The Codes Of Moral Matrices

Major Law Of Matrix
What forms Matrices
Matrix And Self Identity
Beauty and Sex Protocols
Early History of Matrices
Economy and Matrix
Politics and Matrix
Conversion from Hetero to Gay

Revision of History

Social Paradoces
Empire of Israel
View of Garry Kasparov
Investigation of the Historical Dating
Civilizing Events
Egyptian Horoscopes
Classical Texts


"Book of civilization" 
Open Ended Time
"Investigation of English history"
Available books

External Links

Take Action

About the website
Disscuss on Google+
Codes of Moral Martices:   Politics



Laws of Matrix

The Matrix in Politics

  There is a huge difference between the sexual revolution  of the 1960s-70s and the inevitable upcoming new sexual rebellion. In the middle of the 20th century the young generation broke  away from patriarchal morality; they invented rock ‘n’ roll, gay parades and free love. But at the very end, the whole hippie movement was led by men and inspired by men, and it finished as any tribal hierarchical group in conflict  with mainstream society - with heavy drugs and alcohol. The free sexuality that flowed between hippies was never used for reproductive purposes and, as a consequence, the whole idea was destroyed by Darwin's law. The children of the 1960s were too polluted with values of old  matrices, and couldn't refuse gender identities;  they tried, as any tribal group, to isolate themselves from mainstream civilization, where the pattern of isolation, as usual, comes from the chimp's code of separating  'us' from 'them', similar to many sects or other patriarchal groups.

   I risk bore my audience but should remind that the absolute domination of men in early tribal society is dictated by a constant requirement  of risky enterprises - hunting for food, attacking enemies or protecting the village. In such conditions the moral  matrix makes  anything possible to raise fearless men capable of doing a dangerous job every day, which sharply divides  the gender roles in the reproduction process. If danger and hunger suddenly disappear, the dependency between man and woman becomes weak, the need  for the brave  goes away, forcing former hunters and soldiers to imitate their battles using alcohol. 'If  you don't drink hard liquor, you are not a real man' - this moral rule is still incredibly popular in underdeveloped countries, due to the simple  reason of the progress of the  matrix and conservative reaction to it . And, fantastically enough, the hippie  movement got itself in the same trap. They were young rebels, fighting their father as men against men, but, at the end, they  didn’t know  what to do with their freedom.


          If the hierarchical  matrix reminds us of a large mountain of authority, where each human should violently climb  to gain   status, the real Bonobo code is produced as a whirlpool of attention, having the rules of flow defined by the current gaming reality, which is changing all the time. As previously explained, the structure of attentionalism needs political ideas (or any other ideas) to be heard from the bottom of society, where  the elite become anyone who is adored by everybody else, and such social structuring, dramatically contradicts existing hierarchical principals.

   If one wants to simplify definition of hierarchy and matriarchy it’s possible to reduce their definition to the following primitive form:  in hierarchy “boss is fucking”, while in matriarchy “boss is being fucked”. As one can see the principles are diametrically opposite, because in matriarchy authority is reversed.
[Technically speaking English expression “I’m fucked” should change its meaning to “I’m rewarded”]
  The first reversal  of the authority pyramid  happened in the 20th century, with the first victory of democracy, when women and all races were allowed to vote. The ‘rebeldom’ of the Bonobo Matrix shook the  fundamental principles of power.  The student protests and demonstrations, collisions with police  spread through western society in 1960s  like a hurricane, while nobody could clearly understand who wanted  what. The  principle of pyramidal authority was changed towards the  Bonobo moral code –today, to have authority one needs to be liked by people. But a fully developed attentionalism doesn't need authority per se, or perhaps it is better to say, most of the authority will be voluntarily delegated to the bottom of society in that the upper layer  doesn’t need it anymore.
  Why do men need authority, if not to use them as an advantage in reproduction? This inevitably creates a corruption dilemma in hierarchical systems, and vice versa. If the authority does not give higher status, there is no point in fighting for it for a man. Moreover, the role of the "man" virtually disappears in a society built on relationships of "talent and fans," regardless of gender and race.
On the way to achieving this predicament,   hierarchical civilization will undergo several major stages of  matrix change and crisis. You may ask,  how can we predict this?  

           During or before this turning point of progress, any upcoming new morality will create  a clear moral contradiction ; simply speaking,  a new point of view will challenge the existing order of things. It’s important to understand how it’s happening using following example.
    In the beginning of 19th century  Europe, slavery was started to be considered as a bad thing, while in visible history, between the 16th and 18th centuries, the servitude was accepted as God's given order, where the 'high born' and 'low born' were separated as humans and animals. Many  so called 'ancient' authors provided a  vast amount of literature about various forms of serfdom; especially Plutarch and Plato, who practically delivered the justification for slavery for late medieval Europe, where  the Old Testament was already ascribed to the Jews  and one needed a reason why the nobility has a right to own serfs. 

   There is a popular opinion that  the impulse of slavery condemnation came from the middle classes of merchants and craftsmen, which is completely wrong.. Antislavery was born at the very heart of humanism, and humanism itself is the first ideology of the Bonobo Matrix, which started  with the educated nobility.  The humanists first ascribed their ideas to the fictional ancient thinkers (as everybody did in 19th century), where they tried  to gain respect between scholars,. For example,  the 19th-century German historian Georg Voigt (1827–91) identified Petrarch as the first Renaissance humanist , but the character of Petrarch had been invented in the 19th century in a response to the need for having a past example (of humanism )to justify the present thinking. And from within humanism, the image of freedom hit humanity pretty hard.

 Wiki demonstrates the abolition movement: "Slavery was greatly reduced around the world. Following a successful slave revolt in Haiti, Britain forced the Barbary pirates to halt their practice of kidnapping and enslaving Europeans, banned slavery throughout its domain, and charged its navy with ending the global slave trade. The first empire to abolish slavery was the Portuguese Empire, followed by Britain, who did so in 1834. America's 13th Amendment following their Civil War abolished slavery there in 1865, and in Brazil slavery was abolished in 1888 (see Abolitionism). Similarly, serfdom was abolished in Russia." 

           As one can see, after developing a clear moral  sentence as proved by the French Revolution, waves on the  matrix were spread all over the globe, forcing  Civil War in the provincial (at this time) USA and the Decembrist revolt in Russia. In  the Russian case, where only the noble men were rebelling against the Tsar, this shows exactly how and where  humanism was born - strictly between the nobility  and with the formation of  the first bonobo morality. Otherwise it's  hard to explain why the Russian nobles suddenly decided to care about the serfs, or why President Lincoln fought for the freedom of slaves and at the same time was claiming that blacks shouldn’t mix with white population. Technically speaking Lincoln was a racist, but he was against slavery either.

           One might ask for  proof  that the ideas of humanism belong to attentionalism in the first place. Well, it's pretty obvious, if  you remember that the very structure of hierarchy, constantly needs identities and values that are higher than human life. God, Nation, Fatherland, Equality and many other possible variations of principles 'to die for', that have been exploited  since the dawn of time, justifying wars, poverty and violence. The 'inconvenient' humanism as an ideology, sets human life above any possible greater purpose,  challenging the  foundations of the authority pyramid, causing a hostile reaction  from any hierarchical regime. Indeed, countries with different forms of Islam, Communism or Nationalism, demonstrate an unwelcome  attitude towards any human rights watch group, or any  organization with a humanitarian agenda.

           Many modern researchers have analysed the stability and health of performing political systems by focusing on the changeability of its elite, where   a  lower member has  the hypothetical chance to become an aristocratic.   Most of the studies usually attribute  the inevitable stagnation to old tribal or communistic societies, where room for opportunity to enter the upper classes is very small. Technically speaking,  this is not true for strictly pyramidal systems. Pure hierarchy, like criminal gangs or barbarian tribes,  are pretty fair, where they allow  the strongest to rise to power. However, inheritance and the parental preferences of monogamy, automatically create corruption in any hierarchical order, where  parents try to pass privileges and property to their children. In modern times, not so many states have an official monarchy like Saudi Arabia. Many countries, like North Korea, Syria, former Libya or even Russia, pretend to have democratic institutions, but in reality they exploit  the principles of kingdom to organize their communities, where the children of the top authority figure, officially or unofficially, inherit the power and property of their ancestors.

          The  early Bolsheviks in Russia, like Lenin or Stalin, either didn't have or completely despised their own children. Therefore in the strong hierarchy of Communism, any side emotional attachment was considered as weakness. But closer to the 1970s, when life became more or less  quiet and hunger free, the soviet elite (formed in the shape of the Communistic Party) separated itself from the rest of the population (as nobility did) and the descendants of the top managers started to get tremendous advantages, compared  to the general public. And, of course, any stagnating stratification between people, ends up with civilian unrest, due to the same reason of the moral  matrix shift – in the poor medieval age it  took  a long time to revolt against the nobles, but  in the 20th century, hierarchical regimes are doomed for a  fast dissolution. Crash of  USSR and the Arabian Spring are perfect examples of this.

           However, even in western civilization, technical progress and wealth accumulation  are changing the economical reality incredibly fast, threatening  the stability of the existing management structure and political traditions.  Tersely speaking, democracy is not enough anymore. The  informational flow  passing from thousands of bloggers penetrates the upper parts of western culture, making it harder and harder to implement any unpopular political decision.

          So let's analyse several modern developments  today, clear moral sentences, which  allow  us to see future contradictions.

  -- Gay is better than straight.


  This moral sentence  has introduced  itself in  a similar way to the 18th-19th century idea that a  'gentleman is better than a brusque man' ,where  monogamous women  raised  a new generation of boys imposing 'gentle' values on them. I won't discuss lesbianism, due to the obvious tendency in modern society to  allow girl to girl interactions, leaving the subject as proven by itself. On the other hand, male to male ‘gayship’ probably needs more explanation.
   As one mentioned before, 'gay' and 'straight' are identities used for old  matrices.  Today, they are mostly used in marriage coupling, attributing monogamous values  to people with skills of the same gender and sexual connectivity.  The Bonobo Matrix needs bisexual, practically genderless humans, to make its  group stable and friendly.  Therefore, the attitude to gay men is improving year by year, but this change would never stop on the equal rights between sexual orientations. 

          Today, when a man breaks up with his girlfriend for another woman, it's generally met by a negative reaction from her, but if he does the same thing, but chooses  to date a man, his former girlfriend might support him , which indicate s a tremendous shift from monogamous standards. To have gay friends has become  very fashionable for modern women and any form of homophobia is slowly gaining the status of sexual offence. Within sexual education in school,  homosexuality is declared as a new normality; kids are not prohibited  and are technically encouraged to experiment in this direction. Remembering that the same gender relationships are just  skills that can be learned by anybody, the results of this policy are therefore, not  hard to predict - in the 21st  century bisexuality and genderless behaviour will be considered as the new normality, with a clear moral sentence of sexual openness is viewed as better than closeness, where 'straight' would be an old, closed type.

          Sometime between 2015 and 2025 this major shift will completely reorient public opinion,  promoting an inevitable harsh conflict with the more conservative parts of society. One should understand the position of traditionalists, from their point of view all the signs of Satan are present - shameless and homosexual behavior. But not only are men  becoming more childish, irresponsible and bisexual, tremendous changes are happening to the 'weaker' sex,  which is actually becoming anything but weak.

          From the middle of 20th century, women  tried  to gain the same rights as the men and, as a consequence, they copied multiple  male attributes: wearing pants instead of skirts, attempting to get muscular fat free bodies and broad shoulders, starving themselves to get a skinny butt. The  hypnotizing power of the  matrix is incredible when it  defines standards of beauty, forcing young women into anorexia or excessive muscle building.

          The conversion  female in the progressing attentionalism goes through three major steps: the desire to be like man, the desire not to be like men and the complete loss of gender specifics toward new gaming genderless roles. The first stage happened between the years 1950 and 2005, when  the well-known standards of losing weight, having muscles and being independent emerged. In fashion   this was reflected by  copying the clothing attributes of men, smoking and even swearing. In 1950, women wore skirts because they had to, but by 2012 they are wearing  them to underline the difference between genders, simply speaking, not to look like men.

          Believe it or not, from around 2000-2010, being sexually straight has lost its appeal, especially for straight men, and the whole pattern to look skinny discontinued. The fashion standards for women is set now to gain weight and use everything to underline their femininity,  where it becomes stylish to be pregnant or breastfeeding in public. Additionally, with monogamy failing, lonely or divorced mothers, value  gay friendships  and don't mind raising their kids as gays, or, at least,  they give them  room to choose their sexual behavioural  patterns, which has already happened in Canada, where the  parents decided to let their boys select their gender by themselves, causing a heated public discussion on the matter. Basically, the metamorphoses of attitude towards 'gay' sexuality  is typical of the N-effect (as previously examined),  and I would  go further by saying that the Obama presidency is just a training session before the coming of the first gay president.

           Meanwhile, with maternal instinct prevailing in the social mind, another powerful clear moral sentence is spreading between millions of people, causing multiple changes in everyday life:

 we have to save the children

 It's  a very strong moral abstraction, wherein everybody has   their own sense of what children should be saved from, and even more, what kind of 'we' has to do the job. But, as the Bonobo Matrix is getting stronger, the widespread movement of rescuing kids motivates a large mass of people to renovate the law system, to hunt sex offenders, or  to be a passionate viewer of the Casey Anthony case[4]. In attentionalism, children are repossessed from unfit parents, but it's not a will  that is limited by borders of one country or even continent. When this moral sentence comes a to full power, western civilization will practically try to recolonize all the places where kids are not supposed to be, and the logic of this second colonization will be hardly accepted peacefully by countries with different moral agendas. A maturation of both sentences has accelerated in the 21st  century and should be finished close to 2020, causing  large civil  unrest in western countries, with the ritualized appearance of riots – (pro-gay and   anti-gay).

In schools, teachers tell children that both genders can be loved sexually and it's okay, which in practice means that anybody who loves one gender is limited. Having gay relationships will be typical for both sexes, causing a severe attitude towards homophobia of any kind, while any monogamous bearer has to be homophobic, just to remain sane by the traditional measurement of normality.

  Especially hard new moral sentences will hit  the provincial regions of the world. For example, in Norway, Sweden, Holland or Denmark possible conflict between traditional and liberal layers of society has a low probability, due to the high homogeneity  of the population, meaning the moral difference among them is  low.  On the other, hand Russia has an enormous territory where the Asian part has always been greatly underdeveloped, feeding huge diversity in the moral code, especially comparing the far away provinces  with the central parts and Moscow.  

          In 2012, several provincial Russian policemen were  criminally charged after  a man died from colon trauma, when police detectives sodomized the victim using a glass bottle, which is, as we already know, typical behaviour for the chimp code ,widely popular in the provinces. At the same time, Moscow journalists described another case where  a boy had  been forced into a mental institution for being gay, because he demonstrated a  "I love you" sign to his boyfriend through a window.[5] These cases  perfectly demonstrate   the magnitude of the problem - in capital city the gay version of "Romeo and Juliet" is quite popular, while the provinces are still deeply and ruthlessly hierarchical. Without understanding what's happening, many regions of the world will soon  be on the verge of disaster.

          Inconsistency in the moral code  fed the communistic revolution in 1917, when the  Bonobo part of Russian society was destroyed (first by the civilian war, then it was finished by the repressions of Stalin), which consistently eradicated any population with the visible signs of the upper classes, making even the word 'intelligent' sound negative , especially  between 1930-1960. And there is nothing unique about it. In Cambodia, the regime of Pol Pot killed about 30% of the population to enforce  agrarian socialism,  driving urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside and wiping out teachers and scientists as well. Both Stalin and Pol Pot were  simply trying to unite a layered society and to physically get rid of the  'bad' moral code. .

          Developed western civilization produces an endless amount of messages in political, cultural and social areas. The West demonstrates  to underdeveloped societies higher standards of life and finding many supporters in such countries, usually in the elite, which in many cases, are trying to copy western progress, causing the imposition of an alien moral code in their own minds, while the country itself is not economically ready for such change. The following revolt of the lower classes  usually brings  a strict hierarchical authority that shuts down communication with the progressive west and  is hostile to western ideas. Let me remind you again that this is how it happened  in Russia in 1917, Iran in 1979, China in 1949 and many other countries.


   This chapter is limited. For full edition please click here