Germans, and consider their “leavened patriotism” ridiculous and narrow. At the same
time, the position that the German tribe as a whole is the highest achievement, the
color of humanity - does not raise any doubt in their minds about Romano-Germanic
chauvinism, the so-called cosmopolitanism, they cannot rise. But the Prussian
cosmopolitan is equally outraged by his compatriot Pan-German, branding his
direction as narrow chauvinism, and he does not notice that he himself is a chauvinist,
only not German, but Pan-Roman. Thus, it is only a matter of sensitivity; one feels a
little more egocentric basis of chauvinism, the other a little
weaker. Anyway, sensitivity of Europeans on this issue is very relative. Further so-
called cosmopolitanism, i.e. Romano-German chauvinism, rarely anyone
rises. Europeans, who would recognize the cultures of the so-called "savages" as
equivalent to the Romano-German culture, we do not know such Europeans at
all. They just seem to be gone.

***

From the previous it is completely clear how a conscientious Romano-German should

relate to chauvinism and cosmopolitanism. He must recognize that both are based on
egocentric psychology. I must realize that this psychology is a beginning illogical, and
therefore cannot serve as the basis for any theory. Moreover, it is not difficult for him
to understand that egocentrism is essentially anti-cultural and anti-social, that it
impedes dormitory in the broad sense of the word, i.e. free communication of all
creatures. It should be clear to everyone that a particular type of egocentrism can only
be justified by force, which, as stated above, it is always the destiny of only the
winner. That’s why Europeans do not go further than their common German
chauvinism that any nation can be defeated by force, but the whole Romano German
tribe as a whole is so physically strong

But as soon as it all comes to the consciousness of the sensitive and conscientious
Romano-German man we are supposed to have, a conflict will occur in his soul right
now. All his spiritual culture, his whole worldview is based on the belief that
unconscious spiritual life and all prejudices based on this spiritual life should give
way to the instructions of reason, logic, that only on logical scientific grounds can any
theory be built. All his legal consciousness is based on the rejection of those
principles that impede free communication between people. All his ethics rejects
resolving issues by brute force. And suddenly it turns out that cosmopolitanism is
based on self-centeredness! Cosmopolitanism, this peak of Romano-German
civilization, rests on such foundations that fundamentally contradict all the basic
slogans of this civilization. The basis of cosmopolitanism, this universal religion, is an
anti-cultural principle - egocentrism. The situation is tragic, but there is only one way
out. A conscientious Romano-German must forever abandon both chauvinism and the
so-called cosmopolitanism, and consequently of all those views on the national
question that occupy a middle position between these two extreme points.

But what position in relation to European chauvinism and cosmopolitanism should

non-Romano-Germans take, representatives of those peoples who did not participate
from the very beginning in the creation of the so-called. European civilization?

Egocentrism deserves condemnation not only from the point of view of one European
Romano-Germanic culture, but also from the point of view of any culture, for this is
the beginning of an antisocial, destroying all cultural communication between
people. Therefore, if among the non-Romano-Germanic people there are chauvinists
preaching that their people are the chosen people, that all other peoples should submit
to their culture, then all their tribesmen should fight such chauvinists. But what if
there are people in such a people who preach world domination not of their people,
but of some other, foreign people, they will offer their fellow tribesmen to assimilate
with this "world people" in everything. Indeed, in such a sermon there will be no
egocentrism - on the contrary, there will be a higher eccentricity. Hence, to condemn
it in the same way as chauvinism is condemned is impossible. But, on the other hand,
is the essence of the teaching not more important than the personality of a preacher? If
the dominance of the people of A over B were preached by a representative of the
people of A, this would be chauvinism, a manifestation of egocentric psychology, and
such a sermon would have to meet with legal resistance both among B and among A.
But would the whole thing completely change, only to the voice representative of the
people And will the representative of the people B join? - Of course not; chauvinism
will remain chauvinism. The protagonist in this entire alleged episode is, of course,
the representative of the people A. The will to enslave speaks through his mouth, the
true meaning of chauvinistic theories. On the contrary, the voice of the representative
of people B may be louder, but, in essence, less significant. Representative B only
believed the argument of Representative A, believed in the power of the people of A,
allowed himself to be carried away, and maybe he was simply bribed. Representative
A advocates for himself, representative B - for another: through the mouth of B, in
essence, A says, and therefore we always have the right to consider such a sermon as
the same disguised chauvinism.

All of this reasoning is, in general, rather aimless. Such things are not worth long and
logically prove. It is clear to everyone how he would relate to his fellow tribesman if
he began to preach that his people should renounce their native faith, language,
culture and try to assimilate with a neighboring people - say, with the people of X.
Everyone, of course, would react to such a person either as a madman, or as a type
fooled by the people of X, who has lost all national pride, or, finally, as an emissary of
the people of X, sent to conduct propaganda for an appropriate reward. In any case,
behind this gentleman, everyone, of course, would have suspected a chauvinist from
the people of X, consciously or unconsciously directing his words. Our attitude to
such a sermon would not be determined by the fact that it comes from a
compatriot: we would certainly look at it as coming from the people whose rule in this
case is being preached. That our attitude to such a sermon cannot but be the most
negative, there is no doubt about it. Not a single normal people in the world,
especially a people organized into a state, can voluntarily allow the destruction of
their national physiognomy in the name of assimilation, even with a more perfect
people. Any self-respecting people will respond to the chauvinistic harassment of
foreigners with Leonid Spartans: “come and take” and will defend their national
existence with arms in their hands, even if defeat was inevitable. That our attitude to
such a sermon cannot but be the most negative, there is no doubt about it. Not a single
normal people in the world, especially a people organized into a state, can voluntarily
allow the destruction of their national physiognomy in the name of assimilation, even
with a more perfect people. Any self-respecting people will respond to the
chauvinistic harassment of foreigners with Leonid Spartans: “come and take” and will
defend their national existence with arms in their hands, even if defeat was
inevitable. That our attitude to such a sermon cannot but be the most negative, there is
no doubt about it. Not a single normal people in the world, especially a people
organized into a state, can voluntarily allow the destruction of their national
physiognomy in the name of assimilation, even with a more perfect people. Any self-
respecting people will respond to the chauvinistic harassment of foreigners with
Leonid Spartans: “come and take” and will defend their national existence with arms
in their hands, even if defeat was inevitable.

All this seems obvious, and yet in the world there are many facts that contradict all
this. European cosmopolitanism, which, as we saw above, is nothing more than
common Germano-chauvinism, is spreading among non-Romano-Germanic peoples
with great speed and with very minor difficulties. Among the Slavs, Arabs, Turks,
Indians, Chinese and Japanese, there are already many such cosmopolitans. Many of
them are even much more orthodox than their European counterparts, in the rejection
of national characteristics, in contempt for any non-Romano-German culture, and so
on.

What explains this contradiction? Why is the all-German chauvinism an indisputable

success among the Slavs, while the slightest hint of Germanophilic propaganda is
enough to make the Slav alert? Why does a Russian intellectual indignantly reject the
idea that he can serve as an instrument of German nationalist junkers, while
submission to the all-German chauvinists of the same Russian intellectual does not
scare?

The answer lies, of course, in hypnosis of words.

As mentioned above, Romano-Germans were always so naively confident that they

alone were the people who called themselves "humanity", their culture - "universal
civilization", and, finally, their chauvinism - "cosmopolitanism." With this
terminology, they were able to mask all the real ethnographic content, which, in fact,
lies in all these concepts. Thus, all these concepts have become acceptable to
representatives of other ethnic groups. Passing to the non-tribal peoples those works
of their material culture that can most be called universal (military equipment and
mechanical devices for movement) - the Romano-Germans along with them palm off
their "universal" ideas and bring them in this form,

So, the distribution of the so-called. European cosmopolitanism among non-Romano-

Germanic peoples is a pure misunderstanding. Those who succumbed to the
propaganda of the Romano-German chauvinists were misled by the words
“humanity”, “universal human”, “civilization”, “world progress” and so on. All these
words were understood literally, while behind them, in fact, are hidden very specific
and very narrow ethnographic concepts.

The “intelligentsia” of the non-Romano-Germanic peoples fooled by the Romano-

Germans must understand their mistake. They must understand that the culture that
was presented to them under the guise of human civilization is, in fact, the culture of
only a certain ethnic group of the Romanesque and Germanic peoples. This insight, of
course, should significantly change their attitude to the culture of their own people
and make them think about whether they are right, trying, in the name of some
"universal human" (and, in fact, Romano-Germanic, i.e. foreign) ideals, to impose a
foreign culture on their people and to eradicate in it the features of national
identity. They can solve this problem only after a mature and logical examination of
the claims of the Romans to the title of "civilized humanity."

1) Is it possible to objectively prove that the culture of the Romano-Germans is more

perfect than all other cultures that now exist or have ever existed on earth?

2) Is it possible to fully familiarize the people with the culture developed by the other
people, and without the anthropological mixing of the two peoples among
themselves?

3) Is joining the European culture (since such a communion is possible) good or evil?

These questions must be posed and, one way or another, resolved by anyone who is
aware of the essence of European cosmopolitanism, as all-German chauvinism. And
only with an affirmative answer to all these questions can universal Europeanization
be recognized as necessary and desirable. With a negative answer, this
Europeanization should be rejected and new questions should already be raised:

4) Is universal Europeanization inevitable?

5) How to deal with its negative consequences?

In the following presentation, we will try to resolve all the questions we raised. In
order, however, for their decision to be correct and, most importantly, fruitful, we
must invite our readers to temporarily abandon completely the egocentric prejudices,
the idols of "universal civilization" and, in general, the way of thinking characteristic
of Romano-Germanic science. This refusal is not an easy matter, for the prejudices in
question are deeply rooted in the minds of every European “educated” person. But this
refusal is necessary for the purpose of objectivity.

II

We have already pointed out above the fact that the recognition of Romano-Germanic
culture as the most perfect of all cultures that has ever existed on earth is based on
egocentric psychology. As you know, in Europe, under this idea of the highest
perfection of European civilization, an allegedly scientific foundation has been
brought, but the scientific nature of this foundation is only apparent. The fact is that
the concept of evolution as it exists in European ethnology, anthropology and the
history of culture is itself permeated with egocentrism. "Evolutionary ladder", "steps
of development" - all these concepts are deeply egocentric. They are based on the idea
that the development of the human race has been and continues to follow the path of
the so-called world progress. This path is thought of as a well-known straight
line. Humanity has walked in this straight line, but individual peoples stopped at
different points of it and continue to stand at these points now, as if stomping on the
spot, while other nations managed to advance a little further, stopping and "stomping"
at the next point, etc. As a result, taking a look at the general picture of the existing
humanity, we can see the whole evolution, because at every stage of the path traveled
by humanity, and now some stuck people are standing, standing and “marking
time”. Modern mankind, in its whole, thus represents, as it were, a cinematography of
evolution unfolded and cut into pieces, and the cultures of different peoples differ
from each other, namely, as different phases of the general evolution, as different
stages of the general path of world progress.

If we assume that this idea of the relation of reality to evolution is true, then we have
to admit that we are still not able to reconstruct the picture of evolution. In fact, in
order to understand exactly which phase of evolution each given existing culture is,
we must definitely know where the beginning and the end of the direct line of world
progress lie: only in this case can we determine the distance separating this culture
from both extreme points of the mentioned ladder and, thus, determine the place of
this culture in the general evolution. But we can find out the beginning and end of
evolution not earlier than we restore the general picture of evolution; Thus, we get a
vicious circle: to restore the picture of evolution, we need to know its beginning and
end, and in order to find out its beginning and end, it is necessary to restore the picture
of evolution. It is clear that we can get out of this circle only if, by some super-
scientific, irrational way, we realize that this or that culture is the beginning or end of
evolution. Scientifically, objectively, this cannot be comprehended, for in such
cultures, with such a concept of evolution, nothing can be laid down that would
indicate their distance from the beginning or end of evolution. Objectively, we find in
different cultures only traits of greater or lesser similarity between each other. Based
on these traits, we can group all cultures of the globe so that the cultures most similar
to each other stand side by side, and the cultures are small-sized - far from each
other. That is all we can do by remaining objective. But, even in this case, if we could
do it, and if at the same time we had a continuous chain, we still would not be able,
remaining quite objective, to determine where the beginning is and where the end of
this chain is. Let us illustrate our thought with an example. Imagine seven squares,
each of which is painted in one of the colors of the rainbow, these squares are located
on a straight line, with the order of colors, counting from left to right: green, blue,
blue, purple, red, orange, yellow. Now mix these squares and invite someone who has
not seen their original location to arrange them in a straight line so that each transition
color is between the two primary colors. Because the person you contacted does not
know that the squares were originally located in the above order, it’s clear that they
can be arranged in exactly the same order only by chance, and the degree of
randomness will be expressed by a ratio of 1:14. The researcher is absolutely in the
same position, who must arrange the peoples and cultures existing in humanity in an
evolutionary order: even if he places each culture between the two most similar to it,
he will never know "where to start", as well as in our experience, no one can guess
that we should start with a green square, and that the blue should not stand to the left,
but to the right of it. The only difference is that since there are not seven, but much
more cultures to be grouped, there will be not 14, but much more possible solutions,
and since only one of them will be correct, the probability of the correct solution of
the problem is much less ,

So, if the prevailing notion of evolution in European science is true, then the picture
of human evolution cannot be restored. And, however, Europeans claim that they have
restored the general line of this evolution. How to explain this? Has a miracle
happened, have European scientists received a supernatural revelation from some
mysterious source, which allowed them to find the end and beginning of evolution?

If you look closely at the result of the work of European scientists, the scheme of
evolution of mankind that they restored, it immediately becomes clear that the role of
this supernatural revelation, in fact, was played simply by the same egocentric
psychology. It was she who pointed out to the Romano-German scholars, ethnologists
and cultural historians where to look for the beginning and end of the development of
mankind. Instead of remaining objective and seeing the hopelessness of their position,
looking for the reason for this hopelessness in the incorrectness of the concept of
evolution itself and trying to fruitfully correct this concept, Europeans simply took
themselves, their culture and naively convinced that that they found one end of the
alleged evolutionary chain, quickly built the whole chain. It never occurred to
anyone that the adoption of Romano-Germanic culture as the crown of evolution is
purely arbitrary, that it is a monstrous petitio principii. The egocentric psychology
turned out to be so strong that no one doubted the correctness of this position, and it
was accepted by everyone without reservation, as something taken for granted.

The result was a "ladder of evolution of mankind." On top of it are the Romano-
Germans and those peoples who have fully embraced their culture. A step below is the
"cultural peoples of antiquity", i.e. those peoples who, in their culture, are most in
contact and resemble Europeans. Further, the cultural peoples of Asia: writing,
statehood and some other cultural points of these peoples allow us to find in them
some similarities with the Romano-Germans. Similarly, the "old cultures of America"
(Mexico, Peru): however, these cultures are somewhat less similar to the Romano-
Germanic and, accordingly, are placed somewhat lower on the evolutionary
ladder. Nevertheless, all the peoples mentioned so far in their culture have so many
features of external resemblance to the Romano-Germans that they are honored with a
flattering title "

According to this notion of the evolutionary ladder, the Romano-Germans and their
culture are, in fact, the highest that people have achieved so far. Of course, Romano-
German cultural historians modestly add - over time, “humanity” may go even further,
it is possible that the inhabitants of Mars are already culturally higher than us, but on
the earth at present we Europeans are more perfect and above all. But this
evolutionary ladder cannot have objective evidentiary power. Not because Romano-
Germans recognize themselves as the “crown of creation" because objective science
has established the aforementioned ladder, but, on the contrary, European scientists
place Romaino-Germans on top of this ladder solely because they are convinced of
their perfection in advance. Self-centered psychology played the most decisive role
here. Objectively speaking, this whole staircase is a classification of peoples and
cultures on the basis of their greater or lesser resemblance to modern Romano-
Germans. The moment of assessment, making from this classification a ladder of steps
of perfection, is not objective and is introduced by a purely subjective egocentric
psychology. Thus, the classification of peoples and cultures adopted in European
science cannot objectively prove the superiority of Romano-German civilization over
cultures of other peoples. From the fact that “rye porridge praises itself” it does not
yet follow that it should be the best porridge in the world. The moment of assessment,
making from this classification a ladder of steps of perfection, is not objective and is
introduced by a purely subjective egocentric psychology. Thus, the classification of
peoples and cultures adopted in European science cannot objectively prove the
superiority of Romano-German civilization over cultures of other peoples. From the
fact that “rye porridge praises itself” it does not yet follow that it should be the best
porridge in the world. The moment of assessment, making from this classification a
ladder of steps of perfection, is not objective and is introduced by a purely subjective
egocentric psychology. Thus, the classification of peoples and cultures adopted in
European science cannot objectively prove the superiority of Romano-German
civilization over cultures of other peoples. From the fact that “rye porridge praises
itself” it does not yet follow that it should be the best porridge in the world.

If we look at the evidence in favor of the greater perfection of the Romano-Germanic

civilization at the top of the “evolutionary ladder” compared to the culture of
“savages” at the lowest level of development, we will be surprised to note that all this
evidence is based either on the petitio principii of egocentric prejudice, or on the
optical illusion caused by the same egocentric psychology. There is no objective
scientific evidence at all.

The simplest and most common evidence is that de Europeans actually defeat
savages; that every time savages come to grips with Europeans, the struggle ends with
the victory of the “whites” and the defeat of the “savages”. The rudeness and naivety
of this evidence should be clear to every objective-thinking person. This argument
clearly shows how much worship of brute force, which was an essential feature of the
national character of those tribes that created European civilization, lives on to this
day in the minds of every descendant of ancient Gauls and Germans. Gallic "vae
victis!" and German vandalism, systematized and deepened by the traditions of the
Roman soldier, appear here in all their glory, although they are covered by a mask of
objective science. And meanwhile, this argument can be found among the most
enlightened European "humanists". Of course, it is not worth analyzing its logical
inconsistency. Although the Europeans are trying to clothe it in a scientific form,
bringing the foundation under it in the form of the theory of “struggle for existence”
and “adaptation to the environment,” they still cannot conceive of such a point of
view in history. They constantly have to admit that the victory very often falls to the
share of “less cultured” peoples than the natives defeated by them. In history, there are
frequent cases of the victory of nomads over settled peoples (and meanwhile, nomads,
who are very different in their everyday life from modern Romano-Germans, are
always placed below the settled peoples on the evolutionary ladder). All "great
cultures of antiquity" recognized by European science they were destroyed precisely
by “barbarians,” and although often it is justified to point out that these cultures had
already passed into a state of decline and degeneration by the time of their destruction,
but in a number of cases this cannot be proved. And since European science cannot
recognize the position that the victorious people are culturally always better than the
defeated people, then no positive conclusions can be drawn from the mere fact of the
victory of Europeans over savages.
Another argument, no less widespread, but even less well-founded, is that the
"savages" are incapable of perceiving some European concepts, and therefore should
be considered as a "lower race". Here the egocentric psychology is especially
vivid. Europeans completely forget that if the "savages" are not able to perceive some
of the concepts of European civilization, then Europeans are just as little able to
penetrate the concepts of the culture of savages. Often they recall a story about a
Papuan who was taken to England, brought up in college, and even sent to
university; soon, however, he yearned for his homeland, fled to his homeland, and
there, having thrown off his European costume, he again began to live the same
“savage” as he had been before his trip to England, so that there was no trace of the
concepts of European culture in him. Wherein, however, numerous jokes about
Europeans who decided to "simplify", settled for this purpose among the "savages",
but, after some time, still could not stand this brand and returned to Europe to
European living conditions, are completely forgotten. They point out that the
perception of European civilization is so difficult for the "savages" that many of them,
trying to "civilize", went crazy or became alcoholics. However, in those, however,
very rare cases when some Europeans conscientiously tried to assimilate with the
culture of a wild tribe, to accept not only the external material life of this tribe, but
also its religion and beliefs - these “eccentrics” for the most part comprehended the
same fate. Suffice it to mention the talented French painter Gauguin, who tried to
become a real Tahitian, who paid for this attempt with insanity, and later alcoholism,
and ended his life with an inglorious death in a drunken brawl. Obviously, the point
here is not that the “savages” are lower than the Europeans in their development, but
that the development of the Europeans and savages is directed in different directions,
that the Europeans and the “savages”, in all their everyday way of life and according
to the resulting structure psychology, as different as possible from each
other. Precisely because the psychology and culture of the "savages" has almost
nothing to do with the psychology and culture of Europeans, complete assimilation
with this alien everyday and spiritual order is impossible for both sides. But, since this
impossibility remains mutual, it is as difficult for a European to become a savage as
for a "savage"

The "arguments" we have so far examined in favor of the superiority of Europeans

over the "savages", although they are sometimes found in scholarly works, are
nevertheless rather philistine reasonings, naive and superficial. Other arguments
dominate the scientific literature, looking much more serious and solid. However,
upon closer examination, these quasi-scientific arguments also turn out to be based on
egocentric prejudices. In science, one can often find a rapprochement between the
psychology of savages and the psychology of children. This rapprochement begs for
itself, because with direct observation the savages really impress Europeans as adult
children. From this they conclude that the savages "stopped in their development",
and that, therefore, they stand below true adult Europeans. At this point, European
scientists again show a lack of objectivity. They completely ignore the fact that the
impression of "adult children" in the contact of Europeans with "savages" ismutual ,
i.e. that savages also look at Europeans as adult children. This fact, from a
psychological point of view, is very interesting, and its explanation should be sought,
of course, in the very essence of what Europeans mean by the word savage. We have
already said above that under the word "savages" European science actually means
peoples who, in their culture and psychology, are most different from modern
Romano-Germans. It is in this circumstance that one should look for explanations of
the mentioned psychological riddle. The following points should be kept in mind:

1. The psyche of each person consists of elements innate and acquired.

2. Among the features of the innate psyche, it is necessary to distinguish individual,

family, tribal, racial, universal, general mammals, and common animals.

3. Acquired traits depend on the environment in which the subject rotates, on the
tradition of his family and social group, and on the culture of his people.

4. In very early childhood, the entire psyche consists exclusively of innate traits; over
time, more and more acquired traits join them, and some of the innate traits as a result
of this disappear or disappear altogether.

5. In the psychology of each person, we are directly aware and accessible only those
features that are common with him.

From these provisions it follows that when two people who belong to exactly the same
environment and brought up in exactly the same cultural traditions meet with each
other, they both understand in each other almost all the features of the psyche,
because all these traits, with the exception of some inborn individual ones, are
common to both of them. But, when two people meet with each other, belonging to
two completely different cultures, completely different from each other, then each of
them in the psyche of the other will see and understand only some innate traits, but he
won’t understand the acquired ones, and maybe not notice at all, because in this area
between the two who have met there is nothing in common. The more the observer’s
culture differs from the observed culture, the less features of the acquired psyche the
first perceives in the second, and the more the psychology of this observable will
appear to the observer consisting exclusively of innate traits. But the psyche, in which
innate traits prevail over the acquired, always makes an impression of
elementary. Every psyche can be imagined as a fraction in which the numerator is the
total sum of the innate traits available to our perception, and the denominator is the
total sum of the acquired traits: this psyche will seem all the more elementary as the
fraction is smaller (i.e., the ratio of the denominator to the numerator more). From the
above provisions of the 3rd and 5th it is clear that the fraction will be the smaller, the
more different the culture and social environment of the observed from the culture and
social environment of the observer. in which innate traits prevail over the acquired
ones, it always makes an impression of elementary. Every psyche can be imagined as
a fraction in which the numerator is the total sum of the innate traits available to our
perception, and the denominator is the total sum of the acquired traits: this psyche will
seem all the more elementary as the fraction is smaller (i.e., the ratio of the
denominator to the numerator more). From the above provisions of the 3rd and 5th it
is clear that the fraction will be the smaller, the more different the culture and social
environment of the observed from the culture and social environment of the
observer. in which innate traits prevail over the acquired ones, it always makes an
impression of elementary. Every psyche can be imagined as a fraction in which the
numerator is the total sum of the innate traits available to our perception, and the
denominator is the total sum of the acquired traits: this psyche will seem all the more
elementary as the fraction is smaller (i.e., the ratio of the denominator to the
numerator more). From the above provisions of the 3rd and 5th it is clear that the
fraction will be the smaller, the more different the culture and social environment of
the observed from the culture and social environment of the observer. and the
denominator is the total sum of the acquired traits: this psyche will seem all the more
elementary as the fraction is smaller (i.e., the greater the ratio of the denominator to
the numerator is). From the above provisions of the 3rd and 5th it is clear that the
fraction will be the smaller, the more different the culture and social environment of
the observed from the culture and social environment of the observer. and the
denominator is the total sum of the acquired traits: this psyche will seem all the more
elementary as the fraction is smaller (i.e., the greater the ratio of the denominator to
the numerator is). From the above provisions of the 3rd and 5th it is clear that the
fraction will be the smaller, the more different the culture and social environment of
the observed from the culture and social environment of the observer.

Because "savages" are, in other words, those nations that, in their culture and in their
everyday life, are most different from modern Europeans, it is clear that their psyche
should be presented to Europeans as extremely elementary; but from the foregoing it
is also clear that this impression must be reciprocal. The notion of "savages" as "adult
children" is based on this optical illusion. In the psychology of a savage, we perceive
only traits of the innate psyche, because only these traits are common with us
(position 5), the acquired ones are completely alien and incomprehensible to us,
because they are based on his cultural traditions (position 3), completely different
from ours; but a psychology in which innate traits prevail, while acquired ones are
almost absent, is a child psychology (position 4). Because " the savage "seems to us to
be a child. In this view, another circumstance also plays a role. If we compare the
psychology of two children, the little" savage "and the little European, we will find
that both children are psychologically much closer to each other, than their fathers;
they still do not have well-acquired traits that appear later, but they have many
common elements that are part of human, common mammal, and communal
psychology, and the differences introduced by racial, tribal, family, and individual
psyche do not to large. C will be superseded or modified acquired, and the other part
will remain unchanged. But the most part, these both being compared are different
subjects. And Savages be lost, and will remain in development, some of the time that
the total stock of innate traits, the European will lose B, save A, C; the savage traits D
will join in on the savage, and the traits E. on the European man. When an adult
European meets the adult savage and watches it, he will find in the psyche of the
savage part B, C, D. Of these parts, D will be a complete alien to the European and
incomprehensible, because this part of the savage psyche, as acquired, stands in
connection with the culture of the savage, which has nothing to do with the
European. Part C is common in an adult savage with an adult European, and therefore
is quite understandable for this, the latter. As for Part B, it is not in the psyche of an
adult European, but this European remembers that this part was in his early childhood,
and can observe it now in the psyche of the children of his people. Thus, the psyche of
the savage must be presented to the European without fail, as a mixture of elementary
traits of adult psychology with traits of children. Needless to say, the European psyche
should be presented in the same way to the savage for the same reasons.

The optical illusion that we just talked about is the cause of another phenomenon,
namely, the similarity that Europeans find between the psychology of the savage and
the psychology of animals. We said above that, psychologically, the little savage
differs very little from the little European. If we add a young animal to these two
babies, we will be forced to admit that there is something in common between all
three of these creatures - the traits of a general mammal and a community animal
psychology. These features, perhaps, are not very many, but nevertheless they
exist; Suppose these are the elements x , y , z . Later, a small European, developing,
will lose x , the savage - y , and the animal will save as xboth y and z . But those
features of the animal psyche that are preserved in all of these creatures will, of
course, not be completely preserved in the form in which they existed in infancy,
because the elements of the psyche of an adult animal always differ in a known way
from those elements of the psyche of young animals, from which they developed. In
accordance with this, x , y and z in an adult animal will take the form x ' , y' , z ' , the
elements y , z in a European - the form y' , z ' , elements x, z in the adult savage -
type x ' , z' . When an adult European observes an adult savage, he sees in him, by the
way, the line x ' . How will he interpret this trait? In his own psyche, she is not. In the
psyche of the children of his tribe, it has a different form, namely x . But in the psyche
of adult animals, a European can directly see x . Naturally, therefore, that he will
define this trait as “animal” and, due to its presence in the psychology of the savage,
will consider this latter to be a person close to animals in its development. All this, of
course, applies to the savage, who, having seen the y ' line in the European, alien to
his own psychology, but observed by him in animals, interprets this trait in exactly the
same way as a European interprets trait x ' in the psyche of a savage.

All of the above explains to us the immediate impression that people from tribes with
the most different cultures from each other receive. Each of these people sees and
understands in the other only what he has in common with him, i.e. only features of
the innate psyche, and, therefore, will certainly consider the psychology of the
observed exclusively elementary. Seeing in the observable features familiar to him
from his own childhood, but later lost, the observer will consider the observed subject
to be a person who has stopped in his development, a person, albeit an adult, but
endowed with the features of a child's psyche. Further, some features of the observed
will seem to the observer close to the psychology of animals. As for the non-
elementary features of the observable, being acquired, and therefore connected with a
culture alien to the observer, they will remain completely incomprehensible and will
appear to the observer as some kind of strangeness, eccentricity. The combination of
elementary, childish and incomprehensible eccentricity makes a person of the most
alien culture a ridiculous creature, either an ugly or a comic figure. This impression is
completely reciprocal. When two representatives of the most diverse cultures meet
each other, they both seem ridiculous, ugly to each other, in a word - “wild”. We
know that the European experiences exactly such feelings when he sees the “savage,”
but we also know that the “savages,” when they see the European, are either
frightened or meet every manifestation of it with explosions of homeric laughter. they
will remain completely incomprehensible and will seem to the observer with some
oddities, eccentricities. The combination of elementary, childish and
incomprehensible eccentricity makes a person of the most alien culture a ridiculous
creature, either an ugly or a comic figure. This impression is completely
reciprocal. When two representatives of the most diverse cultures meet each other,
they both seem ridiculous, ugly to each other, in a word - “wild”. We know that the
European experiences exactly such feelings when he sees the “savage,” but we also
know that the “savages,” when they see the European, are either frightened or meet
every manifestation of it with explosions of homeric laughter. they will remain
completely incomprehensible and will seem to the observer with some oddities,
eccentricities. The combination of elementary, childish and incomprehensible
eccentricity makes a person of the most alien culture a ridiculous creature, either an
ugly or a comic figure. This impression is completely reciprocal. When two
representatives of the most diverse cultures meet each other, they both seem
ridiculous, ugly to each other, in a word - “wild”. We know that the European
experiences exactly such feelings when he sees the “savage,” but we also know that
the “savages,” when they see the European, are either frightened or meet every
manifestation of it with explosions of homeric laughter. either an ugly or a comic
figure. This impression is completely reciprocal. When two representatives of the
most diverse cultures meet each other, they both seem ridiculous, ugly to each other,
in a word - “wild”. We know that the European experiences exactly such feelings
when he sees the “savage,” but we also know that the “savages,” when they see the
European, are either frightened or meet every manifestation of it with explosions of
homeric laughter. either an ugly or a comic figure. This impression is completely
reciprocal. When two representatives of the most diverse cultures meet each other,
they both seem ridiculous, ugly to each other, in a word - “wild”. We know that the
European experiences exactly such feelings when he sees the “savage,” but we also
know that the “savages,” when they see the European, are either frightened or meet
every manifestation of it with explosions of homeric laughter.

Thus, the idea of the elementary nature of the savage psyche, its proximity to child
and animal psychology, is based on optical illusion. This deception retains its strength
not only in relation to savages, i.e. to peoples whose culture is as different as possible
from modern Romano-Germans, but also to all peoples with a non-Romano-Germanic
culture in general. The difference will only be in the degree. When observing a
representative of a "not our" culture, we will understand from his acquired psychic
traits only those that we have, i.e. associated with elements of culture common to him
and us. Acquired traits, but based on such aspects of his culture that do not find an
equivalent in our culture, will remain incomprehensible to us. As for the elements of
the innate psyche, almost all of them will turn out to be understandable to us, and
some of them will seem to be childish features. Due to the fact that we will understand
almost all of the innate psyche of this nation we observe, and the acquired one only
because the culture of this people is similar to ours, the ratio of the innate and
acquired sides of its psyche will always seem to us wrong, with an edge on the innate
side, and this advantage it will be the stronger, the stronger the culture of a given
people differs from ours. Naturally, therefore,[* 1] .

By the way, we note that such an assessment of the psyche of someone else is
observed not only between two peoples, but also between different social groups of
the same people, if the social differences in this people are very strong and if the
upper classes adopted a foreign culture. Many Russian intellectuals, doctors, officers,
sisters of mercy, communicating with the "common people", say that they are "adult
children". On the other hand, “common people”, judging by their tales, sees in the
“gentleman” the well-known eccentricity and features of naive semi-child psychology.

Despite the fact that the European view of the savage psyche is based on optical
illusion, it nevertheless plays the most prominent role in all quasi-scientific
constructions of European ethnology, anthropology and cultural history. The main
consequence that this idea had for the methodology of the named sciences was that it
allowed Romano-German scientists to unite the most diverse peoples of the globe into
one group under the common name of "savages", "unicultural" or "primitive
peoples"[* 2]. We have already said that under these names it is necessary to
understand peoples who are as different as possible from modern Romano-Germans in
their culture. This is the only common attribute of all these peoples. This sign is
purely subjective and, moreover, negative. But since he gave rise to optical illusion
and based on this deception the same assessment of the psyche of all these peoples by
Europeans, then these latter took their assessment as an objective and positive sign
and united all peoples equally distant from modern Romano-Germans in their culture
into one group " primitive. " That, therefore, peoples who were essentially completely
different from each other (for example, Eskimos and kaffirs) fell into one general
group - European scholars do not take this into account, because the differences
between individual "primitive peoples" based on the characteristics of their cultures,
equally distant from the Romano-Germanic, the Europeans are all equally alien and
incomprehensible, and therefore they are neglected by scientists as unimportant and
secondary signs. And with this group, with this concept of "primitive peoples", based
essentially on a subjective and negative attribute, European science operates without
thinking as with a very real and homogeneous quantity. Such is the power of
egocentric psychology in European evolutionary science. as with a very real and
homogeneous quantity. Such is the power of egocentric psychology in European
evolutionary science. as with a very real and homogeneous quantity. Such is the
power of egocentric psychology in European evolutionary science.

On the same optical illusion and on the habit associated with it to qualify peoples
according to the degree of their similarity with modern Romano-Germans, another
argument is based in favor of the superiority of Romano-German civilization over all
other cultures of the globe. This argument, which can be called "historical," is
considered the most weighty in Europe, and cultural historians are particularly eager
to refer to it. Its essence lies in the fact that the ancestors of modern Europeans were
also initially savages, and that, thus, modern savages are still at the stage of
development through which Europeans have long passed. This argument is confirmed
by archaeological finds and evidence of ancient historians, showing that the life of the
distant ancestors of the modern Romano-Germanic peoples was distinguished by all
the typical features of the life of modern savages.

The illusory nature of this argument becomes apparent, as soon as we recall the
artificiality of the very concept of “savages” or “primitive peoples,” a concept that
unites the most diverse tribes of the globe on the basis of only their maximum
difference from modern Romano-Germans.
Like any culture, European culture has changed continuously and has come to its
present state only gradually, as a result of a long evolution. In every historical era, this
culture was somewhat different. Naturally, at the same time, in the epochs closer to
the present and the culture of Europeans was closer to its present state than in the
epochs more distant. In the most distant eras, the culture of the peoples of Europe was
the most different from modern civilization; in these epochs, the culture of the
ancestors of Europeans represented the maximum contrast to modernity. But all
cultures, which are as different as possible from modern European civilization,
invariably belong to the common group of "primitive" European scientists. Naturally,
therefore, that the culture of the distant ancestors of modern Romano-Germans should
fall into the same rubric. No positive conclusion can be drawn from this. For, in view
of the negativity of the concept of "primitive culture," the fact that the epithet
"primitive" is applied by European scholars both to the culture of the most ancient
ancestors of the Romano-Germans and to the culture of modern Eskimos and Kaffirs
does not yet mean that all these cultures were identical between themselves, but only
that they are all equally dissimilar to modern European civilization.

Here we consider it appropriate to touch upon yet another detail in the teaching of the
European science of savages, details that are closely connected with the just-examined
"historical argument." Namely, in those - in general, relatively rare - cases when
Europeans manage to penetrate the history of some modern "wild" tribe, it invariably
turns out that the culture of this tribe either did not change at all or "went back", in
which case modern savages are the result of regression,
the gradual wildness of the people, who once stood at a
"higher stage of development." Again, this
circumstance depends on the same optical illusion and
on egocentric prejudices. Best of all, the origin of this
view of the history of savages can be depicted
graphically. Imagine a circle in the center of which (at
point A) is modern European culture. The radius of this
circle represents the maximum difference from modern
Romano-Germans: thus, the culture of any modern
“wild” tribe can be represented by point B on the
circumference of the circle. But the savage’s culture
has reached this point now. Previously, this culture had
a different look and, therefore, the earlier historical
form of this culture should be depicted as exact C, not
coinciding with B. Where can this point lie? Three cases are possible. First, C may lie
on some other place on the circumference of the same circle.
In this case, according to the position, the distance of the speaker will be equal to
AB. In other words, it turns out that the culture of this "savage" in the previous
historical era was as different from modern European culture as possible. And since if
European science brings down the most primitive cultures from European civilization,
the European scientist in this case will not catch any progress, but will recognize
immobility, stagnation, no matter how great the arc of NE, depicting the path traveled
by the culture of this "savage" "in this historical era.

Second case: C lies inside the circle. In this case, the

distance of the speaker will be less than the distance of
AB, in other words, the movement of the culture of the
savage went, moving away in relation to the point
depicting the modern culture of Europeans. It is clear
that a European scientist, who considers his civilization
to be the height of perfection achieved on earth, can
call such a movement only "regression", "decline",
"wildness."

Finally, the third case: C lies

outside the circle. Here, the AC
distance is greater than the radius
AB, i.e. more than the maximum distance from the culture of
modern Romano-Germans. But values greater than the maximum
are not accessible to the human mind and sensations. The
horizons of a European standing at point A of our drawing are
limited by the circumference of our circle, and everything that is
outside this circle does not differ by it. Therefore, the European
will naturally have to project point C on a circle in the form of
C ' , and the third case will be reduced to the first - to the notion
of immobility or stagnation.

In the same way as the history of savages, the European considers

the histories of other peoples, whose culture is more or less different from modern
Romano-Germanic. Strictly speaking, real “progress” is observed only in the history
of the Romance Germans themselves, for naturally there is a constant gradual
approach to the modern state of [Romanogerman] culture, arbitrarily declared the
height of perfection. As for the history of non-Romano-Germanic peoples, if it does
not end with a borrowing of European culture, all the last stages of this history closest
to our days, in accordance with the foregoing, should inevitably be regarded by
European scholars as an era of stagnation or decline. Only when such a non-Romano-
Germanic people abandon their national culture and indulge in blind imitation of
Europeans,
So, the “historical argument”, the most weighty and convincing in the eyes of
Europeans, turned out to be just as little evidence as all the other arguments in favor
of the superiority of the Romano-Germans over the savages. It may seem to many that
we are engaged in sophistry and juggling with general concepts. Many will say that,
despite all the logic of our reasoning, the superiority of a European over a savage still
remains an undoubted, objective and self-evident truth, which, therefore, cannot be
proved: the axioms are not provable, nor are the facts of our direct perception, for
example, that the fact that the paper I'm writing on is white. However, evidence only
does not require evidence when it is objective. Subjectively, it can be quite obvious to
me that I am in every way better and smarter than my friend N, but, since neither for
N himself nor for many of our other acquaintances with him this fact is obvious, I can
not consider it objective. Meanwhile, the question of the superiority of Europeans to
savages is of such a nature: we will not forget that the Europeans themselves,
Romans, or people who, although not belonging to their race, are hypnotized by their
prestige and are under their complete influence, want to resolve it. If for these judges
the superiority of the Romano-Germans is obvious, then this evidence is not objective,
but subjective, and therefore requires more objective evidence. But there is no such
evidence: the preceding exposition clearly showed this. we will not forget that the
Europeans themselves, Romano-Germans, or people themselves, although not
belonging to their race, but hypnotized by their prestige, who are under their full
influence, want to resolve it. If for these judges the superiority of the Romano-
Germans is obvious, then this evidence is not objective, but subjective, and therefore
requires more objective evidence. But there is no such evidence: the preceding
exposition clearly showed this. we will not forget that the Europeans themselves,
Romano-Germans, or people themselves, although not belonging to their race, but
hypnotized by their prestige, who are under their full influence, want to resolve it. If
for these judges the superiority of the Romano-Germans is obvious, then this evidence
is not objective, but subjective, and therefore requires more objective evidence. But
there is no such evidence: the preceding exposition clearly showed this.

We are told: compare the mental baggage of a cultural European with the mental
baggage of some Bushman, Botocud or Veddas - is not the superiority of the first over
the second obvious? However, we argue that evidence here is only subjective. As
soon as we give ourselves the labor in good faith and without prejudice to delve into
the matter, the evidence disappears. The savage, a good savage hunter, possessing all
the qualities that his tribe appreciates in a man (and only such a savage can be
compared with a real cultural European), keeps in his mind a huge reserve of all kinds
of knowledge and information. He perfectly studied the life of his surrounding nature,
knows all the animal habits, such subtleties in their everyday life that elude the
inquisitive gaze of the most attentive European naturalist. All this knowledge is stored
in the mind of a savage far from a chaotic disorder. They are systematized, though not
according to the headings by which a European scientist would place them, but
according to others that are most convenient for practical purposes of hunting life. In
addition to this practical scientific knowledge, the savage’s mind often contains the
rather complex mythology of his tribe, the code of his morality, the rules and
regulations of etiquette, sometimes also very complicated, and finally, a more or less
significant stock of the works of his people’s oral literature. In a word, the head of the
savage is “stuffed” thoroughly, despite the fact that its stuff is “stuffing”, completely
different than the one that fills the head of a European. And due to this heterogeneity
of the material of the mental life of the savage and European,

They point out that European culture is in many ways more complex than the culture
of the savage. However, such a ratio of both cultures is far from being observed in all
their directions. Cultured Europeans are proud of the sophistication of their manners,
the subtlety of their politeness. But there is no doubt that the rules of etiquette and
conventions for living in many savages are much more complicated and more detailed
than those of Europeans, not to mention the fact that all members of the “wild” tribe
obey this code of good taste, while Europeans a good tone is only for the upper
classes. In the care of appearance, “savages” often show much more complexity than
many Europeans: recall the sophisticated tattoo techniques of Australians and
Polynesians or the most complex hairstyles of African beauties. If all these
complications can be attributed to the inexpedient eccentricity, that is, in the life of
some savages and some undoubtedly expedient institutions are much more complex
than the corresponding European ones. Take, for example, attitudes toward sexuality,
family and marriage law. How elementary this issue is resolved in Romano-German
civilization, where a monogamous family exists officially, protected by law, and
unbridled sexual freedom coexists next to it, which society and the state theoretically
condemn, but practically allow. Compare this with the elaborate institution of group
marriage among Australians, where sexual life is placed in the strictest framework
and, in the absence of an individual marriage, nevertheless measures have been taken
both to provide for children and to prevent incest.

Generally speaking, it is more or less difficult to say nothing about the degree of
cultural excellence. Evolution as often goes towards simplification, as well as towards
complexity. Therefore, the degree of complexity can in no way serve as a measure of
progress. Europeans are well aware of this, and apply this measure only when it is
convenient for their self-praise purposes. In those cases when another culture, for
example, the same culture of savages, is in some respects more difficult than
European, Europeans not only do not consider this great complexity a measure of
progress, but even on the contrary declare that in this case complication is a sign of
"primitiveness" . This is how European science interprets all of the above cases: the
complex etiquette of savages, their concern for the complex decoration of the
body, even the ingenious system of Australian group marriage - all this is a
manifestation of a low degree of culture. Note that, at the same time, Europeans
completely ignore their favorite "historical argument", discussed above: in the
prehistory of the Gauls and Germans (and the Romans themselves) there never was a
moment when all the mentioned, supposedly primitive, sides of the life of "savages"
would find a manifestation. Separate ancestors of the Romano-Germans had no idea
about thorough body decoration, about a tattoo, or about fantastically sophisticated
hairstyles, politeness and “manners” were much more neglected than modern
Germans and Americans, and the family has been built for centuries same
pattern. Europeans do not reckon with the historical argument in a number of other
cases, in which its logical application would not speak in favor of European
civilization. Much of what is considered the last cry of civilization or the pinnacle of
progress not yet achieved in modern Europe is encountered by savages, but then it is
declared a sign of extreme primitiveness. Futuristic pictures drawn by Europeans are
considered a sign of high refinement of aesthetic taste, but works of the "savages"
completely similar to them are naive attempts, the first awakenings of primitive
art. Socialism, communism, anarchism, all these are "bright ideals of the future higher
progress", only when they are preached by a modern European. When these "ideals"
are realized in the life of savages, they are immediately designated as a manifestation
of primitive savagery.

There is no objective evidence of the superiority of the European over the savages,
and there cannot be, because when comparing different cultures, Europeans know
only one measure: what looks like us is the best and most perfect thing that doesn't
look like us.

But if so, if Europeans are no more perfect than savages, then that evolutionary
ladder, which we spoke about at the beginning of this chapter, should collapse. If its
peak is not higher than its base, then, obviously, it is not higher than the other steps
between it and its base. Instead of stairs, we get a horizontal plane. Instead of the
principle of gradation of peoples and cultures according to the degrees of perfection -
a new principle of equivalence and qualitative disproportion of all cultures and
peoples of the globe. The moment of evaluation should be expelled once and for all
from ethnology and the history of culture, as well as from all evolutionary sciences in
general, for evaluation is always based on egocentrism. There are no higher and
lower. There are only similar and unlike. To declare like us higher, and dissimilar -
lower - arbitrary, unscientific, naive, finally, just stupid. Only by completely
overcoming this deep-rooted egocentric prejudice and expelling its consequences
from the methods and conclusions themselves, which were still built on it, European
evolutionary sciences, in particular ethnology, anthropology and the history of culture,
will become real scientific disciplines. Until then, they have been, at best, a means of
fooling people and justifying before their eyes the Romano-Germans and their
minions the imperialist colonial policy and the vandalistic culture of the "great
powers" of Europe and America.

So, to the first of the questions posed above, to the question: “is it possible to
objectively prove that the culture of modern Romano-Germans is more perfect than all
other cultures that currently exist or have ever existed on earth?”, One has to answer
in the negative.

III

Now let’s try to answer the question: is it possible to fully introduce some people to
the culture created by another people. Under full communion, we mean, of course,
such an assimilation of the culture of a foreign people, after which this culture for the
borrowing people becomes as if their own and continues to develop in this people
completely in parallel with its development from the people from whom it is
borrowed, so both are the creator culture and the borrower - merge into one cultural
whole.

In order to answer the question posed in this form, one must, of course, know the laws
of life and the development of culture. Meanwhile, European science in this area
knows almost nothing, because, being on the wrong path that all European
evolutionary sciences stand due to egocentric prejudices, which we spoke about
above, sociology still could not develop any objective scientific methods, nor,
moreover, any reliable conclusions and is at the stage of development of
alchemy. Some correct points of view on the method that sociology should use, and
some true views on the true essence of the mechanics or dynamics of social
phenomena can be found scattered among individual European sociologists, who,
however, they themselves never fully endure their methodological principles and
invariably fall into a generalization based on egocentrism regarding the development
of "humanity". This passion for hasty generalizations, always incorrect, due to the
falsity of the basic concepts of “humanity”, “progress”, “primitiveness”, etc., is a
passion that exists among all sociologists and makes it difficult to use their
conclusions. The largest European sociologist of the last century, unfortunately, is
relatively little known and incorrectly estimated in Europe, the French scientist
Gabriel Tarde, in his general views on the nature of social processes and on the
methods of sociology, came to the truth, perhaps closer than others. But the passion
for generalizations and the desire immediately after determining the elements of social
life to give a picture of the whole evolution " mankind "was destroyed by this witty
researcher. Moreover, saturated, like all Europeans, with egocentric prejudices, he
cannot take the point of view of the equivalence and qualitative incommensurability
of peoples and cultures, he can not think of" mankind "except as a harmonious whole.
some parts of which are located on the evolutionary ladder, finally, cannot break with
the concept of “universal human” or “world progress.” Thus, although we join in a
number of important points to the sociological teachings of Tarde, is, however, in his
theory, we have to introduce some very significant amendments. From the point of
view of this a sociological system we have come to the decision of the questions
posed above. like all Europeans, with egocentric prejudices, he cannot stand on the
point of view of the equivalence and qualitative incommensurability of peoples and
cultures, he cannot think of “humanity” otherwise than a harmonious whole, whose
individual parts are located on the evolutionary ladder, and finally cannot break with
the concept of "universal" or "world progress." Thus, although we adjoin in a number
of important points to the sociological teachings of Tarde, nevertheless, in his theory
we have to introduce some very significant corrections. From the point of view of this
sociological system, we will approach the solution of the question posed above. like
all Europeans, with egocentric prejudices, he cannot stand on the point of view of the
equivalence and qualitative incommensurability of peoples and cultures, he cannot
think of “humanity” otherwise than a harmonious whole, whose individual parts are
located on the evolutionary ladder, and finally cannot break with the concept of
"universal" or "world progress." Thus, although we adjoin in a number of important
points to the sociological teachings of Tarde, nevertheless, in his theory we have to
introduce some very significant corrections. From the point of view of this
sociological system, we will approach the solution of the question posed
above. otherwise, as a harmonious whole, the individual parts of which are located on
the evolutionary ladder, at last, cannot break with the concept of “universal human” or
“world progress”. Thus, although we adjoin in a number of important points to the
sociological teachings of Tarde, nevertheless, in his theory we have to introduce some
very significant corrections. From the point of view of this sociological system, we
will approach the solution of the question posed above. otherwise, as a harmonious
whole, the individual parts of which are located on the evolutionary ladder, at last,
cannot break with the concept of “universal human” or “world progress”. Thus,
although we adjoin in a number of important points to the sociological teachings of
Tarde, nevertheless, in his theory we have to introduce some very significant
corrections. From the point of view of this sociological system, we will approach the
solution of the question posed above. in his theory we have to introduce some very
significant corrections. From the point of view of this sociological system, we will
approach the solution of the question posed above. in his theory we have to introduce
some very significant corrections. From the point of view of this sociological system,
we will approach the solution of the question posed above.

The life and development of any culture consists of the continuous emergence of new
cultural values. By "cultural value" we mean any expedient creation of a person that
has become the common property of his compatriots: it can be a rule of law, a work of
art, an institution, a technical device, or a scientific or philosophical position, since all
these things correspond to certain physical or spiritual needs or to meet these needs
are accepted by all or part of the representatives of this people. The emergence of each
new cultural value can be called the common name of "discovery" (invention - the
term Tarda). Each discovery is a combination of two or more existing cultural values
or their various elements, and, however, a new discovery is completely
indecomposable into its components and always contains a plus in the form, firstly, of
the method of the combination itself, and, secondly, of the creator’s imprint. Once it
has arisen, the discovery is distributed among other people by "imitation" (immitation
is also the term Tarda), and this word should be understood in the broadest sense,
starting with reproducing the cultural value itself or reproducing the way to satisfy
this need with the help of this value, and up to " sympathetic imitation ",
i.e. submission to the created norm, assimilation of the given position, assumed true,
or worship of the dignity of this work. In the process of imitation, this innovation may
come into conflict with another, or with a cultural value already recognized earlier, in
what case, a struggle for superiority (“duel logique” of Tarde) is ensued between
them, as a result of which one of these values is supplanted by the other. Only
overcoming all these obstacles and spreading by imitation of the entire social whole,
this discovery becomes a fact of social life, an element of culture. Culture at any given
moment is the sum of the recognized discoveries of the modern and previous
generations of a given nation. Thus, the essence of the development and life of culture
is reduced to two elementary processes: “discovery” (invention) and “propagation”
(propagation) with an optional, but almost inevitable complement to the “struggle for
recognition” (duel logique). It is not difficult to see that both basic processes have
another thing in common: since the discovery is always inspired by previous
discoveries or, better to say, pre-existing cultural values, it can be considered as a
combined imitation or, in the words of Tarde, as a collision in the individual
consciousness of two or more imitative waves (ondes immitatives). The only
difference is that in the opening between conflicting values there is no struggle (duel
logique) in the narrow sense of the word; that not one of the values displaces the
other, but, on the contrary, all of them are synthesized and combined into a single
whole, while the spread of the clash of values does not create a new one, but only
eliminates one of the struggling parties. Therefore, both "discovery" and "distribution"
can be considered as two sides of the same process of "imitation" (immitation).

Now we will try to clearly imagine the conditions that are necessary for the
continuous appearance of discoveries, in other words, for the development of
culture. First of all, this requires the existence in the consciousness of a given cultural
environment of the entire stock of cultural values already created and passed through
the stage of struggle. This is necessary, firstly, because, as mentioned above, every
new discovery is always made up of elements of already existing cultural values,
according to the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit. In addition, with the goal of satisfying
a known need, any new discovery at the same time causes new needs or modifies old
ones, making it necessary to seek new ways to satisfy these new needs; all this makes
it absolutely necessary to closely connect the new discoveries with the already
existing common stock of cultural property. This common stock of cultural property,
in other words, an inventory of culture, for successful further development must be
transmitted through tradition, i.e. every young generation must adopt, by imitation of
the elders, the culture in which the previous generation grew up and which this
generation, in turn, received from its predecessors. The culture obtained in this way
for each generation is the starting point of further discoveries, and this fact is one of
the indispensable conditions for the continuity and organic development of
culture. Finally, in addition to tradition, the most important role in the development of
culture is played by heredity (a factor underestimated by Tarde) every young
generation must adopt, by imitation of the elders, the culture in which the previous
generation grew up and which this generation, in turn, received from its
predecessors. The culture obtained in this way for each generation is the starting point
of further discoveries, and this fact is one of the indispensable conditions for the
continuity and organic development of culture. Finally, in addition to tradition, the
most important role in the development of culture is played by heredity (a factor
underestimated by Tarde) every young generation must adopt, by imitation of the
elders, the culture in which the previous generation grew up and which this
generation, in turn, received from its predecessors. The culture obtained in this way
for each generation is the starting point of further discoveries, and this fact is one of
the indispensable conditions for the continuity and organic development of
culture. Finally, in addition to tradition, the most important role in the development of
culture is played by heredity (a factor underestimated by Tarde) and this circumstance
is one of the indispensable conditions for the continuity and organic development of
culture. Finally, in addition to tradition, the most important role in the development of
culture is played by heredity (a factor underestimated by Tarde) and this circumstance
is one of the indispensable conditions for the continuity and organic development of
culture. Finally, in addition to tradition, the most important role in the development of
culture is played by heredity (a factor underestimated by Tarde)[* 3]. Heredity
complements the tradition, and with its help the tastes, dispositions and temperaments
of those who created cultural values in the past are passed down from generation to
generation, which contributes to the organicity of the whole development of
culture. For the process of dissemination of discoveries (propagation des inventions),
which is another equally significant part of the development of culture, in general, the
same conditions are necessary as for the very occurrence of discoveries. The existence
of a common stock of cultural property is necessary in view of the fact that it is this
stock that determines the needs that a discovery must satisfy, and, meanwhile, a
discovery can take root only if the need that brought it to life is present, and, when
volume, exactly, in exactly the same form, both with the inventor and with
society. Further, the key to the successful dissemination of the discovery lies largely
in the preparedness of the consciousness of society for its acceptance, and this
preparedness assumes that the elements that make up the discovery already live in the
consciousness of society; meanwhile, we know that the elements of each new
discovery are gleaned from the same general stock of values: therefore, this common
stock, the same among inventors and imitators, is a necessary condition for the spread
of the discovery. But the presence of this same supply of cultural property, to itself, is
still not enough for this. It is important that all these values and their elements in the
consciousness of society and in the consciousness of the inventor are located
approximately the same, so that their relationships in the one and the other
consciousness are the same. And this is achievable only under the condition of one
tradition. Finally, in order

After these preliminary considerations from the field of general sociology, we can
begin to resolve the question of interest to us about the possibility for an entire nation
to fully become familiar with a foreign culture. Before us are two peoples, say A and
B, each has its own culture (for without a culture in the above sense no people are
unthinkable), and these two cultures are different. Now suppose that people A borrow
the culture of people B. The question is: can this culture further develop on the basis
of A in the same direction, in the same spirit and at the same pace as on the basis of
B? We know that for this it is necessary that, after borrowing, A receive the same total
supply of cultural property with B, the same tradition and the same
heredity. However, neither one nor the other, nor the third is impossible. Even if
people A immediately borrow from B the entire inventory of culture B, the general
stocks of cultural property of both nations will still not be the same, for A will have,
especially the first time, an inventory of the former culture A that B does not have in
stock B. This remnant of the former, national culture will always be alive for the first
time after borrowing, at least in the memory of the people of A, however diligently
this culture may be eradicated. Due to this, the tradition of people A will turn out to be
completely different than that of people B. Finally, heredity cannot be borrowed
without an anthropological mixing of A and B, and even with such a mixture the
heredity of cross A and B will be different than that of one B. Thus, the first time after
borrowing, the living conditions of the culture of people B on the basis of people A
will be completely different from the living conditions on its native soil of people B.

These first steps of the culture, transferred to a new soil, are fatal for its further
development. In the most decisive way, the absence of an organic tradition should
act. A number of cultural elements of B in the people of B are perceived and
assimilated from childhood. In the people And all these elements will be assimilated
already in adulthood. The people In the natural vehicle of tradition is the family. In
the people of A, the family cannot at first pass on to the younger generation the
tradition of a new culture in its purest form. This tradition has to be inculcated through
school or through more or less artificial collectives - the army, factories, factories,
etc. But, receiving from these sources the traditions of a new, borrowed culture, young
generations at the same time preserve the traditions of the former national
culture, received from the family and reinforced by the authority of the family even at
a later time. Naturally, these young generations combine both traditions and, as a
result, create a mixture of the concepts of two different cultures. This mixture is
created in each individual consciousness, although, of course, not without the
influence of imitation of others. In general, each person has his own mixture and they
are all quite different, depending on the personal biography of each individual subject,
and, of course, in people with a similar biography the differences in the mixture are
not so significant. Be that as it may, when the young generations in question transfer
from the role of those who perceive tradition to the role of those who transmit it, they
will not pass on to the next generation not the pure tradition of culture B, but the
tradition of mixture A and B. The next generation, receiving from the school and
similar sources a more or less pure culture of B, and from the family and from free
social communication with the elders the aforementioned mixture of A and B, itself
produces a new mixture of these elements and, subsequently, transfers the traditions
of this new mixture to the generation following it , etc. Thus, the culture of people A
will always be a mixture of cultures A and B, and at each given moment, the older
generation will have a slightly stronger A element than the younger one, and the
family will be closer to A than other groups. However, over time, certain elements of
culture A will penetrate the tradition that is transmitted to the younger generations by
the school, so this tradition will also become mixed. As a result, the whole culture of
people A will be based on a mixed tradition of two cultures; means

We said above that each discovery is made up of elements of existing cultural

values. The total amount of discoveries that are possible at the moment, therefore,
depends on the total amount of cultural values available to this people. And since with
regard to the stock of cultural values between peoples A and B, as said, there will
never be complete identity, it is clear that the sum of the possible discoveries of both
peoples will never be the same: in other words, the direction of development of
culture for people B who created it, and the people A, who borrowed it, will be
different. To this must be added the differences in tastes, dispositions, and
temperaments due to differences in heredity. Finally, often all this is complicated by
differences in geographical conditions and (for example, in the matter of costume)
anthropological types.

Thus, it must be admitted that the complete familiarization of a whole nation with a
culture created by another nation is impossible.
History does not contradict this conclusion. Wherever there is such a complete
familiarization with a foreign culture, a closer examination of the facts shows either
that this communion is only apparent, or that it became possible only thanks to the
anthropological mixture of the creator of culture with the borrower. How historical
examples of familiarization with a foreign culture indicate Hellenism and
Romanization. However, these examples are not very successful. In the Hellenized
countries, as you know, it was just a mixture of ancient Greek culture with native
cultures. Elements of Greek culture, like the Greek language, served only as cement,
uniting all these mixed cultures with each other; as you know, an element of foreign
culture then penetrated into Greece itself, so that the Greek people themselves
received a mixed culture. In this way, there was no "people B" who created the
culture, and "people A" who borrowed this culture, but there were people A, B, C,
etc., borrowing from each other individual elements of culture that entered into lively
cultural communication with each other completely mutual. As for Romanization, it is
necessary to distinguish two points in it. The Romanization of the Apennine Peninsula
cannot be seen as an introduction to a foreign culture, for the culture of Rome of the
republican era was not much different from the culture of other urban communities in
Italy. The whole peninsula was dominated by one culture with minor features in
certain localities, and Romanization, in fact, came down to the spread of the Latin
language, which replaced all the other dialects of Italy, of which, moreover, most
were closely related to the dialect of Rome. The Romanization of the more distant
provinces of the Roman state, Gaul, Spain, Britain, etc., in which the national culture
was significantly different from the Roman one, had a somewhat different character.
But here we must take into account several circumstances. First, romanization in these
areas took place with great gradualness. Initially, the Romans were limited only to the
construction of roads and the establishment of military settlements, which at first
consisted of Italians alone, and then recruited soldiers and from the local
population. Later, Roman government institutions and Roman law began to be
introduced in these places. Religiously, only the emperor’s cult was compulsory,
while other Roman cults were not introduced, but were brought to the province by
Roman soldiers, peacefully coexisting with national cults. In the field of material
culture, clothing, housing, tools of production, the provincial "barbarians" for a long
time maintained their originality, smoothed out very gradually, thanks to lively trade
relations with other provinces and with Rome. Thus, the culture of the Romanized
provinces was always mixed. Finally, the supposedly Roman culture itself, one way or
another planted in all these areas during the time of the Empire, was a rather motley
mixture of the diverse elements of the most diverse cultures of the Greco-Roman
world. The result was not the introduction of different peoples to the culture created
by one people, but eclecticism, the synthesis of several cultures. That the local
national cultures at the same time continued to exist and develop among the masses,
shows the era of the end of Roman rule, when these folk cultures surfaced,
These examples show that with the introduction to a foreign culture, it is not
necessary to equate the mixing of cultures. As a general rule, it must be said that in
the absence of anthropological mixing, it is only mixing of cultures that is
possible. Communion, on the contrary, is possible only with anthropological
mixing. These are, for example. the familiarization of the cuffs with the culture of
China, the Hykses - with the culture of Egypt, the Varangians and Turkic-Bulgarians -
with the culture of the Slavs, etc., further - the communion of the Prussians, Slavs and
Puddles (in this last case, not yet complete) with the culture of the Germans.

Thus, to the second of the questions posed above, to the question: "Is it possible to
fully integrate a whole nation into a culture created by another nation without
anthropological mixing of both nations?" - I also have to answer in the negative.

IV

The third question reads: "Is familiarization with European culture (since such
communication is possible) good or evil?" This question requires a more precise
restriction in connection with the answers already received to the first two
questions. Now we already know that, firstly, the Romano-Germanic culture is
objectively no higher and no more perfect than any other culture, and that, secondly, a
complete familiarization with the culture created by another people is possible only
under the condition of anthropological mixing with these people. Hence, as if, it
follows that our question concerns only those peoples that anthropologically mixed
with the Romano-Germans. However, with more careful reflection, it turns out that in
relation to such peoples our question is completely meaningless. In fact: after all,
since the anthropological confusion, the people in question are ceases to be
completely non-Romano-Germanic. The Romano-Germanic culture for him becomes
to some extent native, as native as the culture of the people who mixed with the
Romano-Germans. He needs to choose between these two native cultures equally for
him. We know that Romano-Germanic culture is no better than any other, but, in
essence, it is no worse than others. So, for the people in question, in general, it does
not matter whether to accept it or not. True, having accepted it, he will still be
different from pure Romano-Germans in their heredity. But even if he adopts a
different culture, he will also have a heredity that is not quite appropriate for this
culture, because partly Romanogerman blood flows in his veins. Thus, in relation to
peoples anthropologically mixed with the Romano-Germans, the question of the
desirability or undesirability of Europeanization loses all its acuteness and all its
meaning. As for any other people that did not anthropologically mix with the
Romano-Germans, it is clear from the previous one that such a people cannot
completely Europeanize, i.e. fully join the Romano-Germanic culture.
However, we also know that, despite this impossibility, many of these peoples
nevertheless strive for such communion with all their might, try to Europeanize. These
are the peoples of our question: we must find out the consequences that stem from this
desire for Europeanization, and determine whether these consequences are beneficial
or desirable from the point of view of this people.

Above, proving the impossibility of the full integration of the whole nation into a
culture created by another people, we tried, by the way, to outline in general terms the
form of cultural development of the alleged people A, borrowing the culture from
people B. Now we must substitute Romano-Germans instead of B, and instead of A -
Europeanized non-Romano-Germanic people and note those special features that will
result from such a statement. The most significant features are introduced by that
feature of the Romano-Germans and their culture, which we described as
egocentrism. The Romano-Germanic considers himself to be the highest and
everything that is identical with him, the lowest - everything that differs from him.

In the field of culture, he recognizes as valuable only that which constitutes an

element of his own modern culture or may constitute its element; everything else in
the eyes of the Romano-German is of no value or is judged by the degree of
proximity, similarity with the corresponding elements of his own culture. A
Europeanized or striving for Europeanization people are infected with this feature of
the Romano-Germanic psyche, but, unaware of its true egocentric lining, it does not
put itself in the place of a European, but, on the contrary, evaluates everything,
including himself, his people and his culture, precisely with Romanogian point of
view. This is the peculiarity of the particular case of Europeanization in comparison
with the general case of the people borrowing A culture from the people B.

We said above that the culture of people A will always be a mixture of the elements of
the old national culture of this people (we will designate these elements by a) and the
elements of the culture borrowed from people B (we will designate them by b), while
people B themselves will to have a culture consisting only of completely
homogeneous elements (b). This implies the first point: culture A (in our case, the
Europeanized non-Romano-Germanic people) contains more cultural values than
culture B (in our case, the Romano-Germanic people). But we know that the total
amount of cultural values determines the total amount of possible discoveries: it
means that the number of possible discoveries among the Europeanized people is
greater than that of the Romano-Germanic people. It seems that this state of affairs is
beneficial for the Europeanized people. But, in fact, this is not true. In fact, one must
take into account that the numberpossible discoveries are far from equal to the number
of discoveries actually made. Most discoveries are doomed to perish in a mutual
struggle between themselves or old cultural values with which they contradict, and
this mutual struggle for general recognition (duel logique, in the terminology of Tard)
will be fiercer and longer, the greater the total number of possible discoveries. Thus, it
turns out that the cultural work of the Europeanized people is placed in much less
favorable conditions than the work of the natural Romano-German. The first has to
search in different directions, to spend his strength on reconciling the elements of two
heterogeneous cultures, on reconciling, which mostly comes down to stillborn
attempts; he has to find elements that are suitable for each other from the pile of
values of two cultures,

The logical consequences of that particular feature of the particular case of

Europeanization, in comparison with the general case of the cultural borrowed, about
which we spoke above, join all this. Since the culture of the Europeanized people
consists of the values a (purely national) and b (borrowed from the Romano-
Germans), and each discovery is composed of elements of existing values, the
discoveries made by the Europeanized people will theoretically belong to one of three
types: a + a , a + b, b + b. From the point of view of Romano-Germans, discoveries
like a + a, as they do not contain any elements of Romano-Germanic culture, are
completely worthless. Of the discoveries of type a + b, a significant part should appear
to the Romano-Germanic as a spoilage of European culture, for such discoveries,
along with b, also comprise the element a, estranging them from the corresponding
element of modern Romano-Germanic culture. Finally, of the discoveries of type b +
b, only those that bear the imprint of the tastes, dispositions, and temperaments
characteristic of Romano-Germanic heredity are completely acceptable to Romano-
Germans; and since Since the Europeanized people have a different heredity, it is
clear that a significant part of the discoveries made by them of type b + b will not
meet this requirement and will be unacceptable to Romano-Germans. Thus, not only
is the cultural work of the Europeanized people, in comparison with the work of the
Romano-Germanic people, extremely difficult and furnished with difficulties, it is
also ungrateful. A good half of it, from the point of view of a real European, should be
recognized as unproductive, inexpedient. And since

It is not difficult to understand what consequences all this inevitably leads to. For all
the reasons described above, a Europeanized people in each given period of time
manages to create only a very small number of such cultural values that can be
accepted by other peoples of European culture. Natural Romano-Germans in the same
period of time will create a lot of such values, and since all of them, having entered
the general supply of Romano-Germanic culture, will thereby gain undeniable
authority, the Europeanized people in question will have to accept them. Thus, this
people will always receive more from the outside than give to the side, its cultural
imports will always exceed cultural exports, and this alone puts it in a dependent
position with respect to natural Romano-Germans.
It should be noted, moreover, that the preponderance of imports over exports and the
difference between the psychic heredity of the Europeanized people and the Romano-
Germanic people create extremely difficult conditions for the people to absorb and
disseminate new discoveries. Natural Romano-Germans learn, in general, only those
discoveries that bear the imprint of a general Germano-German national psychology
transmitted through heredity and tradition: they can simply discard anything that
contradicts this psychology by branding it with the epithet of “barbarism”. The
Europeanized people are in a different position: they should not be guided by their
own, but by someone else's, Romano-German national psychology, and should,
without blinking, accept everything that the original Romano-Germans create and
consider valuable, even if it contradicted his national psychology, it would fit poorly
in his mind. This, of course, complicates the process of assimilation and dissemination
of imported discoveries, and, meanwhile, such discoveries, as we know, among the
Europeanized people always exceed the number of their own, homegrown. Needless
to say, such constant difficulties in the field of mastering discoveries should have an
extremely detrimental effect on the economy of the national forces of the
Europeanized people, who already have to spend a lot of work on unproductive work
on reconciling two diverse cultures ("discoveries like a + b") and development the
remnants of their own national culture ("discoveries of type a + a"). meanwhile, such
discoveries, as we know, among the Europeanized people always exceed the number
of their own, homegrown. Needless to say, such persistent difficulties in mastering
discoveries should have an extremely detrimental effect on the economy of the
national forces of the Europeanized people, who already have to spend a lot of work
on unproductive work on reconciling two heterogeneous cultures ("discoveries like a
+ b") and development the remnants of their own national culture ("discoveries of
type a + a"). meanwhile, such discoveries, as we know, among the Europeanized
people always exceed the number of their own, homegrown. Needless to say, such
persistent difficulties in mastering discoveries should have an extremely detrimental
effect on the economy of the national forces of the Europeanized people, who already
have to spend a lot of work on unproductive work on reconciling two heterogeneous
cultures ("discoveries like a + b") and development the remnants of their own national
culture ("discoveries of type a + a").

All these obstacles in cultural work are far from exhausting the disadvantage of the
position of the Europeanized people. One of the most serious consequences of
Europeanization is the destruction of national unity, the dismemberment of the
national body of the Europeanized people. We saw above that when borrowing a
foreign culture, each generation develops its own mixture, its own canon of synthesis
of elements of national and foreign culture. Thus, in a people who borrowed a foreign
culture, each generation lives on its own special culture, and the difference between
“fathers and children” will always be stronger here than among a people with a
homogeneous national culture. But besides this, only very rarely does it happen that a
whole nation immediately undergoes Europeanization, so that all parts of the people
equally perceive the Romano-Germanic culture. This can happen only if the people in
question are very few and poorly differentiated. For the most part, Europeanization
goes from top to bottom, i.e. First it covers the social elites, the aristocracy, the urban
population, well-known professions, and then it gradually spreads to the rest of the
people. The process of this distribution proceeds, of course, rather slowly, and during
it a whole series of generations manage to succeed. Speaking of tradition, we pointed
out that for the assimilation of a foreign culture, the work of several generations is
necessary, because in the synthesis that each generation does for itself, the element of
borrowed culture will prevail more over the elements of the old national culture, the
more previous generations have worked on the reconciliation of these two diverse
cultures. It is quite understandable, therefore, that at every moment those parts of the
Europeanized people who began to undergo Europeanization earlier than others have
a cultural look closer to Romano-Germanic. Thus, at any given moment, different
parts of the Europeanized people, classes, classes, professions, are different stages of
assimilation of Romano-Germanic culture, different types of combinations, in various
proportions, of elements of national and foreign culture. All these classes are not parts
of one national whole, but separate cultural units, as if separate peoples with their
cultures and traditions, with their habits, concepts and languages. Social, property and
professional differences among the Europeanized people are much stronger than
among the natural Romans, precisely because

The negative consequences of this phenomenon are reflected in the life of the
Europeanized people at every turn. The dismemberment of a nation causes an
aggravation of the class struggle and makes it difficult to transfer from one class of
society to another. The same fragmentation of parts of the Europeanized people
further inhibits the spread of all innovations and discoveries, and hinders the
cooperation of all parts of the people in cultural work. In a word, such conditions are
created that inevitably weaken the Europeanized people and put them at an extremely
disadvantageous position, in comparison with natural Romano-Germans. So, the
social life and development of the culture of the Europeanized people are surrounded
by difficulties that are completely unfamiliar to the natural Romano-Germans. As a
result of this, this people is not very productive: it creates little and slowly, with great
difficulty. In assimilation of discoveries, in the process of distribution, he shows the
same slowness. Therefore, such a people, from a European point of view, can always
be considered as "backward". And since its culture, always being a mixture of
Romano-Germanic and native, is always different from the pure Romano-Germanic
culture of a given era, then real Europeans will always consider it below the natural
Romano-Germans. But he himself is compelled to look at himself in exactly the same
way. Having adopted European culture, he perceives with it the European standards of
cultural assessment. He cannot but notice his low cultural productivity, the fact that
his cultural export is very poorly developed, that the spread of innovations is very
slow and difficult, that a significant part of his national body is very little or not at all
involved in the Romano-Germanic culture, which he considers to be
"higher." Comparing himself with the natural Romano-Germans, the Europeanized
people come to the realization that they are superior to themselves, and this
consciousness, along with constant complaining about their inertness and
backwardness, gradually leads the people to cease to respect themselves. Studying his
story, this nation also evaluates it from the point of view of a natural European: in this
story, everything that contradicts European culture seems evil, an indicator of
inertness and backwardness; the highest moment of this story is the one in which a
decisive turn towards Europe has taken place; in the subsequent course of history,
everything that was taken from Europe is considered progress, and any deviation from
European norms is considered a reaction. Gradually, the people are accustomed to
despise all their, original, national. If we add to all this the aforementioned
dismemberment of the national body, the weakening of social ties between the
individual parts of this body due to the lack of a single culture, common cultural
language, it becomes clear that patriotism among the Europeanized people is always
extremely poorly developed. Patriotism and national pride in such a nation are the
destiny of only certain units, and national self-affirmation for the most part comes
down to the ambitions of rulers and leading political circles. of a common cultural
language, it will become clear that patriotism among the Europeanized people is
always extremely poorly developed. Patriotism and national pride in such a nation are
the destiny of only certain units, and national self-affirmation for the most part comes
down to the ambitions of rulers and leading political circles. of a common cultural
language, it will become clear that patriotism among the Europeanized people is
always extremely poorly developed. Patriotism and national pride in such a nation are
the destiny of only certain units, and national self-affirmation for the most part comes
down to the ambitions of rulers and leading political circles.

This lack of self-confidence, of course, is again a big minus in the struggle for
existence. In private life, one constantly has to observe how natures who are not self-
confident, who value themselves little and are accustomed to self-humiliation, show in
their behavior indecision, insufficient perseverance, and allow others to "step on their
feet" and, in the end, fall under complete power more decisive and self-confident,
although often much less gifted individuals. In exactly the same way and in the life of
peoples, nations that are not very patriotic, with an undeveloped sense of national
pride, always give in to nations with strong patriotism or national conceit. And
therefore, the Europeanized peoples, according to the foregoing, mostly occupy, in
relation to the primordial Romano-Germans,
All these negative consequences depend on the very fact of Europeanization: the
degree of Europeanization does not play a role. We know that with each generation
the elements of the old “native” culture recede more and more into the background, so
that over time, a people striving for Europeanization must, in the end, fully
Europeanize, i.e. get a culture consisting solely of elements of Romano-Germanic
origin. This process is extremely long, especially since it proceeds very unevenly in
different parts, different social groups of the Europeanized people. But even when this
process is completely completed, the Europeanized people will still always have
underadicated predispositions of the national psyche transmitted by heredity, and
these predispositions, different from the elements of the inherent psyche of the
Romans, they will, on the one hand, interfere with the fruitful creative work of this
people, and on the other, impede the successful and quick assimilation of new cultural
values created by natural Romans. Thus, even when reaching the maximum degree of
Europeanization, this people, already already lingering in its development, due to the
long and difficult process of gradual cultural leveling of all its parts and the
eradication of the remnants of the national culture, will nevertheless not be on equal
terms with the Romano-Germans and will continue to lag behind. The fact that since
the beginning of its Europeanization this people fatally enters the zone of obligatory
cultural exchange and communication with the Romano-Germans makes it
“backward” fatal law. all the same, on the one hand, they will interfere with the
fruitful creative work of this people, and on the other, they will hinder the successful
and rapid assimilation of new cultural values created by natural Romano-
Germans. Thus, even when reaching the maximum degree of Europeanization, this
people, already already lingering in its development, due to the long and difficult
process of gradual cultural leveling of all its parts and the eradication of the remnants
of the national culture, will nevertheless not be on equal terms with the Romano-
Germans and will continue to lag behind. The fact that since the beginning of its
Europeanization this people fatally enters the zone of obligatory cultural exchange
and communication with the Romano-Germans makes it “backward” fatal law. all the
same, on the one hand, they will interfere with the fruitful creative work of this
people, and on the other, they will hinder the successful and rapid assimilation of new
cultural values created by natural Romano-Germans. Thus, even when reaching the
maximum degree of Europeanization, this people, already already lingering in its
development, due to the long and difficult process of gradual cultural leveling of all
its parts and the eradication of the remnants of the national culture, will nevertheless
not be on equal terms with the Romano-Germans and will continue to lag behind. The
fact that since the beginning of its Europeanization this people fatally enters the zone
of obligatory cultural exchange and communication with the Romano-Germans makes
it “backward” fatal law. to interfere with the fruitful creative work of this people, and
on the other, to impede the successful and quick assimilation of new cultural values
created by natural Romano-Germans. Thus, even when reaching the maximum degree
of Europeanization, this people, already already lingering in its development, due to
the long and difficult process of gradual cultural leveling of all its parts and the
eradication of the remnants of the national culture, will nevertheless not be on equal
terms with the Romano-Germans and will continue to lag behind. The fact that since
the beginning of its Europeanization this people fatally enters the zone of obligatory
cultural exchange and communication with the Romano-Germans makes it
“backward” fatal law. to interfere with the fruitful creative work of this people, and on
the other, to impede the successful and quick assimilation of new cultural values
created by natural Romano-Germans. Thus, even when reaching the maximum degree
of Europeanization, this people, already already lingering in its development, due to
the long and difficult process of gradual cultural leveling of all its parts and the
eradication of the remnants of the national culture, will nevertheless not be on equal
terms with the Romano-Germans and will continue to lag behind. The fact that since
the beginning of its Europeanization this people fatally enters the zone of obligatory
cultural exchange and communication with the Romano-Germans makes it
“backward” fatal law. and on the other, to impede the successful and rapid
assimilation of new cultural values created by natural Romano-Germans. Thus, even
when reaching the maximum degree of Europeanization, this people, already already
lingering in its development, due to the long and difficult process of gradual cultural
leveling of all its parts and the eradication of the remnants of the national culture, will
nevertheless not be on equal terms with the Romano-Germans and will continue to lag
behind. The fact that since the beginning of its Europeanization this people fatally
enters the zone of obligatory cultural exchange and communication with the Romano-
Germans makes it “backward” fatal law. and on the other, to impede the successful
and rapid assimilation of new cultural values created by natural Romano-
Germans. Thus, even when reaching the maximum degree of Europeanization, this
people, already already lingering in its development, due to the long and difficult
process of gradual cultural leveling of all its parts and the eradication of the remnants
of the national culture, will nevertheless not be on equal terms with the Romano-
Germans and will continue to lag behind. The fact that since the beginning of its
Europeanization this people fatally enters the zone of obligatory cultural exchange
and communication with the Romano-Germans makes it “backward” fatal
law. already lingering in its development, thanks to the long and difficult process of
gradual cultural leveling of all its parts and the eradication of the remnants of the
national culture, it will nevertheless find itself not in equal conditions with the
Romano-Germans and will continue to “lag behind”. The fact that since the beginning
of its Europeanization this people fatally enters the zone of obligatory cultural
exchange and communication with the Romano-Germans makes it “backward” fatal
law. already lingering in its development, thanks to the long and difficult process of
gradual cultural leveling of all its parts and the eradication of the remnants of the
national culture, it will nevertheless find itself not in equal conditions with the
Romano-Germans and will continue to “lag behind”. The fact that since the beginning
of its Europeanization this people fatally enters the zone of obligatory cultural
exchange and communication with the Romano-Germans makes it “backward” fatal
law.

But one cannot put up with this "law". Peoples that do not oppose their
"backwardness" very quickly become a victim of some neighboring or distant
Romano-Germanic people, who deprives this retarded member of the "family of
civilized peoples" of economic and then political independence, it is accepted to
shamelessly exploit it, pulling everything out of it juices and turning it into
"ethnographic material." But the one who wants to fight the law of eternal lag is
waiting for no less sad fate. In order to protect themselves from foreign danger, the
“lagging” Europeanized people have to keep at least their military and industrial
equipment on the same level as the Romano-Germans. But since creating in this area
with the same speed, as natural Romano-Germans, the Europeanized people, for the
reasons mentioned above, are not able to, then they have to confine themselves mainly
to borrowing and imitating other people's discoveries. Its backwardness, however, of
course, remains valid even in the field of technology. But in this area, despite the
well-known chronic delay, the level is still more or less the same and the difference
from the Romano-Germans is rather in a lesser intensity of industrial life. In other
areas of life, the need to equal the level of the Romans is usually felt less strongly and
constantly. Only from time to time the difference in levels, backwardness in these
areas begins to be felt very sharply, but it is precisely in this sporadicity of such
feelings of backwardness that their main evil lies. The consequences of these sporadic
feelings of backwardness can be eliminated only by equally sporadic historical
leaps. Unable to keep up with the Romans and gradually lagging behind them, the
Europeanized people from time to time try to catch up with them, making more or less
distant jumps. These jumps disrupt the entire course of historical development. In a
short time, people need to follow the path that the Romans shared gradually and over
a longer period of time. He has to jump over a whole series of historical steps and
create immediately, ex abrupto, what the Romans had as a result of a number of
historically consistent changes. The consequences of such a leaping "evolution" are
truly terrible. Each jump will inevitably be followed by a period of apparent (from a
European point of view) stagnation, during which it is necessary to put culture in
order, coordinate the results achieved by this leap in a certain area of life, with the rest
of the elements of culture. And during this "stagnation" the people, of course, again
and again lag behind. The history of Europeanized peoples consists of this constant
change of short periods of rapid “progress” and more or less long lines of
“stagnation”. Historical leaps, violating the unity and continuous gradualness of
historical development, destroy the tradition, already already underdeveloped among
the Europeanized people. Meanwhile, a continuous tradition is one of the
indispensable conditions for normal evolution. It’s clear that jumping and racing,
giving the temporary illusion of achieving a “pan-European level of civilization”, for
all the above reasons, they cannot lead the people forward in the true sense of the
word. Jumping evolution is even more wasting national forces, already already
overloaded with work due to the very fact of Europeanization. As a person trying to
keep pace with a faster satellite and resorting to taking periodic jumps for this purpose
will eventually inevitably lose strength and become exhausted, so surely the
Europeanized people who have embarked on such a path of evolution will inevitably
die, aimlessly squandering their national forces. And all this - without self-confidence,
even without a reinforcing sense of national unity, long destroyed by the very fact of
Europeanization. already overworked by the very fact of Europeanization. As a person
trying to keep pace with a faster satellite and resorting to taking periodic jumps for
this purpose will eventually inevitably lose strength and become exhausted, so surely
the Europeanized people who have embarked on such a path of evolution will
inevitably die, aimlessly squandering their national forces. And all this - without self-
confidence, even without a reinforcing sense of national unity, long destroyed by the
very fact of Europeanization. already overworked by the very fact of
Europeanization. As a person trying to keep pace with a faster satellite and resorting
to taking periodic jumps for this purpose will eventually inevitably lose strength and
become exhausted, so surely the Europeanized people who have embarked on such a
path of evolution will inevitably die, aimlessly squandering their national forces. And
all this - without self-confidence, even without a reinforcing sense of national unity,
long destroyed by the very fact of Europeanization. wasting their national forces
aimlessly. And all this - without self-confidence, even without a reinforcing sense of
national unity, long destroyed by the very fact of Europeanization. wasting their
national forces aimlessly. And all this - without self-confidence, even without a
reinforcing sense of national unity, long destroyed by the very fact of
Europeanization.

So, the consequences of Europeanization are so dire and terrible that Europeanization
has to be considered not good, but evil. We note at the same time that we deliberately
did not touch on some of the negative aspects of Europeanization, which are often
recognized with regret by the Europeans themselves: vices and habits that are
unhealthy, special diseases brought by European "cultural traders", militarism, a
restless industrial life deprived of aesthetics. All of these "companions of
civilization", which are complained of by sentimental European philanthropists and
aesthetes, are not integral accessories of Romano-Germanic culture. Vices and bad
habits are present in every culture and are often borrowed by one people from another,
regardless of their involvement in the whole culture as a whole. In particular, many of
these habits were borrowed by the Europeans themselves from such tribes, which they
consider inferior and not very cultured, for example. tobacco smoking is adopted by
Europeans from the North American "savages." As for militarism and capitalism, the
Europeans always promise to correct these shortcomings, recognizing them only as
historical episodes. Thus, all these negative aspects of European civilization can be
considered controversial, which is why we did not find it possible to talk about
them. We talked only about the consequences that stem from the very essence of
Europeanization and concern the very essence of social life and culture of the
Europeanized people. then Europeans are always promised to correct these
shortcomings, recognizing them only as historical episodes. Thus, all these negative
aspects of European civilization can be considered controversial, which is why we did
not find it possible to talk about them. We talked only about the consequences that
stem from the very essence of Europeanization and relate to the very essence of social
life and culture of the Europeanized people. then Europeans are always promised to
correct these shortcomings, recognizing them only as historical episodes. Thus, all
these negative aspects of European civilization can be considered controversial, which
is why we did not find it possible to talk about them. We talked only about the
consequences that stem from the very essence of Europeanization and relate to the
very essence of social life and culture of the Europeanized people.

As a result, we had to answer in the negative for all three questions posed above.

But, if European civilization is no higher than any other, if full integration into a
foreign culture is impossible, and if the desire for full Europeanization promises all
non-Romano-Germanic peoples the most miserable and tragic fate, then it is obvious
that these peoples must be fought out of all forces. And so, this is where the terrible
question arises: what if this struggle is impossible and if universal Europeanization is
an inevitable world law?

In appearance, a lot says that this is true. When Europeans meet with some non-
Romano-Germanic people, they bring their goods and guns to it. If the people do not
resist them, the Europeans will conquer it, make it their colony and Europeanize it by
force. If the people decide to resist, then in order to be able to fight the Europeans, he
is forced to acquire cannons and all the improvements of European technology. But
this requires, on the one hand, factories and factories, and on the other, the study of
European applied sciences. But factories are inconceivable without the socio-political
way of life in Europe, and applied sciences without the "pure" sciences. Thus, to fight
Europe, the people in question, it is necessary to master step by step the entire modern
Romano-German civilization and Europeanize voluntarily. So, in both cases,
Europeanization, as it were, is inevitable.
Everything just said may give the impression that Europeanization is an inevitable
consequence of the availability of military equipment and factory production of goods
among Europeans. But military equipment is a consequence of militarism, factory
production is a consequence of capitalism. Militarism and capitalism are not
eternal. They arose historically and, as European socialists predict, should soon
perish, giving way to a new socialist system. It turns out that opponents of universal
Europeanization should dream of establishing a socialist system in European
countries. However, this is nothing more than a paradox. More than all Europeans,
socialists insist on the international, on militant cosmopolitanism, the true essence of
which we already revealed at the beginning of this work. And this is no
coincidence. Socialism is possible only with general Europeanization, while leveling
all the nationalities of the globe and subordinating them all to a uniform culture and
one common way of life. If the socialist system were established in Europe, the
European socialist states would first of all have to use the fire and sword to implement
the same system throughout the world, and then vigilantly ensure that no people
change this system. Otherwise, i.e. in the event that a corner of the globe preserved by
socialism had been preserved somewhere, this “corner” would immediately become
the new hotbed of capitalism. But in order to be on guard of the socialist system, the
Europeans would have to maintain their military equipment at the same height and
remain armed to the teeth. And since such an armed state of a part of “humanity”
always threatens the independence of other parts of the same humanity, which, despite
all the assurances, will still feel uncomfortable in the neighborhood of armed people,
as a result, the state of the armed world will spread, of course, to all the peoples of the
globe. Further, in view of the fact that all Romano-Germanic peoples have long been
accustomed to using objects and products produced outside Europe for their material
culture and for satisfying their urgent needs, international and especially “colonial”
trade will certainly continue under the socialist system, moreover, this trade, of
course, will have a special character in connection with the peculiarities of the
socialist economy in general. The main subject of export from Romano-Germanic
countries will still be factory-made goods. Thus, both incentives of Europeanization,
existing at present, military equipment and factory production will continue under the
socialist system. They will only be joined by new incentives in the form of demands
for a unified socialist way of life in all countries, demands of the inevitable, because a
socialist state can only trade with socialist states.

As for the negative consequences of Europeanization, which we spoke about above,

they will survive under the socialist system in exactly the same way as under the
capitalist system. Moreover, under the socialist system, all these consequences will
even be aggravated, because the demand for uniformity in the sociopolitical life of all
peoples, without which socialism is unthinkable, will even more make Europeanized
peoples “reach out” for natural Romano-Germans. Only one of the negative
consequences of Europeanization that we have listed above, namely, the cultural
dismemberment of the national body of the Europeanized people under the socialist
system, as if, should cease to exist, in the absence in socialist society of division into
classes and classes. However, this lack of classes and classes, of course, will always
remain theoretical. In fact, the principle of the division of labor will inevitably lead to
a social grouping by profession. And this grouping among Europeanized peoples will
always be sharper than that of natural Romano-Germans due to the reasons mentioned
above. By the way, we note that the need to maintain a common level of “civilization”
in all nations under the socialist system will force the Romans to “spur” and “spur”
“backward” peoples. And since "national prejudices" by then would have to
disappear, subject to triumphant cosmopolitanism, it is obvious that in all
Europeanized states with a socialist system, in the first roles, as instructors and, in
part, rulers, will be representatives of pure Romano-Germanic peoples or
peoples, more fully involved in the Romano-Germanic culture. In the end, in the
"family of socialist peoples" the Romans will retain the privileged position of
aristocrats, and other "backward peoples" will gradually fall into the position of their
slaves.

So, the nature of the socio-political system of the Romano-German states does not
play any role in the question of the inevitability of Europeanization and its negative
consequences. This inevitability remains, regardless of whether the system of
Romano-German states will be capitalist or socialist. It does not depend on militarism
and capitalism, but on the insatiable greed laid in the very nature of international
predators - Romano-Germans, and on egocentrism that pervades their notorious
"civilization".

VI

How to deal with this nightmare of the inevitability of universal Europeanization? At

first glance it seems that the struggle is possible only with the help of a popular
uprising against the Romans. If humanity is not the humanity that the Romano-
Germans like to talk about, but the real humanity, consisting mostly of Slavs, Chinese,
Indians, Arabs, Negroes and other tribes, who all, without a different color of skin,
moan under the heavy oppression of the Romano-Germans and wasting their national
forces on the extraction of raw materials needed for European factories - if all this
mankind united in a common struggle with the Romano-oppressors, then, one must
think, sooner or later he would be able to overthrow the hated yoke and Ret face of the
earth these predators and their whole culture. But how to organize such an uprising, Is
this a pipe dream? The more carefully we look at this plan, the clearer it will become
for us - that it is not feasible, and that if this is the only way to combat universal
Europeanization, this struggle is simply impossible.
The point, however, is not so hopeless. We said above that one of the main conditions
making universal Europeanization inevitable is egocentrism, which permeates the
entire culture of the Romano-Germans. It is, of course, impossible to hope that the
Romans themselves correct this fatal flaw in their culture. But Europeanized non-
Romano-Germanic peoples, while perceiving European culture, may well clear it of
self-centeredness. If they succeed, then the borrowing of individual elements of the
Romano-Germanic culture will no longer have the negative consequences that we
spoke about above, and will only enrich the national culture of these peoples. In fact,
if the peoples in question, faced with European culture, are free from
prejudice, Forcing them to see something absolutely higher and perfect in all the
elements of this culture, they will not need to borrow this whole culture, they will
have nothing to strive to uproot their native culture to please the European
one; finally, there will be nothing to look at themselves as if they are backward
representatives of the human race who have stopped in their development. Looking at
the Romano-Germanic culture as just one of the possible cultures, they will take from
it only those elements that they understand and are comfortable with, and will
continue to freely change these elements in relation to their national tastes and needs,
completely disregarding how Romano-Germans will appreciate these changes from
their egocentric point of view. there will be nothing to strive to uproot their native
culture for the sake of Europe; finally, there will be nothing to look at themselves as if
they are backward representatives of the human race who have stopped in their
development. Looking at the Romano-Germanic culture as just one of the possible
cultures, they will take from it only those elements that they understand and are
comfortable with, and will continue to freely change these elements in relation to their
national tastes and needs, completely disregarding how Romano-Germans will
appreciate these changes from their egocentric point of view. there will be nothing to
strive to uproot their native culture for the sake of Europe; finally, there will be
nothing to look at themselves as if they are backward representatives of the human
race who have stopped in their development. Looking at the Romano-Germanic
culture as just one of the possible cultures, they will take from it only those elements
that they understand and are comfortable with, and will continue to freely change
these elements in relation to their national tastes and needs, completely disregarding
how Romano-Germans will appreciate these changes from their egocentric point of
view.

That such a turn of the matter is essentially conceivable and possible, there can be no
doubt. Against the possibility of him there is nothing to refer to historical
examples. Indeed, history teaches us that on such a sober point of view, in relation to
the Romano-Germanic culture, not a single Europeanized people could still
resist. Many peoples, borrowing European culture, initially intended to take from it
only the most necessary. But in the further course of their development, all of them
gradually succumbed to the hypnotism of Romano-German egocentrism and, having
forgotten their initial intentions, began to borrow everything indiscriminately, setting
themselves the ideal of full communion with European civilization. Peter the Great at
the beginning of his activity wanted to borrow from the "Germans" only their military
and naval equipment, but gradually he became interested in the process of borrowing
and adopted a lot of superfluous, not directly related to the main goal. Nevertheless,
he did not cease to realize that sooner or later Russia, having taken all that it needs
from Europe, should turn its back on Europe and continue to develop its culture
freely, without constant "equalizing with the West." But he died, not having prepared
for himself worthy successors. The whole eighteenth century has passed for Russia in
an unworthy superficial ape of Europe. Toward the end of this century, the minds of
the upper echelons of Russian society were already saturated with Romano-Germanic
prejudices, and the entire nineteenth and early twentieth centuries passed in an effort
to fully Europeanize all aspects of Russian life, and Russia has learned exactly the
tricks of the “jumping evolution” that we spoke about above. Before our eyes, the
same story is ready to be repeated in Japan, which initially wanted to borrow only
military and naval equipment from the Romano-Germans, but gradually in its
imitative desire went much further, so that a significant part of the "educated" society
has now adopted the methods of Romano-German thinking there ; true,
Europeanization in Japan has so far been tempered by a healthy instinct of national
pride and adherence to historical traditions - but who knows how long the Japanese
will hold on to this position[* 4] .

And yet, even if we admit that the solution we have proposed so far has not had
historical precedents, it does not follow from this that the solution itself would be
impossible. The whole point is that so far the true nature of European
cosmopolitanism and other European theories based on egocentric prejudices has not
been disclosed. Unaware of the whole groundlessness of the egocentric psychology of
the Romano-Germans, the intelligentsia of the Europeanized peoples, i.e. that part of
these peoples, which most fully perceives the spiritual culture of the Romano-
Germans, still did not know how to deal with the consequences of this side of
European culture and trustingly followed the Romano-German ideologists, without
feeling the pitfalls in their path. The whole picture must change radically

Thus, the entire center of gravity should be transferred to the field of psychology of
the intelligentsia of the Europeanized peoples. This psychology must be radically
transformed. The intelligentsia of the Europeanized peoples must tear off the blindfold
imposed on them by the Romano-Germans, free themselves from the obsession of
Romano-Germanic psychology. She must understand quite clearly, firmly and
irrevocably:

that she was still deceived;

that European culture is not something absolute, it is not the culture of all mankind,
but only the creation of a limited and definite ethnic or ethnographic group of peoples
having a common history;

that only for this particular group of peoples who created it, European culture is
obligatory;

that it is by no means perfect, not "higher" than any other culture created by another
ethnographic group, for there are no "higher" and "lower" cultures and peoples, but
only cultures and peoples more or less similar to each other;

that, therefore, the assimilation of Romano-Germanic culture by a people who did not
participate in its creation is not an unconditional good and does not have any
unconditional moral strength;

that a complete, organic assimilation of the Romano-Germanic culture (as well as any
foreign culture in general), an assimilation that makes it possible to continue to keep
up in the spirit of the same culture with the peoples who created it, is possible only
with anthropological mixing with Romano-Germans, even only with anthropological
the absorption of the people by the Romans;

that without such anthropological confusion, only a surrogate of the complete

assimilation of culture is possible, in which only the "statics" of the culture are
assimilated, but not its "dynamics", i.e. the people, having acquired the present state
of European culture, are incapable of further developing it and each new change in the
elements of this culture must again borrow from the Romans;

that under such conditions, these people have to completely abandon their
independent cultural creativity, live the reflected light of Europe, turn into a monkey,
constantly imitating the Romans;

that as a result of this, this people will always "lag behind" the Romans, i.e. to
assimilate and reproduce the various stages of their cultural development always with
a certain delay and will, in relation to natural Europeans, be disadvantaged,
subordinate, in material and spiritual dependence on them;

that, therefore, Europeanization is an absolute evil for any non-Romano-Germanic

people;

that this evil can, and therefore, must be fought by all means. All this must be
recognized not externally, but internally; not only to realize, but to feel, experience,
suffer. The truth must appear in all its nakedness, without any embellishment, without
the remnants of that great deception from which it is to be cleansed. The impossibility
of any compromises must be made clear and obvious: struggle, so struggle.

All this implies, as we said above, a complete revolution, a revolution in the

psychology of the intelligentsia of the non-Romano-Germanic peoples. The main
essence of this revolution is the consciousness of the relativity of what before seemed
unconditional: the benefits of European "civilization". This must be carried out with
ruthless radicalism. To do this is difficult, extremely difficult, but at the same time, it
is absolutely necessary .

A revolution in the consciousness of the intelligentsia of non-Romano-Germanic

peoples will inevitably prove fatal for the cause of universal Europeanization. Indeed,
until now, it was this intelligentsia that has been the conductor of Europeanization, it
was she who, having believed in cosmopolitanism and the "blessings of civilization"
and regretting the "backwardness" and "stagnation" of her people, tried to familiarize
this people with European culture, forcibly destroying all the established foundations
for centuries his own, distinctive culture. The intellectuals of the Europeanized
peoples went further in this direction and were engaged in attracting not only their
people, but also their neighbors to European culture. Thus, they were the main agents
of the Romano-Germans. If now they understand and deeply realize that
Europeanization is an absolute evil, and cosmopolitanism is a blatant deception, then
they will cease to help the Romano-Germans and the triumphal march of
“civilization” should stop: some Romano-Germans alone, without the support of the
already Europeanized peoples, will not be able to continue the work of spiritual
enslavement of all the peoples of the world. Indeed, having realized their mistake, the
intellectuals of the already Europeanized peoples will not only stop helping the
Romans, but will also try to stop them, opening their eyes to other nations about the
true essence of the “benefits of civilization”.

In this great and difficult work to free the peoples of the world from hypnosis of the
“benefits of civilization” and spiritual slavery, the intelligentsia of all non-Romano-
Germanic peoples who have already entered, or intend to embark on the path of
Europeanization, must act in concert and at the same time. Never for a moment should
you lose sight of the very essence of the problem. No need to be distracted by private
nationalism or such private decisions as pan-Slavism and all sorts of other
"panisms." These particulars only obscure the essence of the matter. It must always be
firmly remembered that the opposition of the Slavs to the Germans or the Turanians to
the Aryans does not provide a true solution to the problem, and that there is only one
true opposition: the Romano-Germans and all other peoples of the world, Europe and
Mankind .

Notes by Sergei Oboguev

[* 1] This conclusion is once again illustrated by the journalism of the period of
"perestroika" (1986-1991), when the Russian intelligentsia discovered America for
themselves. In articles describing the impressions of travelers, one could often read
that “Americans are like children,” although Americans are certainly not any
children. And vice versa, from this denationalized ethnomarginal stratum, judging
from a foreign point of view, one could later hear statements about “Russian
infantilism”, although Russians are no more Infant than “American children”.

[* 2] Wed modern terminology: advanced and backward nations.

[* 3]To date, a large number of studies have been performed in the interdisciplinary
field of psychology and genetics. The classic direction of the first such studies is a
comparative study of single-zygotic and heterozygous twins, who were separated and
adopted at an early age and brought up in different families, often without even
knowing each other. As it turns out, monozygotic twins have, on average, greater
psychological similarity among themselves, in the aggregate of psychic traits, than
with their half-brothers and sisters, with whom they were brought up. A review of one
of the most recent recent extensive studies in this area sums up with these words:
"With various measurements of various traits and abilities, we firmly establish that the
[adopted] single-zygotic twins brought up separately [in different families] and often
not knowing about each other, show approximately the same similarities as the
monozygotic twins brought up together, "the similarity being greater than between
different zygotic twins and significantly greater than between brought up together by
brothers and sisters (T. Bouchard et al., "Sources of human psychological differences"
// Science, 250 (1990)). In other words, to determine many key traits of a person’s
character, the genetic factor is no less (and even more) more important than
parenting. popular example is the measurement of the genetic component in the IQ, is
approximately 70% of these and other studies have shown a significant impact on the
genetic composition of the human psychic phenotype:.. his ability, his personality
traits, temperament, social relations and behavior in general; and that the newborn
infant is not tabula rasa, on which any cultural writing can be drawn with equal
success; their conclusions, in general, are not ambiguous and generally accepted: see
the review in at least any modern dictionary of psychology (for example, in ed. R.
Corsini, "Encyclopedia of Psychology", NY, 1984, articles "behavioral genetics" and
"heritability"; or in ed. R. Harre, "The Dictionary of Personality and Social
Psychology", Oxford, 1986, articles "genetics, evolution and behavior", "traits" and
"tween studies"; also section GN365.9 according to the LoC classifier; of recent
works worthy of attention, one can point to the monograph Anthony Walsh,
"Biosociology: An Emerging Paradigm", Westport-London, 1995, concluding a
review of part of the topic and containing a solid bibliographic apparatus). In this
context, it seems completely nonrandom and not surprising that communist ideology
and philosophy supported Lysenko’s theory in the struggle of the latter with the views
of Weizman-Morganists: covering history, it can be noted that the most reactionary
and inhuman regimes and social systems were based on the idea of the limitless
plasticity of human nature .

[* 4] As time has shown, the Japanese generally successfully resist the gap, so that
probably contributed considerably thicker than in Russia, a layer of the national elite
and relatively used tothe greater remoteness of Japanese culture from the Romano-
Germanic (and, therefore, the lesser temptation to become a "real European"). Japan
has largely succeeded in preserving the structures of traditional society, and its socio-
political structure (if you look at reality and not at the decorative facade, which exists
primarily for external consumption) differs sharply from the structure of the Romano-
German countries. Suffice it to say, as an example, that Japan is not a democratic
country, in any meaningful sense of the term: thus, elected bodies (including
parliament) have an extremely limited, decorative role in Japan; and in the minds of
the Japanese, the act of electing a representative by voting does not delegate
significant legitimate powers to him; the real management of the state and the
economy is carried out by a closed bureaucracy, with their own, national selection
mechanisms, and relying on the structures of traditional Shinto society (see eg E.
Fingleton, "Japan's Invisible Leviathan", Foreign Affairs, March / April 1995 and
discussion in the next issue; or Iwao Hoshii, "Japan's pseudo-democracy" , Folkstone,
1993). All serious studies of the "Japanese economic miracle" emphasize the
important role that Shinto tradition and traditional society played in Japanese
successes. In general, we can say that when borrowing technology and other elements
of Western culture, the Japanese subjected them to purification from Western
metaphysics and value categories, passing through the value filter of their own
culture. which Shinto tradition and traditional society played in Japanese successes. In
general, we can say that when borrowing technology and other elements of Western
culture, the Japanese subjected them to purification from Western metaphysics and
value categories, passing through the value filter of their own culture. which Shinto
tradition and traditional society played in Japanese successes. In general, we can say
that when borrowing technology and other elements of Western culture, the Japanese
subjected them to purification from Western metaphysics and value categories,
passing through the value filter of their own culture.