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

Take Action

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



Laws of Matrix

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 human, 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 the idea of exclusive love.
  But one thing’s for sure, each person makes everyday decisions trying to find the 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 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 follows 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. 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 '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 a 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 the Jewish religion defines a 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  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. Iranian 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’. We will come to this later.

          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 Eve 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 the 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 Marx, 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 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 by certain circumstances. By way of example, I will describe the Russian criminal matrix as it existed inside USSR between 1950-1990 , successfully surviving the totalitarian regime of the communists. 
          In the eyes of 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 is that the criminal Matrix is finds 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 structures of relationships, 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 as 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 the famous Russian Mafia.

           Embracing risk and bravery is a typical sign of hierarchical relationships, existing only in this type of moral 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 a simple marker - if a 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, 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 purposes. 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 prohibited swearing at all and don't hide their reproductive organs.
  All cultures that possess sexual shame have a tendency for foul language – they 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 a 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, '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 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 (which it is).

          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 a 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 communist revolutions. Moreover, it’s not only the communist 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 protects certain territory and the stronger the pair of Gibbons, the richer and larger area they control, defining their status among other apes. When children 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 gorillas  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.

          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 forbidding us 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, ' ‘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 a 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 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 it 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  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 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 been 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 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, Bonobos 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 it 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 the Bonobo example provides 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.)
  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  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 of divorces started to grow.
 The first gay parade took place in 1969. Never in the history of humanity were gays allowed 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’ 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 a 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 the new 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 the 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.
 The sceptical reader might require a proof of such self organization and it’s not hard to provide. Indeed, the modern monogamous family in western world has been already 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 the following chapters one will be shown that love to children, worshiping them is only modern phenomena, while in our past it was completely different.