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
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
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
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
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.’
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.
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:
men are having sex. Who are they?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
'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
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
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
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 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
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
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.  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
We will therefore call this society a Popularity Matrix, or as some call
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
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.
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
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.