Translator’s notes

This is currently unfinished, but I want the public to be able to see the sections that I have translated so far.
Europe and Mankind is an interesting essay written by Nikolai Sergeyevich Trubetzkoy (1890–1938), who
happens to be a first cousin thrice removed. He was primarily a linguist, but occasionally wrote on
historical and sociological topics. I am not an expert in the meta-historical domain whatsoever, so I can’t
offer any informed commentary.
I merely stumbled upon this essay and found it extremely relevant to today’s world. However, there
doesn’t appear to be an English translation available. I figured, I might as well translate it, and at the same
time better understand the ideas of Nikolay Sergeyevich and others like him.
This is an interpretive translation. My emphasis is on getting across Nikolai Sergeyevich’s ideas as clearly
as possible in standard modern English, without distorting them. If you are a scholar interested in closely
analyzing the exact words and terms used, you should look at the Russian original.
Subheadings (below the level of “Preface”, “Part 1”, etc.), summaries, notes, and highlights are added by
me. Since this is my personal website, I want to share my thoughts and interactions with the text.

Europe and Mankind

By Nikolai Sergeyevich Trubetzkoy, Sofia, 1920.
Translated into modern English by Alexandr (Sasha) Trubetskoy, 2020.

Preface
Summary
It is not without hesitation that I offer this work to the world. The thoughts expressed here already
coalesced in my mind some 10 years ago. Since then, I have discussed these topics with many different
people, wishing either to test myself, or to convince the other person. Many of these conversations and
discussions turned out to be rather beneficial to me, since they forced me to flesh out and deepen my ideas
and arguments. But they did not change my core ideas. Of course I could not possibly limit myself to
casual conversations. In order to verify whether the theses that I am defending are actually correct, I had to
open these ideas up to a broader discussion, i.e. publish them. This I have still not done. And I haven’t
done this because, over many conversations (especially early on), I got the impression that most of the
people I came across simply did not understand what I was trying to say. They didn’t understand—not
because I wasn’t expressing myself clearly, but because the majority of educated Europeans find these
ideas inherently unacceptable, as if they go against some unshakeable psychological foundation that is the
basis of European thought. People saw me as a purveyor of paradoxes, and my arguments as callously
nonconformist. Needless to say, under those circumstances, I found debating neither meaningful nor
beneficial, for a debate can only be productive when both sides understand each other and speak the same
language. And since, at the time, I found hardly anything besides misunderstanding, I did not consider it
timely to publicize my thoughts. I waited for a more opportune moment.
My decision to go to print is largely due to the fact that I am encountering more and more people who
understand me; moreover, I am beginning to find people who agree with my core ideas. It turns out that
many people have, completely independently, arrived at the same conclusions as I have. There seemed to
have been a shift in the thinking of many educated people. The Great War and, in particular, the ensuing
“peace” (which I am still forced to put in quotes), have challenged people’s faith in “civilized society” and
have opened the eyes of many. We Russians are, of course, in a special situation. We have witnessed the
sudden collapse of what we had called Russian culture. Many of us were shocked by the incredible speed
and lack of difficulty with which it all happened, and many have pondered the causes of this phenomenon.
Perhaps this pamphlet may help some of my compatriots to clear up their own thoughts on the matter.
Some of my positions could have been amply illustrated with examples from Russian history. This might
have made my writing more lively and engrossing, but such digressions would have made the bigger
picture less clear. In offering the reader these relatively new ideas, my main concern is to present these
ideas clearly and in a logical progression. Furthermore, my thoughts apply not only to Russians, but to all
other peoples which have in one form or another taken up European culture without actually having
Romance or Germanic heritage. When I release this booklet to the world in the Russian language, I do so
only because charity begins at home, and above all I would like for my thoughts to be received and
understood by my fellow countrymen.
In offering my thoughts to the reader’s attention, I would like to remind the reader of a choice that they
must personally make for themselves. One of the following must be true. Either the ideas that I am
defending are false, and stand to be disproven logically; or these ideas are true, and we must draw practical
conclusions from them.
Accepting the truth of the theses in this brochure obligates one to do further work. Having accepted these
theses, one must develop and concretize them in order to apply them to real life, and to use this point of
view to revisit many of the questions that present themselves throughout life. Many people nowadays are
“reevaluating their values” in one way or another. For those who do accept the theses that I defend, the last
ones will serve to indicate the direction in which this reevaluation should go. There is no doubt that the
work that proceeds from the acceptance of these ideas, be it theoretical or practical, must be a collective
effort. Any individual can abandon some idea or join a well-known cause, but it is the collective that must
develop an entire system based on these thoughts and put it into practice. I invite anyone who shares my
convictions to participate in this collective work. I am convinced that these people exist, thanks to a few
serendipitous encounters. All they must to do is join forces in earnest, concerted effort. And if my brochure
can serve as the catalyst to unite these people, I would consider my goal accomplished.
On the other hand, there are moral obligations that likewise befall those who reject my theses as false. If
the theses that I defend are truly false, then they are toxic and must be opposed. But since (dare I say) they
are grounded in logic, then their refutation must be no less logical. This must be done in order to save
those who have tasted these ideas from getting lost. The author himself, without second thoughts, would
forever toss aside these unpleasant, disconcerting thoughts that have haunted him for over a decade, if only
someone would prove to him that they are logically false.

Part I
Chauvinism and cosmopolitanism
Summary
There is a fairly large number of positions that every European could hold regarding the question of
nationalism, but they are all on a spectrum between two extremes: chauvinism on one side, and
cosmopolitanism on the other. All nationalism is essentially a combination of elements of chauvinism or
cosmopolitanism, a way of reconciling these two opposed notions.
There is no doubt that this is how a European sees chauvinism and cosmopolitanism—as two
fundamentally, intrinsically opposite points of view.
However, one cannot agree with this setup of the question. The moment you take a closer look at
chauvinism and at cosmopolitanism, you will notice that there is no inherent distinction between the two.
You will see that the two are no more than two levels, two differing manifestations of the same underlying
phenomenon.
The Chauvinist takes a priori the position that the best people in the world happen to be his people. His
people’s culture is better and more complete than all other cultures. His people have the exclusive right to
lead and dominate other peoples, who must submit—accepting the dominant faith, language and culture—
and become assimilated. Everything that stands in the way of his Great People’s final triumph must be
swept away with force. This is how the Chauvinist thinks and, accordingly, acts.
The Cosmopolite rejects any distinction between ethnicities. If such distinctions do exist, they must be
annihilated. Civilized human society must be united and have a single culture. Uncivilized peoples must
accept this culture and join it, entering the family of civilized peoples, so together they may walk the
single path of world progress. Civilization is the ultimate good, in the name of which we must sacrifice our
ethnic particularities.
When formulated this way, chauvinism and cosmopolitanism really do seem strikingly different. In the
former, supremacy is claimed by the culture of a single ethno-anthropological group, while in the latter—
by an overarching, post-ethnic human culture.
But let’s take a look at what European cosmopolites include in their definition of “civilization” and
“civilized society”. By “civilization”, they mean to say the culture that was produced by the Germanic and
Romance peoples of Europe. And “civilized peoples” refers, first and foremost, to those very Germanics
and Romance, and only then to peoples that have accepted European culture.
And so we see that the culture that Cosmopolites believe should reign supreme, abolishing all other
cultures, is the culture of the very same particular ethno-anthropological group whose dominance the
Chauvinist dreams of. There is no fundamental difference here. In fact, the national, ethno-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 that have their own dialectical, cultural and
anthropological features, but are related to each other by ties of kinship and common history that have
created a shared stock of cultural values.
Thus, the Chauvinist, bestowing upon his people the crown of creation and deeming them the sole bearers
of all possible perfection, is in fact the champion of a whole group of ethnic units. Moreover, the
Chauvinist does, after all, want other peoples to merge with his people, losing their national likeness.
Those other nations that have already done this, forfeiting their national identity and taking on the
language, faith and culture of his people, the Chauvinist will treat as his own people. He will praise the
others’ contributions to the culture of his people—but, of course, only if these other people have truly
taken on a disposition that is sympathetic towards him, having completely abandoned their previous
national psyche. To the people that assimilated with the dominant nation, the Chauvinists always take a
somewhat suspicious attitude, especially if the assimilation happened not long ago. But no Chauvinist
fundamentally rejects the newly assimilated—we know, in fact, that among the European Chauvinists
there are many people whose surnames and anthropological characteristics clearly show that, by origin,
they do not belong to the people whose domination they so vehemently preach.
Now let us consider the European Cosmopolite. We see that, in essence, she is the same as the Chauvinist.
The “civilization”, the culture that she considers to be the highest, to which all other cultures should bow
down, also represents a known stock of cultural values common to a group of ancestrally and historically
related peoples. Just as the Chauvinist ignores the particular characteristics of the individual ethnic groups
that make up his own people, the Cosmopolite does away with the peculiarities of individual Romano-
Germanic1 peoples and takes only those things that they share in common. She also recognizes the cultural
value behind the activities of those non-Romano-Germanic peoples who fully embraced Romano-
Germanic civilization, who discarded everything that contradicted the spirit of the dominant civilization,
and exchanged their national likeness for one that is pan-Romano-Germanic. Exactly like the Chauvinist,
who recognizes those aliens and foreigners that managed to fully assimilate with the dominant people as
“his own”! Even the hostility experienced by Cosmopolites towards Chauvinists—and generally to those
who separate the cultures of individual Romano-Germanic peoples—even this hostility has a parallel in
the worldview of the Chauvinists. Namely, the Chauvinists are always hostile to any attempts at
separatism by the separate parts of their people. They try to erase and obscure all regional particularities
that could disrupt the unity of their people.
Therefore, as it turns out, there is complete parallelism between the Chauvinist and the Cosmopolite. It is
essentially the same treatment of the ethno-anthropological group to which the person happens to belong.
The only difference is that the Chauvinist takes a narrower ethnic group than the Cosmopolite. And in
doing so, the Chauvinist nonetheless takes a group that is not entirely homogeneous—while the
Cosmopolite, in turn, still chooses a particular ethnic group.
Thus the difference is only in scale, not in principle.

Cosmopolitanism is pan-Romano-Germanic chauvinism

Summary
When evaluating European cosmopolitanism, you must remember that terms like “mankind”, “human
civilization”, etc. are highly nebulous terms that act as cover for very specific ethnographic concepts. The
culture of Europe is not the culture of mankind. It is a product of the history of a particular ethnic group.
Germanic and Celtic tribes, having been subjected to various degrees of Roman cultural influence, and
having strongly intermixed amongst themselves, created a well-known common way of life out of
elements of their own national culture and Roman culture. As a result of shared ethnographic and
geographical conditions, for a long time they lived a shared existence, with a common history and way of
life. Their constant communication with each other made their shared elements so significant that they
always unconsciously harbored a sense of Romano-Germanic unity. With time, like so many other
peoples, they developed a thirst for studying the sources of their culture. The discovery of monuments to
Roman and Greek culture brought to the surface the idea of a transnational world civilization, an idea that
is very natural to the Greco-Roman world. We know that this idea was founded, once again, for ethno-
geographical reasons. In Rome, the “entire world” meant, of course, simply Orbis terrarum—that is, the
peoples that inhabited the Mediterranean basin or that gravitated towards it, who developed a set of shared
cultural values as a result of constant contact, and who were finally unified by the homogenizing
influences of Greek and Roman colonization and Roman military dominance. In any case, the
cosmopolitan ideas of antiquity became the basis for European education. Falling upon the fertile soil of
unconscious Romano-Germanic unity, these ideas generated the theoretical foundations for so-called
European “cosmopolitanism”, more accurately (and frankly) termed pan-Romano-Germanic chauvinism.
These are the real-life historical foundations of European cosmopolitan theories. The psychological
foundation of cosmopolitanism is the same as that of chauvinism. It is a variety of the unconscious
prejudice—the particular psychological condition—that is best called egocentrism. A person with a
markedly egocentric personality unconsciously considers himself the center of the universe, of all creation;
the best, the most perfect of all beings. When considering two other beings, the being that is closer and
more like him is better, while the one that is more distant is worse. Therefore, if this person is a member of
any natural groups, he would consider them to be superior. His family, his estate, his people, his tribe, and
his race are better than all the others. Likewise, the species to which he belongs—the human species—is
superior to than all other mammals; mammals themselves are superior to all other vertebrates, and
vertebrates in turn are superior to plants; and the organic world is superior to the inorganic world. In one
way or another, nobody is free from this kind of thinking. Even science has not yet fully freed itself from
this, and any scientific conquest towards liberation from egocentric prejudices comes with great difficulty.
An egocentric mindset permeates the entire worldview of many people. Very few manage to escape it
completely. But in its extreme manifestation it is easily noticeable; its ridiculousness is apparent, and so it
often elicits criticism, protest and ridicule. If a person is convinced that they are smarter and better than
everyone else, and that they have everything going for them, they are usually mocked by those around
them. And if that person is also aggressive, then they receive a well-deserved slap on the wrist. If a family
is naively convinced that its members are all brilliant, beautiful geniuses, then they are laughed at by their
acquaintances, who make amusing jokes about them. Such acute manifestations of egocentrism are rare,
and they are typically met with resistance. It’s a different story when the egocentrism spreads to a wider
group of persons. Usually, at that point, there is also resistance, but breaking this kind of egocentrism is
more difficult. More often than not, two egocentrically-minded groups fight it out and the winner is able to
maintain their convictions. This takes place, for example, during class warfare or social struggle. The
bourgeoisie that overthrows the aristocracy is just as convinced of its supremacy over all other classes as
was the aristocracy. The proletariat that fights against the bourgeoisie also considers itself the salt of the
earth, the best out of all the social classes.
But the egocentrism there is fairly obvious, and people with a clearer head, those with a “broader view”,
are usually able to rise above such prejudices. When it comes to ethnic groups, these same prejudices are
harder to get rid of. In this area, people’s sensitivity in understanding the nature of egocentric prejudices is
far from evenly distributed. Many Prussian pan-Germanists harshly criticize those fellow Prussians who
hold Prussian people above all other Germans; they consider such jingoism laughable and narrow-minded.
Yet, at the same time, the pan-Germans have no doubt whatsoever that the German tribe as a whole is
humanity’s crowning achievement. So these people are unable to reach the level of Romano-Germanic
cosmopolitanism. The Prussian Cosmopolite, meanwhile, resents his pan-Germanist compatriot, branding
him a narrow-minded chauvinist. Yet the Cosmopolite fails to notice that he is very much a chauvinist
himself, only a Romano-Germanic one, rather than a pan-German one. So it is only a matter of the scope
of one’s sensitivity; one person’s egocentric chauvinist feelings are slightly stronger, the other’s are
slightly weaker. Either way, the sensitivity of Europeans to such questions is quite relative. We don’t find
very many people who rise beyond so-called cosmopolitanism, i.e. Romano-Germanic chauvinism. Do we
know of any Europeans who would be willing to recognize the cultures of so-called “savages” 2 as equal in
worth to the Romano-Germanic culture? I don’t think such people exist.
***

Everyone should reject both chauvinism and cosmopolitanism

Summary
From the above it is quite clear how a conscientious Romano-German should treat chauvinism and
cosmopolitanism. He must acknowledge that one and the other are both based on an egocentric mindset.
He must acknowledge that such a mindset is not logically sound, and thus cannot serve as a basis for any
theories. Moreover, it should not be difficult for him to understand that egocentrism is inherently anti-
cultural and antisocial, and interferes with cohabitation in the broad sense of the word, i.e. the free
interaction of all beings. It should be clear to everyone that any kind of egocentrism can be justified only
by force, and, as written above, it is only the fate of the winner. That’s why Europeans do not go further
than their Romano-Germanic chauvinism—any nation can be conquered by force, but the whole Romano-
Germanic tribe in its entirety is so physically strong that it cannot be physically subdued by anyone.
But as soon as all of this reaches the conscience of our hypothetical sensitive and conscientious Romano-
German, a conflict would occur in his soul. His whole spiritual culture, his entire worldview is based on
the belief that the unconscious spiritual life, and all prejudices based upon it, must give way to the
conclusions of reason and logic; that any theories can be constructed only on a logical, scientific basis. His
entire sense of right and wrong is based on the rejection of those principles that hinder the free interaction
of people. All of his ethics reject the resolution of differences by brute force. But suddenly it turns out that
cosmopolitanism is founded on egocentrism! Cosmopolitanism, the pinnacle of Romano-Germanic
civilization, is grounded in principles that fundamentally contradict all of this civilization’s primary
mantras. The universal religion of cosmopolitanism, it turns out, is founded on anti-cultural egocentrism.
The situation is tragic, but there is only one way out. The conscientious Romano-German must forever
reject both chauvinism and so-called cosmopolitanism, and hence, the entire spectrum of views on the
“national question” that lies in between.
But what position should non-Romano-Germans take in relation to European chauvinism, as
representatives of those peoples who never participated in the creation of so-called “European
civilization”?
Egocentrism deserves condemnation, not only from the standpoint of only European Romano-Germanic
culture, but from the standpoint of all cultures, for it is a starting point that is antisocial and that destroys
all cultural communication between people. Therefore, if among non-Romano-Germanic peoples there are
chauvinists preaching that theirs is the chosen people, and that all others should submit to their culture,
such chauvinists should be fought by their fellow countrymen. But what if individuals from a non-
Romano-Germanic people appear, who preach not for the dominance of their own people, but for the
dominance of some other, foreign people, offering their own countrymen to assimilate into this “world
nation”? After all, there would be no egocentrism in such preaching—on the contrary, this would be highly
allocentric. As a result, it is impossible to condemn this kind of preaching in the same way that we
condemn chauvinism.
But, on the other hand, isn’t the message of the sermon more important than the personal identity of the
preacher? If the domination of People A over People B was being preached by a representative of People
A, that would be chauvinism, a manifestation of egocentric thought. Such preaching should be met with
resistance by People A as well as People B. But would the whole thing really change, if the voice of the
preacher from People A were joined by someone from People B? Of course not; chauvinism is
chauvinism. The main actor in this hypothetical situation is, of course, the representative of People A. His
mouth articulates his will to subjugate, which is the true meaning of chauvinistic theories. Indeed, the
representative of People B may even have a louder voice, but she is essentially less significant.
Representative B merely believed Representative A’s argument, took faith in the strength of People A, let
People A take her over—or maybe was just bribed. Representative A stands up for himself, while
Representative B stands for someone else: B’s lips move, but it is essentially A who is talking. Therefore
we are always entitled to consider such preaching as the same chauvinism in disguise.

The hypnotic power of cosmopolitanism

Summary
All of this discussion, in general, is rather pointless. These are not things that are worth proving logically
at length. It is clear to everyone how they would treat their fellow tribe member if that member began to
preach that their people should renounce their native faith, language and culture, and try to assimilate with
a neighboring people, say, People X. Everyone would certainly consider this person insane, or duped by
People X, having lost all national pride—or, finally, as an emissary of people X, sent to spread propaganda
for some appropriate compensation. In any case, behind this gentleman’s back, everyone would, of course,
suspect him a chauvinist from People X, consciously or unconsciously controlled by their words. Our
attitude toward such preaching would not depend at all on whether it came from a compatriot or a
foreigner: we would see it without fail as emanating from the people whose dominance, in this case, was
being preached. There is no doubt that our attitude toward such preaching would be strongly negative. No
normal people in the world, especially a people organized into a state, could voluntarily allow the
destruction of their national character in the name of assimilation, even with a “superior” people. To
chauvinistic harassment by foreigners, any self-respecting people would answer as Leonidas of Sparta
did: “Come and take them.” They would defend their national existence with weapons in hand, even in the
face of inevitable defeat.
All this seems obvious, yet there are many facts in the world that contradict all of this. European
cosmopolitanism, which, as we have seen above, is nothing more than Romano-Germanic chauvinism, is
spreading among non-Romano-Germanic peoples quite rapidly and with very little difficulty. Among the
Slavs, Arabs, Turks, Indians, Chinese and Japanese, there are already very many of these cosmopolites.
Many of them adhere even more strictly to the ideology than their European counterparts, in terms of
rejecting national characteristics, in their contempt for any non-Romano-Germanic cultures, and so on.
What explains this contradiction? Why was pan-Romano-Germanic chauvinism such an undoubted
success among the Slavs, when even the slightest hint of Germanophilic propaganda would set off a Slav’s
alarm bells? Why is the Russian intellectual vehemently repulsed by the idea that he may be a tool in the
hands of German junker nationalists, while that same Russian intellectual is totally comfortable with
subordinating himself to Romano-Germanic chauvinists?
The answer lies, of course, in the hypnotic power of words.
As stated above, the Romano-Germans were always so naively confident that they were the only people
who could brand themselves as “humanity”, brand their culture as “human civilization”, and finally, brand
their chauvinism as “cosmopolitanism”. With this terminology they were able to cover up all of the real
ethnographic meaning that makes up these concepts. In doing so, these concepts were made acceptable to
representatives of other ethnic groups. When giving foreign peoples those products of their material
culture that could be considered the most universal (military equipment and mechanical devices for
transport), the Romano-Germans also slip in their “universal” ideas and offer them in exactly this form,
taking care to gloss over the ethnographic essence of these ideas.
So the spreading of so-called3 European cosmopolitanism among non-Romano-Germanic peoples is
purely a misunderstanding. Those who succumbed to the propaganda of Romano-Germanic chauvinists
were misled by the words “mankind”, “humanity”, “universal”, “civilization”, “world progress”, and so
on. All these words were understood literally, whereas in reality they concealed very specific and rather
narrow ethnographic concepts.

Questions that cosmopolitanists must answer

Summary
Non-Romano-Germanic “intellectuals” who were fooled by the Romano-Germans must understand their
mistake. They must understand that the culture that they were presented under the guise of “human
civilization” is, in fact, the culture of only a certain ethnic group of Germanic and Romance peoples. This
insight, of course, should significantly change their attitude toward the culture of their own people. And it
should make them think about whether they are right in trying to impose a foreign culture and eradicate
the features of their people’s national identity, in the name of some “universal” (in fact, Romano-
Germanic, i.e. foreign) ideals. They can only solve this issue after a mature and logical examination of the
claims of the Romans to the title of “civilized humanity”. Before deciding whether to accept or not accept
Romano-Germanic culture, the following issues have to be resolved:
1.Is it possible to objectively prove that the Romano-Germanic culture is superior to all other
cultures that exist or have ever existed on Earth?
2.Is it possible for one people to fully participate in a culture that was developed by another
people, while at the same time maintaining anthropological separation between the two peoples?
3.Is inclusion into European culture (since such inclusion is possible) a good or an evil?
These issues must be raised and, in one way or another, resolved by anyone who is aware of the essence of
European cosmopolitanism as Romano-Germanic chauvinism. And only with an affirmative answer to all
of these questions can a general Europeanization be recognized as necessary and desirable. If any answer
is negative, this Europeanization must be rejected and new questions should be raised:
4.Is general Europeanization inevitable?
5.How do we deal with its negative consequences?
In the following discussion, we will try to resolve all of the questions that we’ve just raised. But in order
for the answers to be correct and, most importantly, fruitful, we must invite the reader to temporarily,
completely abandon egocentric prejudices, the idols of “human civilization”, and in general the thought
process that is typical to Romano-Germanic science. This abandonment is not an easy thing, for the
prejudices in question are deeply rooted in the consciousness of every “educated” European person. But
we must abandon these things in order to remain objective.

Part II
Any “evolutionary ladder” of cultures is illogical
Summary
In the above, we pointed out that Romano-Germanic cultural supremacism is based upon an egocentric
mentality. As we know, in Europe, this concept of the utmost perfection of European civilization is given a
scientific-seeming foundation, but the validity of this foundation is just an illusion. The problem is that the
understanding of evolution as it exists in European ethnology, anthropology and cultural history is itself
permeated by egocentrism. The “evolutionary ladder”, “levels of development”—these concepts are all
deeply egocentric. At their core lies the assumption that the development of the human species has
followed, and continues to follow, the path of so-called world progress. This path is imagined to be a
known, straight line. Mankind has been travelling along this straight line, but individual peoples have
stopped at various points, as if walking in place; meanwhile, other peoples have managed to move along a
bit further, stomping around at the next point, an so on. As a result, when we take a look at the bigger
picture of mankind’s current existence, we can see the whole evolutionary process 4—at each step of the
way that mankind has travelled, there remains today some stagnant people, stuck and walking in place.
Thus the current human condition, taken as a whole, represents a sort of rolled-out, chopped-up film of
evolution, and the differences between the cultures of various peoples represent different phases of overall
human evolution, or different stages along the path of world progress.
If we suppose that this view of the relationship between evolution and reality is correct, we must admit
that we are incapable of reconstructing the whole evolutionary picture. Indeed, in order to figure out which
culture represents which evolutionary phase, we need to know exactly where lies the beginning, and where
lies the end of this straight line of world progress. Only then can we determine what distance separates a
given culture from the endpoints the aforementioned ladder of progress and, from there, determine that
culture’s evolutionary rank. But we cannot determine the endpoints of the evolution without first
reconstructing the whole evolutionary picture. This results in a cursed loop: to recreate the whole
evolutionary picture, we need to know its endpoints, but to determine its endpoints, we need to recreate the
whole picture. It is clear that the only way to escape this cursed loop is to unscientifically, irrationally
claim that one particular culture or another is an evolutionary endpoint. We cannot arrive at such a claim
scientifically or objectively, since this kind of evolutionary framework prevents any single culture from
containing within itself any information on its position along the evolutionary line. Objectively, the only
thing we see is traits of greater or lesser similarity between various cultures. Based on these traits, we can
group the cultures of the world so that more similar cultures are put closer together, while more distinct
cultures are put farther apart. We cannot do anything beyond this and remain objective. Even if we
managed to do this much—to create a continuous chain of similar cultures—we would still not be in a
position to objectively determine where the ends of this chain would be.
Let’s clear up this idea with an example. Imagine seven squares, each of which is colored with one color
of the rainbow. We line these squares up by color and list them, left to right: green, cyan, blue, violet, red,
orange, yellow. Now jumble these squares and ask a volunteer who hasn’t seen the original sequence to
line them up, so that every color is between two similar colors. Since our volunteer doesn’t know how the
squares were initially set up, it’s clear that if they were to arrange them in the exact same order as above,
they would have done so purely by chance. Moreover, the probability of them doing so is 1 in 14.
A scientist who attempts to arrange the present-day human peoples and cultures according to an
evolutionary sequence finds herself in the exact same position as our rainbow-arranging volunteer. Even if
she places each culture between the two cultures that are most similar, she will still never know where to
start—just as in our rainbow example, the volunteer doesn’t know to start with the green square, and to
place the cyan square to the right of it, rather than to the left. The only difference is that there are far more
than seven cultures, and thus there will be far more than 14 possible arrangements. The probability, then,
of finding the “correct” sequence is far smaller.
So if the understanding of evolution that currently prevails in European science is correct, then it is
impossible to reconstruct the picture of human cultural evolution. And yet, Europeans assert that they have
determined the general course of this evolution. What is the explanation here? Has there truly been a
miracle, have European scientists really received from some mysterious source a supernatural revelation,
allowing them to identify the endpoints of an evolutionary sequence?

The “scientific” view of human evolution is egocentric

Summary
If we look closely at the result of European scientists’ work related to the scheme of human evolution that
they have apparently recreated, it immediately becomes clear that the source of this supernatural revelation
was simply their own egocentric mentality. It was this mindset that showed Romano-Germanic scientists,
ethnologists and cultural historians where to look for the beginning and end of human development.
Instead of remaining objective and, upon seeing the logical dead end, attempting to find the source of this
dead end and the incorrectness of the overall understanding of evolution; instead of attempting to fruitfully
rectify this understanding, Europeans simply took the pinnacle of human evolution to be themselves and
their culture. Naively convinced that they have found one end of the evolutionary sequence, they quickly
built out the rest of the sequence. It never occurred to any of them that acceptance of Romano-Germanic
culture as the pinnacle of evolution is purely arbitrary, and is a grotesque case of petitio principii. Their
egocentric mindset turned out to be so rigid that nobody doubted the correctness of this position, and it
was accepted by everyone without discussion, as if it were self-evident.
As a result, we get the “ladder of human evolution”. The Romano-Germanic peoples, and those that have
wholly embraced their culture, stand at the top. One step below are the “cultured ancient peoples”, i.e.
those peoples whose culture is most closely related to that of the Europeans. Then there are the cultured
peoples of Asia: their literacy, good governance and some other cultural features allow one to find some
similarities to the Romano-Germanics. The “ancient American cultures” (Mexico, Peru) are viewed in a
similar way; these cultures resemble the Romano-Germanics even less, and are therefore placed somewhat
lower on the ladder. Nonetheless, all of the abovementioned peoples have enough cultural traits in
common with the Romano-Germanics that they are bestowed the flattering title of “cultured”. Below them
are the “savages”. These are the representatives of mankind that have the least similarity to modern
Romano-Germanics.
According to this evolutionary ladder, the Romano-Germanics and their culture really do represent the
height of human achievement. Of course—the Romano-Germanic cultural historians humbly add—with
enough time, mankind will travel even farther, and it’s possible that the inhabitants of Mars are already
culturally superior to us, but here on Earth, we Europeans are superior and above everyone else. But this
evolutionary ladder cannot possess any objective evidentiary value. It isn’t that Romano-Germanics see
themselves as the “pinnacle of creation” because objective science has set up the aforementioned ladder;
on the contrary, European scientists place the Romano-Germanics at the top of this ladder because they
were convinced a priori of their superiority. The egocentric mentality played a decisive role here.
Objectively speaking, this entire ladder consists of a classification of peoples and cultures according to
their lesser or greater similarity to modern Romano-Germanics. It is the judgmental aspect, transforming
this classification into a ladder with rungs of perfection, that lacks objectivity, and is introduced via a
subjective egocentric mentality. Therefore the classification of peoples and cultures that is accepted in
European science cannot objectively prove the supremacy of Romano-Germanic civilization over the
cultures of other peoples. Even if something is self-evidently good, it does not follow that it’s the best in
the world.

On trivial arguments for Romano-Germanic superiority

Let us look at the evidence that is brought up in favor of the overall supremacy of the Romano-Germanic
civilization that stands atop the “evolutionary ladder”, as opposed to the “savage” cultures that sit at the
“lowest level of development”. Amazingly, all this evidence is based on either the petitio principii of
egocentric prejudice, or on the optical illusions that result from this mentality. There is no objective,
scientific evidence whatsoever.

Military superiority
Summary
The most basic and widespread evidence consists of the fact that Europeans, it is said, are winning against
the savages; that every time savages go into battle against Europeans, the battle ends in “white” victory
and the “savages’” destruction. The vulgarity and naivety of such an argument must be evident to any
objectively-minded person. It clearly demonstrates the extent to which the veneration of brute force, which
featured nontrivially in the national character of those tribes that would create European civilization, is
alive and well to this day in the consciousness of every descendant of the ancient Gauls and Germanics.
The Gaulish “Vae victis!” and Germanic vandalism, systematized and deepened by Roman military
traditions, are displayed here in all their glory, albeit masked in a semblance of objective science.
Meanwhile, this argument comes up even among the most enlightened European “humanists”.
Deconstructing the failure of its logic is, of course, not worth trying. Nonetheless, Europeans do attempt to
mold it into a scientific force, giving it a foundation in the form of a theory of “fighting for survival” or
“adapting to the environment”, but in the end they cannot sustain this historical viewpoint. They are
constantly forced to admit that victory often falls in the hands of peoples “less cultured” than their
vanquished adversaries. History is full of examples of nomads defeating sedentary peoples, even though
nomadic peoples differ in their way of life from modern Romano-Germans sufficiently to place them
below any settled nation. All of the “great cultures of Antiquity”, as they are called in European learning,
were destroyed precisely by “barbarians”. And even though the excuse is frequently given that these
cultures, at the time of their destruction, had already fallen into a so-called state of decay, there is a wide
range of examples where this cannot be conclusively demonstrated. Thus, since European learning cannot
claim the position that the victorious peoples are always culturally superior to the vanquished peoples,
they cannot make any positive conclusions from the fact that Europeans have militarily defeated the
savages.

Self-evidence
Summary
There is another argument that is no less popular, but even less coherent. It consists of the idea that
“savages” are incapable of perceiving certain European concepts, and are therefore considered to be an
“inferior race”. The egocentric mentality here is especially strong. Europeans completely forget that if
“savages” are incapable of perceiving some of the ideas of European civilization, then Europeans are
likewise equally incapable of comprehending ideas from the savages’ culture.
There is an oft-repeated story about a Papuan who was taken to England, educated in school and even
taken to university. Soon, however, he felt a longing for his homeland, fled to Papua, and threw off his
European clothes to live like the “savage” he was before he was taken to England—not a trace was left of
any European cultural concepts. And yet, people seem to completely forget the numerous stories of
Europeans who decided to “simplify their lives,” settling among “savages”, but who returned to Europe
and to all the trappings of a European lifestyle after realizing they were unable to keep up the charade.
They point out that embracing European civilization is so difficult for the “savages” that many of them,
after attempting to “become civilized”, went insane and became alcoholics.
However, in those rather rare cases when a European did earnestly attempt to assimilate into the culture of
some wild tribe—embracing not just the superficial, physical lifestyle of the tribe, but its religion and
beliefs as well—the majority of these “weirdos” met the same fate. It is sufficient to mention the talented
French painter Paul Gauguin, who tried to become a real Tahitian, and paid for his attempt first with
insanity, and then alcoholism, dying ingloriously after a drunken brawl. Clearly it is not the case that
“savages” are less developed than Europeans, but rather, that the development of Europeans and savages
goes in different directions, and that Europeans and “savages” differ to the fullest extent in their lifestyles
and in the ways of thinking that they generate. Full assimilation into such a foreign mode of being is
impossible for both sides, precisely because the mindset and culture of “savages” has almost nothing in
common with the mindset and culture of Europeans. But since this lack of possibility remains
commutative, making it just as difficult for a European to become a savage as it is for a “savage” to
become a European, one cannot draw any conclusions about who is “higher” and who is “lower” in
“development”.
On arguments that “savages” are psychologically inferior
That “savages” are childish
Summary
We’ve taken apart some arguments in favor of the superiority of Europeans over “savages”. Although they
may sometimes appear in scientific literature, the “arguments” presented so far have consisted of layman’s
reasoning, naive and superficial. The scientific literature is dominated by other arguments, which appear
far more serious and solid. However, upon more careful examination, these quasi-scientific arguments turn
out also to be based on egocentric prejudices. In science, we find that the mentality of savages is often
likened to the mentality of children. The comparison is practically self evident, for if observed directly,
savages really do seem to Europeans like adult children. From there they conclude that the savages have
“stopped developing” and therefore are lower than the proper adult Europeans. Here the European
scientists once again demonstrate a lack of objectivity. They completely ignore the fact that the “adult
child” impression when Europeans meet “savages” is mutual, i.e. the savages also regard the Europeans as
adult children. From a psychological standpoint, this is a very interesting fact, and we must look for its
explanation within the very essence of what Europeans mean by the word “savage”. We stated earlier that
the word “savage” is used by European scientists to designate those peoples whose culture and mentality
differ the most from modern Romano-Germans. This is where we may find the answer to the
aforementioned psychological quandary. We have to bear in mind the following propositions:
1.Every person’s psyche consists of innate and acquired elements.
2.Among innate psychological traits, we must distinguish between traits belonging to the
individual, to his family, his tribe, his race; as well as traits common to humans, mammals, and
then animals in general.
3.Acquired traits depend on the environment in which the given individual lives, and on the
traditions of the individual’s family and social group, and on the culture of his people.
4.In very early childhood, the entire psyche consists exclusively of innate traits; as time passes,
those traits are increasingly joined by traits that are acquired. Moreover, as a consequence of trait
acquisition, some innate traits may be softened or may disappear entirely.
5.When considering any person’s mentality, we only have direct access and understanding of those
traits that we have in common with that person.
From these propositions it follows that when two people meet each other, if they belong to exactly
identical environments and upbringings within the exact same cultural traditions, they both understand
virtually all of each other’s psychological traits. This is because they have almost all of their traits in
common, except for a few innate ones. But when two people meet each other and come from two
completely different cultures that look nothing alike, then each person will only see and understand a few
of the other’s innate traits, without understanding (or perhaps even noticing) the acquired ones, since in
this domain the two individuals have nothing in common. As the observer’s culture becomes more and
more different from that of the observed, the observer will be able to understand fewer and fewer of the
other’s acquired psychological traits; the mentality of the other will appear to the observer to consist
entirely of traits that are innate. However, a psyche that is dominated by innate traits over acquired ones
always gives the impression of being rudimentary. We can imagine any psyche as a fraction where the
numerator is the sum total of acquired traits, while the denominator is the sum total of innate traits that are
accessible to us. The smaller this fraction (i.e. the greater the ratio of the denominator to the numerator),
the more rudimentary this psyche will appear. From the above propositions, the third and fifth indicate that
this fraction will be smaller if the culture and society of the observer is more different from those of the
observed.
Since “savages” are, in other words, those peoples whose culture and way of life differ the most from
modern Europeans, it is clear that their psyche would appear to Europeans as exceptionally rudimentary.
But from everything we have stated above, it is also clear that such an impression would have to be
mutual. The conception of “savages” as “adult children” is based on an optical illusion. In savages, we
only perceive the innate traits, since they are the only ones we have in common (proposition 5). The
acquired traits are entirely alien and incomprehensible to us, since they are based on the savage’s cultural
traditions (proposition 3), which are entirely different from ours. But a mentality where innate traits
predominate while acquired traits are nearly absent is the mentality of a child (proposition 4). This is why
we conceive of the “savage” as childlike.
There is another circumstance that plays into this conception. If we were to compare the mentalities of two
children, a little “savage” and a little European, we would find that from a psychological standpoint the
children are closer to one another than their fathers are. They do not yet have the acquired traits that are to
appear later, but they have many common elements as part of the universal human, mammal and animal
psyches; the differences attributable to racial, tribal, family and individual psyches are not so great. Over
time, some of this shared supply of innate traits will be displaced or modified by acquired traits, while
other innate traits will remain unaffected. But what traits are acquired will differ between the two subjects.
The savage will lose trait A, but traits B and C will be preserved; the European will lose trait B, while
traits A and C are preserved. Furthermore, the savage will acquire a beneficial trait D, while the European
will acquire a beneficial trait E. When the adult European meets the adult savage and observes him, he will
find in the savage’s psyche traits B, C and D. Of these traits, D will turn out to be completely strange and
incomprehensible for the European, because this part of the savage’s psyche, an acquired trait, stands in
connection with the savage’s culture, which has nothing in common with that of Europe. Trait C is held in
common by the adult savage and the adult European, and therefore it is quite understandable to the latter
person. As for trait B, it is not in the psyche of the adult European, but this European remembers that he
had this trait in early childhood, and can observe it now in the psyche of the children of his people. Thus,
the psyche of the savage should inevitably appear to the European as a mixture of elementary features of
adult psychology and of childlike traits. Needless to say, the European’s psyche would appear in the same
way to the savage, for the same reasons.

That “savages” are like animals

Summary
The optical illusion that we just talked about is also the cause of another phenomenon, namely, the
similarities that Europeans find between the psychology of savages and the psychologies of animals. We
stated above that, psychologically, there is little difference between a savage child and a European child. If
we take these two kids and add a young animal, then we would have no choice but to acknowledge that
these three creatures have some things in common—mammal-wide traits or animal-wide traits. There may
not be very many of these traits, but nonetheless they exist. Let us suppose they are called X, Y and Z.
Later in life, the little European develops and loses trait X. Meanwhile, the savage loses Y, while the
animal preserves all X, Y and Z. But those animal traits that are preserved by these creatures are, of
course, preserved in a slighly different form compared to how they were displayed in childhood, for an
adult animal’s psychological traits always differ in known ways from the psychological traits of the young
animals from which they developed. Therefore, traits X, Y and Z take on the adult forms X’, Y’ and Z’,
which means the European adult shows Y’ and Z’ while the adult savage shows X’ and Z’. When the adult
European observes the adult savage, he sees in him, among other things, trait X’. How does he perceive
this trait? It is absent in his own psyche. In the European’s tribe, the children have it in a different form,
namely X. But in the psyche of mature animals the European can directly see X’. Naturally, he determines
that this is an “animal” trait, and by virtue of the savage having this trait, he will consider the savage to be
the closest human to an animal level of development. All of this, of course, applies to the savage, who sees
trait Y’ in the European and makes an analogous conclusion based on the absence of this trait in him, and
the presence of it in animals.

Extension to all cultures

Summary
Everything stated above provides an explanation for the direct impressions people make upon one another
when they belong to tribes whose cultures differ as much as possible from one another. Both sides see and
understand in the other only that which they have in common—that is, only innate psychological traits—
and thus invariably consider the pschology of the other to be rather elementary. When the observer sees
certain traits in the observed that he knows from childhood but has since lost, the observer will consider
the observed subject as someone who has stopped developing—someone who, despite being an adult, is
still saddled with juvenile psychological traits. Furthermore, the observer will believe that some of the
traits in the observed person are similar to those of animals. As for the non-elementary traits of the
observed person, since they are acquired, and are thus related to a culture that is foreign to the observer,
they will remain completely unintelligible and will appear to the observer as some kind of strangeness or
peculiarity. The elemementary nature of these traits, combined with the childishness or strangeness of
others, makes a person from a maximally-diffrent culture into some kind of uncanny creature, a part-ugly,
part-comical figure. This impression is totally mutual. When two representatives of maximally-different
cultures meet, they both appear to each other as funny, ugly, in a word, “savage”. We know that Europeans
experience these exact feelings upon seeing a “savage”. But we also know that “savages”, when they see
Europeans, are either afraid, or they greet his every action with bouts of Homeric laughter.
Thus, the idea of the simplicity of the savage’s psyche, of its similarity to the psyche of a child or an
animal, is based on an optical illusion. Even outside the context of savages—i.e. peoples that are
maximally culturally different from modern Romano-Germans—this illusion remains powerful, applying
to all peoples with non-Romano-Germanic culture. The difference is only in the degree of illusion. When
observing a member of a “foreign” culture, we will understand only those acquired psychological traits
that we have in common, which is to say, those that are connected to cultural elements we hold in
common. Traits that are acquired but based on elements of his culture without a parallel in ours will
remain incomprehensible to us. As for innate psychological traits, almost all of them will appear
understandable to us, and some of them will appear childish. Due to the fact that we will almost entirely
understand the innate psychological traits of this observed people, but will only grasp those acquired traits
that are similar to our culture, we will always incorrectly judge the ratio of innate to acquired traits, with a
bias toward seeing more innate traits. Moreover, this bias will be stronger when a foreign culture differs
more strongly from ours. Naturally, therefore, the mentality of a people with a culture that differs from
ours will always seem more elementary than our own mentality.5
Notice, by the way, that such an evaluation of another’s mentality can be seen not only between two
peoples, but also between different social groups of one people, if the social differences within this people
are very strong and if the upper classes have adopted a foreign culture. Many Russian intellectuals,
doctors, officers and nurses, when speaking to the “common folk”, say that they are “adult children”. On
the other hand, the “common folk”, based on their fairy tales, see in the “baroness” a well-known
eccentricity and naive, juvenile psychological traits.
On the “historical argument”
Summary
Despite the fact that the European conception of the “savage” psyche is based on an illusion, this
conception still play a prominent role in all the quasi-scientific contructions of European ethnology,
anthropology and history of culture. Of all the ways this has affected the methodology of the
aforementioned fields, the most significant has been that it allowed Romano-Germanic scholars to put a
diverse set of the Earth’s peoples into one group called “savage”, “uncultured” or “primitive” peoples. 6 We
already mentioned that these terms encompass peoples whose culture is maximally different from that of
Romano-Germans. This is the only characteristic these peoples have in common. This characteristic is
purely subjective, and is defined negatively. But as soon as it created the optical illusion that gave rise to
the Europeans’ flat characterization of all these people’s psyches, the Europeans took it as an objective and
positive indicator. They united all the peoples whose culture differed most from Romano-Germans under
the label “primitive”. European scholars refuse to reckon with the fact that this groups together peoples
that are nothing alike (for example, Eskimos and Kaffirs7), since distinctions between various “primitive
peoples” are based on characteristics of cultures equally far from Romano-Germanic culture, all equally
alien and incomprehensible to a European. Thus they are neglected by scientists, who consider the
characteristics secondary or insignificant. And this group—this concept of “primitive peoples” that is
founded, in essence, on subjective and negative perceptions—is treated uncritically by European science
as a real and homogeneous quantity. Such is the power of the egocentric mindset in European evolutionary
science.
This illusion, and the associated habit of qualifying peoples based on their degree of similarity to Romano-
Germanic culture, is the basis for another argument in favor of the superiority of Romano-Germanic
civilization over all other cultures of the world. This argument, which can be called the “historical”
argument, is considered in Europe to be the strongest—and it is one that cultural historians are especially
eager to cite. In essence, it says that the ancestors of modern Europeans were originally also savages, and
therefore, modern savages can be tought of as still existing at a stage of development that Europeans have
long since passed. This argument is supported by archeological findings and ancient historians’
descriptions demonstrating that the lifestyle of modern Romano-Germans’ ancestors was marked by the
same features as that of present-day savages.
The illusory nature of this argument becomes apparent as soon as we remember that the concept of
“savage” or “primitive” peoples is itself artificial, since it unifies extremely diverse tribes from across the
globe based on just one characteristic, their utmost dissimilarity to modern Romano-Germans.
Just like any culture, European culture has been constantly changing as has arrived at its present form only
gradually, as the result of a long evolution. In each historical era, this culture was different in some way.
Of course, in eras closer to modernity, the culture of Europeans’ ancestors was closer to its present form,
compared to more distant eras. In the most distant of eras, the culture of the peoples of Europe differed the
most from the modern civilization—it was then that the culture of Europeans’ ancestors was maximally
different from the modern culture. But all cultures that are maximally different from modern European
civilization are invariably placed by European scholars into the general category of “primitive cultures”.
So, of course the culture of the distant ancestors of modern Romano-Germans must fall into that same
category. No positive conclusions can be made from this. Since the term “primitive culture” is defined
negatively, the mere fact that the epithet “primitive” is applied by European scholars to the most ancient of
Romano-Germanic ancestors as well as to modern Eskimos and Kaffirs says nothing about how these
cultures are similar to each other, only that they are dissimilar to modern European civilization.
Why “savages” always regress or stagnate
Summary
This is a good time to touch on another aspect of the teaching of European science on savages—an aspect
tightly related to the “historical argument” we have just debunked. In those cases, however rare, when
Europeans are able to get to the history of some present-day “savage” tribe, it always turns out that the
culture of that tribe has either remained absolutely constant throughout all of history, or has “fallen back”,
in which case the modern savages represent the result of a regress, a gradual “return to savagery” of a
people who had once stood at a “higher stage of development”. This position is based once again on that
very same optical illusion and egocentric prejudices. The origin of this view on the history of savages is
best shown graphically. Imagine a circle with European culture at the center (point A). The radius of this
circle represents the maximum cultural distance from modern Romano-Germans. Thus, the culture of any
modern “savage” tribe can be depicted by a point B along the circumference. But that is where the
savage’s culture is currently located. Earlier, this culture looked different and, therefore, we must represent
an earlier historical form of the culture as point C, which is different from B. Where could this point lie?
There are three possibilities. First, C could lie on some other place along the circumference of the circle.

In this case, the distance AC=AB .

A In other words, it would turn out that this “savage” culture in a previous
historical era different maximally
C from modern European culture. And since all cultures maximally
different from European civilization
= are tossed by European science into big “primitive” pile, the
European scholar in this case
A would not see any progress. He would instead recognize immobility,
stagnation, no matter howBgreat the path from C to B representing the trajectory taken by the “savage”
culture during this historical epoch.
The second case: C lies within the circle. In this case the distance AC<AB .
A In other words, the savage’s
culture went farther and farther from the point representing modern C European culture. It is clear that the
European scholar, considering his civilization the pinnacle of earthly
< perfection, could call this movement
only a “regression”, “fall” or “ensavagement”. A
B

Finally, the third case: C is outside the circle. Here the distance AC>AB ,
A i.e. greater than the maximum
distance from the culture of modern Romano-Germans. But values C above the maximum are not perceptible
to the human mind and are not accessible to the senses. The worldview
> of the European, standing at
point A of our diagram, is limited by the circumference of our circle,
A and everything beyond the limits of
the circle is no longer distinguishable. Therefore the European mustB project point C onto the circle to
create C’, which leads to the first case—the appearance of stagnation.
Just as how he treats the savages, the European evaluates the histories of other peoples whose culture is
closer or farther from modern Romano-Germanic culture. Strictly speaking, real “progress” is seen only in
the history of Romano-Germans themselves, since it naturally features a constant, gradual approach
towards the modern condition of Romano-Germanic culture, which is arbitrarily declared the peak of
perfection. As for the histories of non-Romano-Germanic peoples, if a history does not end in the adoption
of European culture, then all its recent stages—those closest to the present day—would have to be viewed
by European scholars as stagnation or decline. If a non-Romano-Germanic people gives up its national
culture and begins blindly copying Europeans, only then do Romano-Germanic scholars delightfully
remark that this people has “joined the path of human progress”.
And thus the “historical argument”, the strongest and more convincing in the eyes of Europeans, turns out
to prove just as little as all the other arguments in favor of the superiority of Romano-Germans over
savages.

The question of superiority is not an objective question

Many may think that we are engaging in sophistry or are juggling vague concepts. Many will say that,
despite the logic of all our reasoning, the superiority of the European over the savage remains an
undeniable, objective and self-evident truth, which for this very reason cannot be proven—axions are
unprovable, just as the facts of our immediate perception are unprovable, for example the fact that the
paper on which I’m writing is white. However, self-evidence does not require proof when it is objective.
Subjectively, it may be plainly obvious to me that I am better in every way than my acquaintance N, but
since this fact isn’t apparent to N himself nor to many of our mutual acquaintances, I cannot consider it an
objective fact. But the question of the superiority of the European over the savage is of precisely that
nature: don’t forget that the people interested in this question are Europeans, Romano-Germans, or people
who, despite not belonging to their race, are interested in their prestige, being totally under their control. If
these people judge Romano-Germanic supremacy to be self-evident, then the superiority is not objective
but subjective, and therefore requires more rigorous proof. But there is no such proof—the discussion
above has shown this clearly enough.
They tell us, “Compare the contents of the mind of a cultured European with that of
some Bushman, Botocudo or Vedda—is the superiority of the former over the latter not apparent?” But we
maintain that the superiority here is only subjective. As soon as we allow ourselves to investigate the
matter in good faith without prejudice, the self-evidence disappears. A savage, a good savage hunter-
gatherer who has all the qualities that are valued in his tribe (since only such a savage can be compared to
a real cultured European), possesses in his mind a huge reserve of all sorts of knowledge and information.
He has perfectly studied the life of the environment that surrounds him, and knows all the animals’ habits,
such subtleties of their lives as would escape the keen eye of the most attentive European naturalist. All
this knowledge is kept in the savage’s mind in a manner that is not at all disorganized. It is systematized—
albeit not by the same set of criteria that a European scientist would use, but by another set, more
convenient for the practical purposes of hunting. Aside from this practical and scientific knowledge, the
savage’s mind contains an often very complex mythology of his tribe, its moral code, its rules of etiquette
(which can be quite complex), and finally, a more or less significant repository of his people’s oral
literature. A savage’s head is bursting with material, despite the fact that its contents differ from that of a
European’s head. And because of this difference in the substance of the intellectual life of a savage and a
European, their mental contents should be considered incomparable and incommensurable, which is why
the question of the superiority of one over the other should be considered unanswerable.
They point out that European culture is in many ways more complex than a given savage culture.
However, this kind relationship between the two cultures is not observed when considering every aspect.
Cultured Europeans are proud of the refinement of their manners, the finesse of their courtesy. But there is
no doubt that the rules of etiquette and conventions of communal living in many savage cultures are much
more complex and elaborate than those of Europeans, not to mention that all members of the “savage”
tribe obey this code of etiquette without exception, while the Europeans’ etiquette is the domain of only
the uppermost classes. In taking care of their appearance, “savages” often show much more complexity
than many Europeans: remember the sophisticated tattoo techniques of Australians and Polynesians or the
most complicated hairstyles of African beauties. Even if we attribute all these complications to some
amount of impractical oddity, there are in the life of many savages some undoubtedly practical institutions
that are much more complex than the corresponding European ones. Take, for example, attitudes towards
sexual life, family and marriage law. How rudimentary is the solution to this issue in the Romano-
Germanic civilization, where the monogamous family exists officially, protected by law, while unbridled
sexual freedom flourishes alongside it, which society and the state in theory condemn but in practice
allow. Compare this with the elaborate institution of group marriage in Australia, where sexual activity is
strictly regulated and, in the absence of individual marriage, measures are nevertheless in place both to
provide for children and to prevent incest.
In general, it is hard to say much about the degree to which a culture has reached perfection. Evolution
tends just as often towards simplicity as it does towards complexity. Levels of complexity, therefore, can
in no way serve as a measure of progress. Europeans are well aware of this, and only apply this measure
when it is convenient for their own purposes of self-glorification. In cases when another culture—for
instance, a given savage culture—is in some form more complex than the European one, Europeans not
only reject complexity as a measure of progress, but even on the contrary declare that, in this case,
complexity is a sign of “primitiveness”. This is how European science interprets all the aforementioned
examples: the complex etiquette of savages, their care for complex body decorations, even the intricate
Australian system of group marriage—all this turns out to be a manifestation of a low degree of culture.
Notice that Europeans here cannot refer to their beloved “historical argument”, dismantled above: in the
prehistory of the Gauls and the Germans (and even the Romans themselves) there was never a moment
when all the aforementioned, ostensibly primitive, sides of “savage” life would have been manifested.
Some ancestors of Romano-Germans had no conception of careful body decorations, tattoos or
fantastically complicated hairstyles, they neglected politeness and “manners” much more than modern
Germans and Americans, and the family was structured in the same way from time immemorial. There are
a number of other cases where Europeans do not consider the historical argument, where its logical
application would not favour of European civilization. Much of what in modern Europe is considered to be
the cutting edge of civilization or the peak of yet-to-be-achieved progress is found in savages, but is then
declared a sign of extreme primitiveness. Futuristic images painted by Europeans are considered a sign of
high refinement of aesthetic taste, but totally similar works by “savages” are just naive attempts, the first
awakenings of primitive art. Socialism, communism, anarchism—these are all “shining ideals of the
highest progress to come” 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 proof of the superiority of Europeans over savages, and there never will be, because
when comparing different cultures, Europeans know only one measure: what is like us is better, and more
perfect, than anything that is not like us.
But if this is the case, if Europeans are not more perfect than savages, then the evolutionary ladder, which
we talked about at the beginning of this chapter, should collapse. If the ladder’s top rung is not higher than
the bottom rung, then clearly it is also not any of the other rungs. Where we used to have a ladder, we now
have a horizontal plane. Instead of the principle of ordering peoples and cultures by levels of perfection,
we have a new principle of equality and qualitative incommensurability of all cultures and peoples of the
globe. The idea of appraising cultures should be forever banished from ethnology and cultural history, as
well as from all evolutionary sciences in general, because appraisal is always based on egocentrism. There
is no “higher” or “lower”. There is only “similar” and “dissimilar”. Declaring those who are similar to us
to be higher and those who are different to be lower is arbitrary, unscientific, naive, and finally, just plain
stupid. Only by completely overcoming this deep-rooted egocentric prejudice and driving its consequences
out of the very methods and conclusions that have so far been built on it, will European evolutionary
sciences—in particular ethnology, anthropology and cultural history—become real scientific disciplines.
Until then, they are at best a means of tricking people and justifying, in the eyes of Romano-Germans and
their henchmen, imperialist colonial policies and vandalistic exploitation8 by the “great powers” of Europe
and America.
And so, to the first of the above questions—“Is it possible to objectively prove that the Romano-Germanic
culture is superior to all other cultures that exist or have ever existed on Earth?"—we must answer, “No.”