Source: Jacob Fraden
Many years ago, I happened to read the book Russia in 1839 by the French traveler and literary man Marquis de Custine, and there I found some interesting judgments about the Russian people:
“The Russian people are a nation of mutes. Everything is there, the only thing missing is freedom. That is, a life.”
“Everyone there is too miserable to complain.”
“To live in Russia, it’s not enough to hide your thoughts. You have to pretend.”
“The Russians have a slave mentality, but not without an arrogance.”
“The government in Russia lives only by lies, for both tyrant and slave fear the truth.”
“Human life has no value there.”
“Russia is a country of facades.”
“The Russian people should have been completely destroyed and then created anew.”
The main idea here is that compared to the Western countries, the quality of the Russian people has always been quite low. This quality has its deep roots in history, back to the 13th century, in the times of the invasions of the Mongol khan Batyi.
Trending: Big Pharma Set To Control Entire Food Supply
Yet, it was not foreign invaders who enslaved the Russian people and gradually formed its slave mentality, as the wise Marquis pointed out, but the main oppressors were the Russian princes and noblemen who paid tribute to the Mongol Horde, and who treated their own subjects as ruthless occupiers.
By way of contrast, back in 1215 the Magna Carta was adopted in England, granting liberty and protection from the Crown, while in Russia serfdom was abolished only 650 years later! Emancipation was greeted by the lower strata of society without much enthusiasm and was even accompanied by peasant revolts. Over the centuries, the slave mentality became so ingrained in the flesh and blood of the Russian people that the former serfs did not want freedom — they preferred to continue living in the yoke.
Today, 160 years after the freedom granted from above (then taken away again by the Bolsheviks), the quality of the Russian people remains hopelessly low and continues to decline. The army always reflects the character of its country, and so the war with Ukraine has brought Russia’s true face to the world through its army, which turned out to be a horrible horde of murderers, rapists, and marauders.
The appallingly low moral level of the majority of the Russian population seems at first glance to be at odds with what we know of the great Russian culture, especially that created over the last 200 years. How can we reconcile the shameful behavior of a large part of the population with the highest level of what Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Shostakovich, and many other great Russians gave to the world?
Why did the superb Russian culture pass by the people, not ennoble it, not improve its character? Why did all its great achievements have almost no effect on the Russian mentality?
It is appropriate here to also remember Germany 80-90 years ago — how at the time of Nazism the people of the grand German culture descended into a medieval barbarism.
Auschwitz extermination camp
Why is there such a gap between the cultural heights and the behavior of people? And what about other countries? Why did the Polish and Ukrainian peoples display in the past such ferocious and violent anti-Semitism? Why were the Lithuanian, Latvian and Belarusian peoples so ruthless toward Jews during the war? How can we explain the immoral behavior in World War II of the French, a nation of great scientists and artists? How is it that the Spanish, the people of Cervantes and Velázquez, were so cruel to the American Indians? How could the Turks have committed genocide in Armenia in 1915? Why did the Japanese, a nation of sophisticated culture, exterminate six million civilians during their occupation of China?
Looking back at the histories of different nations, one must conclude that culture has never been an antidote to evil. Every nation, even one that has created a great culture, under certain unfavorable conditions can turn into the devil and will be capable of incredible cruelties.
The moral difference between nations is in the degree of quality of people, that is, in the ratio of decent people to trash. One nation has less trash, another has more, but no one is without sin. After many years of living in America, I have concluded that even among the kind and compassionate American people there is plenty of trash. For example, Americans are natural snitches; they are happy to snitch and inform on other people. Therefore, under very unfavorable conditions, e.g. if fascism would arise in the U.S., it would lead to very unfortunate results.
Fortunately, I must point out, fascism in the classical sense is impossible in the USA since there must be a strong element of Nazism (the idea of the superiority of one nation or race over all others). However, in America, which is made up of a large number of ethnic groups, any kind of Nazism is simply out of the question — nowadays there is not a single dominant race here.
But back to our topic. In a human soul there are always dark and bright sides, and under certain external conditions it’s only necessary to set in motion a specific psychological mechanism so that one of these sides comes out. People of low quality have larger dark sides that are manifested more clearly and come out much easier. So from such people one can expect more trouble.
The Three-Layered Pie
In light of today’s events, many people ask questions about the influence of culture on the quality of the people, but no one can find an answer. I think this problem has no solution for the reason that people and their cultural overlayer don’t mix in any way, but like water and oil coexist separately, affecting each other only to a small extent. To clarify why culture does not influence the masses, the population of any country can be represented as a three-layer pie: at the bottom there is the uncultured plebs with low intelligence and primitive needs — a kind of amorphous mass, which according to the ancient Roman definition for a happy life needs only bread and circuses. It is this stratum that is capable of committing the worst crimes and because of its low intelligence is easily influenced and controlled by propaganda. The lower stratum is the most numerous and makes up from 40 to 90% of the population in different countries. It seems to me that in Russia the bottom layer of plebs is quite large: somewhere around 65-70%.
On the other hand, at the very top of the “pie” there is not even a layer, but rather a thin shining film of the creative intelligentsia — artists, scientists, writers and poets. This group is the country’s intellectual elite. Even in the best countries of the world, the share of а cultural layer-film probably is no larger than 1-2% of the population.
Between the lower and upper layers is what I call the “moral” layer, which consists of people capable of independent thinking and thus less influenced by propaganda. A small portion of this layer includes “consumers of culture,” of which, by the way, there are quite a few in any country. It seems to me that of the 145-million of the contemporary Russians there is hardly a million of people who have read Chekhov or Tolstoy or who know who Shostakovich or Ravel are. Nevertheless, all people of this stratum are strongly influenced by cultural heritage and therefore have higher moral standards. The thickness of the moral layer varies from 10 to 50% in different countries, and it is this layer that determines the quality of people. The more massive the moral layer, the higher the quality.
According to my estimates, in Russia this layer is somewhere around 25% of the population. If you use my estimates and apply the formula for the quality of people (a ratio of the moral stratum to the lower stratum of plebs), the coefficient of quality of the Russian people will be quite small — about 0.37. I present the reader with an opportunity to estimate itself the coefficient of quality of other nations.
All three layers do not mix and exist as if independent of each other, although sometimes individuals can migrate up and down along this “pie,” from one layer to another and even exist simultaneously in two layers. The two upper layers (cultural and moral) are completely unrelated to the lower layer of the plebs. Thus, since there is no mixing of strata, what influence of culture and morality on the lower stratum, that is, on the majority of the population, can we expect? And on the contrary, the slavish amorphous mass of the lower stratum can occasionally have a negative influence on the uppermost cultural stratum.
Cultural Ostracism
In our troubled times, when Russia with incredible cruelty is waging a war in Ukraine, the rejection of everything Russian arose all over the world. Something similar to that happened during the first decade after World War II, when Germans were ostracized and everything German was rejected despite their great cultural heritage. It was a natural reaction to the disgusting behavior of the masses of Germans who were part of the bottom stratum during the Nazi times. So is it any wonder that after the whole world saw how the Russian people (those fighting in Ukraine and those supporting the war) behaved, everything Russian becomes untouchable, like a shameful disease?
Unfortunately, one seldom can see the difference among the three separate layers: the large barbaric mass of the Russian people, the smaller moral layer, and the very thin upper cultural layer. Therefore, without even trying to see the difference, today everything that in any way relates to Russia is rejected en masse. In the Western countries, vigilant zealots of “justice” remove paintings by Russian artists from museums, cancel ballets and concerts by the Russian dancers and musicians, and even cut Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky from their symphony programs. It seems that the rejection of everything Russian will continue for a long time, at least until (and unless) the Russian people embark on a path of sincere public repentance, in which I have little faith — the Russian tradition has always been not to atone, but to look outside for the guilty.
Russian culture has become one of the victims in this shameful war. Creative people are fleeing Russia, and therefore the already thin cultural layer is gradually disappearing, which will inevitably lead to the complete degradation of the country and its disintegration. Without culture, no nation can exist for long.
Oh, please! Enough with this ridiculous anti-Russian crap. The crisis in Ukraine is the fault of the United States, not Russia. As usual, everyone in the West starts the narrative in the middle of the story. Everyone seems to forget the CIA-fueled coup in 2013-14 in Kyiv which overthrew the legally representative government and installed a puppet regime. Everyone seems to forget the Ukrainian government outlawing the Russian language and the Ukrainian military murdering 14,000 Russian-speaking Donbas Ukrainian citizens for 8 years. Everyone seems to forget that these provinces have pleaded for Russian help for years including the Odessa province. Are you so lost for new propaganda you need to haul out some French twerp from the 19th century for the purpose of demonizing the Russians. Shame on you!
Gonzolo Lira posted this on Twitter – he is in Ukraine. Your info on what is happening in Ukraine is incorrect – the Russians are not the ones doing the mass slaughtering of the people, it is the Azov battalions.
Quick recap for those who haven’t followed what’s been going on in Ukraine but want to understand: 02/24: The Russians invaded from the south, south-east, east and north, in a lightning campaign. The Russians invaded with 190K troops—against 250K combat troops from Ukraine. 1/
The RF put 30K troops near Kiev—nowhere near enough to capture the city—but enough to pin down some 100K AFU defenders. The RF also launched several axes of attack, with reinforcements on standby (including a famed 40km long tank column), to see where they might be needed. 2/
Crucially—the Russian’s blitz on several axes pre-empted an imminent UKRAINIAN blitzkrieg. ►The AFU had been about to invade the Donbas This was the immediate motivation for Russia’s invasion: To beat them to the punch and scuttle Ukraine’s imminent invasion—which they did 3/
Also, byattacking from the north and south, the Russians disrupted weapons supply chain from NATO. Had the RF only attacked in the east to prevent the AFU invasion of Donbas, there would have been an open corridor for resupply from the West. Threatening Kiev stopped that. 4/
So the main AFU army was left stranded in east Ukraine, with the rest of the Ukr. forces isolated and pinned down—with no easy resupply from the West The RF then went about hitting AFU command/control and resupply links, further isolating and immobilizing Ukrainian forces. 5/
The Russians soon nominally controlled land the size of the UK in Ukraine—but it was a tenuous control. The south of Ukraine was more fully in Russia’s grip. The AFU around Kherson simply scattered. Mariupol became a clear battleground, as did the Donbas proper. 6/
What the Russians initially wanted was to: ►Short-circuit the imminent Donbas invasion—which they did. ►Scare the Zelensky regime into negotiating a political settlement—which they failed to do. 7/
So Zelensky launched a massive PR and propaganda campaign, primarily to motivate AFU forces to fight to the death.
Myths were created (Ghost of Kiev), false flags were carried out (Bucha, Kramatorsk)—and relentless media stories were flogged relentlessly. 8/
The Russians kept negotiating—and trying to NOT destroy Ukraine infrastructure. In fact at first they were even trying to minimize AFU casualties. 9/
The evidence for this is overwhelming: The RF did not hit civilian infrastructure—water, electric, phone, transportation. 10/
They did not hit AFU barracks, command centers, government buildings, etc. The Russians’ initial priority was for a *negotiated settlement*. But by late March, they realized this was impossible. 11/
This is why the RF withdrew from Kiev. There was no sense putting men near the city when they were not doing what they were supposed to—putting political pressure on the Zelensky regime to negotiate. This withdrawal was claimed as a “victory” in the “Battle of Kiev”! lmao 12/
Starting in late March, the Russians pulled back and solidified their control over the area they had captured, ceding to the AFU areas that were either pointless to or potentially too costly to control. The Ukraine propaganda machine called all these pull-backs “victories”. 13/
There was still a glimmer that the war might end in a negotiated settlement—but that ended in early April. After the Istanbul talks of 3/30, the Ukraine side gingerly agreed to some compromises—but within a week publicly disavowed those concessions. 14/
That’s when the Russians realized the Zelensky regime was agreement-incapable:Their Washington masters—Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken in particular—wouldn’t allow a peace. They want this war to sap Russia dry. It is a classic proxy war—and Ukraine will pay the price. 15/
Something else the Russians realized: Sanctions. They hurt—but Russia bounced back with remarkable speed. They didn’t really hurt that bad. But the theft of Russia’s $300 billion in foreign reserves by the West DID hurt—badly. 16/
The Russians realized they were in a total war with the West—and since their foreign reserves were lost forever (likely to be pilfered by corrupt Western politicos), the Russians now have nothing left to lose.By stealing their reserves, the West lost all power over Russia. 17/
This has sealed Ukraine’s fate: The Russians now have no incentive to give up what they have conquered. It has cost them too much—in terms of men and treasure. And they know that they can’t negotiate a ceasefire—the Zelensky regime will simply break it later. Which means— 18/
The Russians intend to conquer and permanently annex all the south and east of Ukraine. This is why their strategy on the battlefield has dramatically shifted: Now they are carrying out a slow, methodical grinding down and destruction of the AFU. 19/
The war in the first 30 days was speed—feints—nominally capturing vast swathes of Ukraine territory, with the aim of pressuring the Zelensky regime into a negotiated settlement. But the West’s total financial and political break with Russia means they have nothing to lose. 20/
And they have a lot to gain: The Donbas is mineral rich, the really productive farmlands of Ukraine are in the east and south, Kharkov is a major industrial city, the Sea of Azov has untold natural gas reserves. And besides—the people love them. 21/
Why would the Russians now give up this hard-won prize?And they *have* won—make no mistake. Ask any military man who is not a system pig, he’ll tell you: There is no way for the AFU to retake their country. They have no armor, no air defense, no fuel, no comms—it’s over. 22/
Thegreat tragedy is that so many THOUSANDS of young men will die—and die NEEDLESSLY!!—in order to postpone the inevitable. These brave boys will have fought so valiantly—and died so young, so cruelly—because of the evil of the Zelensky regime. That’s the hard truth. 23/
And in the end, this will be the map that will remain—a bitter image of Ukraine’s future. Russia will pour billions into their newly acquired territory. It will prosper and flourish. But the rump-state of Ukraine will be left poor, destroyed, forgotten— A tragedy. 24/24