Metaphysical Analysis of Theory of Evolution

 

Theory of Evolution is a comprehensive body of knowledge that explains how all life has originated from a single source. How it branched out into myriads of different lifeforms we have now as well as how each of these lifeforms have evolved to better adapt to their chosen environment. 

The example in the picture is how giraffes gradually evolved to have longer and longer necks. Why longer neck is an advantage, a simple fact that it allows giraffe to eat leaves that grow higher and higher on trees, leaves that are inaccessible to other shorter animals. The fact that these leaves are inaccessible to shorter animals gives giraffe a clear competitive advantage, instead of competing with smaller animals for the scarce vegetation that grows on the ground level, giraffes figured how to get taller and access leaves that are too high for others to reach. Thanks to that giraffes have access to more food than others and could just chill as they munch on high crone leaves as their shorter brethren like zebras and buffalos are roaming around in herds in search for grass that was not eaten yet.

This is but one facet of evolution, but it does a great job illustrating not only how it happened but also why it happened. Not every change and branch of evolution was conditioned by attempt to gain advantage over other species, but most influential ones certainly did. Including the one branch that leads us to us, humans. We top by far the most shrewd and industrious branch that never failed to explore new ways of doing things to gain an advantage over competitors (other species).

It begun already in the ocean, or much rather river, when we were still fully aquatic species, known as fish. 

I want to clarify that we did not branch out of cod, tuna or sardine. These species of fish choose an evolutionary strategy that is polar opposite of ours. They chose to constantly adapt to existing environment and survive. That gradually made them smaller and dumber but nimbler, more slippery and hard to catch. They now live their lives in large herds (schools of fish) because if predators attack them, there are greater chance they will eat a few and the rest will escape. You might say they constantly sacrificing a few members of their species so that the rest may live.

This evolutionary strategy gradually shaped them into distinctive oval fishy shape. Early fish were all sorts of shapes, but generations of evolution perfected this typical for fish shape and coalescented them into species we know today and use for making fish and chips. 

That is not something that happened to our ancestors, they either retained or perhaps gained a rather distinct rather non-fishy look and shape. Catfish or Sturgeon are good example of that. Look at them carefully, they are soft of middle ground between, fish, lizard and a snake. Something that could gradually become either of these species. Wider head allows for a bigger brain and a more quadruplectic shape allows for forays onto the surface.

Thanks to their bigger brains, our ancestors figured out how to hide from predators in places they will either not look or not be able to fit, the rivers. Ocean is big and there are plenty of space for sharks, orcas and other predatorial fish. In contrast river is narrow, a shark will have a hard time fitting in and navigating something like that. Hunting in such environment will be too hard to an aquatic predator. 

That was a defence advantage for our ancestors. Slow and easy to catch due to suboptimal shape, they would be easy prey in open ocean. In the river however they were safe. Here they were not a prey for bigger fish but a big fish in a small pound instead. A clear advantage that their fish brains managed to figure out and take advantage of. Something their oceanic brethren could not. In rivers they were safe. food was more plentiful and they could chill, take it slow, eat plenty grow bigger and smarter and think of the next move that will take them even greater.

New environment also changed what our ancestral fish looked like. It was not an endless space of water, like in the ocean but a limited space between surface and riverbed. To live in this area our ancestors had to adapt to handle these diverse conditions. Every so often they might even accidently get pushed either to surface or shallow banks of the river. Being able to get back to water would be essential in such situation. Moon cycles also mean water level changes based on time of day. What was submerged can become exposed and later resubmerge again.

Navigating this new environment meant our ancestors bodies has to be not specialised to one environment like for pelagic fish but be flexible and be able to not only swim but also crawl and more. We already originated from demersal fish that lives on the bottom of the ocean and traits that distinguish demersal fish from pelagic one only further exacerbated in rivers. Unlike heavily specialised pelagic fish, our ancestors became true jacks of all trades. All these traits allowed them to make "one small step for a fish, a gigantic step for Fishkind", advance onto the surface. Later on, Neil Armstrong did the same for humanity. 

Rivers were all good and dandy, but gradually they have become overcrowded too. Food was no longer enough to feed everyone; Barracudas preyed on smaller fish and particularly on newly hatched baby fishes who still have not grown to defend themselves.

As the same time solution all our ancestors' problems lie right above the water line, the surface. There was plenty of food, no predators and plenty of space. If only they could just live on the surface, they would be kings.

The problem was the same as for humans in space: breathing. Fish could not breathe on the surface. Was that a dead end then? Now we of course know it was not, but for our ancestors it was quite a problem.

However, if one could nor breath on the surface, what if you hold your breath, briefly jump out to grab a bite and then swiftly get back before you run out of oxygen. I am pretty much certain that our ancestors lived like that for quite some time. Those who could stay on surface longer could therefore eat more, get bigger and stronger and have better chances to breed and pass on these traits to next generation.

Eventually however a fortunate mutation evolves one of them a lung and allowed them to actually breathe on surface without getting back. Australian and several other species of lungfish still live out there.

First fish with lungs certainly ate plenty during its unlimited stay on the surface and return to river to breed as a ginormous by fish standards giga Chad who definitely, put lungless fish out of dating market. Soon there were many more lungfishes roaming around the surface and eating completely helpless and defenceless insects and more.

Gradually even surface around rivers and lakes became overcrowded. Further evolution gradually changed these lungfish into myriads of different amphibians, like frogs or newts. Eventually we managed to break our dependence on rivers, but early surface species could not. Adult species could live on the surface for prolonged periods of time, but their infants could not. Thus, to breed, they had to go back to water. 

Amphibians like frogs look anything like fish from which they originated, yet they have a clear connection to them. Frogs lay their eggs in water and tadpoles that hatch out of them look much like infant fish of any other species of fish, they do not have limbs and cannot live on the surface like their parents. Only as they grow older, tadpoles gradually develop limbs together with ability to live on the surface. Eventually they leave their ancestral home and live on the surface in adulthood.

Reptiles that evolve out of amphibians do not have this problem. They can lay eggs on the surface and juveniles that hatch out of eggs are surface ready. Formative years, that amphibians spend in water, are spent inside egg instead. 

In humans and other mammals this instead happen inside womb of a woman. Early human embryos look much like a tadpole with no arms and legs, before they gradually develop limbs and other human like features.

This is but one example, but in every other stage of evolution we always took the smartest and most ingenious solutions to our problems. When surface became too crowded, we evolved into living on trees, like lemurs and monkeys still do nowadays. When trees became too crowded, we learned to hunt mammoth and other such huge animals. When we ran out of mammoth to hunt, we learned to grow crops, husband animals, build things and now we have power, an average fish could not even dream of. By now most of our former brethren are but helpless primitive beasts for us to hunt or breed for food or sport.

Thus, our destiny is not in adapting to survive on this ever-shrinking overcrowded planet, but to go beyond and reach the stars. Space is ours for the taking. We do not need this planet or even staying human. Why be human when we can be something much greater. Lungfish did not think of staying fish when it managed to reach the surface, it thought of opportunities the surface life brings. If we fail to do the same, all the lungfish in the world and all the monkeys in the world will laugh at as. 

Religions such as Christianity is the way of the sardine; science is the way of lungfish. The latter will make as an Ubermench, a human beyond humans, a being that will transcend humans, the former will make us a future canned food for the latter. I do not think it's a hard choice to make. 

Humans are Gods of Insects and Implications of that Fact

 

This is a rather abstract and heavily conceptual idea that I thought of a while back. I kind of metaphysical idea that ties together many fields of science and history into a single cohesive picture. 

Humans are gods for insects and other such lesser creatures. Many human religions have surprinting parallels with the life of insects such as moth and cockroaches experience living among humans in the environment created by humans. Human religions is possibly originated among the insects and then somehow transplanted into humans.

Why Some insects live side by side with humans

In our daily life we do not think much about insects such as moth, cockroaches, ants, spiders and such. To us these creatures are nothing more than pesky annoyances. When we see one, we either try to push it away or smash it. We use various pesticides to get rid of them and keep our homes insect free. 

Despite our best efforts to rid ourselves of insects they always keep coming back, requiring us to keep using pesticides and such. That is because our dislike for insects is completely one sided. Insects keep coming back because for them we are very beneficial, benign even beings. It would not even be a stretch to call humans gods of insects, because from a perspective of an insect, the power and abilities we have are as omnipotent as these of Christian or Muslim god.

Various nature supporters like to say that humans destroy natural habitats of various animals and such. That worldview stems from rather naive view on wildlife. In reality out there in the wilderness food is scarce and predators that wish to prey on smaller creatures are many. Thus, most animals want two things: protection from predators and abundance of food. Human society provides from with ample of both.

To begin with, humans have ample of food. We store out food for future consumption, and such food can easily be eaten by various insects. Sure, food we use for our own consumption is stored in a matter that protects it from pests, but even without access to protected food, pests still have plenty to feed on. That is because we use food wastefully, we eat the good parts, throwing away less desirable pieces. Since we are so large we do not care for small things like breadcrumbs and such, every so often we will accidently drop a cookie on a floor and just ignore it. To us such small amounts of food are too insignificant to care about, but insects are much smaller than us. What is insignificant amount for someone our size is something that can feed a colony of cockroaches for a week or even a month. Top this with the fact that we sometimes discard food as spoiled and inedible and you have a complete bonanza. From a cockroach perspective it must look like we are benign gods who provide them with so much food that cornucopia metaphor will be appropriate to describe it.

Second is protection. Human build structures give small pests plenty of nooks and crannies to hide, from birds, lizards and other such animals that feed on insects. Since insects are much smaller than birds it is much easier for them to hide while those who feed on them sure to attract more human attention. From size perspective birds and small animals clearly have reasons to fear humans, as humans might want to kill and later eat them. Insect is too small for human to pay too much attention so it's easier for it to hide meanwhile a bird is sure to attract attention and will not be able to hide. Because of that human made structures make for effective protection for insects and even mice.

Because of the above reasons it's not too strange that a lot of insects such as moth and cockroaches live in the cracks and shadows of human settlements and prosper on the scraps that we cast aside as trash.

Why Insects See Humans as Gods

First of all, insects can be certain that we exist. They see us every day and far more often than we see them.

Second from an insect perspective we are omnipotent. We have ample of food, by wild nature standards, so much that it just lay around with no one taking it. We can build huge structures, turn clay into bricks, concrete and more. We can chop trees and make them into furniture, or toys and more. For a tiny insect such power is sure a sign a divine level of omnipotence. We also can just smash an insect with a slap of a hand, a power so huge by insect standard, its incomprehensible. 

Humans created the world. We can see that a lot of the world is not created by us, but from a perspective of a tiny insect, a simple human house or even a room is like the entire world. Some of them can live their entire lives in human made structures without ever stepping foot outside.

Humans (gods) are eternal, they always been there. That might sound a stretch but relative to an insect lifespan human one is indeed near eternal. Most insects only live a single day or so. In that short time span, they hatch, grow, mature and mate, lay eggs and die. Withing a single human year and hundreds of insect generations will be born and die. Seasons will change, bountiful summer will end, and life will completely cease for insects. Unlike warm bloodied animals, insects and even reptiles cannot survive winter and subzero temperatures. Insects experience winter like the end of the world. Yet when winter ends and world is reborn somehow only humans remain alive and not even that much changed from last season. From insects' perspective this ability must mean that we are greater that world itself, that we create and destroy world at will. Death of the world does not affect us in the slightest. We are there when world dies and we again there when world begins anew.

Furthermore, in spring when new world beings, we plot earth, plant crops, build things and do other things. Insects must surely see it as we creating the world right in front of their eyes.

Humans (god) work in mysterious ways. No matter how much a moth of a cockroach will scratch their insect brain, they will never be able to understand why we live our lives the way we do. Why we create all these structures and then just leave them empty. Why we plant crops and leave them alone. They cannot understand concepts such as work, daily commute and so on. They also cannot understand why we dump so much food into dumpsters where they can easily access and eat it. The very idea of discarding something edible is incomprehensible to them.

Because of that they will likely explain in the matter as if we deliberately create food and leave it in the dumpster for cockroaches to eat it, multiply and fill the dumpster with themselves. A cockroach will not be able to explain it in any other way. It's like a genesis myth were God created heaven and earth, filled it with various plants and animals for humans to live in, enjoy it, eat is, procreate and fill the earth. Except it's us humans who do it for cockroaches and we do not do it to feed them, but end result matches.

Because of the above cockroaches and other pests must view us as benign loving gods who build them homes (dumpsters) and fill them with food and other items. They think that we love and care for them from the bottom of our hearts. Of course we are not doing it for them at all, but they have no way of knowing that.

Of course, we also kill cockroaches and other pests. Since we do not eat them, like a bird would. Cockroach will not be able to understand why we do so. After all their live is controlled by just two desires to eat and to breed, they can understand a bird snapping insects and eating them. They will see a bird as a giant man-eating (insect-eating) dragon of sorts. However, why would humans kill an insect and just leave its dead carcass out there. They would think it's some kind of divine plan than a common cockroach cannot even comprehend (see humans work in mysterious ways). 

Alternatively, and much more likely, they will see it as some sort of divine punishment for transgressing on some divine law. Every religion is filled with complex rules and strong prohibitions against transgressing on gods' territory or offending god in any way. For humans such rules are pointless, but for an insect trying to survive in human world, such rules will clearly help. Cockroaches that do not crawl where people can see them will much more likely to live longer than those who do. There is also prohibition from seeing God for the same reasons.

Also, sometimes we will wash dumpsters and other things. From an insect perspective it must look like biblical flood that destroyed most humans on earth.

There are also these lines in the Bible. This is my body eat is, this is my blood, drink it. Moth feeds by consuming human clothes. Moth cannot understand concept of clothes, so they likely see it as body f god, that God have given them to eat. Other insects such as mosquitos, drink human blood, I am not sure if they see it as wine, but close to how it was Described in bible.

There are other similarities, for example monks' robes are of the same colour as cockroaches are.

All of the above gives rather clear indication that religion and god or gods are no one else but us seen by insects that live in human inhabitant areas. Parallels are far too many to simply ignore is as mere co-incidences.

Implications for Humans

If you think about this idea for some time, you might be able to come up with many different conclusions, implications and such. This topic is certainly worth analysing and thinking about more and more.

However, I have a few conclusions on my own.

To begin with, if insects live this way in hooks, crannies and other refuses of human civilization, could it be that we themselves live in some sort of dumpster bin of some very huge and powerful civilization?

That might sound as a stretch, but I can make you a parallel for that as well. Our planet Earth is rotating around Sun, while Sun and our entire Solar System, is rotating around a Black Hole. We cannot comprehend what a Black Hole is, as even light is absorbed by it, making it's physically impossible to see what it is inside. 

Using a commonsense Occam Razor logic, I can suggest that we are in a sink or a metal toilet of a very large civilization. The Black Hole is a drain, and we are slowly being pulled into it. Our galaxy is the water that is slowly going down the drain. Meanwhile other galaxies our telescopes can see are merely curved and twisted reflection of our own galaxy in the chromed faucets and walls of said sink. The fact that we see so many galaxies is because of the same effect that two mirrors placed against one another produce an infinite duplication of images.

In our time it will be trillions of years before our Solar system will be consumed by a Black Hole, but for civilization that created that sink it will be mere seconds. Just like insect lifespan is insignificantly small compared to ours, our own is insignificantly small compared to theirs. 

The giant civilization is completely oblivious of our existence, they merely using their sink to remove some waste. They do not think if that will kill anyone and even if they knew it would, they would not care or stop. To them our existence much smaller than that of insects, they could not care less.

Not only that, but the way they perceive time is different from us. What is trillion years for us are but mere seconds for them. Because of this difference we will not be able to communicate at all. 

Even if they created us in some way, it was most likely done by accident, not intentionally. Furthermore, they are not even aware they created us or that we exist at all. How they simply getting rid of not even us, but of the substance that gave birth to us. 

That further means if such giant civilization indeed exists, it's pointless to worship them or anything. It's also pointless to think that such civilization care for us or will help. It might be interesting to contact them or study them just out of curiosity, but I would not expect much.

It works the same way below. Each human and other living being consists of trillions of cells. Each of these cells are self-contained ecosystems and communities of sorts. They live by their own rules, have their own subdivision of roles and so on. 

Despite consisting of them, we pay no heed to the cells. For us these minuscule units that together make up our existence is nothing to be concerned about. Most do not even aware they exist, much less understand how they work or why?

It is hard for us to judge if our own cells are aware of our existence or aware that they are part of something bigger than themselves. Answer to such question is completely irrelevant to the functioning of the cell. They live in their own world and concern themselves with their own problems, paying no need to us.

It might as well be that we, our solar system, galaxy and universe is but a cell in the body of some ginormous being. Even if that is indeed, so, it does not mean that our lives here are in any way dependent on that being. They are too large to matter to us; we are too small to matter to them. Fundamentally their lives do not affect us in any way, just as our live here hardly affect them.

That once again means that there is no reason to call such a being, we are part of God. Fundamentally they do not affect our live in any meaningful way to concern ourselves with them beyond simple scientific curiosity.

Furthermore, in order to better understand and classify the world I propose a tier system of layers of existence. We would be the zero layer. Things that bigger than us, like solar systems would be one layer higher and things smaller than us, a layer lower. Solar systems will be layer 1, galaxy layer 2, universe layer 3 and something that universe is part of is layer 4. In contrast cells will be layer -1, molecules layer -2, atoms -3 and quarks that make parts of atoms layer -4.

In conclusion I would like to say that ideas outlined in this text can help humanity better understand the world around us. We have individual scientific disciplines that do a great job studying individual parts of the world we are living in. However, we hardly have anything to tie all this knowledge together into a single cohesive picture of the world. I think such discipline can be called metaphysics and I think the article above can be considered a contribution to metaphysics. 

This article will not be the first one. I wrote many other articles that can be considered metaphysical in their character. I indent to continue my metaphysical research. 

What is Social Hierarchy of Age and Why PRC Model is Worst Thing in the World

 

Some might know that unlike the West where people are considered equal, in Asian societies there exist a social hierarchy based on age and gender. Exact rules of said hierarchy vary from country to country, so no two societies are completely alike. However, two most typical traits are that older people have authority over younger ones and that men have authority over women. 

Older does not mean just older generations or parents have authority over children, older siblings have as much authority over younger ones, that parents have over them. Thus, an older brother such as myself, can pass all the work parents pushed on me, on my younger brother and do nothing as he does all the work. 

Women are subordinated to men, sometimes it depends on generation, so wife is subordinated to husband but not to male children. Other times any male takes precedence over a female, no matter the age. This way women are forced to do almost all of actual work in such a system.

Broadly speaking in its traditional form this system often not only works but create social harmony of sorts. Women are naturally submissive so pushing all work on them solves pretty much every social issue and conflict within family.

The problem come when someone try to create a mix between this and western system. For example, equalise women with men while at the same time keeping the age seniority intact. System where siblings are treated equally, but parents enjoy generational authority is another such perversion of Asian system that does not work. 

A system where everyone simply pushes job down the chain of command could only work if there is someone at the bottom who will do all that and will not ditch the whole shit due to obvious reasons. Women are one such people who value, sex, community and being approved more than personal benefits and status, that is why one can push work on them. Without it the system will not work.

Any system falls off when someone fails to get the rewards, they are due. The more valuable the person is the more rewards they can expect. Both of my parents had to learn it hard way, when I ditched them after they lost control of the money that held the family together in 90s. You cannot distribute the treasure to you key supporters if you do not have the treasure. However, you are double stupid if you think they will not leave or replace you, if you do not give them the treasure. Keys have to get their rewards.

Equal siblings and genders but entitled parents system eventually produce generational struggle for power. Grown up younger generation eventually seek to overthrow the older generation by force, take their place and rule for their own interest, leaving older generation to die. Periodic revolutions and other forms of struggle for power, followed by a period of relative peace is a symptom of such system.

For example, war in Ukraine is happening because Zelenski and his administration is one generation younger than Putin and his administration.

Immigration of young people to the West to avoid their parents is also a typical strategy.

That happens because this system fails to adequately reward young man and puts undue burden on them, forcing them to seek ways to remove that yoke off their neck.

Its fundamentally misandrist and wrong. 

Mainland China where communist won and introduced communist feminist, mixing it with traditional Asian age authority system. In practice that put women in more privileged position than men. Young men are the main victims of such system; they are burdened with not only their families but their wives as well. 

Aside from the fact that it is downright abuse and misandry, it creates all sort of irregularities that tear society apart. 

Selective abortion is one such thing. Parents do not want a girl because PRC's wild mixture of feminism and traditional agism makes girl worthless. Thanks to feminism she is no longer a servant to the husband and the family, but at the same time she cannot continue the family in the same way as man can. 

The result is that China has a lot more men than women. Men cannot find a wife as there are not enough women and women use their scarcity to play men against each other in dating market, extracting a lot from a potential suitor, 

That is not all, sooner or later men will realise that they are screwed by the broken system, the CCP has created and will demand solution. A revolution is not out of question.

Internationally a mainland Chinese girl does not have good prosects either. Western men want submissive wives, and Asia is a common source of such wives. However, that only applies to traditionally raised Asian women and not to a mainland feminist one. 

[continue later]

Pro-Culture vs Counterculture

People often talk about cultures. These are often basis for personal identities, that keep people distinct from one another, create basis for different nations around the world and so on. There is also plenty of talk of subcultures, small colourful things that allow people withing any given country to distinguish themselves from their peers without necessary going against main culture.

What gets rarely mentioned and almost always negatively is a counterculture. It often viewed as dangerous, violent and undesirable. However far not every counterculture is violent or about violence. I wrote one other article about this topic but now think it was not enough to cover this phenomenon sufficiently.

To begin with I need to set a definition. In this and my other articles, counterculture is an inversion of the country's official culture. Inversion like the inverted colours of the flags in the picture above. Why it is so I will explain further below.

To begin with I have to outline how official culture is formed. Sure, one might say it develops organically overtime as a reflection of people of any given land and such. However, reality is that government plays much greater role in shaping this culture than most willing to give it credit for. Of course, more often than not it does it in a subtle way to avoid making people suspicious. Government can promote and encourage certain trends and developments while discouraging others. Why do so? Simple, to better shape society to a form desired by elites. Traits elites find desirable are claimed to be part of national character and culture meanwhile traits they do not like are called un-Australian or un-<insert country name here>

Different governments find different traits desirable or not. Sometimes it's just minor matters of aesthetics but other times these differences are much more substantial, producing cultural antagonism between different governments and their societies. 

Most recently war in Ukraine can be explained with such cultural differences between Europe and Russia. More and more people in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states embracing European liberal democratic culture and that makes Russian elites fearful of losing their power to the common people. Europeans, who deliver their power from people, do not fear that and mock antagonism of Russian elites. Russian elites fear the same end suffered by Charles I and Louis XVI frantically try to figure out how stop democracy from beheading them as well. They and I have no doubt that they are guilty of the same crimes, these two monarchs were beheaded for. Just like them, they try to avoid being judged for these crimes. I personally want to see their heads roll.

However back to culture. There is a physical concept that any force produces an equal amount of counterforce. If we apply it to culture, we can say that any official and promoted culture will create equal amount of counterculture. Why does that happen? Because not everyone can relate to traits and values, official culture acclaims and promotes. Some bound to find these to be downright wrong and wish for a different alternative values and principles. Gradually these alternative countervalues will produce a counterculture to match.

The stronger and in a more ham-fisted way government tries to shovel its official culture down people's throat, the stronger the resistance to it will grow, eventually resulting in stronger and more cohesive counterculture. Generally western liberal democracies handle this much more subtle and skillfully than dictatorships. Thus, western countercultures typically remain weak, scattered and undeveloped. Only truly lunatic people embrace them. 

In contrast many dictatorships that overuse censorship and coerce people into official culture using police and threat of prison often end up with strong and cohesive countercultures with their own symbols, ethics, values and more. Sometimes these countercultures could even pull off a revolution and overthrow the regime. Clearly dictatorships are shooting themselves in a foot there, but they do not see it this way.

Just like cultures differ from one another, countercultures also differ from one another. Russian counterculture will hardly have anything in common with a British counterculture. In fact, most countercultures tend to think of themselves as having more in common with official cultures of one or another foreign country. Western leftists idealise "Socialist" countries, rather erroneously thinking they are the same as their countercultural views. Russian and other eastern countercultures idealise Western democracies instead for much of the same reasons. Once again there are differences between Russian counterculture and official cultures of most Western countries, but these are less apparent than between Western socialism and actually communism.

As I mentioned before counterculture is an inversion of any given country's original culture. Its traits are opposite of the tenants of the official culture, traits official culture labels as flaws and wrongs, becoming virtues of counterculture. It's much like psychological trauma that pushes a person towards the polar opposite of things that hurt them. 

For example, when it comes to picking one's girlfriends and wives, men tend to choose someone who resembles their mother. However, if they had conflicts with their mother and associated psychological trauma, they will instead look for a girlfriend who is unlike their mother in every way imaginable, the more different the better. They will think they will not repeat the same mistake so they will not choose a person that shares any similarities with their mother.

In the same way, counterculture treats anything that resembles their official culture with wary and disdain. Western leftists equate social democracy with fascism because some commie once said so, eastern anti-communists think anything with word socialism in it will mean Gulags and Pol Pot style purges.

On the other hand, counterculture can justify a lot of traits typically considered bad. Most official cultures wanted to cultivate one or another form of virtue. Some of these virtues could end up being seen negatively by counterculture that will instead value a corresponding vice. Western countercultures tend to indulge in social disturbance, property destruction as well as blaming West and capitalism for every problem out there, no matter how unrelated. Russian countercultures tend to approve tax avoidance and downright stealing from the state as well as calling state and government in itself evil.

Reasons for these behaviors lie in certain aspects of the official cultures of any said countries. For example, in the West there is strong emphasis on rationality, skills and abilities. Common good is praised but not at expense of self-interest. Facts matter more than emotions and emotions are sometimes mocked altogether. Thus, counterculture embraces these things instead, going all "my feelings do not care about your facts", as well as embracing the benefit of majority ethos of socialism. Finally western respect for property and value of material things lead towards counterculture just wantonly destroying these things for no particular reason other than just to show how they do not care for material things.

As for some real-life examples, then for example in Russia official culture emphasize so called statism: devotion and service to the state. State is object of near religious worship and people should deny themselves anything if it is for the common good, benefit of the state and the county. Calling the country "motherland" is all to further instill this sense of devotion and reverence to it. 

A certain Soviet era propaganda character, called Pavlik Morozov, emphasize Russian government's official ethos. Pavlik's grandpa hid a portion of harvest from the government officials, Pavlik learned of it and reported that to government officials who arrested and shot the grandpa, confiscated hidden grain and gave Pavlik a medal for service to the motherland. Government message is clear: be like Pavlik Morozov, report any crime even if it's your relatives or against your own best interests, be loyal to the state and society first and foremost, treasure government medals and decorations. People like Pavlik grandpa are selfish, endanger common good and the motherland with their selfish actions and thus deserve contempt and punishment. People like Pavlik Morozov adorned many propaganda posters all across USSR, all emphasising how important and honorable it is to sacrifice for motherland. 

Russian counterculture instead emphasizes not being as Pavlik Morozov in every possible way. Hide wealth from government to prevent them from confiscating it. Never report anyone to officials, no matter what they do. Steal from government because all they have was stolen from people like Pavlik's grandpa. Ignore state and common good and get rich and then retire in Rio de Janeiro (or similar tropical paradise place) like Ostap Bender wanted to. Pavlik Morozov and Ostap Bender became two antagonising characters of Soviet culture and counterculture. Bender is downright swindler and crook with hardly any redeeming qualities, but people love him regardless because he is polar opposite of hated Pavlik Morozov.

Western people will hardly call Bender a hero, self-interest may be Western value, but fraud and stealing are not. To top it up Bender has rather unpleasant personality and does not hesitate to swindle even his associates and run for it. They will not endorse Pavlik Morozov but will hardly praise Bender just because he is not Morozov.

Ostap Bender is just one example of such counterculture idol, not everyone is inspired by him, but I am pretty sure that almost every Russian Oligarch was inspired by him and likely employed his methods to get what they own.

Another countercultural icon of Russia is Victor Tsoi and Kino band. Their melancholic songs about personal concerns and reflections about world and life around them, still attract huge crowds long after the person himself died in car accident, allegedly orchestrated by KGB. Government wishes people would move on already, but public stubbornly graffities "Tsoi lives" on walls of apartment blocks and other areas, imitating Soviet slogan: "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live". 

I doubt it is possible for me to find characters that held similar impact on western culture or counterculture. Some might call John Galt from Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand herself as Western analogue of Pavlik Morozov because Western leftists are so hell bent on hating them. However official culture does not promote them in any way, so they are hardly poster children of the system. Real life self-made businessman like Elon Musk or Warren Buffett probably fit this role better. There are also war heroes and presidents and more. Prometheus from Greek myth or Jesus is possibly Western analogue of counterculture hero. Western lefties tend to believe that western prosperity needs to be stolen and shared with the rest of the world, just like Prometheus stole Fire of Gods and gave it to people. Lefties relieve Prometheus life by voting to increase migration or advocating black people's rights and then endure right wing backlash. All that will mostly apply to the United States as Australia and Europe are rather different in that regard.

One might want to mention Ned Kelly or Eureka Stockade as a counterculture hero, but Ned Kelly does not polarise society as other examples here do. There is a dichotomy between wowsers and larrikins as well as between Tories and Laborites, but I do not think there are characters that archetype each of these groups. We in Australia go easy on propaganda and ideals; instead, we surf, drink and barbeque food instead.

Also, I would like to mention that it's not necessary only a single counterculture for every given official culture. In any given country there could be several different countercultures with different opinions about each other, they can see themselves as complimentary but different or even oppose each other even more than official culture. 

If we compare cultures to atomic structure, then official culture or cultures are like protons forming the core or monolith of the state and giving it positive charge, subcultures are like neutrons, also hanging around the core but with no charge, just atomic mass, finally countercultures are elections, negatively charged and revolving around the core at a distance and hoping to escape to another atom.

Negativity towards official culture does make one think that things are better elsewhere where culture is different. However, cultures of the idealised foreign countries are almost never the exact match to the counterculture of another countries. That said they are still closer to the countercultures of the said counties than their own official cultures are. 

Thus, countercultural people on average are more inclined towards individuality, solitude and negativity. In general, countercultural people exhibit electron like behavior. Unlike official culture people or subcultures who like to band together like protons and neutrons in atomic core, countercultural people keep their distance from people around them as they float at the distance and thinking of switching from one core for another.

Just like in atomic physics some atoms are more inclined to lose their electrons while certain other atoms instead gain them. Smaller atoms with just one of two electrons on outer layer often lose these electrons to atoms with many electrons on outer layer. It works the same way with cultures. Monocultural and autocratic societies with few countercultures tend to lose its countercultural members to the multicultural societies with many subcultures and countercultures. I forgot how it's called in atomic physics but in human societies it's called brain drain.

Finally, about flags. Since counterculture is inversion of any given county's official culture, it would be natural to use national flag of inverted colours as a counterculture flag of any given nation. For example, this is inverted flag of Russia and this one is of Australia. There are more in the picture above. As I mentioned in another one of my articles that Bahamas are likely the most un-Russian country in the world. True to this idea inverted flag of Russia or Australia has broadly the same colours as flag of Bahamas. So are most other nations inverted flags as white inverts to black, red into turquoise and finally blue into yellow. 

Black stands for defiance, turquoise for tropical paradise sea and yellow for sand on the beach of such tropical paradise. That is possibly something most countercultures could agree on. All these values, principles and sacrifices are pointless (unless they exist to protect this tropical paradise lifestyle, like EU liberal democratic values do), what matters is 5-star resort living in a tropical paradise. I call it 5-star-resortism, the only ideology that touches my soul. 

To that end we can adopt flag of Bahamas as international counterculture flag. Flag of people who do not give a fuck about your feelings and values, will not sacrifice for your stupid shit and in it only for themselves and their tropical paradise living.

Why Christianity and Most Other Religions are Religions of Servants

 

In many of my writings I call religion slavery. I think I need to clarify that by slavery I mean servitude. That is something some sects of Christianity openly admit and even acclaim as something desirable (see picture above). In that regard Islam is not really different, the word itself translates as submission.

In my article about Slavery I wrote why slaves are very valuable commodity in a free world just as much as it is in the unfree world. Here I will explain how elites turn people into willing slaves using a very cunning tool, religion.

Religion promises its followers all sorts of nebulous rewards: salvation (from what?), spiritual food (that does not feed and more of annoyance to psyche than nutrient), paradise after death (which does not even exist), approval of church (completely useless) and more. All intangible and nebulous things that are completely worthless if you think of it. 

What it asks in return? Service to God? Does not sound as much until you think about it. They gradually soften you up to accept their "God" rules to train you to obey. They gradually increase the control, making you do more and more until your entire life is controlled by them and rules allegedly written by their god. 

Why are they doing it? Are they insane? Now they deliberately train you to be a servant for a ruling class of their society. They condition you to bow head to some nefarious allegedly omnipotent being to train you to bow your head to very real temporal masters of this world. 

Ever wondered who you really will be serving? Sometimes they call god, lord. Unlike 'god', word 'lord' has many other real-life meanings, for example people who sit in House of Lords. Priests who preach the 'gospel' do not forget themselves as there are also Lords Spiritual. They are hardly 'servants of god' are they?

So, what is the purpose of this religious conditioning. What is their final goal. It's simple: to create a perfect servant for themselves. Sure, one can force people to do as they want using violence and death threats, but that comes with risks. Carelessly drop the weapon, servant catches it and now roles reversed. You have to bow to them. Even without it, unwilling servants willing to get rid of their master can mix up some poison in their food or drink and they are dead. Unwilling servants are constant danger.

That is why ruling elites invented religion with a scary omniscient God who will punish wrongdoings. Poisoned master could not retaliate due to being dead, but an omnipotent god can.

All other aspects of religion also exist for the ruling class's sake. Elites do not see themselves as equal to those who serve them, they see servants as second class beings, inferior to them in every way. They want these servants to serve them with humility and deference. That is why religion teaches people all that. 

Why do you think Bible has a story about punishing Adam and Eve for easing a single apple. Because privilege elites do not want their servants to use their belongings as their own. They also want them fear punishment, obey any ridiculous orders and more and more. There is biblical story where God ordered a guy to kill their own son. It is there to instill loyalty and obedience to ruling class above one's own family.

 

That is how and why Bible is nothing more than a brainwashing tool to convert people into devout loyal and obedient servants for their masters. Willing slaves who will not step out of their role even if they could do.

That is why one should be wary of any person who wishes to "preach gospel" or otherwise convert you to one's religion. Their "spirituality" is nothing more than a yoke in disguise.

Those who live a religious life, a life of service are like second class citizens by choice. A voluntary lower cast people. A servant slave class below others, confused by misleading bible designed to brainwash them into willing slaves.

I personally consider myself a lord, not a servant or a slave. I call myself God and Emperor because I do not follow other people's moral but create my own. I do not serve, I rule. As a ruler a religion for slaves is nothing but an annoyance to me.

In future I might need this religion to indoctrinate my servants into being better willing slaves, but at the moment I do not have servants to indoctrinate. I sure will not follow "the teachings" of the Church as they are nothing but poison.

Kindness vs Morality

 

In my writings I often praise kindness but denigrate morality as evil. To some that might sound confusing. Many get used to associating kindness with moral and have a hard time to separating one from another. Sure, most will agree that they are distinct concepts but how many could contrast one from another. 

However, these concepts are not just different but actually can oppose each other. It is possible to have a selfish, immoral and unethical person who is also kind. At the same time, it's equally possible to have moral person who is very unkind and cruel.

To begin with I will define each concept separately. Kindness is an act of giving to others or helping others. While one often helps people they find deserving, it does not have to be so. As an extreme example, giving money to a murderer or even helping them murder someone would still be kindness. Morals and ethics may judge you negatively for that, but it would still be an act of kindness. 

Kindness is often directional, it directed towards someone, sometimes at expense of someone else. It can also be universal and blind, helping everyone equally no matter who they are.

Kindness can be based on moral but not necessarily have to. One can be kind on a whim, just because they felt pity. One can even be kind out of selfishness. Kindness attracts people towards you so one might do kindness to get people stay with them. Distributing wealth to key supporters from Rules for Rulers video is also an act of kindness of sorts and selfish, but wise ruler, would do so to shore up their rule.

UBI is a form of universal kindness. It gives everyone equally without any judgement on whether they deserve or need it. Something I find much more compelling than a selective welfare based on someone's subjective judgement on whether they need/deserve it or not.

Now moral. Most think of it as something good and praiseworthy. After all moral is concern and drive to do good. That could not be wrong, couldn't it?

Not so simple. Ask a question: "who decides what is good and what isn't?" ("Who are the judges?" as I worded it a while back). The more you think about it, the more issues with moral you will uncover. 

Who decided that for example helping elderly is good and moral, but lazy people are themselves to blame and should not be helped. Who decides who is lazy and who is not? What is an elderly is lazy? Is it moral to help them or should you tell them to stop being lazy instead.

Why its even moral to help elderly but not lazy?  After all both are net burden on society and do not contribute anything, just waste resources and when it comes to waste, elderly by far out-waste lazy by a large margin.

However, is there one same moral or everyone has different one? Most adherents of moral will tell you moral is one and the same for everyone and then will go on to disagree on what is moral and what is not. There are many different morals, ethical standards and so on. If there are many, which one is right one?

Back to the original question: who decides what is moral and what is not? Why they have right to do so?

Religions people will say God decided what is moral and what is not, but God does not exist. In the first-place religious people need God to wholesale the public their moral values and prevent them from being questioned and scrutinised. Do they have right to set rules for everyone else? Not anymore than I have right to tell everyone what to do by virtue of being God-Emperor of the Universe.

Finally, are morals really fair and impartial or biased towards self-interest of those who propagate them?

A tele-evangelist who solicits donations for their church is the best example of outright bias, but most moral is much more subtle. However, if one analyzes morals critically, it's quite easy to see the beneficiaries. When elderly white moral, it's always states that helping elderly is moral and good. When women write moral its always women, who deserve more. When homeowners write moral, respecting property rights becomes good and disrespecting property immoral. When businessowners write moral, running a business becomes a highest virtue and morality of employees is judged based on how loyally and faithfully they serve. A clear pattern here. In fact, based on what any given moral set of ethics claims to be good and bad one can easily tell who wrote it and for whose benefit.

When one sums it all up, it becomes clear without reasonable doubt that moral is not any kind of universal good. More so, moral is a tool of exploitation disguised as something benign. 

Every moral ethics code serves a certain group of people by designating respect to members of this group as virtue. At the same time moral exploits other groups by demanding respect and service towards the designated group or groups. Finally moral declares those who do not show such respect or render service to said group as immoral, vile or worse and seeks to punish them for their actions. Furthermore, some moral codes mix things up to confuse and mislead people and hide its ultimate beneficiaries.

Because of the above, one cannot always expect a moral person to be good at all. Maybe their moral code compels them to help you, but it's equally possible that it instead calls on them to despise you instead.

The worst and most dangerous people are those who treat moral as absolute and ignore law and common sense in the name of moral. They would not only crush their own balls if their ethics code said its moral, but they will also do that to your balls and will think they are doing nothing wrong. To keep your balls safe, you should stay away from them.

My personal experience with moral and ethics was mostly negative. It was always used against me by various people of authority like my parents. Moral never offered me anything but only demanded from me. It was always moral for me to do something for others and somehow never moral for them to do anything for me.

My parents were highly "moral" people and tried to instill this in me, teaching me that "principles" (in terms of my mom) are the most important thing. I personally rejected their teachings and their "principles" as wrong and harmful. Instead, I take my self-interest as highest virtue.

All this is why I value kindness and dislike moral. The kind of unconditional loyal kindness that will give me care and support no matter what happens. On the other hand, I despise moral as I see it as a mere tool of control and exploitation by the privileged groups of society. One day I might flesh out my own set of moral and ethics that benefits me most, but so far, I live by self-interest. 

Why Religion Contradicts the Natural Development of the World

Arguing with religions people get me discover an interesting overreaching principle that divides religion from reality. Reality is bottom up and religion is top down.

In reality as expressed and proven by extensive scientific research, thing work bottom up. Simpler structures gradually evolve into bigger and more complex ones. Take any field: history, biology, physics it always bottom-up.

For example, famous Theory of Evolution. Earliest forms of life were single cell organisms that are so small, humans can only see them under microscope. Overtime however some single cell organisms have evolved into multicell ones. At first, they were simple like algae but gradually became more complex and specialized. Algae evolved into jelly fish that in turn became octopuses and later squids that gradually evolved into ray finned fish.

Size and complexity always increased over time. Pinnacle of evolution, humans are more complex than apes who came before us, apes more complex than other mammals, mammals as a group more complex than reptiles that came before and so on.

It works the same on cellular level. Cells do vary in their complexity from one another. From a simple bacterium that has no distinct internal parts, cells evolved into internal specialisation. Animal and plant cells have many distinct subsections, each performing its unique function in the cell.

It's the same with other fields of science. Take history. Early humans lived in small groups. However, as time went on, we grew to create ever larger and more complex societies. Hunter-gatherer packs were replaced with tribes, who were replaced, with polis (Greek city state), that were replaced with empires and kingdoms that gave way to nations states and now we are evolving towards supranatural unions. 

If we take molecular physics, it the same pattern there as well. Atoms bond together to create molecules. Protons, neutrons and electors bond together to create atoms and quarks bond together to create these atomic parts. Some carbon-based molecules are so complex, they exhibit life's properties. That is how you connect the atomic physics to the above-mentioned Theory of Evolution.

It grows up, not down. People gather to form ever complex societies. Living organism gradually evolve into more and more complex beings. Atoms connect and form complex molecules. It's always bottom up. Smaller things gather together to form bigger and more complex things. Even humans and grass begin their lives small and then grow.

This is the real-life way, bottom up. Grassroot to complexity.

Religion fundamentally contradicts this with its own narrative. God, who is omnipotent and omniscient created humans who are limited and fallible. God created Adam in his own image but created Even out of Adam's rib. Humans were pure ones but then fallen to sin and became impure.

In religion it is always the other way around. Something bigger and greater creates something smaller out of part of self or part of something else. With each new iteration everything becomes lesser and lesser, deprecates.

This deprecation principle goes against the reality of the world around us. World simply does not work top down like religion claims it is. 

This top-down vs bottom-up approach is what fundamentally differentiates science and reality from religion. We have to accept that reality functions in a bottom-up way.