The collapse of the “HUMANITY” project. Chapter 3.



A migrant, whom we meet most often, is a middle-aged male, who came from Middle Asia to find employment. Surely, he says that he wants to return home very much. Surely, he is working here not according to the chosen profession. He came from an agrarian country, where the area of kitchen gardens is not three hundred square meters but three hectares and where they grow practically the full ration of his giant, according to Russian scales, family – sunflowers, carrots, onions, melons, grapes, sesame, cattle fodder, rice… Trees give fruit. But water insufficiency began somewhere around 1993. Trees went dry, cows, sheep and horses were slaughtered. In the end, his kitchen garden started bringing such small harvests that labour there is no longer self-sufficient.

(Do you recall us speaking about the limit of goods production in the beginning of the book? Here is an example of such a limit.)

And he had to leave for Russia to make money.

His family stayed at home. He sends his wages to them as even RUB 100 are enough to buy something there. He was lucky here, he lives in the apartment of a lonely Russian woman, though an elderly woman, she feeds him and he does not have to pay for his room, he pays by love. He feels himself bad here, and no one loves him except this woman, people don’t think of him as an equal, construction superintendents and policemen are trying to fleece him. No, he does not want to live here, not for religious reasons, he is indifferent to religion, but because of the climate – he loves when it is hot, when the sun is shining…

You can hear such “migrant’s confession” in a shop, on the construction site or in a taxi, and it will sound approximately the same everywhere. But you’ll never hear answers to the following questions from migrants: why did water disappear? What did he personally do to improve life in his Motherland? Does he think that he can be respected?

Water disappeared because of people’s actions, and it’s even impossible to name the Communist times guilty of the problems; it’s possible to improve life in his Motherland only by political methods, and that’s frightening; there is nothing to respect him for as it turns out that he failed in everything, and what is more, he is running away from problems.

Sure, there are other migrants as well – political refugees, active members of nongovernmental organizations, journalists truthfully writing about the water crisis reasons – but usually we don’t see them. They skip over Russia and settle in Western Europe, from where they will at least not be sent back to their Motherland.

There is also a thin stratum of their cosmopolitan young people, they know European languages, they travel, they know IT-technologies and contemporary arts, and they think of themselves as citizens of the world. We feel their presence on the social networks, rarer in media space and very rare in real politics. There boys and girls will not stop pogroms but they will save a part of the nation at least, criticizing and condemning them on Twitter.

However, following the logic of events development, these creative individuals are repeating the evolution of a musician, Tatar Mustafa, a character of Vasily Aksyonov  from The Island of Crimea. At first he joined an international group of creative young people naming himself Masta Fa, but was quickly disappointed in it.

American anthropologist Margaret Mead said once, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it’s the only thing that ever has”.

And that’s true. In time. But we don’t have time. Exhaustion of resources does not give us time for changes.

Research and development


The matter is not in special features of national characters as you may think. It’s impossible to deny differences between ethnic groups, and such denial is humiliating for representatives of ethnic groups. And it’s also at least shortsighted to think that differences between nations are exclusively cultural, i.e. those that can be corrected by upbringing, because finally this leads of Fascism, totalitarian retraining of nations and supported by military force to add. And both sides logically come to totalitarianism – those “taught” and their “teachers”.

Such examples can be regularly found in world history from Japan’s “discovery” by Commodore Matthew C. Perry. The answer to such “retraining” is hatred to “teachers”. Pearl Harbour was the consequence of Commodore Perry’s mission. General hatred to Kulturträger Europeans, including Russians, was the consequence of their actions, manifested in mass murders of European colonists all over the world, with former Soviet Middle Asia and Transcaucasia being no exceptions. One can also recall “Islamic revolutions”, genocide in Cambodia arranged by graduates of Paris Universities Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, etc.

It’s impossible to make individuals act against their nature by upbringing. In this case, under nature we understand the microelements in the body, physiological special features of endocrine glands that function differently in case of different nations, outside ethnic features correlated with special features of the vegetative and nervous systems’ functioning, having an impact on all body functions – from puberty time to sensitivity to pain… It’s possible to change human nature only subjecting individuals to some impact of other physical and geographical environment. That’s what tyrants were guided by when they sent whole nations beyond the borders of their native lands.

The upbringing limits are very well described by Herbert G. Wells in The Island of Doctor Moreau. By the way, he proves in this novel once again that upbringing, contrary to basic body’s setups, should become totalitarian in order to bring at least some results.

Recently, we’ve been hearing ideas for upbringing of newly arrived migrants or nations that only beginning to interact closely with their neighbours on the globe en masse, with the help of public opinion. These ideas are widely advocated. In principle, it’s possible to make each fact of violence known, as well as lack of culture, denial of local customs and behavioural standards thanks to development of new technologies fixing human actions. Local communities or public opinion leaders can criticize and condemn this behaviour. But advocates of this approach should remember that the overwhelming majority of people, independent of their nationality, are pleased and not inclined to condemn when watching scenes of violence, cruelty, humiliation of other people.

Boxing and “fighting without rules”, practically all Asian action movies, recordings of real humiliation and violence by cellular phones take first lines in the numbers of viewers on the Internet. Recall how many people assembled for public executions in the past, recall how many people assemble now to watch other people’s troubles – a fire or a traffic accident. This refers not only to Europe or America – photos and videos of full inspection of girls by border guards, for example, in Deli airport, are viewed in India millions of times – everyone wants to see humiliation, especially of a while woman. So, in case violence is posted on the Internet for everyone to see – no matter if by a migrant violating a local resident, or a local resident violating a migrant – the public opinion in most cases will be on the side of the user of force. Even if this opinion is not expressed publicly.


Nations are nothing more than parts of ecotypes, formed by the environmental impact, and in these terms they do not differ from other parts of ecotypes in any way – for example, animals. Let’s take the grey wolf, the favourite character of fairytales. There are many wolf subspecies – common wolf (Canis lupus), European wolf, Carpathian wolf, steppe wolf, Tibetan wolf and Chinese wolf formed in various ecotypes.

Ecotype is an aggregate of species of some or the other kind of plants, animals or microorganisms adapted to the environment and having inherited, environmentally conditioned features. One of species can be also called an ecotype in contrast to others, neighbouring, if we review the said species in the context of adaptation to the environment.  

Sure, nothing can be changed in this case by upbringing, but it is possible to change nation’s mentality by changing the environment, adding microelements to the food ration, change of climate, resettlement. Compare mentalities of Finno-Ugrian nations as an example – Mansi, Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, Vepsians. They are so different! And they are very close relatives. They have not only similar languages. Y-chromosome N1c-Tat haplogroup is clearly associated with Finno-Ugrian languages.

In particular, it is found in case of 67% of Udmurtians, 61% of Finns, 53% of Lapps, 51% of Komi, 50% of Mari and 34% of Estonians. It’s rare in modern Hungarians but analyses demonstrate its wide spreading in case of old Hungarian elites.
Anthropologic types of modern Finno-Ugrian nations are exceptionally various but on the whole it is supposed that ancient Finno-Ugrian population was referred to the ancient Urals race, not finally differentiated as to European or Mongolian features, and currently it is most fully preserved in the Mansi anthropological type.

Charles-Louis Montesquieu wrote once that the type of government depended on the area. And this is right – at first the area forms the ecotype, then a part of the ecotype – ethnos – creates a sociopolitical superstructure, then chooses a religion (i.e. ancient tribal beliefs are  replaced by the established theological and philosophical teaching)…


The human potential, or to be more exact, opportunities for development are probably approximately equal for all ethnic groups. The difference is the place where they live. Let’s say that there are places suitable for modern civilization development and there are geopathogenic areas where civilization developed till a certain limit and degraded after that. Usually, the natural environment in such areas brings about certain pathologies in development and looks of the inhabitants.

The matter is that it’s impossible to measure either geofavourability or geopathogenicity of a territory, and we can judge about its potential suitability for development only by the result – if there is progress or no progress. However, there is also IQ but though its calculations show interrelation of progress and nation’s intelligence on the average, they do not explain what the reason was and what the consequence is. It’s possible that low intelligence is exactly the consequence of the lack of progress in the fate of nations and states.

What is progress? Sure, the question is open to discussion, we’ll speak about that in the next chapters. And what is more, as environmental special features of the area change – it’s becoming warmer or colder, orange trees grow in place of pine forests, pastures with succulent vegetation turn into deserts, etc. – geofavouable areas gradually turn into geopathogenic areas.  (And some previously geopathogenic areas are becoming geofavourable, e.g. the Baltic Sea area.)

No upbringing can change the consequences of ecotypization fixed in the looks of representatives of some or the other nations. It is possible to teach a person to behave differently than he/she is used to. It is possible to restrain one’s feelings. It’s possible to teach to understand other people. But it’s impossible to make an individual forget who he/she is and whom he/she was born. As soon as the outside pressure ceases or there is a stressful situation – all the thin polish of civilization (according to Nietzsche) falls off the individual, and an ancient wild beast again appears in front of us like in Herbert Well’s novel The Island of Doctor Moreau. We’re witnessing this in Georgia – modernized by Saakashvili, the country again gradually comes back to thuggery and again becomes dangerous for travelers.

Everyone heard about mass murders and pogroms in the most favourable countries, when lights go out for several hours in big cities and there are natural calamities. (Japan is an exception, the Fukushima catastrophe there was not accompanied by looting.)

Another tragic example is an attempt to build “the new historical community of people – the Soviet people” in the USSR. As soon as the pressure of repressive authorities weakened just a little, there were pogrom waves in practically all national republics, and they did not disappear for years. It turned out that people there had not forgotten their national identity; it turned out that they had hated representatives of the other nation during their whole lives; it turned out that they had only waited for an opportunity to start murdering them, driving from their homes, rape and mock at.

The so-called Jedwabne phenomenon was repeated and many times strengthened in the USSR. There had been mass murder of Jews in the village of Jedwabne of the Belostok Region of the Byelorussian SSR (now the territory of Poland) in July 1941, during World War II. It was thought for a long time that the massacre had been committed by Germans, who had occupied the area, however, it’s known now that many Poles from neighbouring regions participated in the massacre. In 2001, American historian Jan Tomasz Gross published his book Sąsiedzi: Historia zaglagy zydowskiego miasteczka (Neighbours: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne), in which he demonstrated that the massacre had been effected by local residents with the help of Germans.

According to the American researcher, the main facts are indisputable. In July 1941, a big group of Poles, who lived in Jedwabne, took part in cruel extermination of nearly all local Jews, who, by the way, made the overwhelming majority of residents there. At first they were murdered one by one – by sticks, stones, Jews were tortured, their heads were cut, dead bodies were desecrated. Then, on July 10, about fifteen hundred Jews still alive were herded to a barn, locked there and burnt alive.

Actually, this was far from the only case, during World War II Poles committed war crimes against their Jewish neighbours at least in 24 regions in the country. But exactly Jedwabne became the name of the social phenomenon: any nation will hate another nation if they have to live together on equal terms.


The world history experience only confirms “the Jedwabne phenomenon” – practically all nations hate neighbours (and it’s not important if because of nationality or social reasons) so much that a permission is enough – and they will start murdering. That happened in Middle Asia, Transcaucasia, North Caucasus, Balkan peninsular, nearly the whole Africa, Timor and Ceylon, Cambodia and Indonesia, Tibet and Uiguria, Jammu and Kashmir… And then everywhere. With the forecasted by us global worsening of life, states will weaken and consequently repressive authorities will weaken – and the whole globe will burst into flames.

However, there is another one, non-economic reason for hatred between nations: contempt. Now, we more and more often run across migrants’ contempt to local people and not vice versa like a hundred years ago. It seems to each newcomer, either a tourist to Transcaucasia or a Gastarbeiter to Moscow, that local people live wrongly, he would have arranged a better life here, and, most important, a more just life. Really, why should a young Asian, strong, possibly with a combatant experience, after a hard life of self-denial and adjustment to another country, respect Europeans? Weak, unhealthy, with no dignity, not fighting back; besides their women don’t like them, all run to Asians, so, local men are respectively impotent… Culture? And what is culture? He knows how to use a smartphone. Intellect? Had they had brains, would they elect a black man the President of the United States? Wouldn’t they find one of them?

I was once invited as a member of a group of experts to find an explanation of an unbearable ammonia ordour in newly constructed apartment houses. Experts discussed cement brands, methods of drying plastering… Probably, I was the only one of them, who had read The Little Demon by Fyodor Sologub. Do you remember, dear readers, how Peredonov and his friends urinate on the wallpaper before leaving the rented apartment?.. Hence the smell.

Migrant workers urinate on the walls they build, and not only because they are lazy and it’s not easy to go down from the 17th floor to the toilet in the yard. And they not only protest in this way against horrible working conditions, low wages and no trade union. These demands are still to be comprehended. But contempt to the future owners of apartments built by them, migrants, are enough to be just felt. Peredonov despised owners of apartments he rented. Migrants have the same feelings and I should say they have enough grounds for that. I’d feel the same as well.

There was already something like that in Russian history. “Labour migrants” from China joined the Red Army after the October Revolution by tens of thousands and served in “special purpose detachments” (punitive detachments), often with Latvians and Hungarians. They organized the best-disciplined and combat-capable “Red regiments”.

But is it possible that merger of races and nations will be somehow useful for mankind? Gradually people stop being attached to one place of residence, and advantages of an ethnic group adapted to a certain environment are nullified – suppose, your skin is well-adapted to excessive solar radiation but you don’t need that feature if you are an oil industry engineer and you have to work either in Nigeria, or Alaska, or Vietnam…

There are also legends about mixed marriages – as if children born to such parents have higher intellectual abilities. In practice, such legends are not confirmed – otherwise, Latin America would have outrun the whole world in intellect. It has a simple explanation: most often international marriages are the unions of people, who did not manage to find a place for themselves in their natural environment, social outcasts, failures and losers, or creative original persons.

You should agree that it’s hard to believe that a young man or a girl from St. Petersburg could not find a spouse closer than in Indonesia. It’s easy for a child to be brainy with such parents as a background…

However, we can’t agree with thinking that ethnic groups originating as a result of mixed nationalities are chimeras. We remind you that the term of “chimera” was introduced in history by Leo Gumilev to determine the place of Khazar Khaganate in ethnos-forming processes. Gumilev was a historian-conceptualist, who wanted to find the answer to a simple question: why did Khazars disappear without traces as an ethnos, having about 500 years of history and a powerful state? Gumilev introduced the term of chimera as an answer to determine such type of state and political formations that he later applied not only to the Khazarian Empire.

Really, any existing ethnos originated not only as a result of the area’s impact on the homo coming there for the first time but also as a consequence of the following mixed marriages and crossbreeding. However, it did not lead to anything good, and not every ethnos became an actor in the historical process.

We can find a lot of examples of useful contacts in history between individual representatives of various nations, a lot of examples of negative consequences of nation mixing (cf. Northern Italy and Southern Italy, where the population was forcefully mixed with Arabs, in their development level and quality of life). And there is only one example when mixing nations as a result of a resettlement of a considerable number of ancient Greeks to Asia Minor gave a positive result manifested in flourishing of arts and sciences in the Hellenic world, first of all in Hellenic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire, whose light has come to us even through the Arab conquest with One Thousand and One Nights tales.

All other examples of mass migrations of nations, no matter if they were Arian, or Arab, or Mongol, or migrations of Europeans for colonization, including Russians, were negative for civilization as they led not to development of culture but its acutely negative perception as brought by conquerors-violators. A typical example is refusal by the Chinese to drink milk as the tradition originated after the Mongol conquest – nomads drank milk, kumiss (fermented mare’s milk) in particular.

Not only scholars but writers as well deliberated over the issue of migrants – if they bring more destruction or use. The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas is probably the first in history novel about migrants. I remind you that all musketeers, the characters of the novel, had real prototypes.

All four were actually born not in France, but in Pyrénées-Atlantiques, in the Basque Country, Gascony – the recently adjoined provinces. Only Athos, count de La Fère, could call himself French. Aramis was half-Spanish (Basque according to another version), d’Artagnan was a Gascon, Porthos (his real name was Isaac de Porthau) was a Jew (in any case according to Daniel Kluger). It’s not surprising that they went to serve in the regiment commanded by de Tréville, a Gascon. Another thing is important – the principal difference of their system of values from Cardinal Richelieu’s, Milady’s and others’ system, surely, real French patriots.

The actions of the musketeers nearly always were on the border of high treason or directly treasonous, at the same time they were never tired to swear their love for the King and state. But the reader sympathizes with them: they have a free choice. They acted against state interests but according to their conscience. And in the author’s (who was a quadroon) opinion, the freedom of their behaviour was brought about by their origins – but that is mainly described in case of d’Artagnan though refers to the four of them. They have opportunities to act according to what their conscience tells them because they are not really included in the court (or establishment) in contrast to Cardinal’s guards, all of whom were sons of well-known noble families and did not use any false names.

The reader may ask a reasonable question: do all migrants have conscience? Freedom without conscience is evidently not enough. Dumas raises this question in the next book as well – and solves it creating the image of cardinal Mazzarino, a migrant with no conscience but absolutely free in his actions…

Is a migrant free in his behaviour, or is it determined by hereditary features? Does he have a free will? And if he does, how strong it is, can he suppress “the call of national identity”? The characters from Beatle in the Anthill by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky  are trying to answer this question and can’t give an unambiguous answer.

The second no less important issue is as follows. We a priori consider migrants freer from the bondages or chains of the autochthonous population – traditional morals, ties with relatives, community solidarity, traditional behaviour. And we consider them either more amoral or freer in comparison with local residents. But what if the above-said is wrong? No one resettling to another area is a migrant in relation to the planet. He is an Earth inhabitant and as any human he can’t live without morals, neighbours, relatives and friends, i.e. a reference group, without traditions and the feeling of unity, at least with the social network subscribers. In that case, the supranational community of his personal friends, people in front of whom he will be ashamed, becomes the public regulator of his behaviour…  Sure, such an international mechanism of regulation will be formed only if this migrant goes after freedom of which he does not have enough in his Motherland – and not after sausage, even Halal. If he does not want to be locked in the circle of people of his nationality, if he does not bury himself in national ghetto. To achieve that, migration should at least be voluntary but not forced by worsening economic or environmental conditions of his life. That is, migration should not turn into evacuation… And exactly that happens now.
However, there is a definite benefit of migration – it blurs the unity of the country, atomizes an individual, makes him absolutely free – from his Motherland, family and relatives, traditions. Very few people are ready to use this freedom for their advantage. But progress will really stop without achieving this freedom. The identity of a person and nation, person and state should be destroyed. The identity of a person and biological species will not be destroyed without that, and without that destruction the next evolutional step will be problematic.


We have not presented the issue in full, far from it. And we’ll come back to it. But now, summing up the chapter, we can say: about half of the dry land on the globe turned into areas unsuitable for human life before nations that had lived in these areas managed to comprehend before their disappearance from historical arena their guilt for that. They explained catastrophic changes not by their uncontrollable striving for reproduction and multiplying, enrichment and other kinds of expansion, but “unfavourable weather conditions” or “anger of Gods”. And currently this process goes on.

People destroy their lands, then without making attempts to fix things, improve the situation, run from the area in order to try to survive in other areas, at the same time they very often have no wish to join and adjust to social structures of local (autochthonous) people. It seems that people should start changes on their land from understanding: all troubles of their Motherland are the results of activities of the people living here.

However, let’s ask ourselves: are there examples in history of long joint co-existence of various nations on one land without mutual pushing out? For example, the experience of Jewish pogroms in Europe, or hatred to Europeans in Africa and Asia, or massacres of Chinese migrants in South-East Asia certify the opposite. And there is another thing. Are there examples of whole nations’ upbringing, change of the whole ethnic mass’s behaviour, without extermination of a considerable part of the population that took place in Soviet Russia and post-Hitler Germany and before that in Ancient Rome, inhabitants of which were practically fully exterminated by migrant “barbarians”?

The key to creating a sustainable world is in comprehension by each nation of its guilt for its Motherland’s troubles. Unfortunately, it seems to us that people destroying the land, i.e. 90% of the global population, have no moral strength for this comprehension, and in general the majority of their representatives, except a thin layer of intellectuals have no categorical imperative (moral law) in their consciousness. It is possible to teach morals if there are no inborn ones. But it’s impossible to make one follow them. Besides, humanity won’t have time for that. And here we’re in another dead-end – the dead-end of national limitations.

Andrey Stolyarov

In October and November 2005, there was a period of riots in France. They suddenly began in the suburbs of Paris and other cities. Young migrants went out into the streets in socially unfortunate regions of Paris. The unrest expanded immediately and reached enormous scales. Besides Paris, riots spread to Bordeaux, Rouen, Toulouse and Lille. Marseille, Nantes, Strasbourg, Dijon suffered as well…

Day after day, rioters destroyed shops, administrative buildings, schools, they burnt cars and public vehicles, fiercely fought with police. It took a lot of efforts to suppress the riots: special forces were engaged, there was censorship introduced, curfew was imposed. The national state of emergency was announced. Police arrested about three thousand people – many of them were later deported from the country. But still a couple of years later similar riots broke out in France again.

And in August 2011, a giant pogrom took place in England and became known all over the world as the London Riots. It started in the London district of Tottenham, where the African community of the Caribbean descent is the main inhabitants. It spread like a forest fire. Riots began in Birmingham, Bristol, Gloucester, Liverpool, Manchester and Nottingham. And again the rioters destroyed shops and restaurants, burnt cars and garbage bins, threw Molotov cocktails, fiercely fought with police. It’s interesting that crowds of young people were running in the streets shouting that they demand justice and for that they crushed everything on their way. It is paradoxical that migrants from the third world rose in rebellion against the country that received them and took them in.

The flame rushed out where it was least expected.

France and England were not an exception. Ethnic collisions took place in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and they were as heated as stars in the Universe. Actually the whole Europe felt the soil shaking. And at the same period, there was a wave of unrests in the United States caused by the murder of a black young man by police.

Yuri Shevchuk is right: the psychology of both labour migrants and refugees changed in recent decades. If they tried to assimilate in the past, or worked quietly trying not to attract attention to themselves, now they changed into a real and threatening force.

As a result, there are Chinese, Turkish, Arab, Pakistani, Vietnamese, Somali and other enclaves in Western cities, inside which respective ethnic traditions and laws are maintained. Police and especially local residents prefer not to go there. The scales are very large. For example, there are already over 750 such “closed areas” in France, with 9 of them in Paris.

Historically, the state of affairs as if has turned inside out. In the past, white (Western) settlers built trading stations on “wild lands”, where they exchanged glass beads, firewater and cheap textiles for furs and gold brought by local residents. Now, former “natives” arrange their independent settlements on Western lands and develop new territories seriously and for long.

They really feel themselves victors that can establish their rules in the country where they are staying. Real “Muslim patrols” have already appeared in London. They patrol the streets in controlled by them districts and watch how the Islamic laws are observed. According to The Telegraph, as a result, Muslim shop assistants and cashiers in a number of chain shops refuse to cash pork and alcohol. Similar “Muslim patrols” appeared in Germany. And they don’t hide from anyone – they even wear orange jackets like police but with the inscription Shariah Police. The researchers also say that it’s impossible to teach evolutional biology, the Holocaust history and other subjects “contrary to the Quran” in European schools, where children of Moslems are also taught. Gender segregation is established there without prior permission: boys sit in one part of the class and girls in another part.

And schools are nothing compared with the rest! For example, the Islam Party in Belgium demanded to make the Arabic language one of the state languages in this country. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the principal leader of the Church of England, supported the idea of including the Shariah norms into British legislation. And recently, the Muslim Council of Britain called to create the Islamic Republic of the United Kingdom. That is, when they say that “Shariah is knocking at European doors”, it is no longer just a metaphor – this is a reality forming today’s European life.

We should not underestimate risks.

In the 5th century, German and Slavic tribes that lived in the north of Europe started moving to the south – to the Roman Empire. They were driven by simple despair: the 5th century was the coldest in the first millennium – there were heavy rains, sown crops were irrevocably destroyed, pastures and forests became scarce, giant regions were turned into swamps. Barbarians had either to win or to die. As a result, the great Rome fell, the Antique Age ended, the Dark Ages began.

Is history repeating itself?

Russia is lucky in this context. Exactly because of its somewhat backwardness the migrant issue here is not so pressing and urgent yet as in European countries. Nevertheless, ethnic city blocks are already forming in megalopolises, besides – in accordance with the information era technologies – network communities originate that got the name of “virtual Tajikistan”. Members of such ethnic associations have their cafes, their night clubs, sports clubs, cultural organizations, where the “local population” is not allowed. It’s not necessary to live nearby in order to be together with today’s immediate communications provided by the Internet. There is an infrastructure being formed unseen with the naked eye, the mechanism capable, if required, for quick mobilization of people from one community.

And taking into account the distressing position of migrants in Russia, their discrimination and their growing wish to fight for their rights, one can think that we’re to expect upheavals similar to those already experienced by Europe.
Underground fire is smouldering and can get out at any moment.


You can buy the full book here:


Amazon Kindle

Google Play