Rus Articles Journal

view of policy through a prism of love

generally here the proof that the USSR won against the West cold war.

We will understand at first what is love. The love is a desire, at once it is clear that we deal with an instinct. What is an instinct - it is usual desire something.

For example hunger - desire to eat. The animal if has no desire something to eat, then it will starve. The animal if does not want to eat, then will not be even if around a food pile. It does not understand that without food there will occur the death. At once it is clear that instincts are vital for animals including for the person. Actually instincts the self-preservation instinct is a little - (to save life in that that became), a reproduction instinct (to which the love belongs). All other desires (instincts) can be referred to these two instincts, for example hunger - as a kind of an instinct of self-preservation. Maternal instinct (desire to care for the kid) - a kind of an instinct of a reproduction. That is these two instincts - self-preservation and a reproduction consist each of a series of instincts, and the love is one of reproduction instincts. Seemingly it is clear. There are some more instincts which are seemingly not relating to above-stated - for example curiosity, but actually they can be carried to a self-preservation instinct.

we Will bring some specification. If the animal wants to strike with anyone, for example the doggie feels a techka and forward, then we will call this desire - a sex instinct. If the animal wants to have communication with a certain individual (as at people) - a love instinct. It I to the fact that further it will be a question of a love instinct, but not of a sex instinct. The instinct of love is peculiar not only to the person, many bird species use a love instinct - create couple and raise children. Maybe of course we got a love instinct from animals, but it seems to me appeared recently upon transition of the ancestor of the person from a monkey to the homo sapiens. In more detail about it it is possible to esteem in the previous chapter “Sea coast“. But now we are interested not in an origin of love, but its properties.

Is in Africa one tribe women of which on a bum have a fatty outgrowth, in this tribe it is considered very beautiful. From that that it was also formed that it is considered beautiful - women with such outgrowth get advantage in selection as on them bigger demand at men. The others without this outgrowth simply died out. That is the love can organize also selection of individuals on some signs and to fix it in selection at posterity. If in any primitive tribe begins to be considered beautiful to have long ears, then it will be possible not to doubt through some quantity of generations at all long ears. But in general that the love on a moyma at all people on the earth plays a conservative role, that is stabilizes appearance of people and their behavior (I so consider). How it occurs? The person is born, grows and in the childhood he develops complexes. For example if the child has a big nose, he has about it complex and further he considers a small nose very beautiful, and other indicators of appearance play much a smaller role. The probability that it will have a spouse with a small nose sharply increases, and at their posterity the nose will have most likely the intermediate size between noses of parents, that is there will come stabilization in this parameter. Too most and in other parameters - growth, weight, temperament etc. In other words, if people not really beautiful married for love, then at them will be, more possibly, the posterity surpassing parents in a set of the standard qualities (i.e. more beautiful). In other words LYUBOV is the DIRECTION of HIGH-QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE of the GENE POOL. We come to a similar conclusion as well as in the previous chapter, only from other reasons.

In July, 2000. In the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts which on Volhonka some American photographers organized a photo exhibition approximately on such subject: America (USA) and the USSR in 1937. Photos went in couples, American, Soviet. There were many photos several hundreds. You look, you compare. Suddenly my companion tells

: - What for nonsense, in photos our some women not beautiful? I looked narrowly. Precisely, not only that they not really nice, in any couple of photos of the American it is more nice than Russians. By itself a conclusion follows: in 1937 Americans were more nice than the Soviet women. A. Dumas`s

in 1858 - 1859 traveled around Russia. Here the quote from his letter home during travel:

` Around me out of curiosity crowd the Tatar women, it is impossible to tell that very vzrachny, and men - too. Looking at them, I believe that big improvements in race Tatar will not happen and if occurs, so not soon. `A. Dumas`s

`Traveling impressions in Russia` Volume 3, p. 488, Scientifically - the publishing center `Ladomir` with assistance of `VRS` of 1993. As to Dumas the Frenchman, it is clear that instinctively he compares Tatars to Frenchwomen. It is quite possible to trust it to an assessment as in spite of the fact that Dumas the famous prattler, an eye at it as at the person writing is swept fairly together. Now (2012) Tatars if concede to Russians, then it is not enough. To compare them to Frenchwomen nowadays, you understand, there is no special sense, Dumas was mistaken in the phrase:`... that big improvements in race Tatar will not happen... `.

When Kennedy met Khrushchev, Khrushchev went to America together with the wife. The American press repeatedly and colourfully compared Khrushchev`s wife to Kennedy`s wife. There was it and thick and is not well-groomed in comparison with Jacqueline Kennedy. A reprint of these articles in modern American magazines it would be regarded as mockery at the American nation, you know what situation with Americans now. But in those that times means everything was as it should be.

we will pay attention to such fact Now that in Russia there are much more beautiful women than for example in Europe and America now. Now it is possible and about it it is possible to learn from any tourist who visited abroad. In my opinion before it it was not observed, I mean ill-fated 1913. At Pushkin, Lermontov, Fat or any other writer I did not meet similar statements even for a moment. And it were observant people whether happened abroad and even sweep up a small difference and for certain would describe. From this I drew a conclusion that it was not earlier. Means there was some process in the USSR and Europe which led to such difference. Process by the way absolutely not noticeable to the observer`s eye because the person lives among the age-mates. And age-mates with a tide of life do not change. And to imagine in what environment of coevals there lived the grandfather or the grandson of people naturally cannot and nobody is set by such problem. Probably in Europe in Soviet times there was a process of extinction of beautiful women or on the contrary to the USSR there was a process of reproduction of beautiful women, and perhaps these two processes went at the same time. Actually here we approached

a question for the sake of which I and sat down at the computer keyboard: what processes are went to the USSR and Europe. It can be understood only by people with a unique situation - living and at socialism and capitalism at the same time, i.e. to us to whom now 40 - 50 years.

If you begin to interrogate acquaintances why so it turned out, then the main opinions will be: 1. So was always (incorrectly, I already showed that so was not always).

2. Europeans overdid in inquisition, burned through beautiful women. (it is nonsense too, in America inquisition was not and at the time of Dumas any more nobody burned down anybody). the person living at socialism in property of nothing had

, except sex. A job could be got in any settlement for a standard salary for which it was possible to live and to put on not in the best way. As for this salary it was possible to buy the car I, frankly speaking, did not understand. The housing was received from the state, went to the sea generally according to permits (almost free of charge) in turn in a pioneer camp and rest house. That`s all. That who was strongly beaten out by speculation (trade) in money - put. From entertainments - to rummage in 6 drains at the dacha, to syedit to relatives on tea, vodka and sex, various hobbies. It is clear, that entertainment in the form of sex surpasses all others. Therefore to marry for love at socialism was a great luck, it was appreciated. Therefore - that at socialism also occurred improvement of a gene pool - the love is guilty. This process right after arrival of Bolsheviks to the power could not begin, the population had to will be convinced - it is impossible to grow rich at socialism. On it about 20 - 40 years had to leave. Process of improvement of a gene pool means went where that after the Great Patriotic War.

Under capitalism all not so. Girls already look what wheelbarrow at the guy what cellular, generally as at him with money, to put it briefly not to love of a sample of the USSR. Or it is possible to tell at love the sight gets off. The girl choosing the partner in life thinks the head, but does not submit to an instinct. Respectively there is a deterioration in a gene pool. Why in a cap. the countries process of deterioration in a gene pool began only in 20 - that century? Because before the population of the countries was rural and the big difference between people was not, the difference was but small it could be neglected for the sake of love. (If in a family at Vanya of 300 sheep, and in a family at Petya 3 sheep, then in the conditions of the village the difference in their standard of living is not big and therefore Masha makes the choice of the husband not therefore at whom sheep more and with whom sex is better.) All problems began when people moved to the cities. At this level of development of a civilization the reason of women makes a mistake: from two options - it is better to live or to live on love, makes the choice in advantage - it is better to live. This the first. The second: Seeking to achieve success in life by own efforts women transfer a marriage and the birth of children for later. Begin to deal with this issue at later age, by then the instinct of love weakens and its hint is already not so exact.

Estimate stories of the people living in other countries from the point of view of a condition of a gene pool on YouTube. Gather in the searcher of YouTube “life in the USA“ (France, Italy etc.) . People tell about life in other countries without thinking of a condition of a gene pool at all. In it the value of these stories, you receive more, less objective information.

Come into school look at schoolmates of the children, remember the class. I do not know precisely, but process of deterioration in a gene pool in Russia already seems to me goes

.

It is possible to look at this problem on the other hand. Any instinct (desire) is directed to that to increase survival of an individual. If you are thirsty, then it is necessary to drink. If to the place of it you eat candies, then by all means will die of dehydration. However under capitalism, in the conditions of the megalopolis of the woman give birth not on an instinct (love). Most of women has installation: it is necessary to marry and give birth to the one who in the best way will manage to lift and raise children. On the scale of a family it seems everything is correct. But in country scales it will surely lead to accident. Experiment is already put on the example of the countries of Europe and USA in Soviet times in Russia. At women beauty leaves, all lifestyle of society respectively changes. Otherwise also cannot be. If to live not on an instinct surely will occur what - that change. Before the person one hundred thousands of years of veins on a love instinct. Now, at the beginning of the twenty first century, clear what changes happen. At women beauty leaves. Question: It is necessary to us? whether

How to check were mistaken we in the reasonings? There is an easy way. It is necessary to make experiment: To compare group of young women from North Korea to group of young women from South Korea. Already (for 2011) the difference in favor of women of North Korea has to be outlined. If such difference is found, means these logical constructions and reasonings are true.

What conclusions can draw in the light of the above following the results of 20 - go centuries:

is useful to Live at socialism, but very few people want. Also as very few people are thirsty not, not to smoke, go in for physical culture. It is useful, but there is a wish only to overwhelming minority. The vast majority of people wants to live better than the others. It will turn out during life or not is already other question. But nobody wants to live in the environment where there is no opportunity and chances to live better than the others.

If to compare in general socialism of a sample of the USSR and capitalism of a sample of Europe that, in my opinion, in general socialism much (by 10 times) is more qualitative than capitalism. But it in my opinion. If to offer me at choice that I prefer, to live in an environment of beautiful women or to have “Mercedes“ and the cell phone, the Internet that I would choose the first. Though at different people the choice happens different, but the vast majority would make the same choice.

of the USSR won against the West cold war. To exhaust Russia on the way of Europe, it unambiguously to ruin the people inhabiting Russia as it was made by Europe and the USA.

Experiment on creation of socialism in the USSR came to an end in deafening success (at socialism of a sample of the USSR the love instinct perfectly works), but socialism of the USSR to people the possessing any talents did not allow to live better than the others, that is pressed desire, natural to the person, better to live the others. And this desire is the cornerstone of development of a civilization. Naturally at such system development of a civilization is very complicated or in general it is impossible.

Should find a way to force beautiful women to give birth on love under capitalism (to combine normal functioning of two instincts - love and desire it is better to live the others).

Is interesting to look from this point of view and who was the best governor in the 20th that century. Protses of improvement of a gene pool in socialist camps could begin as we understood, approximately in 20 - 40 years after the beginning of construction of socialism. Therefore candidates not many Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Kim Jong Il. All western heads fly by, they could not organize at themselves in the countries process of improvement of a gene pool. And in general at us in Russia the western leaders are not praised (except for Margaret Thatcher). I do not know what there Margaret Thatcher made for the English people, but it is firmly convinced that if she found to herself cake from which at it the uterus falls and gave birth to it to four children, then advantage to the English people there would be much more than from board. So it is necessary to choose from three proposed candidacies. In my opinion the best - Brezhnev (not only on the fact that I at it grew up), though of course at everyone in this respect the opinion.

***************************************** Each theory is good

the fact that it can explain earlier not the clear phenomena and give the forecast - what to do farther. Let`s try.

1. Now in the countries of the former USSR it is much more beautiful than the woman than in Europe. In Europe it is much better than the woman than white women in the USA. How it was formed the white population in the USA? Emigrants from Europe and Russia. If women of Europe always conceded to Russians, then women of the USA would have to be better than Europeans and concede to Russians. It is not observed. The explanation is simple: Americans the work achieved bigger welfare, than Europeans and Russians. According to my theory white women of the USA began to concede sharply to both that and another over time. What is guilty of it? Democracy? Welfare? If democracy that Europeans and white U.S. citizens have to be identical. In the 20th century democracy in the countries of USA and Europe not strongly differed. It is not observed. Welfare means. Europe as a result of 1 and 2 world wars considerably grew poor in comparison with the USA. It seems everything keeps within the theory.

2. In some magazine or the newspaper read still in the nineties: on researches English (I do not remember whom, roofing felts of physicians, roofing felts of scientists, roofing felts of sociologists) every tenth Englishwoman gives birth not to the husband.

At first sight Englishwomen are simply dismissed. But for those who read this text clear - at Englishwomen reproduction instincts are very strongly developed. They give birth that not to the husband on lyubvi. And in any way differently. For British it is possible not to worry - the number of beautiful women there though decreases, but to zero it will never be reduced. In the conditions of capitalism and the megalopolis the love saves England.

3. On the TV as heard that, I do not remember when: To Norway decided to invite 10000 (or 20000 I do not remember) men from India (or something like that) to the PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Purpose: to introduce changes in a gene pool. Who read to

the above-stated stories at once clear: At Norwegians instincts are weaker, than at Englishwomen. They Blyadut and give birth not to the husband to significantly less Englishwomen and here result: people feel the approaching genetic accident (obviously beautiful women in Norway it is not enough). Try to undertake something. Why invite not women, but men now I will explain:

On Earth almost all animals and many plants bisexual, but is also same-sex. At first sight same-sex have advantage over bisexual. Present - you got to ship-wreck, all drowned, and threw out you on the desert island. If you bisexual - you are doomed to stop a reproduction. If same-sex - quietly you grow up children and the sort proceeds. But on Earth bisexual unambiguously forced out same-sex. Same-sex further any amoebas did not rise, bisexual occupied all ecological niches and same-sex did not let. Why?

For normal functioning of a look is necessary stability of a genotype, and for bigger adaptability at change of conditions of the environment its increased variability. The nature combined this contradiction having divided floors. A gender of bisexual is not equivalent. One floor is the basic (female - steady), and the second trial (man`s - changeable). The male purpose to try environment on durability, respectively natural selection puts big losses to a male. There pass selection the most adapted individuals. The female purpose - to continue reproduction towards genetic changes which were outlined at a male. As a result of such division even if men have very big losses - the sort proceeds to develop steadily, both quantitatively, and is qualitative. There is an overtaking same-sex, as in speed of adaptation of a gene pool to the changed conditions, and in number of individuals. But it so derogation from a subject. Let`s return to Norway: they do not want to start up other main floor in the gene pool. It will be already other people. And if to let men, then the people will not change. By the way Jews are absolutely right when they consider a nationality on the female line. Other people were mistaken.

4. In the USSR the different people had at the time of disintegration in percentage terms various number of beautiful and nice women. At Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, a mordva, Tatars etc. the percent is approximately identical. Georgians, have significantly less Armenians. Why? Let`s try to understand on the example of Armenia.

Some consider that there are no beautiful Armenians at all. It is a mistake. Who was in Armenia, will confirm - is. Only with them the relatives as with a hand-written feed bag rush, to release the beautiful Armenian for example to Moscow for education, for example, the doctor or still something in stagnant times and speeches could not be. Respectively they in Russia did not appear - from here and there was such opinion.

Who came to Yerevan in years of stagnation sale of cigarettes struck. A pack it is admissible cost 80 kopeks. That to receive it it was necessary to give 1 ruble. Delivery was not given. If you stretched 80 kopeks. Spoke to you - cigarettes came to an end. So was in all Armenia. All knew everything. To the people allowed to live. In Russia such system was absolutely impossible. In Armenia, having looked, it was possible to buy, but not to get for example good trousers and decent footwear. Obviously small tsekhovik were not touched. To put it briefly communists could not break capitalism sprouts in Armenia as broke in Russia. It was impossible to hide such scales of trade, probably there was an arrangement between the authorities of Yerevan and Moscow that it is possible and that it is impossible. So to speak national peculiarities. Armenians lived not absolutely under such laws and orders as in Russia. Respectively and result - much smaller percent of beautiful women. Higher and higher written it is possible to put without changes to Georgia or Azeybardzhan.

5. All heard about the Chinese policy: one family - one child. But it is not the full, reduced formulation. Completely sounds so: one family - one child for urban population, for rural - have how many you want children, for national. minorities - have how many you want children. It thus that China still country rural. Here and so, draw conclusions.

6. The influence of a family on the choice by the spouse`s daughter, the better is less. People have an instinct which works better than the head. Optimum filmstars in the American movie “We Are Millera“ as it is strange act.

7. Time to realize came that the number of beautiful and nice women on 100 000 population too some kind of resource. Which gives much. Likely where - that is people with sore or atrophied flavoring receptors. They do not feel taste. They likely normally live, but try to explain to them that such sweet or salty. To the person not in power to make it. Too most and love. It is only possible to fall in love in beautiful or as a last resort the nice woman. If such women are not we will cease to know what is love and nobody will be able to explain to us. We will lose the main pleasure in life (And our main objective - to construct society in which is with the maximum pleasure). The love is useful to health. And many endured it several times in life. Sex too very useful occupation, many especially those who did not know love confuse these concepts. It is impossible to explain to the person who did not know love in what a difference. So and sex with ugly women too not that. Conclusion: Time danger is distinguished, the countries with a high standard of living (prevalence of urban population including Russia) changes in rules of the game wait shortly. What changes yet not clearly will be. But can be absolutely unexpected. For example, who could think that the state control over means of production will lead to increase in number of beautiful women? One thing is clear, for broad masses of the population these changes will take place under the slogan: `LYUBOV WILL SAVE the WORLD`.

A what needs specifically to be made?

needs to reach coefficient 2. 35 births on one woman. But not in auls, and in the cities of Russia. What at the same time the gene pool would not worsen. Everything is simple and clear. The authorities should be more courageous with ex-recops over the people. For example, Lenin entered in Russia a slaveholding system with democracy elements, as a result now Russia in world leaders in a condition of a gene pool. Communistic propagandists of a lot of things promised the people in the future. But the reality surpassed the most abrupt promises and fairy tales. That is despite a failure in economy Russia now the world leader. To look to us there is nobody. Studies us there is nobody. The head it is necessary to think.

Prelovsky K. V.