codesMMEng.pdf - vistadev

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

1 Codes of moral Matrices Preface “If you keep flinging this bread you will go blind one day”, - told me grandmother when I was 5 years old. Such prohibition works as harsh blockage of unwanted behaviour, despite technically it’s a lie, effectively operating myth. From information science point of view, described prohibition is a program code and this book is about similar instructions performing in our brains. Charles Darwin categorized development of living creatures, Mendeleev-Meyer introduced periodic table of chemical elements sorting them by atomic weights. This book is categorising human moral systems: democracy, green movement, Islam, Communism, Nationalism, tribe structure, Gay pride and many other ideologies are studied from point view of animal behaviour and sorted accordingly. It might help not only to understand current economical and political development 2 but in general to predict major forms of future. Now that's the curious part. Modern people think about Mormon polygamists, Islamic fundamentalists or North Koreas "Juche" believers, as deluded humans misled by their leaders, where western civilization is seen as the highest achievement of the human mind. In book one that follows, I will show how wrong such a position is, how today's self-imaging is not a result of the great accomplishment of humanity, but just another delusional and deceptive dream we are doomed to obey. And there is no evil intend in how it’s happening, no ‘conspiracy theory’ of any kind. The ‘ugly face of truth’ is that we are apes. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing what differentiates us from animals. But it can be extremely unpleasant to people who separate themselves from other creatures of nature, which brings us to the next question. Who Should Read It and Who Should Not Some writers create books for millions of people, some for a specific audience, but my case is different. Being fan of “Matrix” movie [1998], I, as any ordinary Morpheus, write for one person, for Neo, and of course the main question of this publication is “what is the Matrix?” But unlike Morpheus, this book will not ask you to believe in something, quite opposite – mainly not to trust anything and anybody. But many believers can be disappointed by such sceptical approach. Any individual who is religious, patriotic, believes in aliens, the American dream, communism, racism, democracy, or in women's rights in Africa, might find the theories herein offensive. If You are a 'proud Canadian’, 'proud Gay’, ‘proud Straight', or proud of your tribe, nation, country or sexuality, it might also be potentially offensive for you . This book might disappoint you by studying the essence of our souls and will try to classify myths, which are the fundamental basis of practically any belief system or self proclamation or emotional attitude that constructs 'us and them' separation. To prove my theories, I have to attack some basic belief systems of everyday life: love, family, roots, identity, and many others. While examining all aspects of human culture, it will sometimes be necessary to use foul language. I don't need it to express myself, but have to classify the expletives to demonstrate the outcomes in form of linguistic analysis. Immanuel Kant in 18th century destroyed all proof of God’s existence, but explained that the concept of God is very useful for managing our minds. I couldn't agree more. Morpheus in ‘The Matrix’ puts it more aptly: 3 You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes The Law of Matrix and Three Major Existing Matrixes For many centuries white-bearded religious wise men have told us that the only thing that differs us from animals is our moral system - Bible, Koran , Tripitaka, and other important books which have defined lives for generations. In the following chapters, I will argue the opposite - that any persistent and efficient moral system in the history of humanity is strictly based on animal behavioural patterns, and knowing these patterns, allows us not only to effectively analyze the past and present, but to predict the future. In this book one will prove, despite popular opinion, that we are not progressing or becoming more humans, we are not evolving into smarter or more passionate beings, and we are not becoming kinder or more loving. We are the same humanoid apes as we were 10000 years ago, but simply have different behavioural programs ‘loaded’ into our heads, like an executing code that runs on our computers. For most people in our civilization, the majority of events in political and cultural life appear as random results of good or bad deeds from different types of people, which is being emotionally/morally labelled. This labelling is loose and speculative, mostly formed by geographical, religious, ethnical or racial attributes. For example, 'Blacks', 'Russians', 'Muslims', 'Gays' etc. But in each group there are different types of people - some of them are capable of killing, some of them are vegetarians, some of them like to be naked, some cover even their faces. Some cheat on each other; others are very much committed to idea of exclusive love. But one thing’s for sure, each person makes everyday decisions trying to find best solutions for their life. Some believe in a quiet family life, some want to be famous, others believe in aliens and prepare to meet them, while others prepare for judgement day. But each person acts appropriately to one’s situation. This feeling of 'appropriate' and the classification of all possible 'appropriates' in human thinking, or better to say ‘morality’, is the main topic of this book. Our thoughts and behaviour are defined by our cultural background in childhood, when parents 4 or guardians give the child the basics of their existing civilization - Muslims teach to believe in Allah, communists to obey the rules of Karl Marx, Americans to follow the principles of democracy. So let's call this 'moral code' or 'Moral Matrix', all the laws and traditions of a given community, society or group at any given point of time. ['Moral Matrix' – after the 'Matrix' movie] This naming after the famous movie is not random, nobody can 'touch, smell or taste' his own thought system and almost everybody thinks of themselves as normal. In this book one will classify existing Matrices and show how the morality of any group of people follow strict development laws. And these laws are not too hard to recognize - on a primitive level, one can notice striking similarities between religious Orthodox believers in India, USA or Israel. They all follow precise religious rules, unlike the majority of modern people, who accept religion mostly as a tradition. In 1995 an Israeli rabbi declared a children's yogurt 'not kosher,' because it had a picture of a dinosaur character on the packaging . The holy man claimed that dinosaurs never existed because the Old Testament suggests the creation of the world around 5000 years ago. This can be treated as an anecdote, but such orthodox believers commonly deny science, they also repress the role of women in society. They also cut ties with other multimedia communications , despite never having coordinated their actions between each other and worshiping different Gods. Oddly enough, such similarities can be found not only between religious groups. Rules between jailed criminals around the world are similar - the same relationships, the same punishments, the same harsh reality. It's hard to suggest that crime bosses exchange laws between Brazil and Russia, for instance. So why does their idea of the 'appropriate', their moral Matrix, so resemble each other? Is it accidental? Let’s say, for example, you're in your car on the way to work and listening to corny jokes from the radio host, who is considered to be funny. It appears to be completely harmless, random and even joyful. But if you listen carefully you'll notice a transmitted attitude and hidden moral agenda; despite the host probably being unaware about it and just 'expressing opinions' which seem to be humorous. And in any given society, our hypothetical radio host would behave differently. Nowadays, in Saudi Arabia nobody would even joke about gays. I In Russia gays can be mentioned, but mostly in a homophobic way, and in Canada some of the radio host are gay; despite the fact that 40 years ago Canadian radio was intolerant towards homosexuality as well. Something happened in 40 years that forced developed countries to change their attitude; not only towards gays but to a lot of different subjects. The sense of the 5 'appropriate' changed and the social sciences adjusted to the new situation. Let's ask ourselves what major scientific discovery has been made about the nature of homosexuality in 40 years? - Nothing, seriously. But social science, including anthropology, business administration, communication, criminology, economics, education, government, linguistics, international relations, political science, sociology, history, law and psychology, has accepted homosexuality and other changes as a new reality without really understanding it. So what is 'social science' after all? Is it really science? If scientist made a mistake in rocket calculations, the result would be predictable, a crash. Math discoveries, chemistry formulas, biology experiments, all of them have the final product of human achievement; they have a provable logic. Following this logic one should accept that any period in human history is unique when its circumstances are exclusive. And otherwise -when conditions are common it should produce typical social reaction. For example Jewish religion defines nameless God, prohibits art including iconography and gives strict moral injunctions to follow. Amazing, but there is no small nation in the world repeating this birth of monotheism even distantly – from known history it’s impossible to understand why these people needed such religion. But let's talk about language. For example, let’s suggest that the etymology [origin] of the word 'Christ' is incorrect, and a new explanation was discovered. What at first glance seems as a matter of linguistic s science, in reality touches the lives of millions of people, who call themselves 'Christians,' using the word as a basis for self-identification. The interpretation of this symbol has huge political value, making the opinion of one scientist seem like a drop in the ocean. And if his opinion is inappropriate to these people, the poor guy will destroy his scientific reputation, and in some countries could be jailed. And we’re talking not about one word and not only in the discipline of linguistics. Hundreds of facts in history are interpreted and constructed by the dominant ideology. Historians of Iraq claim that Saddam Hussein is a direct descendant of Mohammed. Today's Russian version of WW2 is different from the western one. Iran historians are working hard to prove that the Holocaust never happened. Communists have claimed that there is nothing in history, except the 'history of class struggle'. The science of Psychology is probably worse. At one point of time, it claimed that homosexuality was a sickness, but now it has a place in normality. Is there any hard scientific evidence for such a move? No. Quite possibly, in 50 years, a heterosexual person might be claimed to be 'sexually unopened’. I will come to this later. 6 What is an explanatory myth? It's some concocted story that explains why things are the way they are today. For instance, the myth of Adam and Eva explains how humanity was created. Having in the story one man and woman, immediately suggests monogamy as normality, which is supported by the myth of forbidden fruit, when they reach the realization of their nakedness and sexual shame. This is a good explanation, as at least the unknown author had a deep knowledge of the human mind, unlike modern sociology/science which can't explain why generations of people still have sexual shame while not believing in God. 'Social science' then, cannot be called science at all, since it is just one explanatory myth devoted to programming millions of people to behave according to the appropriate and moral rules of a society at any given time. It can be argued then, that social science has a dependency on the dominant ideology in any given society. So what is our ideology today? We believe in democracy, human rights and capitalism as the most effective production system. So how does our ideology shape the reality around us? Is there a possibility it makes us lie to ourselves? Are we scientifically objective in our social science, or again just being delusional as communists or other religious fanatics? This is what we are set to find out. Comparing many ideologies, or better to call them ‘moral Matrices’, and trying to find general principles of how they are constructed, we need to remember that the declaration of an ideology has nothing to do with implementing it in practice. For example, many people pronounce the use of the Bible as a moral compass but in practice they built societies to the contrary, despite claiming to be loyal to Jesus Christ. The same happened with the Koran and even to the ideas of Karl Marx. Communism in USSR has nothing to do with modern communistic China or North Korea. And the question why various groups of people, despite having the same ideas, end up with different societies was a mystery to me, until I studied behavioural patterns of great apes and came to following conclusion. Let's call it the ‘law of Matrix.’ Any implemented human moral belief system [‘Moral Matrix’] has to imitate the relationships of great apes: common chimpanzee, gibbons or bonobo, [also called pygmy chimpanzee], combining them depending on the amount of available wealth. For example, a poor society mimics the morality of chimpanzee principles, the medium from gibbons and the wealthy ones from Bonobo. It doesn't matter how to name your Matrix and what holy book to follow – Buddhists value the Tipitaka, communists follow Karl Marks, Christians worship the Bible and Muslims bow before the Koran . However, in practice, they all build similar societies according to the behavioural patterns of different great apes. The 7 Democratic and human rights movement, animals rights and climate protection initiatives, gay parades, rock’ n roll and hippies, have not materialised because we have suddenly became smart, kind or free. The moral code has its own development laws and strictly according to them, our civilization is played like a puppet by nature. To test a moral Matrix in the human mind is incredibly simple, in most cases one multiple choice question is enough: Two men are having sex. Who are they?  fucking fags  unnatural perverts  loving humans. If you choose answer #1 your head belongs to the chimps Matrix, the second to - gibbons and the third to Bonobo. So let’s study the behavioural patterns of different great apes and understand why it’s built this way. Common Chimpanzee. These primates are organized as a hierarchy of males, where high ranked males enforce their domination by having sex with lower ranked males, homosexually. Simply speaking, two chimps would fight each other until the moment when one of them turns his back on the aggressor, allowing him to imitate or fulfil the sexual act. Sexual release calms down the 'alpha' male and binds former competitors into one gang. So the dominant role in the sexual act is a sign of higher social position and placement in society; it is defined by who is passive or active in the relationship. Because females can’t be active in the sexual act, they have the lowest rank in the group and are treated harshly by the males. All males, in different ages, play various roles in the society of apes, and the behaviour of widening its anus, adjusting for a higher - ranking chimp, is common between all males. Chimps are the only apes that organize male gangs and can kill their own kind when trying to extend their territory. Let's call this system hierarchical or ‘chimps model’ for short. The distribution system for chimps is not complicated - higher ranked males eat first and lower ranked youngsters and females pick up what is left. Another characteristic detail of such organization occurs between female and child - the mother releases the cub to independent existence as soon as it can support itself. To find a human hierarchical society not influenced by the other prevailing moral Matrices of the 21st century is quite rare, usually spontaneously forming itself in military zones, jails, or other places, where men and women are separated 8 by certain circumstances. By way of example, I will describe Russian criminal matrix as it existed inside USSR between 1950-1990 , successfully surviving the totalitarian regime of the communists. In the eyes the career criminals, all people were divided into groups between 'thieves' and 'blokes,' where 'blokes' appeared to be some kind of sheep in a padlock, destined to be victims of the 'brave thief' that were also called 'risky'. 'Thieves' were divided on hierarchical categories and played different roles in prison, mostly serving the high ranked 'thief in law'. As any Chimp Matrix, Russian criminal code in the described period, viewed all women as 'whores,' and barred the 'thief in law' from marriage ,because it was considered as a betrayal and a loss of the thief's honour. The highest punishment for breaking the moral code , as in similar codes around the world, involved a lowering in status and resulted in the punishment of a man being raped. In the eyes of the Matrix, his rank became as low as a 'whore'. Interesting that the criminal Matrix is finding enough women to support itself, even in developed societies, where girls in orphanages are easily converted into prostitutes and prostitute moms. This behaviour is similar to the Chimps, where in the herd of the common chimpanzee the connection between mother and child is weak. From these kids new generations of 'thieves' and 'whores' have developed, where the Matrix behaves as a balanced moral eco system, supporting itself in a way that conforms to the patterns of the Chimp Matrix - in distribution of goods and food, in structure of relationship, in reproduction and in the level of aggressiveness of male gangs. They had primitive, but curious spiritual beliefs in 'LUCK' and one of the most prominent traditions involved gambling with cards, where they not only played for money, but human life too. As harsh and barbaric this lifestyle may seem to modern people, one thing should be mentioned - it's very strong in the sense of ensuring their survival, and even democratic in a way. Any man can become 'thief in law' – this rule constantly allows 'the fittest' to survive and support their strange way of living, providing effective management to famous Russian Mafia. Embracing risk and bravery is a typical sign of hierarchical relationships, existing only in this type of Matrix; it can be found in multiple societies, like jails, tribal systems across the globe, or between nobles playing Russian roulette. It can be used as simple marker - if moral system praises bravery it means a presence of dominant hierarchical principles. When out of jail, thieves had to donate certain part of their earnings to a common fund, which is used to support those who were serving time in prison. And usually all income of organized gangs, such as controlled prostitution, 9 underground casinos and drug trafficking, were organized as common property of gang members, but redistributed by the rank of the individual thief. As one can see, the described morality above, is exactly commensurate with the flock of common chimpanzees. They both have a strict hierarchy, both using rape for ranking, punishment and distribution, and there is a strict "us and them" division with aggressive organizing gangs and the low status of women. We will talk about other chimp matrices later, but using this example, let's now outline the general approaches for analyzing any Matrix: 1) a way of ranking group members; 2) myths used to structure identities; 3) the reproduction system and relationships with children; 4) distribution of developed wealth, products and food; 5) typical behaviour patterns and relationships. Hierarchical Matrix is widely used by humans in many different ways (not only criminal code-) especially when reinforced by dominating monogamous/polygamous ideologies. Firstly, it is used in organizing armies and other structures for military purpose. All non- democratic totalitarian political systems use this code combined with other value systems. We will study these combinations later, after a short introduction to each of the moral Matrices. The 'mother tongue' of the Chimp Matrix is swearing. It is widely known that in jail and in the army, men swear a lot, and that men swear much more than women. But so far, nobody has explained why. But it's perfectly simple from a moral code perspective – in jail and in the army, men live in Chimp Matrices and speak accordingly, because foul language is an old interface of hierarchical communication. All monogamous and polygamous cultures have developed these traditions from the hierarchical Matrix, and had to prohibit their bad language and develop a new 'gentle' way of talking and expression. This is how the tradition of the 'gentlemen' appeared in European history. Today's existing non-monogamous civilizations don't have a 'swearing problem' and have liberty to name things the way they are. As a general rule, one might claim that any society without sexual shame does not have the categories of bad and polite language. And indeed, many native languages in Africa, Asia and America, don't have swearing at all and don't hide their reproductive organs. All cultures that possess sexual shame have a tendency for foul language – they 10 go together, without any exception – shame plus swearing. If your culture has no shame then there will be no problem with free expression. For the purpose of further understanding, let’s analyze a couple of English swearing expressions and compare their equivalent in other languages. - 'Fuck You' .This expression is a general insult for modern society, but it carries the most important principle of the Chimp Matrix, marking who is active and who is passive in the sexual act, and accordingly, who is boss and who is not. Practically all languages use similar figures of speech. The meaning of it is extremely simple - "I am higher than you in rank" - 'Fag' . Because the hierarchical Matrix is based on active/passive sexuality, any voluntary passive homosexual is treated as lowly ranked, and similar words are used as insults everywhere. - 'Motherfucker' ,'sucker' Typical insults for the Chimp Matrix. Oral sex is widely used for disgracing, comparing grown adult to a milk sucking baby. There’s a direct association between milk sucking and oral sex. As mentioned above, hierarchical codes require a weak mother/son connection for dominating male to male gangs to bond. Using these classes of insults, the Chimp Matrix tries to break the mother-son emotional and physical connection, which is communicated in many languages. As strange as it might sound to a contemporary person, the sexual connection between son and mother is a commonly discussed problem in human civilization. From a scientific point of view, we should not treat swearing as a sign of 'low' or poor manners. For instance, some native tribes of the far North use 70 words for 'snow,' because snow has a fundamental role in their lives.. The same thing happens in the Chimp Matrix, where there are many exclamations and overtones in their aggressive verbal attacks. For example, according to noswearing.com, 'idiot' or 'moron' has the following entries in the swearing dictionary: “fuckass, fuckbag, fuckboy, fuckbrain, fuckersucker ,fuckface , fucknut , fuckwitt ”, and this is just for the letter 'F'! As one can see, modern 'clean' language doesn't have as many equivalents as insulting expressions. This technically means that swearing is richer in cultural perspective, having more developed variants of meaning. Probably the most important part of each Matrix is its spirituality, which is constructed from different myths. In the above example, the Russian mafia worship the ‘luck’ itself as a goddess, and it is deemed noble to be a 'risky man'. As with the Chimp Matrix, it provides a sharp division of society, where people can be dehumanised (robbed, killed or raped). In many primitive cannibalistic tribes of Polynesia, the reasoning is the 11 same; its members don’t view people from other tribes as human. They even named gorillas as 'forest apes,' and people from the other side of the river, from neighbouring tribes, as 'river apes’, while thinking of themselves as ‘people’. Such division in the moral code, allows them to hunt and to eat both types of 'apes' (apes and humans), while to us it seems like cannibalism. The same fundamental division was developed by Adolph Hitler, discriminating between 'Aryans’ as a high quality race, and all others as a 'secondary quality' subspecies, which gave him the justification to kill millions of so-called 'bad quality' humans. The Nazis then, were organised like an aggressive Chimp Matrix. The wonderful difference between mankind and actual chimpanzees is an ability of humans to support hierarchical relationships, adhering to symbolic ideas, rather than to typical alpha male. It can be religious, nationalistic, or any other type of group identity, often harshly imposed on a growing generation. For example, the sense of being ‘German‘ or Muslim’ which is usual in patriarchal culture, provides exclusively male “prophets”. Communists divide the world by wealth algorithms, treating Marx and Engels as prophets; Islamists, obeying Allah’s will, promote the status of Mohammed who is seen as the chosen one; and nationalists in USA , use the “Founding Fathers” as an example of patriotism. Stalin, Mao Zedong and Kim Il-sung adopted the ideas of communism, but in practice, had built strict hierarchical-monogamous societies, which was the real goal of the communistic revolutions. Moreover, it’s not only the communistic riots. For example, the Iranian revolution created similar structures using the Koran as a moral code. And the fanatic division between 'us' and 'them' gave these leaders the desired license and justification to kill. These conditions have also appeared in English civilization. For many centuries, England has been dominated by a division between noblemen and the rest of population, which is a typical hierarchical moral code. Up to the end of 18th century, the English nobility killed , raped and sold out the rest of the population , and thus the celebration of the Royal Wedding in 2011 is a bitter experience for knowledgeable people. Incidentally, on the topic of weddings, one should note that the white color of a bridal dress is strongly associated with ‘purity’ , which underlies the bride’s virginity. This was vital for the cultures of the previous century, where the distinction between 'clean' and 'dirty' was fundamental for the core of next moral matrix we’re up to explore. It’s time to investigate gibbons. Gibbons are monogamous meaning one male “owns” one female. Each pair holds and protect certain territory, and the stronger the pair of Gibbons, the richer and larger area they control, defining their status among other apes. When children 12 reach puberty parents push them away. Sex between male and female is a strict agreement to live together and it causes both genders to be jealous and aggressive towards possible competitors. They hide their sex life from their cubs, trying to slow down sexual development. As any territorial animal, they mark living areas using faecal matter and urine; so the smell of a competitor's excrement is highly irritable and unpleasant for them, and they defend the exclusivity of their sexual relationships with acts of aggression. The distribution system of gibbons is fair inside the family unit, where each participant receives its share of the food. Gorillas, however, are polygamous, where one male can have several females in the family. The same as gibbons, male gorillas furiously protect their territory from other males and hide their sex life from their young. Both systems insist on exclusive relationships with females, therefore, one can call it an exclusive Matrix or Gibbon Matrix, or simply monogamy. There is one thing that makes a polygamist matrix different – in nature, female gorilla are much more passive and submissive, compared to gibbons. The passivity is developed by nature to avoid possible fights between females for male attention. This is why Islam or Mormonism, religions with many wives, has to strictly socialise their women to make them passive. This is why in some regions of Africa, the tradition of female castration is still alive, due to the fact that it helps to make stronger polygamous relationships . As mentioned before - nothing is random in any Matrix. The human followers of monogamy are sensitive to the smell of faeces, sweat or body odour, while the more hierarchic person is usually not; they invented the categories of 'clean', 'dirty', and ‘shame’ in sexuality. This is the case with many other traditions, defining the core of civilization from 16th to 21st centuries. The exclusive Matrix directly manages monogamous and polygamous human families and their moral code in different cultures. However, because the subject is so vast, first let’s give a short illustration of how exclusivity is formed in the early stages. Some native tribes in the far North of Siberia had a strange custom of hospitality, that has been documented by soviet geologists exploring the area for oil and gas in the early 1970s. Along with food and shelter, the host would offer a respected guest to have sex with his wife. At first glance, it seems to contradict my own thesis about exclusive relationships, where the husband should protect his wife from other males. However, if we study these tribes more closely, we find no monogamy in such tribes, or perhaps it’s better to say, they are yet to demonstrate the need for exclusivity in their relationships. 13 Firstly, these people were extremely poor and practically didn't have any solid property to inherit. Without inheritance, the bond between mother and child is weak, as in any hierarchical system, and the husband's attitude toward his wife (one or two) and kids can be compared to the slave-master relationship. A similar attitude to wives as a kind of domestic animal is described in the works of many ethnologists and can be commonly found between wild tribes in Africa, where women were forced to breastfeed piglets. A better attitude towards women and kids comes about when the man can establish ownership of property, where the woman is viewed as a permanent asset. However, not all groups of people can achieve this– not prisoners , nor tribes in the desert or far North. So let's formulate the basic rule for monogamy/polygamy: any kind of exclusive relationship (monogamy, polygamy) can be formatted only in societies rich enough to have inheritance and private ownership of accumulated wealth, which is accepted as gibbon territory in the moral code. Just as stronger gibbon pairs attain better territory and higher ranking , human exclusivists pay more respect to richer families. Nevertheless, in places where the distribution of products flow differently, or places that are too poor to have any inheritance, these sexually exclusive moral systems cannot be born. So, a husband from North Siberia offers his wife to strangers because he doesn't know anything about ownership, the concept of 'my’ children, property or wife. In the case of death, his wife, kids and property will be transferred to other members of the tribe by decision of the elders. The women and kids are considered to be valuable assets, the same as herds of deer that are the source of food for people in these cold places. So, together with the food, he offers his wife as an act of hospitality - nobody asks the deer for the meat, nobody asks the wife for her permission to have sex. This tradition of hospitality was not formed from a random act of “humanity”, which is another popular myth, but from following the internal tribal algorithm, where bad peace is better than good war. Any rebel, who doesn’t adhere to this law, will die filtered by Darwin's law – despite many scientists forbid to apply ‘survival of fittest’ on human societies. The logic of hospitality filters the hostile families out of common affairs, putting them in the risk group in case of war or hunger when united effort is required for survival. The first type of exclusive relationship between man and woman can be widely found around the world and is generally called the tribal system, with its usual leadership of men. In modern science, male domination is often called, ' 14 ‘patriarchy,’ which is a woefully inadequate term, because each version of patriarchy should be measured by different standards - attitudes toward women (including ritual rapes or demands on virginity); the wedding and divorce system; attitudes towards children generally, and to 'bastards' particularly; demand of respect for elders; and connections between relatives and the importance of family ideology. It might seem strange to the 21st century reader that relationships between close relatives are not 'nature driven', but are a result of a cultivated ideological process when the parents explain to their kids that grandma, brothers, sisters, uncles and cousins, are 'us' ,and everybody else is 'them'. As with any ideology, it differs from place to place, depending on the implementation of accorded wealth. Modern western society does not consider an ‘uncle’ or ‘cousin’ as a close family member, while tribal systems place a much stronger emphasis on these bonds, due to common interests in property and job sharing. The institution of ‘relative worship’ ,derives from the rules of inheritance, making such relations most important. Being a member of a powerful clan, provides - security, protection and wealth. This typical -hierarchical structured ideology was profitable and convenient for survival, but not forever. When wealthy clans were dictating the life code of society, the status of being a 'bastard' was viewed as a disgrace, which was harshly marked with the term 'son of bitch'. With the development of monetary capitalism and human rights (not a random phenomenon), the common needs between relatives are decreased dramatically. Therefore, a modern person supports relationships with “blood related” clan members, mostly based on friendship and common interests, preferring to avoid parts of family life, if friendly relations are not sustained. In most cases, contemporary humans have much stronger bonds with their friends, than family members, and their contact with family is often caused by a sense of duty. Monogamy is extremely prohibitive, suppressing any sexual life outside of the husband-wife relationship. Unlike primitive hierarchical barbarians, the sexual connections of human gibbons are most complicated, excluding nakedness and sex from cultural space and inventing million reasons for that. Dividing their life between non sexual and sexual behaviour, there is a special time and place allocated for sexual contact. In most societies, sexual representations of naked women are used to fuel male desire, but not everywhere. In some African communities, where clothes are not worn, women carefully cover the back of the head, being otherwise naked. The men consider this to be the most desirous place on a woman’s body and only in private moments, between 15 husband and wife, will the cover be lifted. One can see then, that what is considered to be sexually attractive or beautiful in monogamy, is a matter of social contract, passed through the methods of socialisation from parent to child. The whole gigantic culture of ‘beautiful’ and ‘ugly’ is formed in this way. Really, how else do you know what is beauty? One of the most fundamental qualities of the exclusive matrix is closed functionality, where the interests of partners and their children are valued the most. It makes impossible to organize large groups using the code of gibbons, limited by relationships between husband and wife. This is why hierarchical chimp code is used for the organization of large political structures, which is specifically modified to fit a monogamous psychology. Such modification can be incredibly inventive and interesting. For example, one of the greatest political myths in modern times is to love one’s country. Many people will aspire to this sentiment, but in reality, the “country” is an abstract political structure, which is impossible to love, to hate or experience sexual feelings towards. When monogamous country lovers say 'my country', they associate 'country' with 'family' and transpose the same feelings toward country as they do to the family. This form of substitution serves national and political interests for the most countries in the modern world. The universe of the exclusive Matrix is divided on the idea of ‘dirty’ and ‘clean’ behaviour, where the female makes all possible efforts to belong to the 'clean' category, or otherwise become tarnished. Of course, notions of ' dirty' and ' ‘clean' are just emotional representations of prohibited behaviour that construct the social norms for relationships. Viewing monogamy as the highest moral code, allows women to support the higher social ranking of the clans, close to her husband, but if her name becomes 'disgraced', she loses the protection of marriage and is relegated to the lowest rank, as with any female in the Chimp Matrix. This is why monogamous women are usually more resistant to the idea of having an affair, compared to men ; if caught, they have more to lose in traditional societies. As I mentioned above, the pure monogamous code is not effective for organizing large groups; it works between family members only. It's curious how the different moral systems of gibbons and chimpanzees, can appear contradictory. Let's investigate the situation in a typical family belonging to the lower or middle class of western civilization between 1900 and1970 (or the family in developing countries in 21th century). Men in the above described families are more involved in hierarchical relationships at work . Thus they are usually more engaged in the 'dirty' part of the Matrix– they swear much more than women, mimicking chimp behaviour in order to cause humiliation and to reach a higher rank. However, at home with the kids, they 16 behave differently, following a monogamous pattern, trying not to swear and avoiding 'adult' subjects, as their wife and children belong to the ‘clean’ part of their moral code. Outside of the family, the same man might express sexual interest towards other women, but would have more respect for those who reject his attention, and relate to those who assent as ‘dirty whores'. This paradoxical attitude is typical for the Gibbon Matrix, where secondary relationships do not have to take place (categorised as ‘dirty’). Even today, in poor countries, women have being raised to be humble and submissive, to obey and cover their heads and faces. This simple form of patriarchy is based on hierarchical domination of the men and the continuance of inheritance laws for children. In violent and poor environments, the wives have even been sacrificed if the husband dies, because her chances of survival are low anyway. Such traditions were noticed during the19th in India, Africa, and also described during the middle ages in Russia and Western Europe. All forms of the exclusive Matrix, demand virginity from the bride, as a guarantee that children are born from the husband. Even raped girls were considered as 'damaged goods' and given away to brothels. This practice is still common today in northern Pakistan. The attitude towards kids without fathers, was harsh until the second half of the 20th century in Europe and North America. Unlike hierarchical groups, monogamous societies base their ranking mostly on wealth. It is because the money situation changes, those monogamists invented a new management structure. This structure might be called a limited democracy, because the voting population was filtered by gender, race and wealth, so the majority of people didn't have the right to vote. In the USA this system has been changed only in the second half of 20th century, and in Europe up to middle of the 1970s, women were excluded from voting. Therefore, strictly speaking, ‘real’ democracy is still in a state of infancy. But what is this 'real’ democracy? It's the redistribution of the authority system, based on popularity, where a more popular figure has more authority. And this brings us to next moral Matrix and a new type of great ape. Bonobo has a popular matriarchy ; a ranking system that is mostly concentrated around prominent females(not because they are stronger and more aggressive). Ranking between Bonobo is achieved by popularity of the member. These still mysterious creatures live in groups of 50-70 individuals, and have open sexual relationships ('all with all' ) including gay encounters. The gay interactions reduce competition between members of the group , and help to unite the flock. The 17 structure is mostly defined by female relationships ,where ranking is defined by popularity and personal connections to each member of the society. If common chimpanzees have based their hierarchy on violence and forceful sex, Bonobo use sex to alleviate tensions and to create a unique distribution system. [2] When the apes divide food, they encourage sharing by providing sexual stimulus to the 'richer' member, and in this way, achieve equality! While Russian communists were using Karl Marx recipes of revolution, ruining lives of generations, there was a perfect model of communism hidden in the African jungle. Isn’t ironic? Popularity between members of the flock can be achieved in different ways. Firstly, playing has an essential role in Bonobo life and the game winner gets the most attention. Another way to gain popularity among the apes, is to provide sexual satisfaction to each other, and of course, the passive attractiveness of the females and their ability to perform more sexual acts, gives them an advantage in the ranking. Additionally a mother has an advantaged position to gain popularity, because of her close connection with her offspring, regardless age. Therefore, because females can gain popularity more easily , they might travel from group to group, while the males stay close to the mother, where part of the ranking is transferred to them. Thus, usually, the highest ranked males are descendants of a top matriarch. We will therefore call this society a Popularity Matrix, or as some call it ‘attentionalism’[7]. Though we need to ask how this system deals with rule breakers? Here we find that Bonobo provide us with an amazing enforcement system. There have been several studies that have examined what happens when a low ranked male has harassed a weaker female. Usually, the high ranked female protects the victim of harassment by attacking the harasser, and everybody in the domain of her popularity, joins the attack. Physically strong, but unpopular males, don’t t stand a chance against the collective assault and, being beaten, have to retreat into the lowest rank of popularity, or may even leave the group. Having daily multiple sexual encounters, bonobo females, however, don't conceive cubs randomly as other animals do. , The bonobo is able control to control its own reproduction at will, so the amount of offspring depends on her rank of popularity. Bonobo cubs have the instinctual popularity of their parents. So in the popularity Matrix, they are highly ranked automatically. When a new lowly ranked female attempts to have a baby, her own popularity can be lower than the cubs, who can repossessed by another highly popular female. (In the same way the children are repossessed by social services in our society.) 18 No human group in history has been reported as having the same characteristics as the Bonobo societies. The intention of this book, is to prove that we are building one. The most recent attempt to create the similar Matrix was constructed by Hippies in 1970s under the slogan, 'All You Need Is Love,' where the sexual revolution was promoted. But first things are first. Humanity entered into the Popularity Matrix era in the middle of the 20th century, when the average cost of food dropped dramatically, due to the large production of cheap vegetable oil and corn. Simply speaking, as soon as hunger diminished for millions of people, teenagers began to rebel within the monogamous family. The decreased dependency on the husband, freed women from abusive relationships and the number divorces started to grow. The first gay parade took place in 1969. Never in the history of humanity were gays aloud to be openly proud of their sexual identity. The monogamous code began to crack and a rock & roll culture started to influence new generations, who were determined to destroy the old ways of life. “Do what you love” – this slogan is directly embrace Bonobo principle of rating based on amount of accumulated attraction. Of course, reducing hunger, doesn't cause society to rebuild itself immediately. By my estimations around two generations should be replaced to see dramatic changes in the moral code. Western countries were economically ready for freedom in 1929, but the great depression of 1933-37 followed by WW II, slowed down the socio-economical progress, and the sexual revolution started by the end of 1960s. And we should carefully trace fantastic transformations happening in moral code, making it invisible for humans. One the fundamental characteristics of these matrices is that they have the ability to change the meaning of words. Therefore, any word in one Matrix can have a completely different sense in another. For example, 'gay' used to mean ‘happy’ in the1950s. It's important to understand how the process works, so let's talk about the forbidden term "Nigger". Not because we are racists, or even interested in racism as a subject, but because we want to retrace the emotional content of the word. Many years ago the white owners of the American South called black slaves “Niggers”. In the seventies and eighties of 20th century, when the movement for human rights began, the ‘N’ word was prohibited , banned from usage and seen as negative, which is understandable. However, strangely enough, in the middle of nineties, black rappers began to call each other "nigga", since other races were prohibited to do so. And, because of this prohibition, the word made a phenomenal comeback, and its usage has become popular again. For instance, several rappers give a performance in the song, Bitch Please II . The black singers use the ‘N’ 19 word many times as a positive identification term: And you don't really wanna fuck, with me Only nigga that I trust, is me However, their white co-singer Eminem, never used the word in his lyrics. So it's clear that 'nigga' is positive identification symbol. The positivity of this term comes from the symbolic meaning of its prohibition for the white population. It symbolizes a small victory of black men over their former oppressors. In the 1990s, I didn't find any references to black females calling themselves "nigga", but in 2011 it has come into usage; this illustrates another interesting aspect of the development of this word - the meaning "winner" is currently being borrowed by different types of people in North American society. And everybody wants to be a winner. It’s quite possible to hear white teenagers calling each other 'nigga' in the near future. But it would be wrong to think that such change applies to some exceptional words, as in example above. In the following chapter, one will show an tremendous drifting sense of many basic words. Such as: “father, papa, mama, wife, family” and many others. When the word becomes shortened, it changes its sense and starts to be used differently; let’s call this action ‘N-effect’ - as one was shown with transformations of the ‘N-word’. For instance, the word ‘respect’ in the hierarchical Matrix is related to rank “how is the boss” , but for new in the moral code, it means ‘non violent’. In the case of a parent, it teaches the child to treat others decently, “with respect”. Hierarchy forces lower members to be passive and friendly with higher social participants, and this is what is meant by ‘respect’. Bonobo apply this sentiment to everyone, in practice converting its meaning to opposite. Both structures, hierarchical and flipped conical one are used to connect people in organized groups, but in first case active sexuality forms a pyramid of authority on the base of violence while in second case passive sexuality creates domains of attention and each if them has flipped conical form, meaning passive sexuality became a sign of superiority. This is why passive gays and women are leaders of new society, showing us that new elite is located on the “top” of flipped pyramid. It might sound paradoxical but the very notions of “top” and “bottom” have changed their meaning in Bonobo moral code. The elite part of this structure is located on the bottom of flipped pyramid because passive participant in sexual exchange gets higher rank in Bonobo flock while “top” active members are completely self organized. Sceptical reader might require a proof of such self organization and it’s not hard to provide. Indeed, modern monogamous family in western world has been already 20 organized as a “flipped pyramid of attention” toward children. Modern moral matrix defines needs and security of kids as the highest priorities, forbidding violence, exploitation and abuse of young generation, explaining it as “natural” – this explanation is actually the same in all types of moral code. In following chapters one will be shown that love to children, worshiping them is only modern phenomena, while in our past it was completely different. How are Matrices formed? One can say that when boys of any origin are left alone to survive in difficult surroundings, they will fully develop a chimp moral code within two years. Firstly, they will distinguish each member of the group from all other people, creating an 'us' and 'them' division. Secondly, their social status will be defined by fights, and a disgrace procedure will be invented to connect the loser and winner ; this will involve imitating, replacing or performing the sexual act. A similar disgracing activity is applied to new members of a gang. The 'disgrace' system is required by the - chimp code. Indeed, in well-studied African tribes, youngsters are accepted in the company of hunters by performing oral sex to older tribe members (seen as an act of maturity). The logic of the hierarchical pyramid, forces its members to use domination, where submissive competitors are overpowered and forced to play a passive role in sexual intercourse,. In the chimp moral codes, the act of coitus between males is not considered a homosexual activity.. In patriarchal countries, the act of using boys for sexual pleasure is widely practiced, and where more hierarchical codes dominate over monogamy/polygamy, a fixation on anal sex becomes the societal preference. In chimp moral systems, this type of intercourse is associated with power and social status. Men don’t have vaginas, therefore anal sex becomes a relationship of power. - When hierarchical man performs anal sex to demonstrate his domination and high status, there is often a sadistic dimension to the act. A woman of this matrix is often deeply masochistic. -Whereas, monogamous man or woman would avoid anal sex, perhaps seeing it as abnormal and preferring not to talk about this taboo. 21 - However, in the popularity matrix, anal sex between men is viewed as a sign of attention that defines social status. [Curiously enough, sadomasochism became - popular at the end of the 20th century. Hundreds of websites r gave sadomasochistic’ date mates’ a chance to meet each other. At first glance, thist might seem to contradict the concept of non- violent bobobos in relation to the behaviour of contemporary humans. But, as Marx explains:. "History repeats itself, the first as tragedy, then as farce". - This is the case with the sexual games of modern times and the hierarchical sadism in previous centuries. Let's explore this example further . A 40 year old masochistic woman developed an inability to achieve sexual arousal without violence. She suffered 20 years of an abusive marriage, where her drunken husband would beat and rape her on daily basis. After years of living with her aggressor, she fully adjusted to this type of relationship and became masochistic, reaching full orgasm within mutually acknowledged encounters. Then her husband died from liver failure and she discovered her own inability to achieve non- violent relationships, and was compelled towards sadomasochistic dating. She denied this impulse, claiming:" They are just weird games, it's not real". She was absolutely right - the Popularity Matrix makes people behave like Bonobo, playing inventive games, including sadomasochistic sexual pleasures. However, such gaming is usually denied by real sadomasochists – as an imitating game, unlike reality, it has its limitations and rules: how to get out, how hard to hit each other etc.] The Exclusivity Matrix on the other hand, as with monogamous gibbons in nature, tries to prohibit all sexuality and even public talks about it. Gay relationships were viewed as a sickness up to 1990s , as well as many other non- standard sexual activities. In countries influenced by monogamous relationships , hierarchical sexuality is replaced by symbolic acts. The symbol replaces s the ‘real thing’, if it's prohibited or missing. For example, the word 'Elephant' is a symbol which replaces the term of ‘big animal’; it provides an easier form of expression.. Or, for example, on television, we find that swearing words are often substituted by a beep, and thus the sound itself becomes a symbol of foul language. At the end of 20th century, soldiers in the Russian army, were strictly divided into 3 categories: 1) “elder” who served over 1.5 years; 2) “ladle” who served over 1 year ; 3) “neophyte” who served less than 1 year . They were treated harsh and forced to perform the dirty work, while older soldiers treated them practically as slaves; 22 despite the fact, there was no such law in place. After 1 year of serving in the army, a newbie converted to the higher class of ‘ladles’, by beating his butt 12 times with metal ladle from the kitchen. This beating is a direct symbolic replacement of the sexual act in the Chimp Matrix; when someone is accepted into the gang as a new, low status member, they have the opportunity to be become privileged comparing to neophyte. A variety of acceptance and humiliation procedures for replacement of the sexual act is huge. Some groups shave their heads, some have to make obligatory tattoos, some are forced to jump into the river during winter or are humiliated by being urinated on or made to sing special songs. The Military Chimp code in any country requires wearing certain type of uniform or dress code to demonstrate their hierarchy. They might also, forcefully kneeled before the flag and kissed it. The gangsters have to wear appropriate cloth, jewelry and tattoo. The stricter the hierarchical order between people, the more their matrix requires showing obedience to a higher power. Muslims have to bow many times a day, peasants had to kneel before noblemen etc. Kneeling generally is a passive sexual position, defined in the chimp code as a sign of belonging and obedience to higher masculinity. Therefore, when becoming a knight, a person rests on the knees to be touched by the sword, where the sword is representative of the phallus. Demonstrating passive behaviour, newly accepted group members often cry. Such “surrender” to great power is very popular – many people drop the tears when national anthem is played, in churches or when worshiping communistic or Islamic leader or event. Summarizing all of these together, one can formulate the basic principle of a chimp code : hierarchical moral structures are based on the instincts of the male. It defines everything - tradition, culture, the very definition what is beautiful and what is ugly. The violent sexuality of the Chimp Matrix defines a sharp division between members of the group and all other people. The member’s place in the pyramid of authority is achieved by power, and any new person to the group challenges the existing order. It makes joining the 'brother ship' quite difficult, only possible by merging to it from the bottom of the chain, after sexual or symbolic disgrace procedures are carried out.. Indeed, a president or king of any country cannot suddenly become the leader of another state. For social bonding, the violent sexuality of the male has one unavoidable consequence - any other organized group of people always appears to be the enemy, and the degree of the hierarchical moral codes purity, is proportional to the division between good 'us' and bad 'them' . This can create extremes in behaviour, where primitive cannibals can eat people from other tribes, considering them as 23 animals. The same separation has been demonstrated in history many times - the European nobility, Hitler , Stalin and many other ideologies. The monogamists are very different. While the aggressive hierarchical matrix comes to people in hard times, helping them to survive, the exclusive relationship between man and woman occurs when life is more or less stable and there is enough food on the table. In the Gibbon Matrix, the male instinct of dominance is compensated by the female power to allure. They neutralize each other setting new moral goal - monogamists only care about wealth, exactly like gibbons in nature, which care about the quality and size of their territory because the property is included in monogamous marital “contract”. Most of today's known countries have different structures of monogamists, but only systems with classical monetary capitalism have money as the major power of society and the major measurement of respect. The monetarists not only successfully defended the nobility, Communism, Islamism etc., but also achieved an incredible prosperity for human civilization, promoting freedom, which in their case is freedom to make money. In realty noblemen, communists, fascists and others, though being formally involved in monogamy, betray this classical union between man and woman by surrendering its priority to different ideas - of God, of King, of Equality, of Nation, or any other newly invented higher purpose of life. So summarizing the main principle of the Gibbon Matrix, one can claim that the closed combined sexuality of man and woman, results in the strict prohibition of an external sex life, and the worship of money becomes the main ranking mechanism. Probably here, one should further examine why monogamy contests open sexuality so vigorously; especially protecting children from any sexual initiation. Despite popular opinion, kids are not against sexuality at all; they try to get positive emotions any way they can. If not stopped, many girls might start masturbating by the age of 3, successfully reaching orgasm, or sometimes trying to put different objects into vaginas; in many cases successfully removing their hymen years before any sexual contact with men. What about men then? Ask any experienced professional, working with kids. Boys will try to grab their penis from infancy and many of them will explore the anus, trying to massage the prostate from behind. So generally, kids are not against sexual pleasures at all, and there is no scientific evidence which proves sexuality is harmful to kids. None at all, they like it. So why do typical monogamous parents so actively protect their kids from their sexuality? - For a reason, of course. 24 Monetary capitalism and previous systems are based on private property as a way of production and wealth distribution, where the contact between man and woman in relation to have exclusive sex is also an agreement about shared property. Monogamy needs to suppress any sexuality of kids, until they are capable of owning their own property; it's the natural logic of gibbons. Early sexuality might bring teen pregnancy, which is catastrophic for the monogamous relationship despite a woman’s body being capable of giving birth at the age 14. Unlike animal gibbons, which are strict with their behaviour patterns , humans are constantly experimenting with their morality and monogamy is working hard to protect children from 'dirty' images and words. In hundreds of human monogamous subcultures, sex has been demonised. . Abstinence from various sorts of pleasures, often called asceticism, is practiced by many leading figures and saints. Rumours claim that Stalin used to sleep as a soldier, covering himself with an overcoat, instead of blanket. Robert Payne, in his biography of Hitler, wrote : "Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women." And not only tyrannical figures of the 20th century practiced asceticism; most Christian saints are viewed as martyrs, suffering and dying for their faith. This might be said about practically any saint or legend in any religion. One might ask why does the Gibbon Matrix need to declare pleasure as a bad thing, including not only sex, but eating or drinking wine? For blind obedience the authority needs a proof of its holiness. Monogamy divides all cultural events as “dirty” and “clean”, its real or fictional heroes are drawn as spotlessly innocent, relating any physical or moral pain as a way of soul purification and otherwise – many pleasures are declared as “repulsive animal instincts”. Everyday keeling of Muslims, learning holy books by rote of Jews or catholic required confession are the ways to develop blind rules followers and always been typical weapon of hierarchy. As explained before, the Chimp Matrix is the best for warring and aggression, but the wealth growth , much needed for monogamy requires peace, freedom of trade, freedom to hire workers and freedom of enterprise. The harsh division between the poor and rich always provides a foundation for social unrest; especially if the rich classes behave inappropriately. t This 'misappropriation' is always a result of the development of the Bonobo Matrix : open sexuality, homosexuality etc. Ideas of the ascetic life influence the rich and powerful families to behave humbly ; it also provides the poorer classes with the illusion of justice and 25 happiness in the afterlife (if they patiently tolerate their misfortune). The whole principle of monetary democracy is the fair power distribution between the wealthiest tribes, while the totalitarian ruler provides unfair advantages for himself and ends up in a hierarchical matrix of royalty. Monetary democracy as system, has never intended to supply equal voting rights to the poor or weak layers of society. The requirements for voting are usually based on a monetary, racial or gender criteria, which renders most of the population outside of the democratic process until the 20th century. Between 1900 and 1960 monogamy flourished in western civilization. When the prosperity of the human race reached its peak, the Bonobo Matrix came into existence. The popularity moral code, or better to use the modern term ‘attentionalism’ [7] comes to humanity, when women no longer need a provider and defender, fulfilling their needs without violence. Female sexuality is passive and drives women to draw attention to themselves to gain popularity. Attentionalism is fully based on female instincts. The bonobo moral code spontaneously comes into existence in the isolated cases of previous centuries, when the upper classes lost a sense of reality and over- exploited the rest of the population. This exploitation always comes with sexual freedoms and homosexuality, as with the excesses of the French nobility in the 17-18th centuries. These noblemen wore big curly wigs, tight pantyhose, exposing their reproductive areas, and they powdered their faces imitating female behaviour. The homosexuality of the French nobility became legendary and the popularity of sexual literature beat all previous records in history. There will be a chapter in this book devoted to historical analysis. First though, to demonstrate how female instincts have permeated the modern social mind, we will now examine the topic of pets. Since the dawn of time, humans have adopted dogs and cats, but interestingly enough, each moral matrix produces its own attitude toward pets. In the chimp moral code, pets are only tools for defence, offence, and hunting or mice catching; they have no emotional connection with the owners. They are treated as the lowest members of the hierarchical pyramid and are ruthlessly beaten or killed. The same attitude towards pets prevails in patriarchal monogamy; while social connections are built between pet and owner, they are treated roughly by both men and women. When monogamy reached its fully developed stage of monetary capitalism, the relation to pets dramatically changed and they became family members, friends. The first commercially prepared dog food was introduced in England around 1860. In 1947 cat litter became available to U.S. consumers, making it 26 much easier to keep cats indoors. They too became prized as pets and eventually surpassed dogs in popularity. Today ,when the Bonobo Matrix is becoming dominant, pets are substitutes for children. People talk with pets as if they are babies, they feed them as babies, they even directly call them 'my baby', which had never happened in mass culture. The root of this phenomenon is simple – the popularity moral code is based on female instincts and the strongest of them is motherhood. Females from different species will raise the young of another animal ;especially if their own cubs have died. A tigress would feed piglets, or a wolf might take care of a human baby. When the Bonobo Matrix is becoming dominant , the love to pets and other living creatures achieves unprecedented levels. Firstly, many people start to accept all creatures as kids and become vegetarian, furiously protecting their 'rights'. As mentioned previously, Bonobo in nature are bisexual and indeed, with human gays, vegetarianism is around 30%, while the general population has only 4-5% of people who don't eat meat. Furthermore, statistically women are more likely to become a vegetarian. Fundamental to the moral codes of all matrices, is the tendency to furiously protect themselves. For example, a person who burns a hundred dollar bill to light a cigarette, doesn’t do this to demonstrate their wealth, but to show they have overcome wealth as a way to gain respect, to disgrace money, to show a different 'higher' moral principle. Therefore, people of the chimp code 'burn money' to show their superiority, monogamists think of swearing as a ‘low’ form of communication, accumulating wealth as social status, and finally, in the culture of attentionalism, all previous morals are deemed homophobic, greedy or hateful. These three competing matrices have existed in human societies from the start of recorded history. Therefore, in the19th century, a soldier might beat a dog to train his skills in fighting , a peasant might feed a dog to protect his house, and an aristocratic lady, might treat her puppy like a baby. These three different layers of society expose the typical behaviour of the three moral programs. Let us now examine another sensitive subject – of rape. Brave human rights activists have travelled to different war zones in northern Africa to study the lives of women. They found evidence for the systematic rape of thousands of women. This might seem harsh, but as defined in the strict hierarchical code of common chimpanzees , rape is the only sexual life these women have. As soon as warzone boys reach puberty, they try to join organized military gangs that have a loose control over territories, which are constantly at war. These criminal-like forces are responsible for the distribution of the western donations of food and money, stealing most of it for their own purposes - exactly as the Chimp Matrix declares. 27 In these areas, women and children have the lowest status, and being raped is better than being killed. As inhuman as it might seem, raping provides a successful reproduction cycle, bringing new generations of rapists and victims. Completely supporting the efforts of the human rights activists, one should make clear that any existing moral Matrix is combined with the ecosystem and always arises as a result of the environment. The cultural life of the Chimp Matrix is also based on man's instincts. Let's analyze Greek mythology in relation to violence against women. Gods and heroes in these legends mostly kidnap beautiful women and do whatever they desire with them. Strangely enough, nobody called it rape. The same approach can be found in hundreds of myths and legends of different nations around the globe. Hierarchical humans accept rape as a normality and being gay as the lowest class of untouchables. Monogamists, however, express a different view on the subject. The Gibbon Matrix needs to hide sexuality at any cost to stabilize the exclusivity of the family. This is why this morality is steeped in myths and prohibitions. Adults pretend to be asexual in public, while satisfying their lust behind closed doors. Even the very term 'lust' is sinful in this code, where cultural gender relationships are divided into groups of ‘clean’(feelings of love) and ‘dirty’(sexual desire). Formally, sexual assaults are prohibited today in all countries, but elementary statistics show deep differences in attitude, depending on the prevailing matrix in any given society. 99% of raped women in traditional monogamous relationships would prefer not to report it to the police. Firstly, this is because the subject is 'dirty' and her sexual life will be exposed for public observation, which can be even more stressful than the rape itself. Secondly, the highly popular opinion between traditionalists, automatically blames women for the rape, ascribing to the victim alluring behaviour and therefore, accepting the rape as a punishment for provocative sexuality. In 2005 I was asked by friends to help a 25 year old new immigrant from provincial Russia to adjust in Canada. After a couple of beers and some talk about jobs, the guy complained of having difficulties visiting local parties and meeting girls. To my light amusement, the nature of the problem had been described by him as an impossibility to beat girls in Toronto. In answer to my suggestion that the reason for such aggression was typical to a chimp moral code, he asked: 'What should I do if some whore refuses to dance with me?' On further investigation of his history of relationships with women, I found that the fellow assumed any woman that disobeyed his will was seen as a 'fucking whore', but on the other hand, when talking about past girlfriends, he identified 28 them technically as his property, carefully protecting them from any violent male competitors and supplying them with money. The attitude that views women as property, and a raped woman as broken property is pervasive. In 2002, a Pakistani tribal council ordered an 18-year-old girl to be gang-raped in order to punish her family, after her brother was seen walking with a girl from a higher class tribe. In the tribal system, the rights of the individual don't exist. The raped girl didn't do anything to deserve this punishment, but in this matrix, she is viewed as the property of the tribe. . However, if a boy from a higher tribe is seen with a girl from a lower tribe, nobody would give a damn, because active male sexuality is deemed to be acceptable. This is a typical chimp principle implemented in tribal/caste systems. If a prince wants a peasant's girl – it’s ok , but a peasant boy, can't even think about a relationship with a higher positioned woman, or serious consequences will follow. As much as one can call it inhuman and barbaric , tribal systems allow people to survive in very harsh desert conditions , where each tradition and form of punishment is a result of adjusting to the hard reality of life. The hierarchy of tribes in Pakistan are similar to the caste system in India, or the relationship between the European nobility with rest of the population., Moreover, a poor peasant in the15th century couldn't even dream about a relationship with a duke's daughter, and the consequence for his misbehaviour could result in a dire punishment. It's probably banal to say, but one should note that in any given society, laws and law enforcement serve the interests of the elite. In the hierarchy of Russian criminals, the 'thief in law' acts as a judge and has the power to severely enforce his decisions. .European kings wrote laws for themselves and the nobility, monogamous monetary capitalism serves the richest families and attentionalism brings passive power to celebrities, women and kids. The modern Bonobo Matrix has started in the middle of 20th century, where females instincts pervade society from the bottom to the top and are producing a new higher class of women and new attitudes to sexual assault. Never in the history of humanity are rapists and sex offenders prosecuted more harshly. They are hunted like mad dogs and hostility toward them increases year after year. After jail, sex offenders are registered and have no privacy or expiration date on this matter. Chemical castration has been legalized in many countries and sometimes even not voluntary. Public discussions on rape have become the favourite subject of many talk shows. Furthermore, it's become fashionable for people to claim they have been sexually abused in childhood. One can ask why? The Bonobo Matrix ranks people 29 by positive and negative popularity, as female sexual instinct tell them to draw positive attention to themselves and negative attention to the danger. Many women don't know the answer to the simplest of questions of a jealous man: "Whom are you trying to be beautiful for?" Usually they reply, "For myself" just because they really don’t know the answer. One could ask the same question with regard a TV station – beauty is a show and it’s broadcasted for anybody who's willing to watch and follow. Attention starvation is at the core of passive sexuality, and the more unsatisfied a woman is, the brighter and more sexual her appearance will be( even in previous moral matrices). Fast growing contemporary attentionalism equates rank/respect with the amount of attention a person may receive; this completely diminishes power and money as measurement mechanisms, and the competition for attention in contemporary times is unprecedented. Just as Bonobo in Africa play in the jungle , we have invented hundreds of different games to watch or engage in. Video games, social networking, sports games for both genders - all of these are ways to attract attention and divide popularity. We're also getting more sexually open (as bonobo are) while amount of stable couples are decreasing showing monogamy’s failure to support the reproductive cycle and. Female instincts form the new matrix which is slowly being embedded into our psyches ,generation after generation, : we love animals and nature as a mother loves her child, we’re afraid of cataclysms as women are. As harsh and ruthless as the Chimp Matrix is, one can say that these people aren’t easily scared. In the male moral code views crying is viewed as a sign of weakness and disgrace, while modern men are not ashamed to cry - why not, if it draws attention? We care about the environment not because we have become smart, but because we are following the female desire of setting up a nest. Our fear of global warming or asteroid catastrophe is shaped by a female assessment of such events. It would be naive and wrong to say that modern man is a 'wuss' in comparison to the 'brave' chimp morality. Modern man fights wars, jumps from aeroplanes or ventures into outer space and deep into the ocean (as men always did). While the moral values in their heads are formed by the instincts of women, it doesn't mean they are weak or scared. You can ask street prostitutes in 1990’s Hong Kong about global warming, or women’s rights in Africa, or vegetarianism, with very predictable results - they don't care,; having a chimp moral Matrix such values don't mean anything. On the other hand, they do respect power by obeying their pimp. They are females with a morality formed by male hierarchical instincts. They value power and despise 30 weakness. So one should remember that any gender can be loaded with any moral code [(being more exact, “gender” is one of the loadings)]. Today, Bonobo morality is becoming widespread. Modern fathers now behave towards their kids in the traditional role of the ‘mother’, while 60 years ago they would have taught boys to fistfight and gambled on the result, and crying would have been seen as shameful for 'real men'. Nowadays, fathers are supposed to be responsible while the definition of 'responsibility' includes only female related roles - changing diapers, making homework, participating in school plays etc. Men cry, men talk about their feelings, men care about the signs of aging exactly like a woman . The Bonobo Matrix is converting society to a matriarchy, it's inevitable. All matrices have distinct forms of communication which are invisible to each other, because they are using different protocols of behaviour. Indeed, the moral priorities of the Sicilian mafia are not broadcasted on TV. Incompatibility of different moral codes makes communication between them extremely difficult and may result in combustive riots. It would be hard to organize a gay parade in today's Afghanistan, for instance. The invisibility of these matrices can be achieved in different ways. One of the most popular ways is through physical isolation without communication, which was implemented by USSR, using the policy of the 'Iron Curtain', or when polygamous Mormons ban the Internet, TV, books or public schools. It is the same for orthodox Jewish groups in Israel or Canada. Another interesting way to achieve isolation, is to divide society by castes and forbade them to socialize; this is practiced in India, where each caste might have their own religious cult. One final question needs to be explored in this chapter - why does the matrix have only three forms? The number 3 is dictated by types of sexuality: - 1) the open [‘public’] active male sexuality of hierarchy with forceful/dominant sex 2) The closed [‘private’] combined sexuality of couples with restricted zones of engagement 3) The open [‘public’] passive woman’s sexuality of attentionalism. This topic will be further explored more deeply when we come to examine ‘sex channels’. People are always experimenting, trying to find new connections and breaking matrix laws, but when they depart from the current matrix, they come into conflict with the dominating moral code. Today, for example, gays can be 31 jailed or killed in traditional societies, and cheating spouses are beaten to death in some Islamic countries. Therefore, experiments to change the matrix ,can only go in the direction of the matrix development in relation to its new economic reality. Other alternatives will be discontinued on the principle of the ‘survival of the fittest’, or destroyed by the carriers of the modern moral code. For example, by realizing that the consequences of sexual interactions between father and daughter might result in the outcome of genetically sick children, brings in a firmly reflective monogamous moral code, prohibiting such interactions. The Weapon of Self-Identity A baby will copy from its surrounding reality a role that society wants him or her to play. It's called 'learning'. Learning is a one way street. Try to forget how to ride a bike. Even after 40 years of not riding, your body will remember a sense of balance, especially if it's fun. Try to forget your first kiss, the feeling of first success, your ability to swim in clear water. Once you learned to swim - it's with you forever, for better or for worse. The inability to forget your skill is one of the fundamental principles of the matrix installation once we have established informational records, our brain can’t do anything about it. We don’t know how to forget. This is exactly why a gay man cannot be cured. He knows how to love his own gender. It's a skill that can be learned by anybody, but it's impossible to forget the knowledge of how wonderful it can be and how to gain pleasure out of it. It’s too bad if a person would deny this possible connection with the opposite sex, it's all just a matter of experience and available skills. Most adult men learn how to have sex with a woman, some don't, and some learn how to do it with either sex. So unfortunately, one should come to the reasonable conclusion that there are no ‘gays’ or ‘straights’; they are just part of the matrix which has different roles for various circumstances. One can get sexual pleasure practically from anything. You can find on internet 32 how man is masturbating using octopus. And once reaching orgasm our brain will remember the way to get it forever. In the same manner are born all “sexual orientations”, including heterosexuality and homosexuality. Curiously, the heterosexuality, which is considered to be natural, needs first learning experience to create anchored record in database of pleasures – monks , who never tried women, don’t feel a need after a while. Our sexuality is intimately connected with our sense of beauty, which is a completely relative notion, absorbed by us from our parents and the current civilization. At one point in time, a very fat woman might be considered to be a beauty queen (as with Polynesian tribes) but this is not the case as measured by French fashion magazines of the 20th century. The best modern perfume might smell repulsive to a person who has never been taught what a good smell is, furthermore, the Polynesian people use old ham grease to cover their bodies and consider the smell to be an exclusive aroma. Professional nurses or experienced mothers can tell you that small babies don't experience negative emotions towards fecal odours, and if not stopped, they will try to taste it, as many other animals do. The wide ranging criteria between what is considered ‘repulsive’ and ‘beautiful’, tells us that all emotional values of beauty and goodness are programmed in our minds, depending on the civilization in which we live. The evolution of sexuality in nature, ranges from the simple non-gendered reproduction cycle of bacteria to the complicated social relationships of the hyena's matriarchy, or the lion's polygamous family. The only difference between humans and other types of living creatures is the ability to change our family type. Animals are hard-coded (genetically programmed) to follow their code, while humans experiment with their sexuality, and are constantly changing to find the appropriate behaviour for both genders and the conditions suitable for their lifestyle - monogamy , polygamy, threesomes, hippie clans etc. We are the only animals who can change all their behavioural patterns, including sexuality and learning. For example, let us examine the algorithm of how sadistic sex offender becomes so. Here, we need to revisit the logic of chimps. In harsh conditions, with little food present, males will fight over available resources. If the loser doesn’t give up, he dies; but if he does, the winner is rewarded with sexual release, which makes a positive connection with the loser. This code is also installed in humans in different ways, but follows the same logic ––violence results in pleasure. There is a powerful association between ‘assault’ and ‘orgasm’, after much repetition, this creates an unavoidable addictive learning record in the brain. As a drug addict is lured to the pleasurable feelings induced by the drugs, the sadist is addicted to violent sex. Potential sex offenders can come from any matrix, but 33 all of them have learnt that violence brings sexual rewards. This can happen when the male has no peaceful means of attaining a female, mixed with alcohol this will result in a violent sexual encounter that brings pleasure and creates the first learning experience – more assaults are just a matter of time. The monogamous principal of sexual shame is installed in a similar way. At the moment when a boy realizes the privacy of sexuality, while being taught to hide his penis or being punished for public masturbation, he learns to avoid any sexual topics. Monogamous boys abstain talking to girls, at least until puberty, because of the 'shameful' ban brought about by their parents or the kindergarten. Bans and taboos are teachable patterns, but their installations in people can be lifted in many cases. The religions of the world are trying to root fear into the believer's mind, rein forcing the purposes of an underlying matrix - hell, torture, unbearable events are promised to sinners. We are not supposed to do so many things, but still we do them. Teaching patterns can be created by means of persuasion, creating other bans and taboos that are usually controlled by our sense of self-identity. Self- awareness or self-identity is related to ‘who you think you are’. For example, when I think "I'm a man", this is a form of self-identity that installs my gender. When I think, "he is my brother", the same principle is applied- it creates in your brain a specific association between you and another man, which is typical in tribal ideology. The matrix has to optimize reproductive social connections according to the amount of available wealth, which causes it to implement specific roles from childhood. Parents understand their responsibility to raise children in frames of acceptable behaviour, for a specific time and place. The roles installed in people for self-identification include gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, and caste etc. Having self-identification as a dimension of existence, it acts as a system of coordinates, as a focal point for our reality. The matrix uses active and passive self-identities to group people and place them in the circumstances best needed for survival purposes. For example, the Russian career criminals we have already examined strictly divide people into categories of 'thieves' and 'fraiers' (simpleton), 'fags' and 'whores'. These criminals will never accept any possibility of the existence of other types of people. This criminal morality is a system of coordinates, where they cannot imagine something different or alternative . For example, the Queen of England would be considered as an ‘expensive whore.’ In this matrix , any unusual dress code for men, unusual tattooing, or non- standard behaviour will be interpreted as 'fagot'. In jail, for having the wrong tattoo, a man can be marked as a 'bitch' and raped. Hierarchical morality is strict in 34 defining what is 'normal', and ‘abnormal’ behaviour can result in a person being disgraced by rape, insult or brutality. The matrix views self-identification as a positive emotional mechanism belonging to normality. Normality, on other hand, is a criteria for measuring who belongs to a particular matrix. Practically everyone considers oneself as normal, while having differences in the definition of normality. In 1984, I was serving time in a Russian military jail, for disobeying a direct order of a superior officer. There were 30 soldiers in one big room and one of them told several listeners that he has a girlfriend waiting for him to return home. The most interesting comment on this was given by one of the soldiers who had previously spent 4 years in a criminal prison. He asked: "Are you a normal man or a cunt licker?” From having interactions with this guy, I discovered that anything considered to be remotely romantic was, in his words, 'cuntlicking', and a ‘normal’ man should never be dependent on a 'piece of whore'. While the attack of the Chimp Matrix on monogamous values of love is typical and completely understandable, one should note that the described soldier had the same deep sense of his own normality, as anybody does in modern Canada. For instance, his understanding of a 'normal man' is the same delusional perception of reality as anybody else. In his case, what is deemed ‘normal’ was shaped by the hierarchical Russian mafia, where men do not engage in the idea of romance. Our sense of identity, not only gives us a comforting feeling of normality, it also forms and bends the vision of things, and this part is hard to accept or even to believe. How can you see the lens in your own eyes? Any assumed identity, such as, 'man', 'Canadian', 'father’, ‘sexually straight' , makes you judge the surrounding reality by the rules of your own normality. Only if a person can imagine himself outside of all matrix roles, will they be able to see the matrix itself. Our identity is formed through our moral eyes, the very core of the matrix. It functions in two ways, incoming and outgoing, giving you the inside realization 'who I am', a sense of normality and a pattern to recognise normality. Also, if a person has an identity and cannot recognize another human in the dimensions of this awareness to the matrix, they will generate a strong negative signal, where the amount of negativity is strictly proportional to the positive feeling of belonging to the ‘self’('who I am'). For example, religious Catholics understand and respect other religions, agreeing that the format of religion is a question of tradition, but they are much more hostile and aggressive to atheists, in many cases, calling them 'servants of the devil'. It is important to understand this reaction. The sense of belonging to God provides the believer with a feeling of righteousness and a clear understanding of what is good and what is bad. The existence of believers in other religions is 35 accepted as natural, as having other languages or races around the globe. However, to the believer, the atheist is seen to possess a ‘bad morality’ and to belong to hell and the devil. The stronger the faith, the higher the emotional level of negativity and repulsiveness is formed in believer’s head. The same is happening with nationalities. The word 'nationality' in various countries has different meanings. In Canada, it means just a citizenship, provided to immigrants or anybody who is born there. In most of Europe it means a bloodline as well, and you are Russian, if your parents are Russian, so while having a citizenship of Russia, millions of people count themselves as Tatars, Ukrainians, Jews or Uzbeks. Having a national self-identity ('American', 'Russian', 'German' etc.) can make people dislike others without nationality. 'How can you be without nationality?' - The question will be raised. The usual reaction of nationalists will be negative, or at least suspicious, questioning the heritage of others. Everybody should have roots - this is a norm of nationalism. In practice, denying your roots is the same as denying religion, may be unusual but possible. Like a criminal will call an unidentified person a 'fagot', the religious man will label the atheist as a 'devil worshiper’, and the European or Arabian patriot considers a Jew to have an 'unknown nationality'. In the next chapter, we will examine, why the term ‘Jew’ (as a symbol)'' plays such a devilish role for the nationalist patriot. In brief, one might say, that like the Bible defines the distinction between ‘God’ and the ‘Devil’, providing a moral compass for the believer, ‘official science’ defines the ‘history of nations’ as pseudo-scientific stories that conceal the reality of the old real names behind a special and mystical nation - the Jews. A positive belief in nation, a strong sense of belonging to the motherland and tears for the national anthem, goes together with negativity towards Jews. Nationalism or patriotism is just another form of religion, where an historical identity groups people together, creating their sense of reality. Machiavelli himself, the father of philosophy, wrote: "History is written by the victors", meaning it’s not exactly truth, not even close to truth. Any national patriotism beyond 1950 includes the simple rule - the more patriotic the person, the more anti-Semitic they are. Only during the 60s, after the Bonobo Matrix started to influence minds, this formula is partly disappeared in Western civilization, but for the Arabian world, it is still existent today and will most likely be present for another 40-50 years. National and religious identities are usually easy to recognise and it is not very difficult to imagine yourself outside of these broad categories. It is even harder for many of the readers to manipulate the idea of gender and sexual orientation. 36 What is gender? It’s another self-identity, and again, it belongs to the matrix. It has all the signs of self-identity - strong separation, strong belonging, and the inability to imagine people without gender. One can argue about the anatomic differences between man and woman, but why should it cause a separation in self-imaging? For example, the physical presence of genetic differences between the races causes many people to think about comparing their abilities, and such a comparison is definitely racism. It’s the same with gender; any comparison between the abilities of men and women is pure sexism, which was required for our civilization in the past, but completely useless and hurtful for our future. While our ancestors were hunting mammoths or fighting wars with heavy swords, the differentiation between men and women was incredibly important. Men were destined to carry out hard and violent jobs due to their physical strength, and women had to play the opposite role for reproduction and support. These roles created whole civilizations, their culture, their religions and most importantly, their identity. Additionally, as previously explained, our morality has to imitate the sexual patterns of great apes, where a hierarchical and monogamous system needs the strict separation between female and male. This is why parents, generation after generation, have been inspiring clear differences between boys and girls - in clothes, in games, in reactions, in behaviour. For a girl, the mother might say: 'Don't be dirty as a boy', 'don't spread your legs like a boy', 'don't spit like a boy' etc. For boys, usually the comparison with girls acts as a general insult: 'Don't cry as a girl', ' you're such a wuss', fight like a man' . However, nothing is random in the matrix. These correctional messages encourage children to copy their own traditional gender roles and forbids them to imitate the opposite gender, setting the standards for sexual normality, which is varied in each matrix. Having a large amount of correcting messages, both negative and positive experiences, the child accepts his/her gender as a prescribed role in society. Gender is an identity, which lies at the core of our hierarchical and monogamous matrices, but when talking about sexuality, one needs to note that there is a difference between gender and sexual orientation. Despite popular opinion, there is no relation between the subjects. It's like Superman and Spiderman, the only connection between them is the fictional nature of the stories. The efforts of science was concentrated to find a hormone that makes a person transgendered, or trapped in the wrong body - with very little results - because there is no hormone, chemical reaction or any transference of soul. The simple truth is - it happens because of the installation of the matrix in the human brain can in some cases, be “corrupted”. The need for man's muscular power in the modern world has disappeared. 37 Automated with powerful tools, robots and aeroplanes, anybody can perform mighty tasks without strength in their hands. With no longer any need for our muscles, we are dissolving the self-identity myths created thousands of years ago to support a people divided by gender. Women are wearing men's clothes and serve in the army. Men cry and talk about their feelings. Here one should further examine the mystery of how gay culture materialises. I would risk suggesting the following assertion: All humans have 2 channels of sexuality - active and passive, for transmitting or receiving emotional communication and information with other humans. This thesis is the basic idea for all the conclusions made in this book and I have no physical proof for this axiom. As many researchers do, I just took this hypothesis as a working model to explain our social and psychological reality, like Darwin did with his model for human origins. Additionally, my hypothesis is merely a further development of the long standing theory that all positive interactions between people are based on sexuality, including friendship, relatives and children. This theory of S. Freud is widely disapproved by monogamous social science, which can't accept 'dirty' relationships between parents and kids or between friends. From my point of view, Freud was right, and today one can claim that seeking attention or being attentive is connected to our sexual thinking. Therefore, attention of any kind is a micro sexual connection. When a human receives information their sexuality is passive [female], and when they provide information their sexuality is active [male]. Transmitting or receiving attention works through different packets, or better to say ‘protocols’, as it’s done in modern informational science. Having two channels can severely limit the ways our society can be built – passive entry effectively accepts only violence, while beauty or attention seeking makes up only three matrices for possible social organization. Expressing a more precise the meaning of ‘violence’, ‘beauty’ and ‘attention’, one should represent them as forced, restrictively lured and freely drawn attention. Our brain is capable of loading any program of behaviour, but our centre for sexuality is limited to certain rules of engagement: - The transference of violent sexuality , forcing the other side to obey (hierarchy) - The reception of beauty passively , transmitting active sexuality in return (monogamy) - The reception and transmission of attention, based on the standards of available gaming reality (attentionalism) To return to our point, how a girl’s ‘soul’ can be trapped in a boy’s body? We know that the markers, ‘boy’ or ‘girl’, are simply self-identities and one can 38 easily trace how a ‘wrong’ gender can develop. Our sexual channels remember engagements, habits, skills and learned patterns of how to have fun with other humans, and as any learnable behaviour, depending on the teaching environment, one can learn certain ways faster than another – accumulated experience creates persistent habit. For example, I can speak three languages, but prefer Russian because I’m fluent in it. This preference is cognitive skill and in this sense, the sexual orientation is the same habit as well, the learned way to get pleasure. Receiving more active attention than required for monogamous normality, a baby boy develops a passive communication channel, and might start to copy his mother’s behavioural patterns as a result, (following the motherly role similar to its own). Seeing mommy receiving attention passively, the boy might decide to copy her movements, intonations, ways to flirt, and later, at some point, might identify himself as a girl. Active attention includes kissing, tickling, talking, rubbing, or anything else when the child is passively receiving play/affection from an adult or siblings. Experienced parents provide a normal [per matrix] dosage of active play and do not over provide should it prove harmful to the child’s development. On the other hand, a baby girl left without attention, has to cry to receive love, and as a result, can become skilful at seeking attention. The ability to seek love can trigger a copying of behaviour from the father, because he actively engages with his wife. Summarizing, one can firmly claim a correlation between the skills of passive and active communication and transsexual preferences in children, during the process of realising their gender. Is it possible to reverse the process? Slowly and painfully, but yes, it is. I can force myself not to talk Russian, it’s possible. If you leave a ‘girl in a boy’s body’ without active love, it will be most painful for the child, but in time, they might learn how to look for attention and realize new skills of pursuing attention, instead of working on being pretty and receiving the attention passively. On the contrary, the treatment for a “boy in girl’s body”, should contain a lot of active love, teaching the simple skills of how to passively receive affection. Rafael Nadal , world class tennis player, has been born as right handed man. But his couch, when started to train him, has made unusual decision to develop left hand –it was easier to teach the hand without wrong muscle memory. The direct consequence of being the centre of attention is extremely dangerous for sexual orientation and gender definition. The amount of gays in celebrity culture is much higher compared than in the general population. The same principle applies to royalty , and even to the dictatorship leaders. The leader of USSR, Leonid Breshnev, was at the passive centre of attention in USSR between 1970 and 1983, developing many gay or feminine qualities without realising it; while everybody around was scared to approach the issue. 39 But before you start moulding your child, trying to fix their gender perception or sexual orientation, consider this – any differences in genders will disappear within a visible amount of time, and soon bisexuality will be considered the new ‘normality’, where straight or gay couples will be considered ‘closed’ or ‘old school’. For instance , Michael Jackson simultaneously represents the characteristics of both man and woman, as it considered to be ‘normal’ for beginning of the 21th century. 40 Multiple Christian or Islamic “clinics” for treatment gay, without good understanding what they’re doing, try to fix sexual orientation by power of lord - praying and fasting are used to “heal” homosexual humans. Well, I can offer much more effective way to change queer men using main weapon of hierarchy - violence. If to beat such person, to insult him/her on daily basis using swearing, and finally to teach the person how to get resources/women using violence – the conversion is inevitable. This way Russian army successfully converts monogamous boys in aggressive, chimp-coded hierarchical solders in two years, who are ready to shed blood for the slightest reason and would bully anybody “who is not from us”. Relationships between parents and kids in monogamous relationships have always been viewed as ‘clean’, non-sexual and altruistic - which is a myth, of course. The Exclusive Matrix is the most complicated and self-contradicting one, carrying the most sophisticated lies and myths. But perhaps, one should explain the mechanism of attraction between parents and kids more thoroughly. Freud was absolutely right by saying the parent’s love is an interrupted sexual cycle, where at some point sexuality is repressed, disallowing full arousal. For a guy who lived a hundred years ago, it is a fantastic scientific breakthrough. But he didn’t explain why the cycle is interrupted; assuming the mechanism is caused by nature, but this assumption is certainly incorrect. . [«There is a proof that in primitive societies an insect was some widely spread and in many occasions was dominant form of sexual life». V.I.Ovcharenko Philosophical dictionary]. If we had a built in genetic mechanism that protected kids from their parents, we wouldn’t have a massive amount of prostitutes strangling their babies, or fathers raping their daughters, or mothers having sexual contact with their sons. These are not aberrations to the general rule, these cases are persistent examples, occurring within certain circumstances. In strict tribal societies, when the husband dies early, his son inherits all property, while the still relatively young mother is faced with the idea of her son’s marriage, where the new woman might manipulate the son against the mother. In poor places, where having wealth and support is extremely important, the mother prefers to sexually satisfy her son, to keep him unmarried. These are not isolated cases. When hundreds of thousands of immigrants from broken USSR flooded Israel in 1991, several serious scandals circulated about the newcomers from the south ; this is because sexual activity with your own child is seen as abuse by modern law. Medical magazines examined the case that came to light. This proves that we don’t have any genetic protection against sexually interacting with our children and certain circumstances might trigger it. In reality, Freud’s interruption of sexual arousal between parents and kids, happens when barriers are installed in our brain, preventing its development .