In the theory of L.N. Gumilyov, passionary shocks are understood as some micromutations that cause the appearance of a passionary trait in a population and lead to the emergence of new ethnic systems in certain regions. A passionary trait, in turn, is understood as a recessive genetic trait (disappearing in generations), which causes increased absorption (absorption) by an individual of biochemical energy from the external environment and the release of this energy in the form of work, where biochemical energy is not clearly defined: it is just a certain "free energy" absorbed by organisms from the environment.

The above definitions are extremely unfortunate and, accordingly, are not clear either in individual details, or even in their general sense. However, before criticizing them, it should be noted that we will not discuss the very concept of passionarity, which is quite viable and even necessary in the theory of ethnogenesis, as we will see below, but only the idea of ​​the origin of passionarity from passionary impulses. And this is fundamental.

Everyone knows, even a child, that a person, like other living beings on the planet, receives energy for his life activity from the external environment with the food he absorbs, the process of splitting and assimilation of which can, of course, be called biochemical - why not? Does this mean that a passionary sign determines changes in the human digestive system? No, Gumilyov is obviously talking about the nervous system. Passionarity is understood as the mental energy of a person, in particular, the will to act, but this energy, according to I.P. Pavlov, depends on the type of human nervous system, on typical reactions to irritation. On dogs, Pavlov singled out four types of the nervous system according to their ability to be irritated and inhibited, and, like Gumilyov, he also noticed a strong and weak type, the strength and weakness of which also manifests itself in a higher nervous reaction to one or another influence coming from the external environment. Do dogs also have a passionate genetic trait? Do other animals have a passionary genetic trait, which also unite in groups for survival? An ethnos is a survival group in a population, and these human groups are by no means unique in living nature. But if an unconditioned reflex is enough for animals to unite in survival groups, as we can confidently believe, then why should we consider something fundamentally different in humans? Why is it precisely a passionary sign or something connected with it that determines the existence of survival groups in nature, including ethnic groups?

If we assume, following Gumilyov, that the existence of each ethnic group is associated precisely with a passionate genetic trait, then the descriptions he describes become completely unclear. passionary pushes in Eurasia, passing along geographical axes that do not concern the vast majority of the peoples of Eurasia in the historical period.

The explanations to the figure list the peoples generated by the corresponding passionary impulse. In total, several dozen peoples are listed, but there were much more of them ... Does this mean that many peoples existed and exist outside the influence of passionary impulses on them? No, this contradicts Gumilyov's assertions. If, however, we include in the scheme at least all known peoples, at least in modern Europe, which we know well, then we will not get lines at all, but a chaotic set, completely unsystematic.

Also, the axes of shocks themselves are frankly far-fetched, simply fictional. Consider, for example, a well-known part of the mainland:

1. The origin of the Goths in the Scandinavian Peninsula is known only "according to legend", as Jordanes put it in a book about the Goths, and reliable data on this simply do not exist. The area in which the first historical Goths can be counted lies east of the lower reaches of the Dnieper - up to the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov, including the Crimea. But this does not fit into the drawn axis.
2. The geographical origin of the Slavs is also unknown. In Greek sources, they are first mentioned not in the Carpathian region, but in the middle reaches of the Danube. This is also a significant deviation from the drawn axis.
3. The Dacians, indeed, lived on the territory of modern Romania.
4. There is no people called Christians and never was, and in the first century there was a Christian community even in the capital city of Rome (the letter of the Apostle Paul to the “Romans” has been preserved), i.e. it is impossible to draw an axis through Asia Minor - there are no grounds. The passionate behavior of Christians throughout the empire was stereotyped - with a terrifying number of martyrs, simply breathtaking, impossible in any other religion, and it was everywhere, we repeat, even in the city of Rome. And it is simply impossible to single out here one initial group and locality in order to draw an axis through it.
5. There was no passionary push in Judea, except for a subpassionary one - an armed uprising against the Romans, raised by crazed fanatics and predictably ending in genocide (the Romans were cruel, this is common knowledge even today). The “war with Rome” mentioned by Gumilyov means Jerusalem destroyed to the ground - to the ground in the literal sense, as well as millions of victims and the scattering of the remnants of the people, “wide emigration”. And there was no popular struggle with the Romans - only an uprising of distraught fanatics who fought with the Romans for world power in connection with the expectation of their world king (alas, these are crazy, not passionaries). Jewish fanatics differ from Christian martyrs in that they decided the fate of the entire people, putting them under the Roman knife, while Christians were responsible only for themselves, deciding only their own fate with their choice. From these times, the Jews should be considered a denomination, and not an ethnic group, which was simply destroyed by the Romans - deprived of their usual way of life and way of farming.

Let's consider one more example of contrived axes of pushes, also based on the material known to us:

If there is a passionary impulse that gave birth to Lithuanians, then where is the passionary impulse that gave birth to Latvians, Estonians, Poles, Czechs, and so on? Where did these ethnic groups come from, if they did not have a passionary sign at all? Maybe they got it through the miscegenation mentioned in the excerpt? Is it to be understood that Poles, for example, are mestizos from Lithuanians and Russians? But isn't it too far-fetched?

If there is a passionary push that gave birth to the Great Russians, then where is the passionary push that gave birth to the Little Russians and Belarusians? Where did they come from?

In addition, the birth of our people in the thirteenth century is entirely far-fetched and does not stand up to scrutiny. In the thirteenth century, neither the historical written tradition, nor the processes of formation of the modern Russian language were interrupted in our country, even the oral memory of the people did not disappear. There was absolutely nothing that could be attributed to the birth of a new ethnic group. In fact, the appearance of the Russian people, according to all sources, ours and Greek, should be attributed to the ninth century, but in the ninth century Gumilev did not record a single passionary push ...

Unfortunately, all the aforementioned constructions in Gumilyov's theory are almost completely far-fetched, selective and very unsteady. This material does not convince of the existence of drive shocks - on the contrary, it clearly shows that there were no drive shocks in reality and could not be.

In the considered list of Gumilyov, not all peoples are listed, but only those that have influenced world history, i.e., probably had an increased passionarity. There are two problems here. Firstly, as already mentioned, the above list does not at all concern the origin of the passionarity of peoples who are not included in the list, even if it is lowered, and secondly, if this list is abandoned due to its obvious far-fetchedness in terms of the geographical and temporal localization of passionary impulses, then the question remains: biologically people are the same, yes, but why are peoples different? And after all, peoples are not just different: some create the greatest culture, while others do not even leave their name in history. What is the matter here? Is it possible in a consistent theory of ethnogenesis to abandon the theoretical value that determines the monstrous difference between peoples? No, it should definitely be included.

Of course, one can compare peoples with individuals who, while biologically equal, differ from each other in their mental, emotional and physical qualities: some reach the heights of their work and leave a memory for generations and centuries, while others only reluctantly support a miserable existence. But here we again run into passionarity or a similar value that determines the development of both the individual and the ethnic group, although here we can limit ourselves to ideas about the type of nervous system ...

If, however, the passionarity of not a person, but an ethnic group is assumed to be just a function of the type of human nervous system, if passionarity is just a random combination of reactions to irritation and inhibition, then the shares of passionarity in different ethnic groups should not differ significantly from each other - like heaven and earth ( unless, of course, there is no external influence on individual ethnic groups), but it is precisely this difference that we observe in individual cases. Therefore, we have returned to Gumilyov's idea of ​​external influence, which, however, can hardly be accepted from any point of view - even a sincere pilgrim. The latter is obvious: if God has already decided to correct people, then why shouldn't he immediately make them ideal, similar to himself? Why and who needs these intermediate states, often, moreover, pathological? The previous history of man was quite enough to make man like God even in the course of evolution.

In connection with the above, it would be logical to assume the opposite meaning, if the direct one does not give the desired meaning: passionarity is not a positive quality of people, but a negative one - associated with the pathogenic influence of the environment on the ancestor ethnos or its group and, of course, the subsequent struggle of the members of the newborn ethnos for survival. If the pathogenic influence of the environment does not lead in this case to a frank pathology of the members of the new ethnos, then the expansion of the new ethnos occurs at birth, associated with its increased hereditary aggressiveness - a quality that is by no means normal. In fact, these conditions are met if an ethnos is born from representatives of other ethnic groups destroyed by aggression, or from a denationalized mass of people who fled from aggression to other lands ... Of course, the type of nervous system that dominates in the new ethnic group is also important, i.e. . the conditions of selection into the original group, whether natural or not, are all the same.

The proposed method resolves all contradictions: passionarity is a natural, but regular process, determined by the interaction of ethnic groups among themselves. Yes, here we can, of course, talk about the formation of an aggressive stereotype of behavior at the birth of an ethnic group, inherited by its first members and reproduced in generations through signal heredity (conditioned reflexes). The extinction of passionarity and the ethnos itself is a consequence of the usual degradation.

There are many examples of this aggressive ethnogenesis - Americans, Goths, Huns, Avars and Western European peoples born on the basis of the so-called. great migration of peoples. Naturally, in each case, increased aggressiveness (passionarity) arose as a hereditary property, and this aggressiveness is different in modulus; Of course, the reaction of these ethnic groups to the pathogenic influence of the environment was also different, i.e. dominant type of the nervous system. These two values, hereditary aggressiveness and hereditary reaction to the pathogenic influence of the environment, completely determine ethnogenesis - the birth, development and death of an ethnos. Of course, again, under the influence of the environment, these qualities can be weakened or strengthened, other qualities appear, including degenerative ones ...

Americans, for example, have a very high aggressiveness, which is explained by the process of their formation from a runaway European rabble, already approximately aggressive and seized, moreover, by a thirst for profit. This European rabble has formed the current aggressive stereotype of American behavior, passed down through generations by signal heredity, and also, probably, the dominant type of nervous system, passed down through generations by ordinary heredity. Of course, now the processes of degenerative decomposition of the American ethnos are already making themselves felt. Such a rapid decomposition after birth is associated with the dominant weak type of the nervous system, susceptibility to the pathogenic influence of the environment, because only people with a weak type of nervous system, susceptible to influences, flee their countries ... In a word, the ethnogenesis of Americans is completely natural and, most importantly, understandable, understandable from the given point of view. For an example of the pathogenic influence of the environment on Americans, see Art. "Laws of History".

By the way, using the example of the Americans, who will soon complete their journey (they are simply terribly degraded), we see that the lifespan of an ethnic group does not depend at all on its passionarity (among Americans it is high), as Gumilev claims, but on the dominant type of nervous system - especially if there was an artificial selection into the original ethnic group, like the Americans who grew up on the negative selection from Europe. In other words, it is not aggressiveness that preserves the ethnos, but, on the contrary, a healthy mental reaction to the pathogenic influence of the environment.

The advantage of the proposed natural approach to the beginnings of ethnogenesis against Gumilyov's approach is that Gumilyov actually came to the idea of ​​a selective impact on peoples from somewhere in the cosmic depths, a reasonable impact, because otherwise the correct nature of the axes of shocks, shown in the figure above, is impossible, but this contradicts reality. New peoples, in an obvious way in world history, arise not in places of passionary shocks, but in places of residence of weakened ethnic groups that have been exposed to other ethnic groups ... An example of this is even two continents, North America and South, where new peoples arose literally before the eyes of historians and exclusively under aggressive external influence.

It is also curious that the proposed approach allows us to establish the starting point for the interaction of ethnic groups in the world. Philosophically, this is described in the Old Testament: Cain killed Abel, showing aggressiveness, and a kind of “expulsion from paradise” began again ... Does this mean that everything should end with an apocalypse?

Great Russian superethnos

The generally accepted interpretation of the formation of the Russian people says that the line of historical continuity goes from ancient Russia, through Kievan and Moscow Russia to modern Russia. In fact, we can only talk about partial genetic and cultural continuity. Occurred in the 1st century AD. the passionary impetus that caused the expansion of the Slavic tribes, settled over a vast territory, gave life to the Old Russian ethnos. During the time of Kievan Rus, this ethnic group was already in the inertial stage (the phase of civilization). The invasion of the Mongols occurred at a time when ancient Russia had already exhausted its passionary potential (obscuration phase) and, accordingly, could not offer any serious resistance. Thus, her death was inevitable and it is not worth assigning the role of evil fate to Batu. If it were not for him, there would be others who want to finish off the dying ethnic group. The passionary impetus that marked the beginning of the Great Russian superethnos occurred in the 13th century AD, which led to the appearance on the arena of history of a virtually new people who created completely original behavioral dominants. Let's try to understand the reasons for the appearance of these original ethnic stereotypes and their subsequent influence on the course of Russian history. According to the calculations of the Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, the Great Russian ethnos during its formation for 234 years (1228-1462) endured 160 external wars. “The Muscovite state,” Klyuchevsky writes, “was born in the 14th century under the yoke of an external yoke, was built and expanded in the 15th-16th centuries amidst a stubborn struggle for existence in the west, south and southeast ... It took shape slowly and hard. We now we can hardly understand and even less can we feel what sacrifices its warehouse cost the people's welfare, how it crushed private existence. Three of its main features can be noted. This is, firstly, the military system of the state. on two fronts... The second feature was the draft, non-legal nature of the internal administration and social composition with sharply isolated estates... The estates differed not in rights, but in the duties distributed between them. Everyone was obliged either to defend the state, or to work for the state, that is, to feed those who defend it.There were commanders, soldiers and workers, there were no citizens, i.e. a citizen turned into a soldier and a worker in order to under the leadership of the commander to defend the fatherland or work for it. The third feature of the Moscow state order was the supreme power with an indefinite, i.e. unlimited scope..."

It should be understood that sacrifice and self-denial are generally inherent in ethnic groups that are in the phase of a passionate upsurge. The difference lies only in the degree of historical demand for this sacrifice. The Romano-Germanic (European) super-ethnos went through a phase of growth in relatively hothouse conditions. The favorable geographical position on the peninsula of Europe, located at a sufficient distance from the zones of the then passionary shocks, made it possible to avoid significant external pressure. Russia was in a fundamentally different situation. By the will of fate, placed at a busy world crossroads, it was constantly subjected to ultra-high pressure from outside. But it was a rather sparsely populated country. If by 1500 Italy and Germany each had 11 million people, then in Russia in 1678 there were only 5.6 million inhabitants. So much for the "Asian hordes" of Russians! Centuries-old existence in the permanent mode of a "besieged fortress" has formed completely original ethnic stereotypes.

The primacy of the interests of society over the rights and freedoms of the individual.

European passionaries could, without interference, engage in internal disassembly (albeit quite cruel) for their own pleasure. This did not threaten the very existence of the ethnos. In Russia, any significant weakening of the central government inevitably led to the fact that through the gaps that arose in the external defense system, nomads broke through and a bloody massacre began. Ethnic stereotypes among the nomads, which arose as a result of constant fights for pastures, demanded the complete (so that there would be no avenger) destruction of the defeated people. This situation required the creation of a rigid system of state power, which for many centuries was consciously and firmly supported by the broad sections of the country's population.

Absence of a complex of the people - mister.

The historian F. Nesterov wrote: “The Muscovite kingdom was not a legal state, demanding military service and taxes from its subjects, but not representing them in return for rights. But where there were no rights, there could be no inequality in rights. could look down on the new non-Russian subjects, in the conditions of the incessant struggle on two or three fronts, anyone getting into the ranks or harnessing to the common tax quickly became a comrade. the role of cement, connecting various ethnic components into a political community. The mosaic Russian Empire possessed the firmness of a monolith in the face of external threats."

After the capture of Central Asia by Russia, Marquis Curzon (the future viceroy of India, minister, lord) traveled through its new possessions. He left the following reasoning: “The conquest of Central Asia is the conquest of the eastern peoples by the eastern people of the same tribe with it. This is an alloy of hard metal with a weak one, and not the displacement of an ignoble element with a purer one. campaign of the nineteenth century with its moral methods... This barbarian Asia, after some stay in Europe (meaning, of course, Russia), returns in its own footsteps to its relatives. The historian F. Nesterov, not without malice, commented on this as follows: “In these words, the whole Curzon, a racist and Russophobe. pure", and we prefer to call it albeit less beautifully, but more accurately - genocide, really served as a characteristic sign of the colonial expansion of the West as a whole. In any case, the policy of "forcing out" the natives from their native lands was carried out wherever the foot of a European stepped. In this case, the "noble" European element either succeeded in this "civilizing mission", or had to be thrown out by the "ignoble native environment". There was no third thing: no "alloys". It was, of course, clear to the future Viceroy of India that "to oust "its indigenous population, numbering in the tens of millions, with all the efforts of the British colonial administration, will still fail, that the further development of events there will go, no matter how orko admit, according to the second option. Hence the heartbreak. Now, if Russia had forced the Turkic "element" out of the fertile oases into the sands of the Karakum and Kyzylkum deserts, replacing it with Russian settlers, then it would have been accepted into the family of European peoples, and its "feat" would have been recognized as a "crusade of the nineteenth century with its moral methods." But this is exactly what was not done! That is why it was called "barbarian Asia", which also needs to be ousted from Europe, and if possible, then from the white world with some purer, without any "admixture" Aryan element.

It causes laughter when the West, whose positive experience in resolving ethnic conflicts is zero, begins to reconcile someone, whether in Bosnia or in Palestine. The scenario of such "reconciliation" is always the same: one of the parties is chosen (cooperation with which promises great benefits) and it is supported, the resistance of the opposing side is suppressed with all possible cruelty. The vanquished, harboring malice and hatred, are waiting for an opportunity (sometimes for centuries) to settle accounts with both the victors and the "conciliators".

F. Nesterov wrote: "In 1690, the British, led by William of Orange, defeated the Irish Catholics, and since then every year on the day of the battle they march in close-knit columns through the streets of Northern Irish cities, demonstrating their strength, the will to dominate, throwing their jubilation and contempt in the face of the sons, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren of the vanquished." Is it any wonder that the hatred of the vanquished has survived the centuries. Even more laughable are the attempts of the West to teach Russia, the very existence of which is a confirmation of the existence of fundamentally different methods of pursuing national policy. Lord Curzon wrote: "Russia undeniably has a remarkable gift for winning the loyalty and even friendship of those whom she has repaired by force ... The Russian is fraternizing in the full sense of the word. He is completely free from that deliberate air of superiority and gloomy arrogance, which inflames malice to a greater extent, than cruelty itself.He does not shy away from social and familial intercourse with alien and inferior races.His unconquerable nonchalance makes it easy for him to keep a low profile in the affairs of others;and the tolerance with which he regards the religious rites, social customs, and local prejudices of his Asiatic brethren. less the result of diplomatic calculation than the fruit of innate carelessness. A remarkable feature of the Russification being carried out in Central Asia is the use that the conqueror finds for his former opponents on the battlefield. I recall the ceremony of welcoming the king in Baku, which was attended by four khan from Merv... in a Russian military uniform. only an accidental illustration of Russia's consistently pursued line, which itself is only an offshoot of the theory of "hugs and kisses after a good beating of General Skobelev." The khans were sent to Petersburg to impress and delight them, and were covered with orders and medals to satisfy their vanity. Upon their return, they were restored to their original places, even expanding the old powers ... The British have never been able to use their recent enemies in this way.

It should be recognized that certain features of Russian national life should not be explained by "an innate craving for despotism", "savagery and backwardness", as they are trying to convince us from television screens. This is simply the result of a different (compared to the West) historical path.

Perhaps these original ethnic stereotypes pose a certain threat to the Romano-Germanic superethnos, which explains its militant Russophobia, but undoubtedly they are a valuable contribution to the development of all mankind as a whole.

Ethnic history of Russia in the XX century.

At the end of the 19th century, the Great Russian superethnos entered the phase of a passionate breakdown. According to Gumilyov, this phase is especially dangerous. On the one hand, there is a sharp decrease in the level of passionarity (especially in the ruling elite), on the other hand, the economic and political power characteristic of the subsequent (inertial) phase has not yet been achieved. The ethnos becomes vulnerable to external influence. Consider some of the factors that had a significant impact on the course of events:

rejection of capitalism.

Even Werner Sombart in his "Etudes on the History of the Spiritual Development of Modern Economic Man" raised the question: how "pre-capitalist man", i.e. "natural man" has become "capitalist". Indeed, in Europe until the XVI-XVIII there was no particular passion for the accumulation of capital. It’s not that people didn’t want to have a lot of money, on the contrary, they spent a lot of energy on their extraction. It's about how they spend it. Gumilyov wrote: “The seigneur, constantly risking his life, receives a lot of money and immediately squanders it on magnificent hunts, feasts and beautiful ladies. There is no need to save money - they will still be killed in the next war, and if not in this one, then in the next ... The peasant has as much land as he needs to feed himself and his family. The craftsman has the good sense not to work more than is necessary to earn a merry living. Such people, if they saw Rockefeller, would consider him mad." The accumulation of capital ("despicable usury" was the lot of the Jews, and later the Lombards (Italy was somewhat ahead of the development phase of other European sub-ethnoi). If you read the novel "Three Musketeers", you can compare the attitude towards money of the Musketeers themselves and Cardinal Richelieu, with one on the other hand, and Cardinal Mazarin (Italian again!), on the other.It must be admitted that capitalism was brought to life by the superimposition of two historical factors: the entry of the Romano-Germanic superethnos into an inertial phase (biological history) and the general level of development of mankind (the history of the creations of human hands In the earlier stages of human development, the morbid passion for the accumulation of material goods (generally characteristic of the inertial phase) did not pass into capitalist relations, but was expressed in primitive usury and the creation of treasures (for example, in Persia, on the eve of the invasion of the troops of Alexander the Great). In Russia, where the stereotypes of behavior characteristic of r In the early phases of ethnic development, the introduction of capitalist relations (from above) met with an extreme degree of misunderstanding and rejection among the people. It is interesting that the borrowing of the achievements of science and technical innovations did not meet with such rejection. The imposed game according to alien rules put the representatives of the Great Russian superethnos in a deliberately disadvantageous position. Only foreigners living in Russia and representatives of some isolated sub-ethnic groups (for example, Old Believers, Jews ..) achieved real success in this game. Russia (like Ottoman Turkey shortly before) found itself entangled in debt obligations to Europe and largely lost its political independence. The main part of the country's population looked at these processes with increasing irritation.

Marxism.

Let's try to figure out why communist ideas found their real embodiment in Russia, because this country was clearly not the leader of capitalist development. There is evidence that Marx considered his theories not at all in their direct sense, but simply as a scenario for a global provocation, a bomb under the existing world order. But this bomb worked only in Russia (high power) and Germany (low power). It must be said that Germany lagged somewhat behind the rest of continental Europe in the phase of ethnic development. It lagged behind in the creation of a single national state, late to the colonial division of the world, but retained a correspondingly higher level of passionarity (which explains its increased activity in the 19th-20th centuries). The messianic ideas of building a "bright future" found a lot of followers in this (passionate) country. The German social democratic movement was very powerful. But the real socialist revolution in Germany bogged down at the very beginning. There were two main reasons for this. The level of drive (albeit quite high by the standards of Europe) was not enough to break the existing system. Another reason for the defeat of the revolution was that the ideas of internationalism turned out to be completely alien to the Germans, as well as to other Western European ethnic groups. The German Social Democrats (internationalists in theory) consistently opposed the inclusion of foreign workers in their (German) trade unions, actively supported the Kaiser in striving for a colonial redistribution of the world, and later brought Hitler to power, with his ideas of national socialism. Russia was much less fortunate. Here the ideas of internationalism fell on fertile ground, for they fully corresponded to the basic ethnic stereotypes. The level of passionarity was high enough to accept and implement messianic ideas. The principles of social equality with the motto "from each according to his ability - to each according to his work" were easily combined with the familiar concept of "Tsar's tax and service." Collective labor also could not meet with special opposition, because it already really existed in the daily life of rural communities and workers' artels. Therefore, one should not be surprised that the first successful socialist revolution took place precisely in Russia.

Fifth column.

Lev Gumilyov wrote that in the phase of a passionary breakdown, there are often cases when a large anti-systemic community with a high level of passionarity seizes the initiative and begins to solve its own problems at the expense of the carrier ethnos. The so-called. "ethnic chimera". There was such a community in Russia. We are talking, of course, about the Jews. It should be noted that Jews generally fall out of the general course of world ethnic history. This archaic people should have wasted their energy and gone into oblivion long ago, but nevertheless continues to live and be healthy, maintaining a consistently high level of passionarity. The secret is simple: the Jews so wanted to live until the arrival of the desired Messiah, who did not come and did not come, that they had to develop a mechanism for artificially maintaining the level of passionarity. A kind of genetic know-how. Among the Jews, the genetic relationship is traditionally counted down the female line. At the direction of the rabbis, Jewish women married pronounced passionaries (usually those in power). Their children brought new passionate genes to the Jews. Thus, the mechanism of "eternal ethnic life" was found. But what's the price? The Church would say that this people rebelled against God, God punished them, taking away the ability to love and bring good to the world. Geneticists say that passionarity is associated with bionegativity and long-term (for millennia) incorporation of passionary genes has led to a record accumulation of a negative gene pool. But this is a theory. The fact remains that there were many Jews in Tsarist Russia, and the situation, when the area of ​​activity and residence was strictly limited by the Pale of Settlement, did not suit them too much. Now, few people deny the fact that in the parties of the Bolsheviks (RSDLP (b)) and the Left Social Revolutionaries (Social Revolutionaries), Jews and Jewish half-breeds made up the vast majority of members.

Revolution.

The sharp rejection of capitalist values ​​by the people and the protracted bloody war for who knows whose interests (actually French banks) seriously shook the foundations of the Russian Empire. The irritation accumulated among the people was looking for an outlet. The transfer of power into the hands of the pro-Western (comprador) bourgeoisie (February Revolution) only increased this irritation. All initiatives and slogans of the Provisional Government (naturally pro-Western and pro-capitalist) were rejected by society and the army. An acute shortage of passionate energy in the strongly miscegenated ruling elite, unable to offer a reasonable alternative, combined with a fairly high level of passionarity of the people themselves, played a cruel joke on the Great Russian superethnos. In a situation of general confusion and vacillation, a vacuum of power arose in the center. The only cohesive and sufficiently passionate force in Russia turned out to be the Jewish community, armed with the ideas of Marx, which, at a whim of fate, so corresponded to the basic ethnic stereotypes of the Great Russians. Moreover, the Russian people took these ideas literally, and the Jewish community used them to solve their own problems and aspirations. It is no secret that Lenin's first government was almost 100% Jewish. It is not surprising that the received power was immediately used to physically eliminate the economic, political and cultural elite of Russia, as well as some of its especially passionate sub-ethnoi (for example, the Cossacks). It was necessary to consolidate their dominance and cut off possible competitors. The opposition that had begun (the white movement) choked, because it was stupid to seek direct support from the Entente, thereby contradicting one of the basic stereotypes, according to which any internal turmoil is obviously better than a foreign invasion. The Great Russian superethnos has actually turned into an "ethnic chimera".

Between two wars.

Having gained a foothold in power, the new (now Jewish) elite of Russia is trying to fulfill the long-standing aspirations of the Jews for world domination. But the proletarian revolutions in Europe fail successfully, and the attempt to break through by force ends in a shameful fiasco back in Poland.

Fortunately, the Jewish community soon loses its former cohesion and homogeneity, and several groups claiming power appear. The sting intensifies. Stalin decides to bet on the Russians. All sorts of "old Bolsheviks", "Leninists" and other "permanent revolutionaries" fall into the meat grinder they themselves created. The outbreak of the Great Patriotic War accelerates this process. Bans on Russian history, the Orthodox Church, etc. are lifted. An interesting situation is created: the dogmas of Marxism continue to operate, but already as an element of purely Russian history, because the Jewish community, which has significantly thinned during the Stalinist purges, is losing its former influence.

Second half of the twentieth century.

Massive heroism during the war, a completely unique transfer of industry to the east, the post-war restoration of the national economy made it clear that the Great Russian superethnos (despite huge losses in the gene pool) has by no means lost its passionarity and viability. The new generation of the political, military, scientific, technical and administrative elite was already predominantly Russian, which ensured high rates of economic development, a breakthrough into space, nuclear parity, the construction of a world socialist system, etc. n. "humanitarian bloc" (art, mass media...), but its activities were severely limited by tight control by the administrative authorities. The extremely high efficiency of the planned economy (where the West is!), the continuous chain of successes, create the illusion of the imminent onset of a "bright future", Nikita Khrushchev sets the exact time frame for building communism in the USSR. But it turned out that Marxism-Leninism had not yet exhausted its unpleasant surprises. One of his basic dogmas says: "All people are born good and only the wrong social conditions can spoil them." If these conditions are created, then they will not be people, but angels. Recall the persecution of genetics. This is not a coincidence at all. This science made it clear that all people are born different, and some are even born bad and no amount of education, raising the standard of living and culture can fix them. The underestimation of this "trifle" quickly put an end to all successes. The passionate elite, created in the extreme conditions of the war and post-war construction, gradually left the historical stage. With fatal inevitability, subpassionaries began to come to power, for whom all sorts of ideas are an empty phrase. The pace of economic development slowed down significantly, communist slogans began to turn into spells. The Jewish community (also a new generation, which owes its revival to the famous - "children are not responsible for their fathers", forgetting about their former passion for communism and dictatorship, suddenly became an ardent supporter of capitalism and universal values. At first, gradually, then more and more openly, she began to introduce into public consciousness destructive subpassionate attitudes.The West did not stand aside, having successfully applied the latest developments in the ideological war.The hierarchical vertical of power, which worked perfectly in the most difficult times, in the conditions of a protracted peace began to give obvious failures. The overweight officials, spared from purges, rotation of personnel and other delights of Stalin's times, clearly began to be burdened by the situation when Big Power could not be converted into Big Money. The fate of Socialism in the USSR and the entire Soviet Bloc was sealed. The cataclysm that started did not bring much blood, and this is understandable, because it was carried out directly by the ruling elite itself, which managed to make good capital in its course. The unity of the Superethnos was broken, which is also easily explained. The national elites of the former Union Republics were not going to share the loot with Moscow. It is better to build together, and it is more convenient to rob on your own. All the achievements of the Soviet era (advanced science, education, defense capability, social guarantees, etc.) went to waste. Huge public debts and, accordingly, a partial loss of state independence have become a reality. As expected, the Great Russian superethnos itself, as a result of all this turmoil, again did not win anything. About 70% of the former public property went to the Jews (with the support of their fellow Western banks), 20% to Caucasians (by right of brute force), the remaining 10% were divided by other representatives of Great Russia. It must be admitted that the Russian people did not have a "capitalist consciousness" - and still do not. Don't grow up! Nothing changed! If earlier Russian merchants spent their money on chic trotters and gypsies, then modern "new Russians" lower their money on the latest Mercedes models and show business divas. Playing by capitalist rules is still unprofitable for Russia. To expect that the Russians, who have in fact proved their ability to work for the State, will enthusiastically turn their backs on overseas bankers and their local clerks is simply ridiculous. In such a situation, one should not count on rapid economic growth and an increase in labor productivity. This will not happen until a development concept is proposed that is more in line with the basic stereotypes of the Great Russian superethnos and the current phase of ethnic development.

Ethnic perspectives of the Great Russian superethnos

In view of the foregoing, one should even be glad that Russia survived the 20th century without wasting all its energy and without losing its main behavioral dominants. Whatever the figures of the "funeral team" say, the potential of the Great Russian superethnos is still quite high and there are still real chances for a way out of the crisis. Don't give up. As for the future prospects, they largely depend on how soon the Romano-Germanic superethnos (the West) finally enters the inevitable obscurative crisis, the initial symptoms of which are now impossible not to notice. As the West weakens and, accordingly, the possibilities of external pressure decrease, Russia will gradually strengthen. There is, however, a very real danger that the West will try to drag the rest of humanity with it to the grave. In fact, this is a race against time to survive. Let's see, as they say, "who will crucify whom first." In any case, ethnic stereotypes of behavior, both those laid down during the emergence of the Great Russian superethnos, and acquired by it at the cost of huge sacrifices in the 20th century, are of great value. Their conscious use (after a serious analysis of all the mistakes and distortions made) can significantly increase the chances of all mankind for survival.

CONSCIENCE. RUSSIAN IDEA. RUSSIAN NATIONAL IDEA IS CONSCIENCE. Conscience must become the foundation of our World.