"Morality" in "a priori" interpretation of the "totaliztic science"
(multilingual, e.g. in English For English version click on this flag, Polish Dla polskiej wersji kliknij na ta flage, etc.)
(Parts of this web page are still to be translated into English)
12 December 2012

Click "X" or "No" on e.g. messages of supposed errors, or on advertisements, if these try to interrupt your viewing of this web page.

Menu 1:

(Choice of language:)




Menu 2

Menu 4


(English here:)

Moral laws

Source replica of this page


Concept of Dipolar Gravity



About God

Proof of God

Proof of Soul

Free Will


Free energy

Telekinetic cell

Sonic boiler


Zero pollution cars


Telekinesis Free Zone





Concept of Dipolar Gravity




Moral laws


Proof of soul

Time vehicles




Oscillatory Chamber

Military use of magnocraft


New Zealand

New Zealand attractions

Evidence of UFO activities

UFO photographs


Bandits amongst us





Demolition of hall in Katowice


26th day









Formal proof for the existence of UFOs



About God

Proof for the existence of God

God's methods

The Bible

Free will


About me (Dr Eng. Jan Pajak)

Old "about me"

My job search

Aleksander Możajski

Pigs from Chinese zodiac

Pigs Photos


Tropical fruit

Fruit folklore


Evolution of humans


Greek keyboard

Russian keyboard

Solving Rubik's cube 3x3=9

Solving Rubik's cube 4x4=16




Battle of Milicz

St. Andrea Bobola

Village Cielcza

Village Stawczyk


Wszewilki of tomorrow



1964 class of Ms Hass in Milicz

TUWr graduates 1970

Lectures 1999

Lectures 2001

Lectures 2004

Lectures 2007

Better humanity

Party of totalizm

Party of totalizm statute

FAQ - questions




Index of content with links

Menu 2

Menu 4

Source replica of page menu

Text [8e/2]

Text [8e]

Text [7]

Text [7/2]

Text [6/2]

Text [5/3]

Figs [5/3]

Text [2e]

Figures [2e]: 1, 2, 3

Text [1e]

Figures [1e]: 1, 2, 3

X text [1/4]

Monograph [1/4]:
E, 1, 2, 3, P, X

Monograph [1/5]

(Polskie tutaj:)

Prawa moralne

Źródłowa replika tej strony


Koncept Dipolarnej Grawitacji



O Bogu

Dowód Boga

Dowód Duszy

Wolna wola


Darmowa energia

Telekinetyczne ogniwo

Grzałka soniczna


Samochody bez spalin


Strefa wolna od telekinezy


Trzęsienia ziemi



Koncept Dipolarnej Grawitacji




Prawa moralne


Dowód na duszę

Wehikuły czasu




Komora oscylacyjna

Militarne użycie magnokraftu


Nowa Zelandia

Atrakcje Nowej Zelandii

Dowody działań UFO na Ziemi

Fotografie UFO


Bandyci wśród nas




Lawiny ziemne

Zburzenie hali w Katowicach


26ty dzień









Formalny dowód na istnienie UFO



O Bogu naukowo

Dowód na istnienie Boga

Metody Boga


Wolna wola


O mnie (dr inż. Jan Pająk)

Starsze "o mnie"

Poszukuję pracy

Aleksander Możajski

Świnka z chińskiego zodiaku

Zdjęcia ozdobnych świnek

Radości po 60-tce



Owoce tropiku

Owoce w folklorze

Książka kucharska

Ewolucja ludzi


Grecka klawiatura

Rosyjska klawiatura

Rozwiązanie kostki Rubika 3x3=9

Rozwiązanie kostki Rubika 4x4=16




Bitwa o Milicz

Św. Andrzej Bobola

Liceum Ogólnokształcące w Miliczu

Klasa Pani Hass z LO Milicz

Absolwenci 1970

Nasz rok

Wykłady 1999

Wykłady 2001

Wykłady 2004

Wykłady 2007

Wieś Cielcza

Wieś Stawczyk


Zwiedzaj Wszewilki i Milicz

Wszewilki jutra

Zlot "Wszewilki-2007"

Unieważniony Zjazd "2007"

Poprzedni Zlot "2006"

Raport Zlotu "2006"



Lepsza ludzkość

Partia totalizmu

Statut partii totalizmu

FAQ - częste pytania





Menu 2

Menu 4

Źródłowa replika strony menu

Tekst [10]

Tekst [8p/2]

Tekst [8p]

Tekst [7]

Tekst [7/2]

Tekst [7b]

Tekst [6/2]

[5/4]: 1, 2, 3

Tekst [4c]: 1, 2, 3

Tekst [4b]

Tekst [3b]

Tekst [2]

[1/3]: 1, 2, 3

X tekst [1/4]

Monografia [1/4]:
P, 1, 2, 3, E, X

Monografia [1/5]

(По русски:)


Меню 2

Меню 4

Peпликa иcтoчникa этoй cтрaницы


(Ελληνικά εδώ:)


Επιλογές 2

Επιλογές 4

Αντίγραφο πηγής αυτής της σελίδας


(Hier auf Deutsch:)

Freie Energie


Moralische Gesetze


Über mich

Menu 2

Menu 4

Quelreplica dieser Seite

(Aquí en espańol:)

Energía libre


Leyes morales


Sobre mí

Menu 2

Menu 4

Reproducción de la fuente de esta página

(Ici en français:)

Énergie libre


Lois morales


Au sujet de moi

Menu 2

Menu 4

Reproduction de source de cette page

(Qui in italiano:)

Energia libera


Leggi morali


Testo di [7]

Circa me

Menu 2

Menu 4

Replica di fonte di questa pagina

Menu 2:


Here is the list of all web pages which should be available at this address (i.e. from this server), arranged by language (in 8 languages). It represents a more frequently updated version of "Menu 1". Choose below the page that interests you by dragging scroll bars, then click on this web page to run it:

Here the page menu2.htm should be displayed.

(The same list can also be displayed from "Menu 1" by clicking Menu 2.)

Menu 3:

(Alternative addresses of this page:)













(Older versions:)
















Menu 4:


Here is the list of addresses of all totaliztic web sites that still worked at the date of the most recent update of this web page. At each of these addresses should be available all totaliztic web pages listed in "Menu 1" or "Menu 2", including also their different language versions (i.e. versions in languages: Polish, English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Greek or Russian.) Thus firstly select the address which you wish to open by dragging scroll bars in small window below, then click on this address to run it. When opens the web page which represents this address, then choose from its "Manu 1" or "Menu 2" the web page which interests you and click on it to view that page:

Here the page menu.htm should be displayed.

(The above list can also be displayed from "Menu 1" by clicking Menu 4.)

If we, people, "give a life" to any new thing, then we always require this thing is displaying some level of "obedience" towards us. For example, when we build a new car, we require from it to be "obedient" towards orders of its driver. A new computer must be obedient to its user and programmer. Etc., etc. In turn, if something refuses to be "obedient" - as this sometimes is the case e.g. with prototypes of badly designed military airplanes of a new type, the outcome is always a catastrophe which causes a lot of evil, while in the consequences of which this "disobedient" product must be destroyed while its chance to "receive a life" must be taken away from it. If we thoroughly consider the above regularity, then it turns out that this "requirement of obedience" towards own "creator" is a kind of universal "law of nature". In fact it spreads its validity onto everything that receives a "life" from a creator. And so, for example we already have films of the "Terminator" type which reveal the vastness of evil that "disobedient robots" can bring to the humanity. From rich Western countries we already know consequences of immoral actions of undisciplined children which typically are symbols of the lack of "obedience" towards their parents - for more details see item #J2.4 from the further part of this web page. Etc., etc. So if this requirement of "obedience" towards a given "creator" is the manifestation of action of some universal "law of nature", then, of course, this law must let itself to be known to people much earlier, and thus it received some well-known name already a long time ago. So if we search under what name we all know this universal law, then it turns out that this name spells "morality". This is why the so-called "totaliztic science", which researches our reality from the philosophical approach called "a priori", defines "morality", amongst others, in the following manner: "morality is the level of 'obedience' with which an inferior 'intellect' fulfils commands and requirements of an intellect superior for it that gave to it some form of a new life". Because in the "physical world" there is a whole hierarchy of various "inferior intellects" which receive from someone a new form of life, the "totaliztic science" distinguishes a number of different "moralities". For example every robot that received the so-called "artificial intelligence" is to display a "morality of the robot". Every son is to manifest towards his parents a "morality of the son", while every daughter - a "morality of the daughter". Wives after getting married receive a new kind of life from their husbands - thus they display to them later "moralities of wives". In turn every living person also displays towards God the unique for this person primary "morality" (this one is defined as the "obedience" of that person towards commandments and requirements of God). This web page presents views of the new "totaliztic science" on all such most vital categories of morality.

Part #A: Introductory information about this web page:


#A1. What are goals of this web page:

Motto: "Without learning the truth there is NO progress."

       Everyone of us believes that already knows everything about "morality". After all, practically every religion devotes to morality the lion share of its teachings. Also the so-called "atheistic orthodox science" (means this official science the findings of which we learn in schools and on universities) devotes to teaching of morality a number of subjects and specialised topics - e.g. consider the subject of "philosophy" or topics concerning various "ethics". But do really religions and this official human science teach us everything what we should know about morality?
       After all, we should remember, that e.g. religions repeat to their faithful just a small fraction from whatever God revealed to their founders, saints, and devotees. And we must understand that God has this principle that He reveals to people only the most vital "starters of knowledge" - which later are to inspire humans to own searches for knowledge and truth, but He does NOT support laziness and stupidity by effortless giving to people ready-made solution for everything - as this is explained on a number of totaliztic web pages, e.g. in item #H3 of the web page named god_proof.htm or in item #B4.1 of the web page named immortality.htm. Thus, it is also sure, that God gave to people just these most vital "starters of the knowledge" about morality, while the rest of this knowledge He wants that people laboriously worked out for themselves. Means, God revealed to us just "what", while questions "how?", "why?", "from what it stems?", "where it comes from?", "what facts confirm this?", "how to prove that this is an absolute truth?", etc., God leaves to own working out by ourselves.
       In turn that so-called "atheistic orthodox science" researches everything from just a single approach, by philosophers called "a posteriori" - means "from effects to causes". In turn, as this is explained in item #A2.6 from the web page named totalizm.htm and also item #C1 on the web page named telekinetics.htm, such "a posteriori" approach to research allows the official human science to learn at most "a half of truth" on every subject. So practically also on the topic of "morality" this official human science can learn NOT more than "a half of truth". In order to learn also this "second missing half of truth" it is necessary to learn what about morality determined that new "totaliztic science" which is competitive towards the old science, and which objectively researchers the reality from an opposite approach called "a priori" - means "from the cause to effects" or "from God understood as a superior cause of everything, to reality which surrounds us that represents effects of actions of that God". Therefore this web page assumes for itself the goal of indicating about the morality the most vital information about this "second missing half of truth regarding morality" that was determined by the new "totaliztic science".

#A2. According to the "totaliztic science", moralities of subsequent intellects form a hierarchical structure:

Motto: "Only a person who acts 'morally' is able to reveal to others truths regarding moral behaviours."

       One does NOT need to know the "totaliztic science" to understand that "givers" of new forms of life are formed into a kind of hierarchy. For example, parents give a new life to their children, in turn these children can give a new form of life to computer programs that they wrote, to robots that they build, etc. Because the new "totaliztic science" defines "morality" as a form of obedience towards requirements and commandments of the one who gave to us a "new form of life", it is obvious that also subsequent kinds of "morality" will be formed into a kind of hierarchical structure. In this structure, the most superior will be the morality defined for people by God. After all, God is the most superior creator, who gave the life to all people. The second layer of morality, already inferior in relationship to this God's one, is the "morality of descendants" defined by parents for their children, and also the morality of wives and husbands defined by their spouses. There is also a third level in the hierarchy of morality. This is the morality of everything to which people gave a new form of life. For example, while building "robots" - for each one of them people design the new "morality of a robot" (see subsections #J1 and #J2.5 near the end of this web page) which actually is the reflection of their own morality. While writing programs such as "computer viruses", they encode into them the reflection of their own morality in the form of "morality of computer viruses". In turn while bringing up and teaching e.g. dogs, owners of these also create specific "moralities of given dogs". (Notice that in all "wild animals" the morality is shaped by God Himself.) More information on the subject of hierarchy of morality described here is provided in item #J1 near the end of this web page.
       The awareness of the existence of the above "hierarchy of morality" is very vital. After all, everyone of us takes a specific place in this hierarchy. So everyone of us manifests some form of "morality" towards the one who gave to him or her a "new form of life" (i.e. towards God, parents, spouse). Each one of us imposes also specific moral requirements and rules onto these ones to whom he or she gave a "new form of life" - e.g. onto spouse, children, dogs, computers, robots which he or she builds, etc. It happens, that the main requirement in forming a new morality located below in this hierarchy, is that in any aspect it must NOT be contradictive to all moralities superior towards it (e.g. the "morality of a given person" or the "morality of a son or daughter" must NOT be contradictive to the morality given to people by God, while e.g. the "morality of a robot" or the "morality of programs" must NOT be contradictive to the morality of people given to us by God). If in any aspect such an inferior morality is contradictive to any morality superior towards it, then it fulfils the definition of "immorality", while these ones who practice it become the immoral parasites from which the right to lead a "new form of life" by a definition must be taken away (and really, as this is documented by the evidence from "part #C" of this web page, with the elapse of time typically the right to live is taken away from them).

#A3. The history of this web page:

Motto: "... when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things coming." (Bible, "Evangel according to St. John", verse 16:13)

       If someone asks me what is the most difficult to write about, then I would answer that personally I have the biggest difficulty with writing about myself (this is why I always delay the writing and update of the web page about myslef (Dr Jan Pajak) indicated in item #O5 near the end of this web page). In turn second in the order of most difficult tasks, in my opinion is to write about "morality" - as this is done on this web page. This is why, in spite that since a long time the philosophy of totalizm revealed to me that "morality is the key to everything", explaining of this fact on this web page to other people always presented for me the greatest difficulty and challenge. In fact, this web page was rewritten entirely two times already. The first version of it was formulated in March 2004. But I was NOT happy with it. However the difficulty of writing about morality caused that I delayed the rewriting it. Finally, in May 2011, I decided that I must NOT delay it any further. So I prepared this version of it. Although I am aware that it still does NOT reflect well the unimaginably vital role that "morality" performs in our lives, I am also aware that in order to improve this web page to the level of perfection that it deserves, it will take me several further years of continuous improvements and increasingly more detailed research. Therefore I am appealing to the reader to forgive me imperfections and drawbacks which is going to encounter in the text that is to follow, and still read this web page in the form in which so-far I managed to prepare it. After all, our knowledge about morality is so vital, that even from imperfect sources, such as this web page, we still need to learn it thoroughly, and then adopt it and pedantically implement it in every situation from our everyday lives.

Part #B: How "morality" is defined in two existing models of our universe:


#B1. Two basic models of our universe, i.e. (1) the model of the "atheistic orthodox science" to-date (i.e. the universe occurred by an accident and is ruled by accidents) and (2) the model of the new "totaliztic science" (i.e. that the universe was created on purpose and is ruled by superiorly intelligent God):

       From the everyday life we know, that if we want to learn thoroughly about something, then we must "look at it" from at least two different "directions" or from two so-called "approaches". This is because looking from just a single direction (approach) we see "at the most" a half of this something. For example, looking at some building just from the front, we still do NOT know what is on the back of it. On the other hand, our official science (frequently called also the "atheistic orthodox science") on everything that surrounds us looks just from a single and always the same approach, by philosophers called "a posteriori" means "from effects to causes". This means, that such a science learns "at the most" a half of truth on that something. In order to learn also that "still missing second half of truth", people would need to officially acknowledge also completely different science, which would be "competitive" towards that "atheistic orthodox science" to-date, and which would look at everything from a completely opposite approach by philosophers called "a priori" means "from the cause to effects" or "from God understood as the most primary cause of everything, to the surrounding reality that represents effects of actions of that God". In fact, since 1985 exists already just such a new science which is researching the reality from that opposite "a priori" approach. It is called the "totaliztic science" and it really is "competitive" towards official science to-date, i.e. "competitive" towards that science which we learn in schools and on universities and which some call "atheistic orthodox science". (Notice that the world "competitive" is written here in "quotes" because in fact both these sciences mutually complement each other and both are in service of humanity - although, as so far, the new "totaliztic science" was forced to act almost in "conspiracy" because representatives of that old "atheistic orthodox science" which so-far held the absolute "monopole for knowledge" persecute it viciously, sabotage it, fight out, criticise and "close its mouths" on all possible ways available to them, i.e. they do with it exactly what is known from e.g. economics that holders of "monopoles" always do to their "competition".) The philosophical and scientific foundations of this new "totaliztic science" are described in items #F1 to #F3 of a separate web page named god_exists.htm. These foundations are based on the so-far ignored by the official science the theory of everything called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity. This is because that theory has proven formally that "God does exist" - and thus it undermined the truth of so-called "Occam's razor" which provides philosophical foundations for the old "atheistic orthodox science" to-date.
       Each one amongst both above sciences forms its own model of our universe that is unique for it. For example, the model of the official human science to-date is based on the so-called "theory of big bang" and "expanding universe". In turn the model of the new "totaliztic science" is based on the everlasting existence of always moving liquid called the "counter-matter" which displays attributes of a "liquid computer" and in which with the elapse of time evolved a self-aware program that us people call God, and that later created from this counter-matter the entire separate physical world and man. But in order to NOT stretch the patience of the reader, I am NOT going to describe here these models nor prove why the model of the "atheistic orthodox science" to-date is erroneous while the model of the new "totaliztic science" is correct. I only inform here, that about the "Big Bang" or about the "Occam's razor" that form foundations of that old model of the official science one can read in internet - because there is in there a huge number of publications on these subjects. In turn about the "intelligent counter-matter" and about the "model of the universe" that result from the existence of it, most comprehensively one can learn from the volume 1 of my newest monograph [1/5] - which is disseminated in internet free of charge, and which is a kind of "official textbook" for the "totaliztic science".
       Both above mutually "competitive" sciences, and also justifications why only one model of the universe that they created is the correct one, are already presented on a number of totaliztic web pages - for example see item #C1 of the web page named telekinetics.htm, item #A2.6 of the web page named totalizm.htm, items #F1 to #F3 of the web page named god_exists.htm, item #A4 of the web page named god_proof.htm, item #C5 of the web page named bible.htm, item #B1 of the web page named tornado.htm, item #J2 of the web page named pajak_jan_uk.htm, item #A2 of the web page named healing.htm, subsection H10 from volume 4 of monograph [1/5], and descriptions from several further web pages and publications of totalizm. So there is no need to again elaborate these here.

#B2. How the "atheistic orthodox science" to-date defines "morality" in the universe that come to existence by an accident and is ruled by accidents:

       In the "Oxford English Dictionary" (1 volume, Oxford University Press, Oxford OK2 6DP, UK, 2007, ISBN 978-0-19-920687-2) - which is considered to be one amongst most authoritative dictionaries in the world, on page 1835, under the word "morality" is provided the following definition of "morality": "the doctrine or branch of knowledge that deals with right and wrong conduct and with duty and responsibilities; moral philosophy; ethics; moral principles or rules". The publishing of the above definition in that authoritative dictionary means, that it is a kind of "standard" for the "atheistic orthodox science" to-date. Although some academic textbook or some lecturers may add or take away some less significant words from the above definition, generally this definition is a full representation of what "morality" is considered to be by the old "atheistic orthodox science" to-date. Thus, the type of morality described by the above definition, should be called the "scientific morality" (more information about such "scientific morality" provides item #I5 on the page named petone.htm and item #E2 on the page named totalizm.htm). In turn, those people who practiced such "scientific morality" in Poland were called "martinets" ("służbistami" in the Polish language) - for the essence of their ideology see item #L3 from the web page named cielcza_uk.htm.
       The most vital attribute of the above definition of morality is that according to it "morality" is "an idea introduced by people". This means, that according to it supposedly: (a) "morality" does NOT originate from anything else than people (e.g. "morality" does NOT originate from God nor from "laws of nature"), (b) "morality" does NOT have independent from people "standards of morally correct behaviours", (c) do NOT exist any "phenomena of nature" that would indicate or confirm which behaviours of people are morally correct and which are immoral, and (d) no-one independently from people "guards" the "morality" nor makes sure that people actually behave morally e.g. through serving to them "rewards" for "moral behaviour" and "punishments" for "immorality". In other words, because according to this definition supposedly "people invented morality", this definition contains also a suggestion, that as time elapses, people (i.e. "politicians") will be able to "invent also for themselves" a completely different "morality". For example, instead of becoming increasingly perfect through fighting out their vices and temptations, in that "new morality" which people can "invent" for themselves and introduce to life in the future, they simply are to "sanction" these vices and temptations and announce that following them is already "moral" (instead of previous being "immoral"). This seems to happen already now. For example, New Zealand already now banned parents from disciplining their children (and even makes this disciplining punishable by imprisoning) - as this is explained in item #B5.1 from the web page named will.htm while is commented in sub-item #J2.4 from the end of this web page. Furthermore, it introduced also the law regarding "civil unions" in which it allows that homosexuals can marry each other - in spite that e.g. the Bible quite clearly bans practicing homosexuality (for examples of this bans from the Bible see item #B5 on the web page named seismograph.htm or item #B2.1 on the web page named mozajski_uk.htm). In turn e.g. in Australia is opened legally an internet forum which persuades people to marital unfaithfulness - in spite that this unfaithfulness is banned by 7th God's commandment. The above persuades to undertake serious analyses, whether the definition of "morality" which is disseminated by the old "atheistic orthodox science" to-date is actually correct, or is rather highly wrong and misleading for people.
       At this point it should be emphasized, that (as this is explained in more details in item #B6 below) the "scientific morality" described in the above definition shows significant differences when compared with the "true morality" required from the people by God, i.e. the one evaluated and then punished or rewarded by God, the definition of which is provided in item #B5 from this page. One amongst the most important of these differences lies in the fact that the "scientific morality" in its very definition requires us to obey orders and the requirements of our superiors and to abide the imperfect human laws - even if these stand in direct conflict with the commandments and requirements of God - as this is explained comprehensively in item #L3 on the page called cielcza_uk.htm. But because for example in item #G3 from the totaliztic web page named prophecies.htm is illustrated that the vast majority of today's laws is already opposite to the commandments and requirements of God, the requests of today's "scientific morality" to implement these immoral laws is an equivalent of ordering people to act immorally. But it has already been documented with certainty, that every immoral human action is punishable with a strong "kick" that God serves to immoral people still in this physical life of theirs, in proportion to the level of their immorality - which fact is documented in detail e.g. in items #G1 to #G8 frm the web page named will.htm or in item #I5 from the web page named petone.htm. Thus such ordering by the "scientific morality" to act in life in the opposition to the commandments of Almighty God, illustratively can be compared to recommending that each of the people by his action "challenged a horse to a duel for kicks".

#B3. Whether the definition and understanding of morality disseminated by the old "atheistic orthodox science" are agreeable with the reality in which we live, and thus correct, or rather mislead us because they reveal to us at the most a "half of truth":

       If the "randomness" - which is inherent in the definition and understanding of "morality" disseminated by the old "atheistic orthodox science", was consistent with the reality in which we live, then the attributes which this "morality" would have to display in our universe, would also be ruled by "accidents". In other words, in such a universe created by an "accident" and ruled by "accidents", also the morality would have to be the "accidental morality" - which would be characterised by the following features:
       1. The work of such an "accidental morality" would NOT be governed by any regularities or laws. Thus e.g. the same actions would completely at random show different moral classifications. There would be no any uniform moral rules and principles that could be applied to all human actions and situations. There could NOT exist any standards of morality. There would also be NO indicators of morally correct behaviours, such as "moral field", "moral energy" or "moral laws" - discovered only recently by the philosophy of totalizm and described more comprehensively on a separate web page named totalizm.htm and also in sub-items #C4 from this web page. Of course, there would also be NO way that such subjects as "ethics" or "philosophy" could be formulated and lectured.
       2. "Morality" ruled by accidents would NOT support the development by people of the understanding and models of "justice", "honesty", etc. This is because how one could develop and define these concepts when the same behaviours would have accidental and each time completely different moral meanings. Thus people would NOT know what these concepts actually mean. Also, people would NOT be able to be either right and just or honest, etc.
       3. People affected by outcomes of such "accidental morality" would NOT have "conscience", "proverbs", "folk wisdom", "moral tradition", etc. After all, these features are based on the repetitive rules which govern over morality and which humans noticed, and the existence of which was detected by generations of people that lived on the Earth.
       On the other hand, when one analyses the universe in which we live, then it turns out that this universe displays a complete opposition to attributes of "accidental morality" listed above that would need to exist in the universe ruled by accidents. This leads to the final conclusion, that "the definition of 'morality' which was developed and is disseminated by the old so-called 'atheistic orthodox science' is significantly 'twisted' and is NOT agreeable with the 'moral laws' which rule over the reality in which we live". After all, according to what is documented in items #B1 and #B2 from the web page named changelings.htm, the reality in which we live was created and is ruled with an iron hand by omnipotent God, while as such it significantly differs from the reality created and ruled by "accidents" that is promoted by the old "atheistic orthodox science". In the world created and ruled by God, this is God who developed moral principles and requirements so that these support His goals, and this is God who forwarded these principles and requirements to people for obeying (while obeying of them He executes from people with an "iron hand"). Therefore, people who practice this twisted "morality" imposed onto the present humanity by the old and incompetent "atheistic orthodox science" risk that they become severely punished by God - e.g. that according to the principle of "survival of most moral" explained in items #G1 to #G7 of the web page named will.htm, they die prematurely in relatively young age. After all, this twisted definition of morality as "moral" announces erroneously activities which in true morality (means in the morality subjected to the judgement and punishment by God) are clearly indicated as highly immoral. (As examples of just such erroneous qualifying by the twisted definition of morality, consider "homosexuality" described in item #B4 from the web page named antichrist.htm, which the scientific and twisted definition of morality declares to be "moral", while God qualifies in the Bible as highly immoral and revolting, or consider "polygamy" described in item #J2.2.2 from the further part of this web page, which the scientific and twisted definition of morality declares as "immoral", which God qualifies in the Bible as a moral behaviour which is highly recommended to people.) So in order to learn a different (correct) definition of "morality", which truly reflects our reality, we need to learn the definition developed and disseminated by the new "totaliztic science" and provided in item #B5 below.

#B4. What we should know about this "reversed approach" to morality of the new "totaliztic science", and why it reveals the "missing second half of truth":

       As it is explained by item #B1 of this web page, the new "totaliztic science" researches the reality around us from the opposite approach by philosophers called "a priori", means "from the cause to effects". In this approach everything, thus also "morality", is defined as originating from the "superior cause", means from God. Only that opposite to the existing religions, new "totaliztic science" is aware of the fact that God does NOT support laziness and stupidity, therefore in spite that in holy books, such as the Bible, He gave to people "starters of the knowledge" about morality, actually He expects that people with their own effort and objective research find out by themselves what really "morality" is, and how one should lead a moral life. Therefore, the new "totaliztic science" does NOT wait - as this was so-far done by religions, until God gives to people for free the entire knowledge about morality, without of the need for people to laboriously work out this knowledge by themselves, but this science starts to objectively and intensely research "morality and God" and earns the knowledge about morality with own effort and own contribution of work. In turn, all knowledge that it managed to establish on the subject of morality and principles of moral living, this new "totaliztic science" explains in the philosophy of totalizm and the philosophy of parasitism that it created and developed. The most vital aspects of this knowledge are summarised here on this web page.

#B5. How the new "totaliztic science" defines "morality" in the universe intentionally created and intelligently ruled by superior God:

Motto: "People stubbornly ignore morality enforced by God, God restlessly illustrates to people that NO-ONE is allowed to ignore morality."

       The new "totaliztic science" recommends to use the following definition of "morality": 'morality is the "level of obedience" with which a given "intellect" fulfils commandments and requirements imposed onto humans by God, which commandments and requirements are unambiguously expressed by God with the aid of various "standards of morality" (such as the Bible, the human organ called "conscience", etc.) and with the aid of numerous 'indicators of morally correct behaviours' (such as the "moral field", "moral energy", "moral laws", etc.), and which actual fulfilment by people is judged by God and "rewarded" or "punished" with an iron consequence - while manners of fulfilment of these commandments and requirements are revealed to us by two modern philosophies called the philosophy of totalizm and the philosophy of parasitism - which taken together teach people truly "moral" principles of leading their lives'.
       Of course, the above definition - as every human finding, can also be expressed with the use of various other words or sentences. A part of these sentences perhaps can improve it even more and allow to express with it even better the essence of "morality". Furthermore, this definition is too long for us to be able to remember it in its entirety and repeat it for the everyday use. Therefore, for our own use, or for discussing it with other people, one can benefit from simplified versions of that definition, e.g. from the one stated here in the introduction to this web page, or the one discussed in item #A1 of the separate web page named totalizm.htm. Such a simplified version of the above complete definition reflect the essence of it already in e.g. the following formulation "in the world ruled by God, morality should be understand as the strictness with which someone fulfils God's commandments in the everyday life" (or in the formulation presented in the introduction to this web page). But the addition to such simplified versions of this definition should be our understanding that in order to "persuade" to people the obedience of "morality", God created and gave to people various standards and indicators of moral behaviours (e.g. conscience, Bible, moral field, etc.), and also that God consistently uses "rewards" and severe "punishments" to reinforce moral behaviours in people - only that in order to not break our "free will" this reinforcing He carries out highly "discretely" and with the fulfilment of so-called "canon of ambiguity" (described, amongst others, in item #C4.1 of this web page).
       The above definition is immensely important. After all, it informs quite clearly that "morality" is formulated by God and that God makes sure that people obey it pedantically (and do NOT ignore it). On the other hand, the error of a too-light, unserious, and misleading treatment of "morality" by the official human science to-date, which the science still failed to repair, causes that the humanity currently is in the situation of a "war with God" about "morality". In turn, how "wars with God" typically finish, this for the city of Christchurch in New Zealand is described in item #G2 on the web page named prophecies.htm. Therefore, in present times, our civilisation pays for ignoring the enforcement of morality with immense suffering and deaths of numerous people punished for being immoral, and also pays with the devastation of nature, cities, and social lives, which were treated too lightly by decision makers that believed in the impunity of their immoral actions. Thus, in the vital interest of every person lies now to repeat this definition of morality to his or her close ones, and thus to gradually restore the moral behaviours to our civilisation. In turn the restoration of morality has the potential to return harmony, peace, and prosperity to the humanity.
       The correctness of the above definition of "morality" is confirmed by a number of various facts and phenomena. Each one amongst these facts and phenomena contradicts also the correctness of the to-date definition of "morality" (i.e. the one from item #B2 above) - disseminated by the official human science. Therefore, the entire next "part #C" of this web page is going to be devoted to the presentation of the most vital examples from the large body of evidence which documents that the definition provided here is absolutely correct, and documents that God really enforces moral behaviours of people.

#B6. Differences between the "true morality" described by the definition of the new "totaliztic science" and the "scientific morality" described by the definition of the old "atheistic orthodox science":

Motto: "Wherever for the attention of people competes more than one idea, over there also appears a form of competition and a form of widening of differences."

       On this web page it is stated that in modern times the moral side of behaviours of subsequent individuals can be described by as many as three different definitions of "morality". The oldest of these behaviours can be called the "true morality" - as it is the one which is required from the people by God, while which is made aware to people through the content of sacred books inspired (authorized) by God Himself (such as the Christian Bible), through the whispers f conscience, and recently also through the recommendations and findings of the philosophy of totalizm. The definition of the "true morality" is presented in item #B5 from this web page. Another type of human behaviour can be called a "scientific morality". This one depends on compliance with the requirements and orders invented by various present atheistic scientists, and then imposed onto people by laws formulated by present politicians. This "scientific morality" is defined in item #B2 from this web page, and also in item #L3 of the web page named cielcza_uk.htm. Note, however, from item #I5 of the page called petone.htm, that God treats this "scientific morality" the same as a version of "immorality" - as it does NOT comply with God's commandments and requirements. The third variant of human behaviour is a simple "immorality" which most obviously is "practiced" by all followers of the so-called philosophy of parasitism. After all, the person practicing it "do not respect any laws or requirements, unless to the respecting them they were somehow forced". It means, that this principle of human behaviour is reduced only to indulging in own desires, inclinations, whims, etc. Each one out of these three types of "morality" has fundamental differences with respect to the others. It is therefore worth to learn these differences. In the case of highly immoral philosophy of parasitism, these differences do not even need to be explained, because they are defined by tendencies, moods, desires, wishes, etc., of a given practitioner. However, in the case of two other kinds of "morality", their mutual differences are more sophisticated. Therefore in items that are listed below I will explain the most vital differences between the "scientific morality" and the "true morality". Here they are:
       1. Period of validity. The today's "scientific morality" is constantly changing and is just a "temporary" - means valid only in present times, before scientists do NOT change it to something else. After all, this morality is constantly changing, as more and more scientists have come to different conclusions on the kinds of conduct that are accepted in a given time. For example, through practically the entire twentieth century, open homosexual relationships were considered immoral. But in the early twenty-first century these relationships were considered to be officially permitted and even laws were passed that allowed homosexuals to have 'legally blessed", so called "civil unions". In turn during the second decade of the XXI century, instead of keeping a different name for homosexuals who are, after all, the couples of the same sexes, these "civil unions" were even officially called "marriages" - in spite that the age-old name "marriage" means "union between two people of different sexes capable of procreating their offspring". Due to such deviations rising in the "scientific morality", from the legal point of view, these "deviant" gay marriages, in the twenty-first century have become NO different from the marriages of women to men.
       On the other hand, the "true morality" is timeless. Moral principle which prevailed in it 2000 years ago during the writing of the Bible, apply also in the twenty-first century. Homosexual unions are having therein a different name than the capable of procreation unions of women with men. For example, in the Biblical "Book of Leviticus", verse 20:13, they are called a disgusting thing" - for more information on this subject see item #B4 on the web page antichrist.htm.
       2. Purpose to which it serves. Required by God "true morality" has been designed by God in such a manner that it is to serve a divine purpose as well as possible - especially to serve the God's goal of "pursuing the knowledge" described in item #B1 from the web page named antichrist.htm. On the other hand, the "scientific morality" serves to various imperfect goals of people who execute the control over its formation, for example, serve the increase of income of these people, the consolidation or extending of their power, the elimination of the public outrage over some immoral human desires - e.g. to homosexuality, etc.
       3. Stand towards human imperfections. The "true morality" is so designed by God, that its practicing forces people to work on the elimination of their weaknesses. By contrast, the "scientific morality" is designed in such a manner that the practicing of it causes the approval by the society the human "imperfections" and taking these imperfections as "perfections" (e.g. consider the changes of human attitudes towards wealth, greed, perversion known as "homosexuality", etc., caused by the development of the "scientific morality").
       4. Consequences for the social inequalities and tensions. The "true morality" is so designed by God, that the practicing of it eliminates social disparities, reduce tensions between communities, promotes peace, etc. However, the accidentally changed "scientific morality" causes the opposite consequences, namely causes the increase in social inequalities (for example, increases the gap between the poor and the rich), increases social tensions (e.g. causes periodic outbursts of civil wars, revolutions, and even wars between nations), promotes group aggressiveness, etc.
       5. Treatment of justice. The "true morality" is so designed by God, that the practicing of it increases the fairness and equality of treatment of all people. In turn the "scientific morality" works in reverse - i.e. it increases the injustice under the pretence that it increases the righteousness.
       6. Consistency of requirements. The "true morality" executed from people by God, has only one requirement, namely "in your life always act morally". In order to make easier for people to obey this requirement, God introduced a number of so-called "indicators of moral correctness" (e.g. "moral field", "conscience", etc.) described more comprehensively in items #C4 to #C4.6 of this web page, or in item #B1 from the web page named changelings.htm. In turn "scientific morality" introduced so many requirements, that in present times are unable to comprehend and obey all of them NOT only ordinary people, but even professional lawyers and politicians. For example, according to this "scientific morality", in our lives we should obey: laws of the country, laws of local authorities, principles of loyalty and discipline, know and obey ethical requirements of our job, keep professional secrets, respect superiors and obey their orders, observe privacy of other people, do NOT offend deviated and crazy, NOT cause noise, not ignore police, insure own properties, not catch fish in enlisted waters, etc., etc.
       7. Who ensures the observance. In the human nature is a tendency to not follow any "morality." Therefore, if no-one is to keep eye on people, then they slip down into practicing the highly immoral philosophy of parasitism. Unfortunately, the societies are unlikely to survive if they consist only of people who practice this immoral philosophy. Therefore, the compliance to these two basic varieties of contemporary morality must be guarded by someone. The "scientific morality" is watched over by the laws prevailing in a given country, as well as by the atmosphere and trends in that country. For example, the requirement that we always need to do whatever our superiors and the authorities require from us, is enforced by employers, police, courts, social pressure, wives, children, etc.
       Whereas the compliance with the "true morality" oversees just God alone. However, since all acts of God are obeying the so-called "canon of ambiguity", also this divine supervision of the compliance with requirements of "true morality" for many people seem to be "ambiguous". But in fact it does exist and if someone do study it carefully, then it turns out to be the most realistic - for more details see item #G1 from the web page named will.htm.
       8. Type of penalties for non-compliance. If a person fails to comply with the "scientific morality", then he or she is threatened with all kinds of penalties - depending on the aspect which is NOT observed. For example, a failure to comply with commands of superiors can cause a job loss, a breaking of the laws of the country may land a given person in a prison, etc. But if someone fails to comply with the "true morality", the typical punishment is always the same, namely, everyone is condemned to "early death" - because God typically shortens his or her life by an amount proportional to the quantitative value of the committed "immorality" (as explained in item #G1 from the web page named will.htm or in item #B4 of the web page named antichrist.htm). In addition to this "premature death", each immorally acting person must also experience the same kind of "immorality" which he or she has caused to other people - so as to fulfil the requirements of the "moral law" called the "Boomerang Principle".

#B7. "Problems" arising from differences between the "true morality" described by the definition of the new "totaliztic science", and the "scientific morality" described by the definition of the old "atheistic orthodox science", as well as the avoidance of these problems:

Motto: "Wherever there is a competition, one party may begin to resort to 'disallowed tricks'."

       The biggest problem arising from the differences between the two above moralities which currently are simultaneously forced onto people, is that many of the requirements of both these moralities are mutually contradictory, while simultaneously a failure to fulfil any of these requirements are severely punished. Thus, if one is to listen e.g. to the order of the "true morality" stating "do not kill a human" - then he or she should refuse to go into the army and to a war. At the same time, listening to the "scientific morality" requires from us the compliance with laws and orders of authorities, and it, amongst others, sends us to the army and asks us to kill humans during a war, or during ever increasing lately so-called "civil wars" and "revolutions". So, if for example someone decides to hear the God's command "do not kill your neighbours", he or she may be shot by his or her own countrymen for a lack of patriotism and for insubordination. But if someone is listening to orders of authorities "go to a war and kill those fellows who are dressed in uniforms of the enemies of your country", then God can kill him or her - according to the action of the "Boomerang Principle". So each person believing in God is constantly forced to choose in their lives, whether or not to implement orders of the "true morality", or orders of the "scientific morality". (For other example of a similar situation see item #B5.1 from the web page named will.htm.)
       So one can wonder whether the principle of acting described in item #L3 from the web page named cielcza_uk.htm, in fact is still the only developed by people so-far, and used in practice, way of avoiding the punishment by one of these two mutually contradictory moralities? After all, is not appearing that in the foreseeable future, neither the human official science nor the politicians suddenly began to introduce laws that would NOT be in a direct conflict with whatever omnipotent God requires from us.

Part #C: What facts confirm the correctness of the definition of "morality" that stem from "a priori" approach to research of reality by the new "totaliztic science":


#C1. The correctness of totaliztic definition of "morality" is confirmed by a huge body of evidence - only that to NOT destroy the human "free will", this confirmation is carried out by God in such a "discrete" manner that the "canon of ambiguity" is always fulfilled:

       In reality exists a huge amount of evidence, which unambiguously judges the correctness of both definitions of "morality" presented in items #B2 and #B5 above. This huge body of evidence confirms, that the definition of morality developed by the new "totaliztic science" and presented in item #B5 above is absolutely correct. Simultaneously the same body of evidence indicates, that the definition of morality provided by the "atheistic orthodox science" to-date is completely wrong, and that the erroneousness of it introduces very serious consequences for many people - for example sometimes it even "costs lives" of these people who treat their "morality" too lightly.
       Because this wrong understanding of the concept of "morality" is so rich in consequences, and because for the wrong treatment of morality many people must die, in subsequent items of this "part #C" I am going to present the most vital body of evidence which reveals that only the abovementioned definition #B5 from the new "totaliztic science" is absolutely correct.

#C2. Commandments and requirements imposed by God on our lives:

       As this is explained in item #D2 from the further part of this web page, God created and maintains the humanity for a very concrete reason and goal - which is the pursue of knowledge. But in order this goal can be accomplished, certain conditions must be fulfilled. For example, people must be continuously inspired to carry out discussions and to seek truths; the having and expressing different views CANNOT be punished; discoverers, inventors, and those speaking the truth CANNOT be persecuted by other people (as persecuted is e.g. the author of this web page); the so-called "phenomena of nature" must have such a course that they can be explained on many different manners; people must live in mutual respect and love to others; must prevail peace; people CANNOT be hungry, oppressed or desperate; they must have the required time for philosophical deliberations and for searching for truth; etc., etc. As it turns out, all these conditions are fulfilled only when the significant majority of people lives in the highly "moral" manner - i.e. when they obey just these requirements and commandments of the "moral living" which God imposed onto all the humans.
       The need for the existence of specific requirements and moral principles imposed onto people by God is described and explained in items #C1 and #B4 of the web page named tornado.htm. It is also discussed below in item #D3 from the further part of this web page.

#C3. Body of evidence which confirms that God created and issued to people very clear standards of "morality" and "morally correct" behaviour:

       There are completely independent from people standards of "morality" and "morally correct behaviours". These standards are given to people by God in several different forms, e.g. in the "written form" expressed in the content of so-called "holy books" (e.g. in the content of the Bible) or in the "whispered form" continually offered to us as so-called "whispers of conscience". Additionally, these are later confirmed also by various historical events, course of wars, attributes of various phenomena of nature, etc. Therefore, these "standards of morality" CANNOT be changed or "re-interpreted" by any power-thirsty or "fame-thirsty" politicians, or by philosophers with over-inflated ego, or by scientists that try to replace God through the formulation of own principles of "pretended-morality".
       In sub-items that are to follow now, I am going to discuss most vital amongst these "standards of morality" given to us by God to be obeyed pedantically. Here they are:

#C3.1. The Bible as the primary standard of "morality":

       The Bible is (and always will be) the most vital, primary, and initial "standard of morality" that originates from God Himself.
       Only that, being written around 2000 years ago, the Bible uses the language and examples which today are already seen as slightly "out of date" in relationship ti present times. (E.g. whom today we call "workers" or "labourers" in the Bible are called "slaves".) Furthermore, in order to NOT support human "laziness" and "ignorance", God so formulated the Bible, that it only answers the question "what", but does NOT provide people with ready-made replies nor recipes for questions "why", "how", "what it stems from", "what confirms this", etc. Replies to these questions people must laboriously work out for themselves. In fact these replies are already worked out and disseminated amongst people by the new philosophy called the philosophy of totalizm.

#C3.2. The counter-organ of "conscience" which links directly with God practically every person, as an intelligent "one-way hot telephone line" which also makes to us accessible "God's standards of morality":

       Every person has a 'build-in" own brain a kind of "one-way telephone" that links this person with God. This telephone is called the "conscience". With the assistance of it God in every life situation discretely prompts us which behaviour is "moral" and which is "immoral". Therefore, e.g. practising a simplest version of totalizm, called the intuitive totalizm, boils down to simple listening to our own organ of conscience and then thorough doing what this conscience whispers to us.
       The conscience works correctly in all people. For this reason, many of so-called "atheists" frequently also benefit from its "whispers". In turn, because practicing the "morality" is the major criterion by which God judges later every person, these "atheists" who act morally because they listen to (and obey) whispers of their conscience, God treasures such morally acting "atheists" and places them incomparably higher that these immoral "believers" - who do NOT listen to whispers of their conscience and thus behave immorally.
       Unfortunately, the conscience can be deafen (stifled). Thus "immoral people" are these ones who chronically deafen whispers of their conscience. In this way many highly religious people also act highly immoral - simply these people deafen their own conscience. Of course, if they act immorally, they are punished - similarly as every other immoral person. After all, the basic criterion by which God judges people, and on the basis of which God serves to them appropriate "rewards" or "punishments", is the moral behaviour, not the religiousness.

#C3.3. The philosophy of totalizm as independent, objective and current scientific "confirmations" of standards of "morality" that originated from God:

       Unfortunately, in spite that the Bible is the "primary" standard of morality which originates from God Himself, it was put together around 2000 years and until today its language, examples, and various expressions, become slightly old fashioned.
       Fortunately, in 1985 was developed the philosophy of totalizm which states practically the same as the Bible does - but it does it with modern (present) language and with the use of most recent examples and scientific tools for objective investigations.
       Totalizm is a very simple philosophy which has only one principle that must be obeyed. This only principle states everything that you do always do in a pedantically moral way. Of course, in order every person can implement this only principle, the philosophy of totalizm explains exactly "how", "why", etc., everything must be done in order to be "pedantically moral".
       In fact this philosophy of totalizm initially did NOT intend to reflect or confirm the Bible. This is because it was formed when the previously described Concept of Dipolar Gravity revealed that the universe is NOT build nor works as the "atheistic orthodox science" to-date teaches it. Thus, the formulation of the Concept of Dipolar Gravity forced the development of a new philosophy, which from the very beginning was named totalizm (but written with "z", not with "s"), which would teach people how they supposed to live in the world which structure and operation is defined by the Concept of Dipolar Gravity. With the elapse of time, by analysing the Concept of Dipolar Gravity, the philosophy of totalizm scientifically discovered regularities and laws that rule over lives of humans in just such a world governed by the dipolar gravity. As it later turned out, these regularities and laws are exactly the same as these ones which are described in the Bible. This is why the philosophy of totalizm is in every point agreeable with the content of the Bible in the area of the replies to questions "what", but in addition it also explains objectively "why", "where it comes from", "how", "which evidence confirms it", etc. As such, the philosophy of totalizm complements the Bible in all these matters which God did NOT wish to reveal to people for "free", but left them for the laborious working out by people with the appropriate contribution of effort, work and pain.
       Both, (1) the Bible, and (2) the philosophy of totalizm, originate from completely different sources, were formulated by completely different categories of authors, and were developed on completely different basis. However, both of them in their descriptions of "morality" arrive to exactly the same truths, principles and regularities ruling over this "morality". This in turn means, that "morality" is the objective entity, that CANNOT originate from people because it is superior in relationship to people, and is the product of true structure and operation of the universe in which we live, and that has the "standard" that is independent from people and results from principles of operation of this universe. The Bible commands that "in everything we always must base on statements of at least 'two witnesses' " - as this is explained more comprehensively in item #C5 on the web page named the Bible. Thus, if the Bible is this "first and primary witness" which persuades to us that we must live "morally", the philosophy of totalizm is this "second witness" which completely independently persuades to us exactly the same.

#C3.4. The philosophy of parasitism which also teaches "morality" but with the different method of "reversed logic", i.e. through revealing standards of "immorality":

       In item #B7.2 of the web page named seismograph.htm was explained that "morality" can be learned in two different ways, namely either (a) by showing how one needs to live "morally" - as this is done e.g. by the philosophy of totalizm or (b) on principles of the "reversed logic" - i.e. by learning or experiencing effects of acting "immorally" and to what this "immorality" leads people to. This second standard of "immorality", which depends on thorough illustrating what is the "immorality" and why God so vigorously fight it out and so severely punishes people who practice it, is the so-called philosophy of parasitism. This philosophy constitutes an exact reversal of the philosophy of totalizm described in previous sub-item.
       Similarly like totalizm, the philosophy of parasitism also is a very simple philosophy. Actually, in order to practice it one does NOT need to learn it, but it suffices to just allow that we are ruled by our inclinations, desires, pleasures, addictions, etc. The essence of practicing the philosophy of parasitism expresses the following doctrine in everything that you do, do NOT obey any duties nor laws - unless you are somehow forced to obey them.
       At this point it is worth to emphasize, that people invented a huge number of various philosophies. But almost all of them contain similar views on morality and practically in nothing vital they differ from each other. This is because almost all of them are based on the "unwritten assumption" of their authors, that "morality is a human invention", and thus each one of them tries to introduce some own version of morality. On the other hand, in real life there is only one morality (this defined for people by God) and it is absolutely "non-negotiable". Thus people have only two options regarding morality, namely they can either (1) learn it and obey it, or (2) ignore it and disobey it. This is why from the point of view of God, there are only two philosophies, namely (1) the philosophy of totalizm - which boils down to learning and to pedantic obeying the requirements of God's morality, and thus for the practicing of which God rewards people, and (2) the philosophy of parasitism - which boils down to ignoring and to disobeying the requirements of morality given to us by God, and thus for the practicing of which God severely punishes every human parasite which adheres to this philosophy.
       We also need to emphasize here strongly, that people who are highly religious also frequently practice this punishable by God philosophy of parasitism. This is because the majority of today religions limit themselves almost completely to the public "worshipping of God", instead to obeying the God's moral requirements and commandments. However, in case of disobedience towards moral commandments and requirements of God, the religiousness of these people does NOT protect them from experiencing severe punishments for practicing this highly immoral philosophy of parasitism - the evidence of which we see e.g. in fates of some highly religious countries already saturated with the philosophy of parasitism (e.g, Pakistan or Afghanistan), and also in fates of some entire religions or churches - e.g. see items #C3, #C5 and #C6 from the web page named seismograph.htm.

#C4. The body of evidence which confirms that even for "atheists" God also created and make available clear indicators of "morality" and "morally correct behaviours" - of the kind of "moral field", "moral energy", "moral laws", etc.:

       Pity that these indicators could NOT detect and described neither religions nor the "atheistic orthodox science" to-date, and thus it was necessary to create the philosophy of totalizm in order to reveal them for people and make open for a common use.

#C4.1. Everything that God does, He always do it in such a manner that it has "at least" 3 independent explanations - thus independently from the Bible, also God created also further objective indicators of "morality" and "morally correct behaviours":

       In order people could be "partners of God" in accomplishing the most vital goal for which God created humans, namely the "pursue of knowledge", it becomes necessary that God allows every person to have own "free will" that enables this person to formulate own views on practically every subject and topic. Therefore, in everything that God does, He always incorporates attributes which give to it the character of a high ambiguity. The presence of such attributes is defined by the so-called "canon of ambiguity" (also called the "canon of indefinites") described more comprehensively, amongst others, in item #C2 of the web page named will.htm. (This canon states: "in the universe nothing can be fully unambiguous and deprived sources of all doubts, because then the people who confront it would be deprived the right to their own free will and the right to choose their own views and the path through the life".) Therefore into every phenomenon or event which God causes on the Earth, are incorporated attributes which allow it to be explained in at least 3 different ways. These at least 3 independent ways of explaining everything that God does, are described, amongst others, in item #C2 of the web page named tornado.htm.
       In order also "morality" could be explained completely independently from the fact of existence of God, and thus in order "morality" was also acceptable for people who do NOT practice the faith in God, God formulated a range of objective phenomena and indicators, which even for "atheists" point out the most moral behaviours. In sub-items that are to follow now, I am going to describe most important amongst these indicators.

#C4.2. The moral field which provides an indicator of "morality" addressed, amongst others, to "atheists":

       The "moral field" is a kind of invisible "dynamically shifting back" primary field of an intellectual nature, the action of which is quite similar to the action of gravity onto objects suspended in midair (e.g. on birds). This means that in the "moral field" one needs to put continuous effort and work NOT only when one wants to lift higher, but even when one wants to stay in the same place and on the same level. This is because ceasing of climbing uphill in this moral field causes that this field immediately shifts us back and down. The moral field has such a course, that doing anything that is "moral" always runs "uphill" in this moral field, while doing anything that is "immoral" always runs "downhill" in this moral field. Because it is a field that "dynamically shifts us back" - as this is explained also in items #D5, #I2 and #J1 of this web page, "doing nothing" also causes shifting down in it. In other words, in works in this manner that "doing nothing" is also a strongly "immoral" behaviour. This is because of the existence of such "moral field" that everything that people do (or that they fail to do when they should do it) always has clearly defined "moral polarity" (i.e. always is either "moral" or "immoral"). It is also that "moral field" which causes that doing everything that is "moral" always requires imputing into this a significant amount of our effort and work, while doing everything that is "immoral" always is pleasurable and effortless. (This is just why so many people practice the highly immoral philosophy of parasitism, because by being immoral it always does NOT require putting into it any effort and in addition it is always a source of significant pleasure.)
       Even a more comprehensive explanation as to what actually is that "moral field" (and also what is this "moral energy" and what are "moral laws") is provided on web pages named totalizm.htm and parasitism.htm, and also in volume 6 of my newest monograph [1/5].

#C4.3. The moral energy which provided a further objective indicator of "morality" addressed, amongst others, to "atheists":

       The "moral energy" is a kind of intelligent equivalent of "potential energy" known to us from physics. In people increase of it takes place when they climb "upwards" in the abovementioned "moral field" - means when they do something that is "moral". The moral energy is absolutely necessary for living. For example, our "feelings" are simply "sensations experienced during the flow of the moral energy" - as this is explained more comprehensively in subsection I5.5 from volume 5 of my newest monograph [1/5]. In turn the lack in someone of the appropriate level of this moral energy manifests itself in the form of so-called "psychological depression" which CANNOT be healed for as long until that someone complements in himself or herself the missing amount of this vital energy.
       Even wider and more thorough explanation of what is this "moral energy" (and also what is this "moral field" and what are these "moral laws") is provided on web pages named totalizm.htm and parasitism.htm, as well as in volume 6 of my newest monograph [1/5].

#C4.4. Moral laws which supply yet another indicator of "morality" addressed, amongst others, to "atheists":

       "Moral laws" are independent from people and objectively working mechanisms which with an appropriate time-delay release for us various consequences which are having the character of "rewards" or "punishments" depending on whether what we did previously was "moral" or "immoral". Moral laws work with such an "iron consequence" and so repetitively, that their existence and work is verifiable objectively and can be noticed even by "atheists". This is why their existence is known already for centuries and expressed with countless proverbs, e.g. "The Mills of God grind slowly but they grind surely" or "If you play with fire you get burnt". A good example of a moral law is the so-called "Boomerang Principle", which in the application to so-called "individual intellects" (i.e. to single people) states, that "whatever feeling you release in other people with your own behaviour, exactly the same feeling in a future someone else is going to release in you". (Notice that this "Boomerang Principle" is based on the mechanism of action which popularly is called karma. Descriptions of the work of this principle are provided in item #B3 of the web page named mozajski_uk.htm.) The "Boomerang Principle" works also for "group intellects" - while an example of just such work of it is described e.g. in item #A2 from the web page named petone.htm.
       In the Bible "moral laws" are named quite inconsistently and misleadingly with the use of several different expressions, for example "law of God, commands of God, requirements of God, etc." Relatively well this inconsistency of the biblical terminology referring to moral laws is revealed to us in following quotations taken from the Bible - i.e. from the "Book of Psalms", verses 37:30-31, quote: "The mouth of the righteous is the one that utters wisdom in an undertone, and his is the tongue that speaks justly. The law of his God is in his heart, his steps will not wobble"; or from the "Book of Zephaniah", verse 2:3, quote: "Turn to the Lord, all you humble people of the land, who obey his commands. Do what is right, and humble yourself before the Lord. Perhaps you will escape punishment on the day when the Lord shows his anger"; or from the "Book of Micah", verse 6:8, quote: "The Lord has told us what is good. What he requires from us is this: to do what is just, to show constant love, and to live in humble fellowship with our God."
       Because of the above terminological inconsistencies of the Bible, the introduction by totalizm of uniform scientific name "moral laws" for the body of these laws, has many advantages in comparison to the use of old biblical terminology. For example, the totaliztic name much better reflects the function of these laws. Furthermore, it allows these laws to be obeyed without reservations both, by "believers in God" as well as by "atheists" (while e.g. atheists most probably would refuse to obey laws which would carry names such as the "law of God, commands of God, requirements of God, etc."). After all, the work of moral laws, similarly like everything that God created, can be explained on many different ways - while at least one amongst these ways should suit atheists. On the other hand, we must remember that at the present level of human knowledge "atheists" are still very needed by our civilisation as an "active competition" for scientifically passive "religious" people. This is because such a competition induces discussions and creative searches, and thus it causes the progress of knowledge and technology in humanity - for more details see item #J3 on the web page named bitwa_o_milicz_uk.htm or items #A2, #C3 and #C4 on the web page named will.htm. The point is that, as the above web pages explain this, "if the Earth is populated exclusively by the passive scientifically people who blindly and uncritically believe in claims of religions about God, then probably until today the humanity would live on trees or in caves and we still would NOT know what is fire".
       Similarly as for everything that God created, also for the work of "moral laws" one can find a number of different explanations - as this is emphasized in item #C4.1 from this web page. The explanation which is based on the model of the new "totaliztic science" (i.e. on the model described in item #B1 of this web page), as to what actually the "moral laws" are, how they work, and what they state (and also what is this "moral energy" and what is the "moral field"), are provided in item #C1 of the web page named stawczyk_uk.htm, in item #B3 (and in several other, e.g. #D1) from the web page named totalizm.htm, in item #B2 (and also on almost the entire rest) of the web page named parasitism.htm, as well as in volumes 5 and 6 of my newest monograph [1/5] (especially look up in there subsection I4.1.1 from volume 5 of that [1/5]).
       In turn the explanation that is based on the model of "atheistic orthodox science" to-date, but which also describes the work of the same "moral laws" while it was supplied to us by a "simulation of an UFOnaut", is provided in paragraph N-116 from subsection UB1 in volume 16 of my newest monograph [1/5]. That explanation from the "UFOnaut" is sufficiently "secular" and "scientific" to satisfy every "atheist" and to convince him or her to also join the crowd of people who already obey these "moral laws".

#C4.5. Karma the action of which can notice every observable person:

       The action of karma results from the "Boomerang Principle" described in previous item. But because this action is quite complicated, I recommend to learn it from a separate web page named karma.htm.
       In order to fulfil the "canon of ambiguity" described more comprehensively in item #C4.1 of this web page, the "return of karma" occurs only after around 10 years since was completed a given action for which this return comes - for an example of just such a dating of the return of karma see item #G2 on the web page named prophecies.htm. For many people this is too late to still remember "for what they are getting it".

#C4.6. Conscience:

       In order to make easier the fulfilment of requirements f morality, God equipped every person into a special organ of conscience. This conscience continually whispers to the owner what is moral and what is immoral, what he or she should NOT do, etc. For more information about the conscience see also item #G1 on the web page named will.htm.

#C5. Which facts confirm that God strictly controls "moral" life of people with the use of "rewards" and "punishments", while "immoral" intellects He sometimes even takes away the right to live:

       The definition of "morality" provided in item #B5 of this web page points our attention at the hugely vital fact completely overlooked by "atheistic orthodox science" to-date, namely that God with the iron consequence executes from people their duty to live morally and to pedantically obey moral requirements and commandments that were revealed to people. In fact, if someone leads immoral life, then he or she is severely punished for this - frequently even being killed. This in turn causes, that "morality" is NOT at all a "human invention" that is left to any interpretation by human politicians or philosophers, but a kind of "laws of the universe" executed with the iron consequences - the obedience of which is the duty of everyone and the breaking of which is always severely punished. Especially highly punished is the practicing of immoral philosophy called "parasitism" - described, amongst others, above in item #C3.4 and also on a separate web page named parasitism.htm.
       It is also worth to notice, that the analyses of the surrounding reality indicate that actually God does NOT forgive any immoral behaviours - as some religions try to convince us. God limits His "forgiveness" to just a narrow class of "sins" which shift people horizontally in the moral field and thus which really do NOT display attributes of "immorality" - although religions consider committing them to be "sins" (e.g. to fasting, regular attending temples, praying, selected forms of sex - e.g. marital or prostitution, telling complements which are lies, killing animals for our own food, killing in self-defence, etc.) Unfortunately, for political reasons (i.e. for accomplishing a greater influence on their believers), religions extended the scope of human "sins" supposedly included into "God's forgiveness" also onto "immorality". Furthermore, they usually additionally make this forgiveness a subject of saying a good word for it to God by priests of a given religion. Unfortunately, the research of reality and empirical facts do NOT confirm these religious claims about "God's forgiveness". Also definitively NO form of "immorality" that really pushes people downward in the moral field is included into the "God's forgiveness".
       Below I am going to provide descriptions of evidence which certify that God severely and decisively executes from people the duty of unconditional obedience of moral commandments and requirements issued to us by Him.

#C5.1. Warnings provided in the Bible: if you do NOT live morally, you will be "punished" - if needed even by the removal of your right to live:

       These warnings are contained in the Bible, while their descriptions and explanations are outlined e.g. in item #A1 of the web page named seismograph.htm. One amongst formulations of this warning is contained in the Biblical "Book of Ezekiel" verses 33:18-19, quote: "When someone righteous turns back from his righteousness and actually does injustice, he must also die for them. And when someone wicked turns back from his wickedness and actually carriers on justice and righteousness, it will be on account of them that he himself will keep living."
       In fact the iron execution of this warning in the real life is documented by an array of facts, a part of which I am going to indicate and discuss in sub-items that are to follow here. Here they are:

#C5.2. The fact, that "every war is lost by aggressors", is a proof that immoral aggression and attacking others who try to live in peace are always discretely punished by God:

       If someone asks us "who in the final effect is to loose a given war", then knowing who in this war was an "aggressor", each one of us can provide an answer almost immediately. This is because if we analyse the history, then we can see quite an obvious action of "moral laws", which causes that "every war in the final effect is always lost by the aggressor". Only that in order to NOT take away from people the so-called "free will", typically God avoids making this fact too obvious. This avoidance God accomplishes usually by such control over every war, that according to the "canon of ambiguity" described already in item #C4.1 of this web page, always can be found several explanations why a given war was wan by one side, while lost by a different side. But the true reason of winning and loosing a war is always very simple. Namely "God always 'punishes' whatever is 'immoral' while "rewards' whatever is 'moral' ". In turn "aggression" is always highly immoral, in turn peace is highly moral. Therefore this side which acted immorally, e.g. through the act of aggression towards the side which wants peace, in the final effect always is going to loose a given war.

Fig. #C1 (A1 in [1/5])

Fig. #C1 (A1 in [1/5]): All wars always are lost by aggressors who attacked someone that wanted to live in peace - for more details see item #I2 on the web page named bitwa_o_milicz_uk.htm. Only that in order to fulfil the so-called "canon of ambiguity" (described, amongst others, in item #C4.1 of this web page and in item #C2 of a separate web page named will.htm), the omnipotent God always so controls the course of every war, that depending of human views the win and the loss can be explained on a whole array of different ways - as this is outlined more comprehensively, amongst others, in item #C2 of the totaliztic web page named tornado.htm.
       The above painting portraits a medieval battle in Korea. Hits from it the scary enthusiasm with which people are inclined to kill each other. The picture reveals, that in the "human nature" - intentionally designed by God as much imperfect as it was only possible, existed (and still exist) an array of low vices such as desires, inclinations, wants, habits, addictions, etc. In turn people must learn how they can overcome these own low vices in order societies could live in peace and prosperity. Independently from desires and inclinations which throw people into wars, to these belong also, amongst others, power, sexual desires, greed, wish to dictate, etc., etc. To the overcoming these desires and inclinations supposed to motivate "religions" which God gradually created and gave to subsequent nations and races of people. Unfortunately, as we clearly can see it in present times, religions did NOT fulfil their function and the humanity still is following its desires and tendencies. Obviously, the humanity needs something even more perfect than religions and believes. In turn the only thing that is really more perfect than belief, is knowledge. So it appears, that the third millennium which the humanity is just entering, must evolve the knowledge on which human behaviours are acceptable, and which must be curbed and controlled. Let us hope, that instrumental in formulating this new knowledge, turns out to be the "totaliztic science", the product of which is, amongst others, this web page.
* * *
       Notice that you can see the enlargement of each illustration from this web site. For this, it suffices to click on this illustration. Furthermore, most of the internet browsers that you may use, including the popular "Internet Explorer", allow also to download each illustration to your own computer, where it can be looked at, reduced or enlarged to the size that you may want, or printed with your own graphical software.

#C5.3. "Cataclysms" which destroy immoral cities and communities are also a proof, that "immoral" behaviours are discretely punished even in present times:

       The Bible provides us with examples of cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Nineveh, in order to warn us that immoral behaviours are severely punished by God, amongst others by sending "cataclysms". In turn the history and folklore of various nations indicate concrete examples of cities which in fact were punished for immoral behaviours. The best known out of these examples include the Roman city of Pompeii - which fate is mentioned in item #B5 of the web page named seismograph.htm, and also: Polish city of Vineta on the Baltic sea near the present Świnoujście, decadent city of Salamis on Cyprus (in which "salamis" were invented - means kinds of sausages), and the city of Saeftinghe in medieval Netherlands - which three cities are described in items #H2, #H3 and #H4 from the web page named tapanui.htm.
       In present times cataclysms also destroy misbehaving cities and communities. Their example is the fate of the city Port-Au-Prince from Haiti - described in item #C3 from the web page named seismograph.htm, city of Christchurch in New Zealand - described in items #C5 to #C6 of abovementioned web page "seismograph.htm" and also in item #G2 of the web page przepowiednie.htm, or fates of many cities in Japan described in items #C7 and #I1 of abovementioned web page "seismograph.htm", and also in items #M1 to #M2 of another web page named telekinetics.htm. Still further communities, punished with cataclysms for practicing the immoral philosophy of parasitism, are described, amongst others, on web pages named tornado.htm, katrina.htm, landslips.htm or day26.htm.

#C5.4. The so-called "curse of inventors" as a proof that immoral countries and nations are punished with the "inventive impotency" and are NOT able to create anything new:

       Cataclysms described above are NOT the only tool with the use of which God "punishes" immoral so-called "group intellects" (i.e. entire countries, nations, cities, institutions, etc.). Another such a tool is so-called "curse of inventors" described more comprehensively on a number of totaliztic web pages, amongst others in item #B4.4 of the web page named mozajski_uk.htm, in items #G1 to #G9 of the web page named eco_cars.htm, in item #K3 of the web page named fe_cell.htm, in item #H4 of the web page named free_energy.htm, in items #B4 to #B5 of the web page named will.htm, in item #H1 of the web page named newzealand_visit.htm, in item #B3 of the web page named telekinetics.htm, in item #E1 of the web page named evolution.htm, and marginally also mentioned on several further totaliztic web pages.
       The "curse of inventors" depends on punishing immoral "group intellects" (e.g. entire countries and nations) by sending on them the so-called inventive impotency. This impotency manifests itself by inability to develop and to implement by a given nation or country any significant invention or discovery. In this way such a country or nation ceases to matter in the world, nor is able to harvest any benefits which result from the development of new inventions and discoveries.

#C5.5. Examples of consequences of practicing "homosexuality" forbidden by the Bible":

       The Bible clearly forbids practicing homosexuality. The discussion of examples of verses which ban homosexuality are provided, amongst others, in "Re. (1)" from item #B5 of the web page seismograph.htm, in item #B1 of the web page named plague.htm, or in item #B2.1 of the web page named mozajski_uk.htm. However, politicians of many countries, and even some churches (e.g. Anglican) issued laws of the kind of "Civil Union", which legalise homosexuality and even allow homosexual couples to "marry" each other in churches and to "bring (have) children" - e.g. see the article [1#C5.5] "Gay couples get nod to tie knot in church" from page A1 of New Zealand newspaper The Dominion Post Weekend (issue dated on Friday, February 18, 2011). In this way such countries and churches openly put themselves directly against moral requirements and commandments of God. This, of course, is later severely punished - e.g. see items #C5 and #C6 from the web page seismograph.htm.
       Descriptions of types of evil and destruction that an open practicing of homosexuality brings onto present communities is provided in item #B4 of the web page named antichrist.htm.

#C5.6. Examples of badly brought up children, whose "immorality" is punished sometimes even with taking away from them the right to live:

       Many children from rich homes grows up at highly immoral adults. Because most of such rich homes exists in rich countries, these countries have the biggest proportion of such situations - this in turn causes that from rich countries they fast transform into one amongst most poor. Of course, God (who knows the future) sees, when a given child is going to grow up into someone highly immoral. Therefore sometimes God removes this child still in young age - as this is explained in items #D1 to #D2 from the web page god_exists.htm.
       In order a given child could grow up into a moral adult, it is necessary to fulfil a whole range of conditions. For example, this child must be disciplined - as this is emphasized by God in many places of the Bible (see explanations, amongst others, from item #B5.1 of the web page named will.htm). The child must also be brought up in the atmosphere of love, respect to parents, tradition, duties, access to sources of knowledge, etc. - as this is explained, amongst others, in item #A3 from the web page named god_proof.htm. However, politicians of many countries break these commandments and requirements of God and issue laws of a kind of the New Zealand’s "anti-smacking law" described in item #B5.1 of the abovementioned web page named will.htm - which threatens with imprisoning these parents who try to bring up their children according to requirements of God. No wonder that countries which have such politicians and such children are later troubled by a multitude of cataclysms send to them by God - of the kind described wider in item #J2.4 near the end of this web page.
       The matter of punishing by God such "immorally" growing up children is discussed more widely in sub-item #J2.4 near the end of this web page.

#C5.7. Learning examples of God's punishments to immoral politicians:

Motto: "The finding of philosophy of totalizm reveals that 'the leader of country always is a politician whose morality is the best representation of the current morality of inhabitants of that country'."

       In order to fulfil the "canon of ambiguity" (discussed previously e.g. in item #C4.1), whenever God serves a "punishment" to someone, then He always does it in such a manner that it is NOT obvious that this comes from God. This is why, if an individual person is punished by God, then the executors of this punishment usually are other people, or something that everyone considers to be an accident, a bad luck, a phenomenon of nature, etc. The most easy to notice that regularity, from the manner on which are punished immoral politicians. After all, the present form of the profession of politicians is the most immoral profession in the world. This is because on one hand numerous benefits of this profession attract to it people who usually from the very beginning display immoral inclinations. On the other hand, this profession creates numerous situations and conditions which are almost ideal for a fast corruption even people who initially act morally. In addition to this, present politicians developed for themselves a kind of "professional tradition", principles of which contradict requirements of morality. For example, in order to become elected, they typically promise "gold mountains" to their people, but from the very beginning they do NOT intend to implement these promises. In almost everything that they say they use "diplomatic language" which later can be interpreted on any possible manner that fits given situations. Also it is easier "to squeeze blood from a stone" that get "truth" from a politician. Their "solving problems" typically limit itself to skilful doing nothing by themselves with a simultaneous inventing increasingly new obstacles and excuses and then passing the fault onto someone or something else. Because of all these reasons, when - after finishing their "cadence" arrives the time of "return of karma", for many politicians their further fates could serve as the best illustration of the work of morality.
       From history we know many politicians about which it is easy to notice not only the immoral character of their actions, but also the punishment that they later received. Examples: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Sadam Hussein, etc. But if someone starts to search in biographies of other politicians, then usually will find least known to the societies examples of "silent" immoralities and later equally "silent" punishments for committing these. For example, may discover truth about the fate of politicians who "silently" stole, make poorer, bankrupted, limited, deceive, persecute, or tyrannise their own nations, while almost immediately after loosing the power they experienced various suffering of the kind of getting crazy, loosing the respect and wealth, painful illness, death on cancer, etc.
       Because of the clear link between the fate which they experience and the kinds of morality which they practice, politicians could be perfect subjects for research on mechanisms of work of morality. Unfortunately, they are also quite dangerous subjects for research - e.g. writing about them is rather risky. Especially in present times, when people typically still do NOT understand nor appreciate findings of the philosophy of totalizm of the kind that "without learning the truth there is NO progress", or that "the more we love and respect someone, the bigger duty we have to reveal truth to him or to her" (for details see item #K1 below, or e.g. item #F1 on the web page named totalizm.htm). Therefore, people who reveal truth (e.g. so-called "whistle blowers" are still persecuted with repressions - instead of rewarding for creating a chance that other people could improve their actions and that together we all could build progress to entire our civilisation.

#C5.8. Frequently overlooked moral regularity, that "in the final effect oppressors always oppress also themselves":

       In item #C1 of the web page named stawczyk_uk.htm, effects of action of moral mechanism are explained, which causes that "in the final effect oppressors always oppress also themselves". For example, if any superpower turns another country into its colony, or installs its occupational forces on its territory, then independently how rich it would be, mysteriously its own economy starts to degenerate, so that after some time its own nation reaches the level of the nation which it previously oppressed. Similarly happens with individual despots, tyrants, and other kinds of oppressors. This regularity is already known for a long time by folk wisdom, which expresses it e.g. in the form of various proverbs, like the English "curses, like chickens, always come back home to roost", or Italian "curses are like processions, they always return to the place from which they come".

#C6. The final conclusion of this "part #C": "departing from morality is severely 'punished' (e.g. by taking away the 'right to live') - so we better start to take notice of our morality":

       The definition of morality worked out and disseminated by the "atheistic orthodox science" to-date is highly misleading. It causes that people believe that "morality" can be treated as one amongst "inventions of philosophers" and acted upon as pleases us - e.g. when it only suits our interests. However, the facts provided here reveal, that "morality" is non-negotiable law which must be pedantically obeyed, while for disobedience of which one pays severe consequences - including lost of lives. So in vital interest of every inhabitant of the Earth is to begin the pedantic obedience of "moral laws" and principles of moral living - as this is taught to us by the modern and currently the most moral on the Earth philosophy of totalizm.

Part #D: Attributes of the superior "morality" revealed by the new "totaliztic science" but imposed and executed by intelligent God:


#D1. Without learning the goal for which God created humans, it is NOT possible to work out the operation of "morality" in the world created and ruled by highly intelligent God:

       One amongst reasons for which during the last several thousands of years the entire humanity accumulated less knowledge on the subject of morality (in addition and above the knowledge which God gave to people for free in the form of the Bible), than the philosophy of totalizm managed to work out within only around 20 years, is that people did NOT know the goal for which God created humans. (This goal was NOT revealed by God in any religion.) In turn by NOT knowing what this goal is, people were NOT able to define "requirements" and "conditions" which must be fulfilled in order this goal could be accomplished. Furthermore, without the knowledge of these "requirements" and "conditions" it is NOT possible to work out the "need" and the "principles" of morality.
       On the other hand, the "philosophy of totalizm" started its considerations from identifying this goal of the creation of humans. In turn when knowing this goal, the realising the need for the existence of independent from people requirements of "morality" turned out to be just consequence of logical reasoning. In this way the "philosophy of totalizm" arrived completely independently from the Bible to "what" must define a "moral" behaviour, and in addition it also determined "why" must be this instead of being something completely different, "how" it should be implemented, "which evidence" confirm this, etc., etc.

#D2: What is the God's goal in creating and maintaining humans:

       From findings of the philosophy of totalizm stems, that the most vital goal for which God created humans, is the pursue of knowledge. Because the full explanation of this goal and the documenting evidence which confirms it, requires quite extensive presentation, to these readers who would be interested in learning more on this subject I recommend to view subsections A3 to A3.2 and A7 from volume 1 of the official "textbook of totalizm" - means my newest monograph [1/5]. A short summary of information about this goal is provided also in item #B1 from the web page named antichrist.htm and in item #B4 from the web page named tornado.htm.

#D3: Why the "pursue of knowledge" imposes certain requirements on the behaviours and philosophy of people, which requirements are fulfilled only when people obey "principles of morality" commanded to them by the superiorly intelligent God:

       In order people are able to "pursue knowledge" a set of specific conditions and requirements must be met. About the actual existence of these conditions and requirements certifies e.g. the fact, that the human equivalent of the "pursue of knowledge", i.e. the learning and studying, are also impossible if a given country, a family, or a person do NOT fulfils similar conditions. This is why e.g. in Africa and in the South America a significant proportion of children do NOT attend schools at all.
       If one analyses conditions which need to be fulfilled on the Earth for people to be able to effectively "pursue knowledge", then it turns out that they are exactly described by the requirements of "morality" - as it also is mentioned in item #B4 on the web page named tornado.htm.

#D4: In order to cause that people obey principles of the "moral life", God uses specific tools of the kind: methods of acting, attributes and principles of phenomena release, punishments, rewards, etc.:

       In order the humanity really "pursue knowledge", God was forced to enforce amongst people the obedience to requirements of "morality". In turn this enforcing turned out to be effective, God has NO other choice but to apply towards people various tools of the kind: rewards, punishments, pressures, examples, persuasion, etc. Because there is quite a lot of these tools, these are described on other totaliztic web pages. Their examples include, amongst others, "cataclysms" described more thoroughly e.g. on web pages seismograph.htm, landslips.htm, plague.htm, tornado.htm, or day26.htm.

#D5: Attributes which according to the new totaliztic science must be displayed by "morality" in the universe created and ruled by superiorly intelligent God:

       In order to effectively fulfil its purpose, "morality" must display a whole array of various attributes. Here are examples of most vital amongst these:
       - Availability for learning by all people. In order to obey "morality" all people must be able to learn what is "moral" and what is "immoral" - thus "whispers of conscience", "content of the Bible", action of the "moral field", "moral energy", "moral laws", etc. In fact God based the access to "knowledge about morality" on a similar "model like "education" in the "Polish Model" from former communistic Poland - described in 1 from item #E1 on the web page named rok_uk.htm. Means, "everyone has the access to knowledge about morality, this knowledge is for free, after it is mastered countless rewards are granted, but in order to gain it it is necessary to go through various unpleasant experience and to meet a huge number of various difficult and laborious conditions and requirements".
       - Consistency. In order to be learnable, "morality" must work consistently - means for a given situation and human behaviour it always must cause the same consequences, independently from the prevailing epoch, age and position of the person which it judges, etc. - for more details see subsection I3.6 from volume 5 of monograph [1/5].
       - Unanimity. Morality must also fulfil the so-called "principle of unanimity" described in subsection JA13 from volume 6 of monograph [1/5]. This means, that independently with what standards or indicators of morality we would judge a given behaviour of a person, always all these must lead to the same "verdict" (i.e. all of them always must unanimously indicate that a given behaviour is either the same moral, or the same immoral).
       - Backward dynamism. In order "doing nothing" and "remaining passive in face of immorality" does NOT constitute the "most moral behaviour", the "moral field" must be the field which "dynamically shifts people backward" - means so formed that "these people who already 'rest on laurels' and ceased to continually put effort into doing what is the most moral, are by this field shifted backward" (as this is also described in items #C4.2, #I2 and #J1 of this web page). In other words, "moral field" must be similar to the current of a fast river which flows from the state of "morality" to the state of "immorality". All people who try to live morally must "row" upstream in this river. But if any amongst them stops the laborious "oaring" upstream for even a short moment of time, then the current of that river starts to automatically push him downstream towards increasingly greater "immorality".
       Of course, there is much more of these attributes. But to NOT bore the reader, I am NOT going to discuss all of them. But the reader may deduce them just by himself, or may read about them from my newest monograph [1/5].

#D6: The final conclusion of deductions from this "part #D": "the model of morality created and enforced by superiorly intelligent God is exactly corresponding to the reality in which we live":

       If we analyse the work of morality on the world which we occupy, then it turns out that the "totaliztic model of morality created and enforced by God" described on this web page, is fully corresponding to our reality.

Part #E: How God enforces the "morality" amongst humans:


#E1. Mechanisms created by God for enforcing morality, e.g.: "conscience", "moral field", "moral energy", "moral laws", etc.:

       Because "morality" is so immensely vital for the accomplishing "goals" that God set by creating and maintaining people, mechanisms which rule over morality in real life are immensely complex algorithms, the complete learning of which is to occupy the humanity for many further years. For example, every "moral law" has build-in algorithms which describe "replies" of this law to specific human behaviours. Therefore, e.g. implementing of the operation of just a single "Boomerang Principle" (described, amongst others, in item #C4.2 of this web page) required the introduction to the human soul a special "register of behaviours" popularly called karma, and also the creation of complicated algorithms which cause the "return" of this "karma" back to the person who generated it.
       Such mechanisms for enforcing "morality" is a lot. In fact, almost the entire philosophy of totalizm is preoccupied with their identification and description. Therefore here I just mention about their existence and the level of complexity, while for a complete learning them I recommend reading my publications devoted to the philosophy of totalizm.

#E2. Tools which God uses for enforcing "morality" on people:

       In order to enforce morality, God created and uses a whole array of tools. These tools have various character, starting from the "method of stick and carrot" described in item #D1 of the web page named god.htm, and finishing on cataclysms indicated here in items #C5.3 or #D4.

Part #F: Two categories of morality: (1) individual, and (2) group:


#F1. Since there are two categories of "intellects" that lead independent lives (i.e. so-called "individual intellects" and so-called "group intellects"), then there must also exist two categories of "morality", i.e. "individual morality" and "group morality":

       From everyday life we know that there are numerous existences which "lead independent lives". For example, their own lives have NOT only individual people, but also entire families, boats, factories, cities, countries, civilisations, and in the future also e.g. intelligent robots, spaceships, etc. Unfortunately, mechanisms which rule over morality must work on different principles when affect individual people, while on different principles when they affect something that is composed of a larger group of people, means entire cities, scientific disciplines, religions, nations, countries, etc. Thus, because of this need for a different description of the work of morality in these two different categories of existences, the philosophy of totalizm introduced the idea of so-called "individual intellects" (i.e. single people), and the concept of so-called "group intellects". The morality of each one of these two categories of intellects is rules by a different category of mechanisms. Therefore we must also distinguish two categories of morality, namely (1) a so-called "individual morality", and (2) a so-called "group morality".
       More information on the subject of "individual intellects" and "group intellects" provide, amongst others, item #B2 on the web page named mozajski_uk.htm, item #E2 on the web page named totalizm.htm, or item #C4 on the web page named parasitism.htm.

#F3. Principles of enforcing the "individual morality" amongst people:

       The enforcement of "individual morality" is simple. Whatever a given individual person does, such "rewards" or "punishments" God serves to him or her - for more information see items #B2.1 and #B4 on the web page named mozajski_uk.htm.

#F4. Principles of enforcing the "group morality":

       With enforcing of a "group morality" is more problems than in the case of a "individual morality". After all, for example, if an entire city behaves immorally, but in that city still lives several moral people, then immediately there is a question whether these moral people or families must be punished together with the entire city (after all, they failed to "improve" morality of the rest of their co-citizens), or they should be spared from the punishment. For just such reasons and moral dilemmas God developed an entire range of complex principles and rules which rule over enforcement of group morality. Their general description is provided in items #B4 to #B4.4 of the web page named mozajski_uk.htm.

Part #G: The so-called "individual morality":


#G1. Attributes of the "individual morality":

       The main (and sometimes the only) source of human knowledge about "morality" in many cases still remain religions. However, "religions" are institutions which in whatever they teach they sometimes choose to to more emphasize what "lies in their interests" than what is real truth. (A best example of just such a behaviour of religions is so-called "Cult of Virgin Mary" practiced by the Roman-Catholic church, which cult is contradictive to the commend of God expressed in the Biblical "Book of Exodus" verses 20:3-5, quote: "You must not have any other gods against my face. You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, ..." - for more information see item #D1 from the web page named malbork_uk.htm.) Thus, for accomplishing various "benefits", some religions introduced to their teachings many claims far from truth about principles of work of morality. For example, that believers of a given religion God "forgives" their immoral behaviours, that in the name of this religion one may act immorally with practitioners of other religions, etc. Therefore, many people have quite wrong idea about attributes which characterise morality. In order to learn facts about these attributes, it is worth to read in person exact source information on the topic of these attributes, i.e. best is to read carefully and exactly the entire Bible, or at least read publications about the philosophy of totalizm.

#G2. Punishments and rewards for the "individual morality":

       There relatively well are described in item #B2.1 from the separate web page named mozajski_uk.htm. In turn an example of a reward which I myself experienced is described in item #8 of the web page named jan_pajak.htm.

#G3. Basic principles of carrying out our "individual morality":

       On this web page such principles are summarised in sub-items below, and also in item #L1. But the best internet descriptions of these principles are provided in items #A2 to #A2.6 from a separate web page named totalizm.htm. In order to remind here at least what is the most vital in these principles, the greatest attention one should pay to following recommendations of totalizm:

#G3.1. In every your behaviour act pedantically moral:

       This is the only rule of practicing totalizm. It is described more extensively on a range of web pages and publications, e.g. see items #B1 and #C1 of the web page named totalizm.htm, or in subsection JA2 from volume 6 of monograph [1/5].

#G3.2. With every your action increase the amount of "moral energy" in yourself and in others:

       This principle is also described on a range of web pages and publications of totalizm, e.g. see items #B1 and #D2 to #D11 of the web page named totalizm.htm, or subsections JA5 to JA5.6 from volume 6 of monograph [1/5].

#G3.3. In every your decision and action always choose the path "uphill in the moral field" (means "oppositely to the line of the least intellectual resistance"):

       The philosophy of totalizm has proven, that "moral" (and thus always beneficial and good for all people involved) is only whatever climbs "uphill" in the invisible "moral field". Therefore, in our every action and every life situation, we should always try to select this our behaviour, which in fact climbs "uphill in the moral field". Unfortunately, similarly like a gravity field, also this "moral field" remains invisible to our sight. Thus, in order to firstly detect in which direction lies that "uphill", the most easy procedure is to start from finding out what would be the acting "along the so-called 'line of the least intellectual resistance' " (as such a behaviour is immediately indicated to us by our laziness and by the easiest way out from a given situation), and then do an exact opposite to whatever this "line of the least intellectual resistance" indicates to us.
       Also this principle of selecting the most moral behaviour is described extensively in publications of totalizm, e.g. see items #A2.1 and #H2 of the web page named totalizm.htm, item #F1 and (2) from item #E3 on the web page named rok_uk.htm, item #E3 on the web page god_exists.htm, item #G3 of the web page eco_cars.htm, or subsections JA4 to JA4.6 from volume 6 of monograph [1/5].

#G3.4. Always make sure that you are prepared to receive back the "karma returns" for whatever you are just doing:

       Whatever you do, it generates identical karma returns that you are going to experience one day. Therefore, make sure that you do only things which generate the karma, the returns of which you are going to great with pleasure.

#G3.5. Always tell the truth, only try to express it in a least painful manner that you can:

       In item #K1 of this web page I am emphasizing, that "telling truth is the essence of morality". Therefore we always are obliged to tell truth, especially to these people whom we love. In turn, if for some reasons we are unable to tell them truth, then we should rather be silent, than to tell lies. We also should remember, that "telling complements" in many cases is a kind of lying as well.
       Always telling the truth and calling things by their true name is so vital for the philosophy of totalizm, that many presentations are devoted to discussions of these - e.g. see also item #F1 on the web page named totalizm.htm.

Part #H: The so-called "group morality":


#H1. Attributes of the "group morality":

       The most vital attribute of "group morality", which clearly distinguishes it from "individual morality", is that in a given "group intellect" acts a whole spectrum of people which individual moralities can spread over the entire possible range. Thus, in a given "group intellect" may participate not only people who are completely immoral, abut also people with the morality of almost that of saints. Such a group of people cannot as a whole be generally treated with neither a reward, nor a punishment. If we reward it whole, then also these most immoral would get rewarded for their immorality. In turn if it is punished as a whole, than even these most moral would also get punished. For these reasons God developed a special version of "group morality", attributes of which are discussed more thoroughly, amongst others, in items #B4 to #B4.4 of the web page named mozajski_uk.htm.

#H2. "Rewards" and "punishments" for group morality:

       These are described more comprehensively, amongst others, in items #B2.1 to #B4.4 from the web page mozajski_uk.htm.

#H3. Cataclysms as a main tool of God for "correcting group morality":

       One amongst most basic and most effective tools of God used for the correcting "group morality" are "cataclysms - for example earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, floods, droughts, frosts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. This is emphasized on a number of items from this web page, e.g. see #C5.3, #D4, E2 and this (i.e. #H3) item. After all, during the serving such cataclysms God can selectively save these people who display highly moral behaviour, but simultaneously God can "punish" and even completely annihilate all these people who already let God know their immoral behaviours.
       More about "cataclysms" served for "correcting group morality" is described, amongst others, in item #B5 from the web page named seismograph.htm. The same topic is also discussed in item #D4 of this web page.

#H4. Specific examples how God corrects "group morality" of cities and communities via the use of cataclysms:

       Such examples are indicated already in e.g. item #C5.3 of this web page.

#H5. How to protect own city or community from cataclysms:

       There is a number of methods with the use of which one can protect own city or community against cataclysms. A general description of these methods is provided in items #B6 and #B7.2 from the web page named seismograph.htm. Also in there in item #C5.1 is explained how one amongst these methods can be practically implemented in own city. In turn a real example of protection with one of these methods is documented in item #I3 of the web page named day26.htm.

#H6. So-far learned cases when God temporally suspended punishments for an immoral city or community:

       The biblical example of suspending by God the serving of punishments to immoral city, is described for the city called "Nineveh" - see the Biblical "Book of Jonah", verses 1:2 to 3:10. In turn my present documentation of a similar suspending for the suburb of Petone is described in item #I3 from the web page named day26.htm.

Part #I: How "individual intellects (persons)" should avoid involvement in the painful procedure of "correcting a group morality":


#I1. The Polish proverb "where trees are cut-down one may get hurt by splinters" (in the Polish language "gdzie drzewa rąbią tam wióry lecą") - means if the morality of city or community in which we live is corrected by God, we individually can also get hurt for our passive "tolerance of immorality of others", even if we ourselves do NOT cause an evil:

       If the community, city, or even the entire country in which we live, treated as a single large "group intellect", deserved a God's punishment, then we also can get hurt during this occasion - even if we live a relatively "moral" life. There can be several reasons for this - the most vital amongst which can be our "passiveness" in face of immorality.

#I2. The passiveness towards immorality as a major "crime" punished by God during "corrections of group morality":

       Someone's "passivity" in face of immorality of other members of the "group intellect" to which we belong, God punishes equally severely as our "co-participation in immoral activities and in doing evil". More information on this subject is provided in items #B4 and #B1 from the web page named parasitism.htm, and in item #B7 from the web page named seismograph.htm.
       The most meaningful present example of getting hurt for the "passivity" is the Japanese tsunami of Friday, 11 March 2011 - described, amongst others, in items #C7 and #I1 of the web page named seismograph.htm, and in items #M1 to #M2 from the web page named telekinetics.htm. Highly informative detail of that tsunami from Japan was that this country again was punished with "radioactivity". The probably reasons for this repetition of the history lesson was that after the first being bombed with atomic bombs near the end of the Second World's War, Japanese did NOT draw the required conclusions and still started to develop in their country the nuclear energy which can be called the "most immoral form of energy".

#I3. How to recognise situations when we ourselves are endangered by "splinters" flying from the "group intellect" whose part we are and whose immorality requires God's correction:

       Principles of these recognition are described in items #B7.1 and #B7.3 from the web page named seismograph.htm.

#I4. How to defend ourselves from getting hurt by "splinters" from our "group intellect" when its immorality is corrected:

       Such a defence is easy. It simply suffices to start practicing the advanced form of the philosophy of totalizm called the "formal totalizm".

Part #J: Rules, laws and mechanisms of work, that govern over the maintenance of "morality" by subsequent categories of intellects:


#J1. How "morality" is maintained practically in subsequent categories of "intellects", and rules applicable to it:

       In order to be able to accomplish His superior goals, God needs people who are highly active and who continually work towards moral perfecting themselves and world around them. Therefore, God requires from people continuous proving to Him, that they are NOT complacent and are still active, as well as that they practice "morally correct kinds of activities". In order to force people to just such a continuous proving, God forms "moral field" which display the attribute of a "dynamic shifting back" people. This means, that all people who even for a moment cease their effort of climbing uphill in the moral field, are shifted back by this field down into increasingly higher "immorality" - as this is described in items #C4.2, #D5 and #I2 from this web page.
       In turn, to form such "moral field" that "dynamically shifts people back", God continually creates in our surrounding a whole array of "immoral trends" and "immoral human imperfections" which push down everyone who do NOT resists them. Their examples include: financial gains, fashion, tasty food, sexual desires, etc. So this "proving" to God by people that they still actively practice "morally correct kinds of behaviours" depends, amongst others, on a decisive resisting these :immoral trends" and "immoral human imperfections", and on active fighting against them - so that we always do in our lives only things that are "moral".
       Independently from this web page, the above requirement of God that people continually climb upwards in the "dynamically shifting people back" moral field, is described on a number of totaliztic web pages, for example in item #A3 of the web page named god_proof.htm, in item #G3 of the totaliztic web page named eco_cars.htm, or in item #F1 of the web page rok_uk.htm.
       Unfortunately, the morality of subsequent intellects form a hierarchical structure, that is already described in item #A2 of this web page. In this structure exist also "intellects" which just by themselves are unable to resist this pushing them towards "immorality" action of the "dynamically shifting back" moral field. Examples of just such intellects are: all young people (especially "teenagers"), women (especially "wives"), politicians (especially "heads of states"), or military men (especially creators of "robotic-soldiers"). For these vulnerable intellects, other intellects which are responsible for them are obliged to provide such assistance which is required for the "intellects located lower in a given hierarchy under NO circumstances practice a morality that is contradictive to the superior (primary) morality given to humans by God". An excellent example when a given morality of a lower rank would be "contradictive" towards the morality given to all people by God, would be if e.g. people constructed "robots-soldiers" so intentionally designed that these carried out mass killings of humans (this would be contradictive with the commandment from God stating "do NOT kill" - see e.g. item #C5.2 from this web page). Shockingly, as this is explained in the article [1#J1] "Moral doubts over real-time Terminators" from page A9 of newspaper The New Zealand Herald, issue dated on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, Americans just are building a prototype of a "robot-soldier" named "Reaper", which is to use an "artificial intelligence" for mass killing of humans. Thus it is worth to watch this project, because it is sure that God is going to react about this intention in a manner that is to give to us a lot to think about.

#J2. Kinds of fights for maintaining morality that dominate in subsequent categories of intellects:

       So in order to continually expose every person to tests whether really it climbs uphill in the "dynamic moral field", God created on the Earth and promotes various forms of "immoral trends and imperfections". These tempt and push down people that are most weak morally. Only people who really are "moral" are able to resist them and to withstand by the moral behaviours. In turn "immoral" people fast give out to these temptations - in this way allowing God to qualify them into the justly appropriate for them categories (i.e. to these designated by God for subjecting them to appropriate experiences that are aimed at "correcting their morality"). Below I am going to describe most vital such imperfections and trends, with which at present must fight every major category of intellects, and also I am going to explain to what may lead ignoring the duty to help these intellects in their standing by "moral" behaviours.

#J2.1. The superior (primary) "morality of a person" which with the "iron consequence" is enforced in all people by God Himself:

       The most superior out of all existing "moralities" is the "morality of a person" imposed onto all people by God and required from every person - as this is defined in item #B5 from the beginning of this web page. While we are physical people we are exposed to a huge number of various external trends, inner imperfections, and temporary temptations, to which - according to commandments of the Bible and philosophy of totalizm, we must decisively resist in our lives. Of course, the knowledge "how" we should resist them and "how" we should act in their face, is huge and even a brief discussion of it involves the content of the entire Bible and textbooks of the philosophy of totalizm. Therefore, I am NOT going to even try to summarise it here or to describe this huge body of knowledge, but I recommend to reader to seek in the source literature - e.g. in volume 6 of my newest monograph [1/5].

#J2.2. The morality of women (girls, partners, wives, employees, etc.):

Motto: "If a key stone from foundations is make loose, then the entire structure is to collapse."

       The omnipotent God knew well, that is anything is to be accomplished by the common effort of two or more people, then always one amongst them must be a "head" or a "leader", while the rest must voluntarily recognise his authority and obey his decisions. This fact is also noticed by people and expressed e.g. in hundreds of various proverbs - as examples of these consider the Polish "where six chiefs rule in the kitchen, there is nothing to eat" (in original Polish: "gdzie kucharek sześć tam NIE ma co jeść"), Chinese "if two people own a horse, it dies of hunger", or Malaysian "if a boat belongs to two owners, than for sure it leaks". Therefore, when God created a "man" and a "woman" He did NOT created it equal and exactly identical, but created then in a manner that they mutually complement each other in their attributes, but that the "man" was a "head" while "woman" was his "helper" and "complement". This fact God expressed quite clearly and unambiguously in several different places of the Bible. Thus for man the Bible defines the role of a "head" which is to lead the family, while for woman - the role of a "helper" which is to support and to complement her man. For example, in the Biblical "1 Corinthians", verses 11:3, 8-9, 12 is stated, quote: "But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ, in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. ... For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man; and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. ... For just as the woman is out of the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are out of God."
       Unfortunately, the human nature is such, that when ones who supposed to "assist" are NOT absolutely sure that their role is right and just, then they rebel and try to become "heads". This also started to happen with women in recent times - when the authority of their role imposed onto them by the Bible and God was undermined by the female movement called "feminism" or "women emancipists". W rezultacie tego ruchu, większość kobiet z dzisiejszych czasów NIE chce ochotniczo aprobować autorytetu mężczyny jako "głowy" swej rodziny, a walczy z mężczyznami aby też zostać "głowami". W rezultacie, w dzisiejszych czasach doświadczamy nieustannej "wojny płci" (czyli wojny "kobiet z mężczyznami"). Jest to jednak samobójczy rodzaj wojny. Wszakże jeśli dzięki "dobrej naturze" i "pokojowiści" jakiegoś mężczyzny, którejś kobiecie faktycznie udaje się w wojnie tej wygrać i rzeczywiście zostaje ona "głową" rodziny, wówczas to uwalnia nagle ukryte mechanizmy działania moralności. Owe zaś mechanizmy całkowicie niszczą tą rodzinę - tak że "nowe życie" jakie ów mężczyzna dał tej kobiecie zostaje zakończone. Taka kobieta która wygrała "wojnę płci" ze swoim mężem i faktycznie została "głową" rodziny, typowo natychmiast po wygraniu traci bowiem szacunek do swego męża, zaczyna rozglądać się za innym partnerem, zaś po jakimś czasie typowo bierze rozwód ze swoim mężem i dana rodzina się rozpada. Co istotniejsze, po owym rozwodzie kobieta ta nigdy NIE jest już szczęśliwa, a spędza resztę życia płacąc za negację roli nadanej jej przez Boga. Zaś wiadomo że ludzie którzy sami są nieszczęśliwi unieszczęśliwiają też wszystkich dookoła siebie. To dlatego Biblia nakazuje m.in. "Nie weźmie za żonę ani wdowy, ani rozwódki, ani pohańbionej, ani nierządnicy: żadnej z takich nie weźmie, ale weźmie dziewicę ..." ("Księga Kapłańska", 21:14).
       Faktycznie też jeśli przeanalizuje się które małżeństwa żyją razem szczęśliwie przez całe wspólne życie, wówczas się okazuje, że kobiety z tych małżeństw zawsze ochotniczo aprobują swoją rolę nadaną im przez Boga i opisaną Biblią. Oczywiście, to ochotnicze aprobowanie tradycyjnej kobiecej roli wcale NIE uszczupla ich znaczenia, poważania, szacunku swoich mężów, udziału w decyzjach rodziny, itp. Jedyne co ono powoduje, to że eliminuje ową nieustanną "wojnę płci" i ich zmaganie się z mężem oraz zaprzeczanie jego decyzjom, w harmonijne pożycie, konsultowane decyzje, oraz faktyczną współpracę w każdej sprawie.

#J2.2.1. Problems with "feminism" and consequences of "famale rules":

Motto: "There is an important reason why women are so unpredictable."

       Moralność i role wielu dzisiejszych kobiet, zarażonych rozprzestrzeniającą się po świecie z krajów anglosaskich żeńską odmianą filozofii pasożytnictwa znaną pod popularną nazwą "feminizmu" czy "emancypacji kobiet", dobrze opisuje tytuł artykułu [1#J2.2.1] "Girls can do anything boys can - including get violent" (tj. "dziewczyny mogą wszystko to co chłopcy - włącznie ze staniem się brutalnymi") ze strony A2 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post Weekend (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), June 18, 2011). Innymi słowy, "feministki" starają się "przeorganizować" w naszej cywilizacji tradycyjną moralność i rolę kobiet oraz mężczyzn, wychodząc ze sprzecznego z empiryką i faktami założenia, że "poza budową organów seksualnych NIE ma żadnej różnicy pomiędzy kobietą i mężczyzną". W ten sposób aktywnie podważają one i unieważniają ustalenia wielu pokoleń badaczy i filozofów, że np. "w naturze kobiet leży trwanie w emocjonalnym i produktywnym związku z tylko jednym mężczyzną", podczas gdy "w naturze mężczyzn leży utrzymywanie fizycznego i niezobowiązującego obcowania z większą liczbą kobiet", czy że "kobieta bierze wszystko na uczucia" podczas gdy "mężczyzna bierze wszystko na logike i rozum". (Niektórzy genetycy powyższe wyraziliby raczej twierdzeniem, że "mężczyzna ma trwale zakodowane w genach obcowanie z całym haremem kobiet", podczas gdy "kobieta ma trwale zakodowane w genach obcowanie z tylko jednym mężczyzną".)
       Jeśli się rozważy, skąd wzięło się owo założenie feministek, że "jedyna różnica pomiędzy kobietą i mężczyzną sprowadza się do budowy organów seksualnych", wówczas się okazuje że wynika ono właśnie z twierdzeń upowszechnianych przez "ateistyczną naukę ortodoksyjną". Wszakże owa nauka neguje iż ludzie byli stworzeni inteligentnie i celowo przez Boga, a utrzymuje, że mężczyzna i kobieta przeszli, bok przy boku, przez dokładnie tą samą drogę w ślepej i bezmyślnej ewolucji. Stąd muszą odznaczać się dokładnie tymi samymi cechami. Gdyby więc np. dziewczyny wychowywać dokładnie tak jak wychowuje się chłopców, wówczas - zgodnie z ową "ateistyczną nauką ortodoksyjną", po dorośnięciu jako kobiety wykazywałyby one wszystkie cechy które mają mężczyźni. Innymi słowy, wychodząc z twierdzeń "ateistycznej nauki ortodoksyjnej", dochodzi się do ciągle czysto teoretycznego i oczywiście błędnego przypuszczenia, że kobiety wcale NIE zostały stworzone w tak inteligentnie wypracowany sposób, aby uzupełniać i poszerzać cechy i możliwości mężczyzn, a że ślepa ewolucja uformowała je w niemal identyczne duplikaty mężczyzn. Będąc zaś takimi "duplikatami mężczyzn" powinny one móc efektywnie zastępować mężczyzn we wszystkich tradycyjnie "męskich rolach". A więc powinny móc efektywnie pełnić role "głów rodzin" i "głów państw", móc służyć w wojsku, dźwigać ciężary, mieć aż kilku partnerów seksualnych naraz, itp. To zaś wprost namawia kobiety aby te zaczęły się emancypować i praktykować feminizm.
       Kiedy jednak zacznie się obserwować co owo przypuszczenie powoduje w państwach które uległy już naciskowi feministek i pozwoliły kobietom zastępować mężczyzn we wszystkich tradycyjnie męskich rolach, wówczas się okazuje, że faktycznie stało się ono powodem stopniowego upadku owych państw i zaniku ich rodzimej ludności. Znaczy, w rzeczywistym życiu "feminizm" okazał się być wysoce niemoralnym i niszczycielskim trendem. I tak, okazało się tam że kobiety w męskich rolach wcale NIE kierują się intelektem i obiektywnością - tak jak czynią to mężczyźni, a wszystkim u nich rządzą emocje i uczucia. W rezultacie, jako "głowy rodzin" takie kobiety przykładowo NIE pozwalają dyscyplinować dzieci które one kochają - wychowują więc całe nowe pokolenia na nieposłusznych i krnąbrnych niedorajdów opisanych w punkcie #J2.4 poniżej. Z kolei jako "głowy państw" i politycy, tym których lubią kobiety pozwalają formować "monopole", unicestwiać konkurencję, zwiększać ceny, eskalować biurokrację i podatki, dewaluować pieniądze, itp. Jako zaś siła robocza, odmawiają jednak wykonywania wielu prac z uwagi na swoją płeć, szybko się obrażają i podają do sądu, bez przerwy są na zwolnieniach lekarskich lub "wypadach na miasto", wydreptują zwiększanie płac kiedy wydajność ich pracy spada, nie traktują każdego tak samo, itp. NIE są też w stanie wypracować i wdrożyć jakichkolwiek wynalazków, ulepszeń, czy odkryć naukowych - nikt więc NIE słyszał tam o jakiejś sławnej feministce-wynalazczyni, czy feministce-odkrywczyni. Na dodatek, zachęcane ideami feminizmu kobiety nauczyły się tam kląć, palić, pić i zażywać narkotyki - tak jak czynili to uprzednio mężczyźni, zaczynają mieć po kilku partnerów seksualnych naraz, chodzą, poruszają się i ubierają się jak mężczyźni, formują gangi, przestają dbać o rodzinę, itd., itp. Wynikiem tego wszystkiego jest, że mężczyźni już przestali widzieć w nich partnerki z jakimi warto spędzić życie. W rezultacie instytucje małżeństwa zaczęły tam upadać - patrz artykuł [2#J2.2.1] "Is marriage over?" (tj. "czy to koniec małzeństwa?") ze strony A1 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post Weekend (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), June 18, 2011) - który ujawnia że w 2010 roku małżeństwo zawarło w Nowej Zelandii tylko 20 900 par - co stanowi jedynie połowę liczby małżeństw zawartych tam w 1987 roku. (Artykuł ten NIE wyjaśnia jednak czy podatne na feminizm rodzime Nowozelandki były w tych małżeństwach reprezentowane równie licznie jak np. ciągle obstające przy tradycji orientalne kobiety.) Jeśli zaś już któryś mężczyzna decyduje się tam kogoś poślubić, wówczas raczej wybiera kobietę z innego kraju, np. Orientu, który NIE przesiąkł jeszcze feminizmem zaś jego kobiety ciągle kultywują tradycyjne cechy żeńskie. Taki opanowany feminizmem kraj zaczyna więc zmieniać NIE tylko swoją kulturę - ponieważ musi "importować" niedobory własnych obywateli, ale dodatkowo szybko zmienia się rasowo.
       Tymczasem jeśli moralność i role kobiet rozważy się z podejścia "a priori" stosowanego przez nową "naukę totaliztyczną", wówczas "feminizm" okazuje się niemoralną dewiacją która wszystko widzi i czyni sprzecznie z nakazami i wymaganiami Boga. Wszakże w świecie stworzonym i zarządzanym przez Boga - jaki to świat bada nowa "nauka totaliztyczna", wszystko ma swój cel i zadania do wypełnienia. Bóg NIE stwarzałby więc w nim kobiety identycznej do mężczyzny, bowiem każdemu z nich wyznaczył odmienne role do wypełnienia.
       Jak niemoralny jest "feminizm" oraz jak pokrewne do metod działania filozofii pasożytnictwa są zachowania społeczności rządzonych przez "feministki", ujawnia to przypadek który w dniach od 22 czerwca do 7 lipca 2011 roku był dyskutowany szeroko w niemal każdej gazecie i każdym dzienniku telewizyjnym Nowej Zelandii. Mianowicie, w jednej z dyskusji radiowych nadawanych na żywo w dniu 22 czerwca 2011 roku, generalny dyrektor EMA (tj. "Employers and Manufacturers Association" - czyli "Związku Pracodawców i Producentów") wyjaśniał powody dla których w Nowej Zelandii kobiety średnio mają o 12% niższe zarobki od mężczyzn. Komentując wykaz czynników jakie powodują że wydajność produkcyjna kobiet jest niższa od wydajności mężczyzn, wśród wielu innych czynników wymienił on m.in. również "miesiączki" - z powodu których kobiety wykazują wyższą niż mężczyźni nieobecność w pracy. To jedno słowo "miesiączki" wystawiło go jednak na histeryczne ataki feministek, które wyrwały tylko to słowo z kontekstu i zaczęły krzyczeć, że "miesiączki" NIE mogą być powodem dla niższych zarobków kobiet - po więcej informacji patrz artykuł [3#J2.2.1] "EMA chief's job on the line as outrage mounts" (tj. "Praca szefa EMA zagrożona jak oburzenie narasta") ze strony A3 nowozelandzkiej gazety Weekend Herald (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), June 25, 2011). Przez następne dwa tygodnie na głowę tego dyrektora zaczęła się sypać cała lawina ataków zupełnie poodrywanych od faktów i bazujących wyłącznie na kobiecych emocjach i na głośnym krzyku - patrz artykuł [4#J2.2.1] "Wide spread anger at remarks but Thompson keeps his job fo now" (tj. "Szeroki gniew na stwierdzenia, jednak Thompson narazie utrzymuje swe zatrudnienie") ze strony A5 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie ze środy (Wednesday), June 29, 2011). Nie pomogły głosy rozsądku w rodzaju artykułu [5#J2.2.1] "Building bridges across the gender pay gap" (tj. "Wznoszenie mostów przez różnicę w zarobkach obu płci") ze strony A22 nowozelandzkiej gazety Weekend Herald (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), July 2, 2011) - który powoływał się na badania naukowe przeprowadzone we Włoszech jakie wykazywały że faktycznie z powodu miesiączek kobiety są nieobecne w pracy częściej od mężczyzn. Jak też można tego się doczytać z artykułu [6#J2.2.1] "It's over, period, for Alasdair Thompson" (tj. "Koniec, okresu, dla Alasdaira Thompsona"), ze strony A2 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z czwartku (Thursday), July 7, 2011), w dniu 6 lipca 2011 roku, ów dyrektor został wyrzucony z pracy. Jeśli przeanalizować jego losy, to utracił on pracę tylko dlatego, że w radiowej dyskusji na żywo podsunął "feministkom" słowo "miesiączka" do wyrwania go z kontekstu i do rozpętania histerycznych ataków w których tłumy kobiet z całego kraju NIE pozwoliły rozsądkowi dojść do głosu. Mi osobiście cała ta sprawa przypominała "zlinczowanie" kogoś kto usiłował podjąć rzeczową dyskusję z feministkami na temat który faktycznie wymaga znalezienia rozwiązania.
       Niezdolność do podjęcia i przeprowadzenia konstruktywnej dyskusji na drażliwe dla kobiet tematy, a branie wszystkiego na krzyk i na siłę, jest tylko jednym z wielu problemów wnoszonych przez feminizm. Wszakże będąc żeńską wersją filozofii pasożytnictwa, jak każda wersja tej niemoralnej filozofii, feminizm wszystko "bierze na uczucia" oraz zawsze wybiera tylko te rozwiązania które "biegną w dół pola moralnego". Najlepiej to widać z cech życia płciowego feministek. Im bartdziej bowiem feminizm zaawansowany, tym więcej cudzołóstwa, zdrady małżeńskiej, seksu z przypadkowymi partnerami, itp. Jako przykład warto poczytać artykuł [7#J2.2.1] o tytule "NZ women promiscuous, says doctor" (tj. "Nowozelandzkie kobiety rozwiązłe płciowo, stwierdza lekarz") ze strony A3 nowozelandzkiej gazety Weekend Herald (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), July 9, 2011). Zgodnie z nim, szokująca proporcja NZ kobiet NIE pamięta nawet z którym mężczyzną zaszła w ciążę. Z kolei jakieś opisane tam międzynarodowe badania wykazały, że kobiety nowozelandzkie są najbardziej rowiązłe płciowo na świecie. Przykładowo, przeciętna liczba partnerów seksualnych u nowozeladzkich kobiet wynosi średnio 20.3 mężczyzn na każdą kobietę - podczas gdy dla całego świata owa średnia wynosi 7.3 partnerów na kobietę. Odnotuj, jednak, że w innym artykule [7b#J2.2.1] o tytule "Young females sleep arund to keep up with the boys" (tj. "Młode kobiety śpią gdzie się da aby wygrać współzawodnictwo z chłopcami") ze strony A3 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z poniedziałku (Monday), July 11, 2011) lekarz seksuolog usiłuje usprawiedliwić te kobiety poprzez wmawianie czytelnikom że wszystko to wina mężczyzn z którymi one po prostu starają się współzawodniczyć (NIE wyjaśnia on jednak dlaczego owa "potrzeba współzawodniczenia" z mężczyznami jest u Nowozelandek około trzykrotnie silniejsza niż u kobiet z reszty świata). Inne artykuły, jak np. [7c#J2.2.1] o tytule "Promiscuity 'damaging for women' " (tj. "Rozwiązłość szkodliwa dla kobiet' ") ze strony A3 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z wtorku (Tuesday), July 12, 2011), zwracają uwagę na psychologiczne zniszczenia i wypaczenia jakie u kobiet powoduje rozwiązłość płciowa.
       Bóg zawsze celowo tak kształtuje "pole moralne", że aby postępować "moralnie" koniecznym się staje "mozolne i ochotnicze" wspinanie się pod górę owego pola - co opisałem już szerzej w szeregu punktów niniejszej strony, np. patrz punkty #C4.2, #D5, #I2 i #J1. Aby więc również i kobietom dać do wyboru albo "przyjemne i łatwe ześlizgowanie się w dół pola moralnego", albo też "mozolne wspinanie się pod górę pola moralnego", w dzisiejszych czasach Bóg stworzył właśnie ów "feminizm" (w innych czasach ów wybór będą zapewne dawały jakieś inne niemoralne trendy). Te zaś kobiety które wybierają łatwe uleganie owemu niemoralnemu feminizmowi i postępowanie zgodne z trendami feminizmu, wybierają jednocześnie samo-niszczenie poprzez właśnie takie łatwe ześlizgiwanie się "w dół pola moralnego" - dokumentując w ten sposób Bogu swoją decyzję wiedzenia niemoralnego życia. Oczywiście, Bóg za to "posteruje ich losem" odpowiednio do tej ich decyzji - co już obecnie staje się widoczne jako samo-wyniszczające trendy objawiające się w krajach opanowanych feminizmem (gdzie np. "rodzime kobiety" są coraz częściej "odstawiane na boczne tory" i zastępowane "kobietami z importu", zaś pojawiające się tam "nowe trendy" powodują zjawiska opisywane np. w artykule "One in five US women raped" (tj. "jedna z każdych pięciu kobiet w USA jest gwałcona"), ze strony B3 nowozelandzkiej gazety o nazwie Weekend Herald, wydanie z soboty (Saturday), December 17, 2011). Zawsze wszakże będą istniały też kraje w których kobiety wybiorą jednak ochotniczo tą trudniejszą drogę wytrwania przy moralności - czyli drogę dobrowolnego i ochotniczego nieulegania dewiacjom typu "feminizm" czy "lesbianizm", oraz trwania przy sumiennym wypełnianiu tradycyjnych ról które Bóg wyznaczył kobietom i zalecił im w Biblii. Te kobiety zdominują kiedyś nasz świat. Jedyne pytanie które warto sobie tutaj zadać, to czy takie zadminowanie nad światem kobiet które ochotniczo wybrały moralne wytrwanie przy tradycyjnych rolach musi się wiązać z zanikiem i upadkiem tych ras ludzi których kobiety są podatne na niemoralne trendy w rodzaju "feminizmu"?

#J2.2.2. Problems with the "marriage monopole" from the Christian tradition of having just one wife - as a reversal of advantages of the legal polygamy recommended in the Bible:

Motto: "Progress does NOT depend on ruining old and on landing with nothing, but on the introduction of such new that eliminates inadequacies and preserves advantages of old, that has higher moral value, and that opens for the humanity much better prospects for the future."

       It took disclosing methods of present private detectives, supported by the divorce lawyers and journalists earning from scandals, while disseminated throughout the world by sensation-thirsty television, press and internet, for the humanity to realise how unrealistic and how contradictive to the human nature is the present "institution of marriage". After all, this institution is based on the principle of monogamy - means on the principle in which the existing laws give into hands of a woman the "marriage monopole" in which she becomes the only legal supplier of, amongst others, "goods" and "services" without the access to which man simply is unable to live. It is for gaining an access to just such "goods" and "services" that in the animal kingdom "males" are prepared to fight till the death. However, in the "marriage monopole" the access to these is subjected to the full control of just a single women ruled by emotions, which can do whatever she is pleased. As we know, in present world, which legally sanctions this "marriage monopole", for everything is needed a "consensus" of both sides. Moreover, laws are so designed, that man can have just one wife, while polygamy and unfaithfulness are banned and severely punished. However, as we all probably know already, there is nothing more destructive in long-term consequences, than establishing laws that legalise and reinforce someone's "monopole". From watching fates of e.g. present countries which allowed their governments to establish monopoles that rule over the entire their economies, it is already known that during just around ten years monopoles can remove the wealth from even the most rich country and push it into poverty down to the level of so-called "third world". In turn, from the fate of still the only official so-called "atheistic orthodox science" to-date - described, amongst others, in item #B1 of this web page, it is already known that e.g. supporting the "monopole for knowledge" by our civilisation, brought onto the humanity all these disasters that we see currently around, such as warming of climate, economic depression, political and monetary instability, wars, famine, spread of the philosophy of parasitism, cataclysms, illnesses, etc.
       Similarly as every other kind of monopole, also the "marriage monopole" hides a highly destructive potential and is full of various vices. After all, it sanctions the unnatural situation, when wives in marriages neither need to consider the existence of legal "competition" for themselves in the form of another wife, nor are motivated by the prospect that if they do NOT meet the expectations, then their husbands may take another wife. So if an immorally inclined woman becomes a wife, then she can use various "tricks" and "games" to abuse her monopolistic position. For example, she can pretend to have "migraine", use "sexual blackmail" for gaining certain benefits - in this for gaining power over her husband, etc. This in turn places her man in face of the dilemma to either suffer - if the husband decides to stand by morality, or to practice an immoral unfaithfulness and expose the marriage to a danger of splitting and divorce. Simultaneously, the same "marriage monopoles" do NOT create for husbands any other option that would be more "moral" than "divorces" in situations when e.g. their wives abuse the "marriage monopole" they hold. Unfortunately, although a divorce is legally acceptable, in the majority of life circumstances it is a highly "immoral" solution - which harms and makes unhappy absolutely all people that are affected by consequences of it.
       Shockingly, it happens that the "marriage monopole" was established and implemented on the Earth by the Christian religion - in spite that the Bible is full of statements which reassure us that God supports and approves "polygamy" while does NOT requires nor persuades "monogamy", and that many forefathers of the humanity, indicated in the Bible as examples to follow, in fact had more than one wife. (E.g. even the uniquely wise Salomon had 700 primary wives and 300 secondary wives - see the Bible, 1 Kings, verse 11:3.) So as the result, next to the "Cult of Virgin Mary" - which against the requirements of God is practiced by the Catholic Church (see item #G1 from this web page), establishing the "marriage monopoly" by the Christian religion is yet another significant departure of the present Christianity from the will and recommendations of God expressed in the Bible. Also, as every departure from the will and recommendations of omnipotent God, this leads to many human deviations and difficulties. For example, it is the primary reasons for many present divorces, fall-down of institution of marriage, unfaithfulness, splits of ownerships and life accomplishments, and the primary source of many children who must grow without parents or without male role-model for learning from.
       Much more "moral" than the monogamy is a legal polygamy, the approval for practicing of which the omnipotent God expressed in the Bible, because He knows perfectly-well the nature and needs of humans (after all, God created people and thus knows them completely). The Christian "monogamy" still remains one amongst possible "options" to choose from in the legal "polygamy". Thus, the majority of marriages in which both sides truly practice the mutual love, respect and moral fulfilment of roles, in the "polygamist" countries still practice "monogamy". (In this way wives from the polygamist cultures, husbands of which choose having just one wife, receive an obvious proof of the appreciation of their value and know that their husbands truly treasure and love them, NOT that just stay with them only because they are afraid of a divorce and punishments for being unfaithful.) For example, I myself would NOT take a second wife even if the polygamy was officially practiced and legal - in spite that I am FOR legalisation of it because from my research on morality and on the Bible clearly stems that the polygamy would be much more moral, more beneficial for the entire humanity, and more agreeable with intentions of God, than the present monogamy. But I have a wonderful and extraordinary wife, which love, admire and respect increasingly more as time progresses - which fact I am not ashamed to openly admit (e.g. see the web page named jan_pajak.htm). However, for many other marriages, such legalised wedding another wife could turn highly beneficial and desirable. Especially in cases when the first marriage would turn "disastrous", "unfertile", or when having many wives would become an expression of prestige or wealth. After all, when the first wife would NOT meet expectations of the husband or would NOT lift the prestige or quality of life of a given marriage, then instead of cheating and cunningly becoming unfaithful to her, or immorally divorcing her and leaving her together with children without male protection and role model, many men would rather legally marry another wife - while still continuing the fulfilment of their marriage obligations they have towards the first wife.
       After thorough analysis everyone can discover, that the legal "polygamy" has many advantages in comparison to "monogamy" - so unfortunately implemented on the entire Earth by Christianity and subjected to the present crisis and moral fall-down that we see spreading around the world. For example, through treatment of "divorces" as the least preferred "option" to which a given couple resorts only in extreme circumstances, the majority of children would NOT need to grow up without fathers and without male role-models for watching and for learning, while a noticeable number of women would NOT need to live alone. Children have in polygamy a larger selection of parents and people to love, play with, take care of them, and teach them. (This is especially vital for e.g. closer learning by them about women which are NOT their mothers. As we know, in the present monogamy children learn closer only about one woman, which typically is their mother - blindly in love with them and thus deprived of objectivity. In turn behaviours of such a blindly-loving mother do NOT represent typical behaviours of women with which these children will be forced to relate in the future adult life.) Also, in polygamy these less talented wives do NOT become unhappy divorcees full of bitterness and hate. Immoral and destructive trends, such as "feminism", do NOT have a reason to eventuate in polygamy. For every wife is less work "per person" - so they have more time for entertainment and taking care of themselves. Life accomplishments and wealth of marriages do NOT need to be split and wasted - but these can benefit a larger number of people. Unfaithfulness ceases to bloom in it - after all, instead of having an immoral, illegal, cheating and risky affairs, in polygamy simply another marriage is arranged. (It is worth to notice, that from practical point of view, present unfaithful marriages almost do NOT differ from polygamy - only that instead of accepting of the function of someone's lovers, in polygamy women simply accept that they are second or further wives.) Venereal diseases cease to spread in it. Both sexes are also more healthy - after all they have more exercises. Men and women are more sexually satisfied in it (and thus also more happy) - after all, women do NOT waste their "turns" nor practice "sexual blackmails" or "migraines" because they are aware of the existence of "competition". In turn men always have handy "someone willing" - so they do NOT need to seek "outside" while because of the continuous practice they are in a greater form. Men must also in it be more ambitious than on monogamy, because if they do NOT meet requirements of their wives, then these in the common effort always find ways to positively reinforce whatever is missing in their husband. Also all domestic violence and arguing disappear in it - as a single male does NOT stand chances against a whole gang of his wives. From streets disappear the majority of overweighed people - after all women do NOT need to "compensate" by eating, while men do NOT have time to become fat. Sperm counts probably do NOT fall down in polygamy because of the lack of "idleness" in males. The required birth rate is healthier in polygamy. Children are NOT rejected or ignored by parents. The excess of women do NOT need to live lonely. Infertile women still receive children of their husbands to love, while infertility ceases to be a reason for tragedies and lonely old age. Parasitic divorce lawyers and private detectives do NOT have jobs, so they can practice professions which are more productive for the humanity. Etc., etc.
       In order to explain more comprehensively at least one example from the above list of advantages of polygamy over monogamy, let us consider why both males and females, in polygamy are much healthier than in monogamy. In particular let us explain how polygamy, through the increase in frequency of sexual intercourses in both genders, eliminates the plague of present times, which is "obesity" (means also eliminates numerous health problems that result from obesity). In other words, polygamy, or more strictly the abolishment of "monopole for sex" in polygamist marriages, and thus the increase of frequency of sexual intercourses in both genders caused by this abolishment, is one amongst the most moral, and simultaneously one amongst the most pleasurable, methods of keeping slim. After all, old folklore beliefs of various nations, as well as present empirical findings, confirm that people who have at least two sexual intercourses each week, typically have NO problems with obesity. (The more of sexual intercourses someone has every week, the less problems with overweight he or she has.) Confirmations for this fact provide e.g. old Polish folklore beliefs, which are expressed e.g. in form of sayings "good cockerel never is fat" or "make love each evening to sleep well, then make love again in morning to remember well" (in original Polish language "dobry kogut nigdy NIE jest tłusty" or "kochaj się wieczorem aby dobrze ci się spało, ponownie zaś kochaj się rano aby we dnie ci się pamiętało"). (These saying diplomatically express folk findings which with present direct wording would state something along lines that "males who make love frequently never have problems with obesity", and "these ones who make love every evening have no problems with insomnia".) The same folk knowledge is also empirically confirmed by women. For example, in cultures in which women openly and without inhibition express their opinions about sexual matters, e.g. in close to nature tropical Dayaks from Borneo, these women confirm that obese men are hopeless in bed. In turn the fact that a high frequency of sexual intercourses decreases obesity also in women, is confirmed e.g. by a popular saying (and opinion) about fat women, that "they eat to compensate for sexual deficiencies". Such folklore confirmations are additionally enforced by empirical findings, e.g. that in harems never one can see a fat women, while in countries and cultures in which polygamy is practiced until today almost all citizens are slim. (In spite of whatever someone can deduce theoretically, in real life both sexes in typical polygamist families have several times more sexual intercourses than in typical monogamist families. For example, because of the loss of "monopole for sex" and the awareness of the existence of "competition" in the form of other wife, women never resign in there from "their turn" to husbands - as in monogamy women do it chronically because of e.g. "migraines" or "lost of mood". In turn for men the sexual drive is increased in there due to the attractiveness of spending each night with a different wife.) Furthermore, every man which in his life had both, slim and fat girlfriends or partners, knows from empirics that the "libido" of slim women is at the level of several sexual intercourses per week. In turn fat women only with a great difficulty can be persuaded to have one intercourse per week. In other words, if e.g. Americans and New Zealanders started to practice a legal polygamy, then probably they would cease to be two most fat nations of the world. (The suggestion, that Americans and New Zealanders are probably two most fat nations in the present world, originates from the article entitled "Majority in NZ obese or overweight" from page A2 of newspaper The New Zealand Herald, issue dated on Friday, September 16, 2011.) Also then in these countries would probably disappear many present problems, including health-related, which are caused by obesity and by lack of sexual satisfaction. In turn for times, before countries in which we live introduce legal polygamy, I sincerely advice both men and women: "if you are in situation that you can make love in a moral manner, i.e. without harming anyone, then make love as much as you can and as frequently as you have opportunity - because from love making various benefits emerge, while from abstinence only problems are born". (The same recommendation my grandfather used to express with a jocose principle for easy remembering and for everyday applying in life, which recommended that "in our family no-one was ever tarnished by a requirement, that an invitation to bed or to table needed to be repeated twice").
       The above reveals, that if any present "monogamist" country introduces a legal "polygamy", then all parties would only benefit from it. Proofs that such benefits actually exists and awaits countries ready to introduce "polygamy", are well visible in these cultures and countries which still preserved polygamy until today. (No many people probably know that until the end of World's War Two, the "polygamy" was still legally practiced in almost all cultures of Orient. In my globetrotting "in search of bread" (for details see the web page about me indicated below in item #O5), I personally met many oriental people who originated from just such polygamist families. As I also noted, typically people from such families are carriers of much more moral systems of values than people born in monogamist families.) Also, opposite to cultures from rich monogamist countries, in polygamist countries the institution of marriages still is blooming, number of marriages do NOT fall down in there, the birth rate is healthy, families still remain holy in there, cheating and affairs almost are non-existent in there, individual people are more happy in there than in rich countries of monogamy, for the lack of need to "import" citizens or women, their race and cultural integrity remains in there untouched, society as a whole still avoids in there a whole array of social evils that become a real plague for monogamist countries, etc., etc. So it is easy to notice, that in a true interest of the humanity lies that also in this matter human laws follow the path which God indicated in the Bible. Thus, instead of further forcing the "monogamy" that is highly destructive for the humanity, we rather should introduce the legal freedom of practicing the "polygamy" - if only someone considers it to be beneficial in a given life situation, while this "other half" knows "what is getting into". It is puzzling why still no political party make from the "polygamy" its election policy (apart, perhaps, the purely hypothetical party of totalizm which duty and goal is to implement in the life everything to which the philosophy of totalizm already established that this is more moral and more beneficial for the humanity than of whatever the humanity practiced so-far).
       In times of my youth, in Poland lived a large proportion of lonely widows - one amongst unhappy consequences of the Second World War. Until today I remember, that not far from our home in Wszewilki lived three female neighbours - just as such young lonely widows. Several further of them lived in more distant houses of the same village. Having in mind the wellbeing and benefits of just such young widows, the government of Poland of that time undertook analyses of effects of an official introduction of the legalised polygamy. After all, in these times people did NOT have yet the present prejudices towards races or religions which practice polygamy. In addition, a large proportion of countries from the South-East Asia and from islands of Pacific, either still then practiced polygamy, or just was in the process of eliminating it. This included also the huge China - which emperor removed from the throne just shortly before, also had two wives (in spite that he still was very young). The polygamy did NOT overgrow then with present illogical prejudices, stigma, paranoia, etc. So it was permissible to logically analyse it and to consider all "pros" and "cons" of it. But instead of an authoritative introduction of just such legalised polygamy - as the government of Poland of that time used to do in practically every other matter, the consequences of the introduction of a legalised polygamy was subjected to a wide and long public discussion and consultation. Discussions on this topic were carried out openly in the Polish Radio and broadcasted on the entire Poland. In spite of my young age, I liked to listen to them, as sometimes they were so funny and so interesting, that even a young boy had reasons to laugh at them or to learn from them. For example, until today I remember as one person arguing against polygamy was stating emotionally, that he would NOT be able to take these rows of female stockings drying out in his bathroom - it is interesting why he assumed that he either will be forced to marry many wives, or that many women rapidly will pounce at him while he will NOT be able to defend himself from them! But, as we can see from the fact that Poland maintains the monogamy, that discussion most clearly was won by the opponents of polygamy. After all, at that time opponents could use AGAINST it arguments which were exactly the same which in the present time would work PRO introducing it. For example, that the introduction of polygamy would rapidly increase the birth rate, that it would deprive employment for many needed professions (such as lawyers or kindergarten teachers), or that it would run against Christian tradition (after all, at those times copies of the Bible were unavailable for mere mortals - so almost NO-ONE had a chance to find out from the Bible that God actually supports and accept the moral polygamy, while strongly disapproves and punishes immoral unfaithfulness, affairs, deceits, lying, and everything that in present times represents consequences of decaying monogamy), etc., etc. If that discussion is carried out in present times, then advantages of polygamy would probably be additionally denied by members of "feminist movement" whom would see in it the danger of disapproval for their stands. This is pity, because in fact the side which would benefit the most from polygamy, are NOT men, but women! Also polygamy would introduce a potential to save the institution of marriage from present decadency, while save further generations from the need of having lonely lives and test-tube births on principles of artificial insemination. It would also stop the extinction and disappearance of these nations and races, which women adopted self-destructive feminism - as this is visible in trends that already show themselves in various countries.
       Only in extremely rare cases progress depends on the introduction of something completely new, what the humanity knew never before, such as e.g. Magnocrafts or Oscillatory Chambers. In the overwhelming majority of cases "progress" boils down to the replacement of old with something that is also known for a long time, only that in a new application it is able to eliminate drawbacks and limitations of this old, and thus is able to open for people completely new perspectives. In just such adaptation for new applications of something known for a long time, the most vital step is NOT the inventiveness, but a courage and insight of noticing drawbacks of the old, and the ability to work out how these drawbacks could be eliminated with a given new application. So let us hope, that we are able to find in ourselves the courage to improve the "institution of marriage", before the present "obsession with one-stand sex" causes the disappearance of families, while nations turn into clusters of artificially inseminated loners.

#J2.3. The morality of husbands:

... (the next part of this web page is to be translated later) ...

       Moralność męża formuje drugą warstwę w hierarchii moralności (tj. warstwę zaraz po nadrzędnej warstwie moralności danej nam przez Boga). Stąd moralność ta kryje w sobie wiele aspektów, które wymagają lepszego poznania. Jak każda moralność, też opiera się ona na zwalczaniu pokus i niemoralnych trendów, na korzystaniu z naturalnych zalet które Bóg dał kobiecie i na uzupełnianiu tego co czynią ich małżonki, oraz na faktycznym wypełnianiu roli "głowy" rodziny - dokładnie tak jak wyjaśnia to Biblia z której radzę szczegółowo poznać wymogi i nakazy tej wysoce wymagającej i odpowiedzialnej moralnści męża.

#J2.4. Moralność dzieci (syna i/lub córki):

Motto: "Jakie dzieci, taka przyszłość."

       Z punktu widzenia "totaliztycznej nauki" moralność naszych dzieci jest manifestowana przez "posłuszeństwo" z jakim owe dzieci wypełniają wymagania i nakazy swoich rodziców (które to nakazy i wymagania NIE są jednak sprzeczne z nakazami i wymaganiami stawianymi wszystkim ludziom przez Boga). Z kolei owo posłuszeństwo jest "skutkiem" wychowywania tychże dzieci w poczuciu dyscypliny, obowiązkowości, potrzeby wiedzy i edukacji, tradycji, respektu i poważania dla starszych i dla nauczycieli, itp. To dlatego, wysoce rozumny Bóg wyraźnie nakazuje w aż całym szeregu miejsc Biblii (opisywanych i cytowanych dokładniej w punkcie #B5.1 odrębnej strony o nazwie will.htm), aby podczas wychowywania dzieci zawsze pamiętać o tym co wyrażone jest z pomocą angielskiego przysłowia "pożałuj rózgi a popsujesz dzieciaka" (w oryginale "spare rod and spil the child"). Nakazy Boga idą zresztą nawet dalej. Przykładowo, w bibilijnej "Księdze Powtórzonego Prawa", wersety 21:18-21 Bóg nakazuje, cytuję: "Jeśli ktoś będzie miał syna nieposłusznego i krnąbrnego, nie słuchającego upomnień ojca ani matki, tak że nawet po upomnieniach jest im nieposłuszny, ojciec i matka pochwycą go, zaprowadzą do bramy, do starszych miasta, i powiedzą starszym miasta: 'Oto nasz syn jest nieposłuszny i krnąbry, nie słucha naszego upomnienia, oddaje się rozpuście i pijaństwu'. Wtedy mężowie tego miasta będą kamieniowali go, aż umrze. Usuniesz zło spośród siebie, a cały Izrael, słysząc o tym, ulęknie się." Najwyraźniej Bóg zdaje sobie sprawę jak niszczycielski wpływ na dany naród ma kultywowanie tradycji i kultury nieposłuszeństwa oraz krnąbrności.
       Niestety, aby przypodobać się matkom typowo ślepym na nieposłuszeństwo i krnąbrność swoich pociech, oraz aby zdobywać ich głosy, politycy niektórych krajów od dawna stopniowo erodują te nakazane nam przez Boga zasady "twardego" wychowywania dzieci. Przykładowo, np. w Nowej Zelandii politycy uchwalili tzw. "prawo przeciw-klapsowe", zgodnie z którym rodzicom NIE wolno dyscyplinować własnych dzieci. Prawo to omawiane jest w punkcie #B5.1 odrębnej strony o nazwie will.htm. Zgodnie z nim rodzice którzy dyscyplinują swoje dzieci - usiłując je wychować na moralnych dorosłych, są karani przez państwo, wtrącani do więzienia, itp. W rezultacie wprowadzenia owego prawa, Nowa Zelandia już obecnie ma nieopisane kłopoty ze swoją niezdyscyplinowaną młodzieżą. Co zaś będzie tam działo się dalej, o tym aż strach pomyśleć. Dobrym odzwierciedleniem tych kłopotów są artykuły w rodzaju: [1#J2.4] "Misbehaviour by kids rated No 1 social issue" (tj. "Złe zachowanie się dzieci uznane za problem socjalny nr 1") ze strony A2 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z wtorku (Tuesday), April 5, 2011) - który stara się zwrócić uwagę na następstwa tolerowania niezdyscyplinowanych dzieci; [2#J2.4] "Silence absent in many libraries" (tj. "Cisza nieobecna w wielu bibliotekach") ze strony A10 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z wtorku (Tuesday), May 31, 2011) - w którym jest opisywane jak źle wychowane dzieci czynią już taki hałas w bibliotekach publicznych, że niemal NIE daje się tam czytać; [3#J2.4] "Three Rs too much for same teachers" (tj. "trzy R zbyt dużo dla niektórych nauczycieli") ze strony A1 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post (wydanie z wtorku (Tuesday), February 15, 2011) - w którym opisywane jest że nawet wymagane przez rząd nauczenie dzieci minimum trzech rzeczy których angielskie nazwy zaczynają się na R, tj. postawowego czytania, pisania i rachunków, przez niektorych nauczycieli uważane jest za zbyt dużo (artykuł NIE ujawnia jednak jeki jest powód że nauczyciele wolą odsyłać dzieci na boisko sportowe, do muzeum, itp. aby tylko unikać konieczności uczenia ich czegokolwiek); [4a#J2.4] "Granny prosecuted after girl wages school" (tj. "babcia ukarana po tym jak dziewczyna wagarowała szkołę") ze strony A1 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post (wydanie z wtorku (Tuesday), June 14, 2011) - w którym opisane jest działanie władz które ukarały 72-letnią babcię za krnąbrność i nieposłuszeństwo dziewczyny oddanej pod opiekę tej babci (kiedy jednocześnie wszystkim jest wiadomo, że te same władze karzą rodziców i opiekunów nawet za próby dyscyplinowania dzieci); [4b#J2.4] "Man on kidnap charges for tackling thieves" (tj. "Mężczyzna oskarżony przez policję o uprowadzenie za przyciśnięcie do ziemi złodzieja") ze strony A5 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie ze środy (Wednesday), May 11, 2011) - ktory raportuje kolejny z wielu nowozelandzkich przypadków kiedy policja oskarżyła niewłaściwą osobę - w tym przypadku tego co usiłował zatrzymać młodych złodziei poprzez przyduszenie jednego z nich do ziemi; [4c#J2.4] "Law system encourages criminals" (tj. "System prawny popiera złoczyńców") ze strony A1 nowozelandzkiej gazety Sunday Star Times (wydanie z niedzieli (Tuesday), April 24, 2011) - w którym streszczona jest książka Davida Fraser "Badlands NZ: A Land Fit for Criminals" - tj. "Zły ląd Nowa Zelanidia: dobra ziemia dla złoczyńców"; [5a#J2.4] "King's College boy placed in detox room at ball" (tj. "zamknięcie chłopca z King's College w odtruwającym gabinecie podczas balu") ze strony A6 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z wtorku (Tuesday), June 14, 2011) - w który ujawnia że uczeń ekskluzywanej szkoły aż tak zatruł się używkami podczas szkolego balu, że musiano go poddać kuracji odtruwajacej; [5b#J2.4] "Alcohol and the elite school" (tj.: "alkohol i elitarna szkoła") ze strony A9 nowozelandzkiej gazety Weekend Herald (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), June 18, 2011) - w którym omawiana jest czwarta już śmierć w przeciągu ostatnich 17 miesięcy z powodu pijatyk i używania narkotyków, która miała miejsce w ekskluzywnej szkole dla synów z najbogatszych domów Nowej Zelandii (tj. ta szkoła z której wywodzi się potem spora większosć rządzących owym krajem) zwanej "King's College"; [5c#J2.4] "Hundreds of drunk kids in our hospitals" (tj. "Setki pijanych dzieci w naszych szpitalach") ze strony A1 gazety The Dominion Post (wydanie z poniedziałku (Monday), July 11, 2011) - który alarmuje o zbyt wielkiej ilości młodych dzieci lądujących w szpitalach Nowej Zelandii z powodu przedawkowanego zażycia narkotyków i alkoholu; [6a#J2.4] "Brain-injured victim at home" ze strony A5 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post Weekend (wydanie z piątku (Friday), February 18, 2011) - który omawia jeden z dosyć częstych w NZ przypadków, w którym 15-letnia dziewczyna strasznie pobita przez cztery swoje szkolne koleżanki-huliganki zmuszona była zostawać w domu, podczas gdy sprawczynie pobicia mogły nadal chodzić do szkoły; [6b#J2.4] "Fleeing teens love thrill of chase: expert" (tj. "uciekające nastolatki uwielbiają podniecenie bycia ściganymi: ekspert") ze strony A2 nowozelandzkiej gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z piątku (Friday), January 7, 2011) - który powtarza wyjaśnienia eksperta że nowozelandzka młodzież lubi podniecenia bycia ściganymi przez policję; [6c#J2.4] "Armed teenager tries to rob diary" (tj. "Uzbrojony nastolatek stara się obrabować sklep") ze strony A7 gazety The Dominion Post (wydanie z poniedziałku (Monday), July 11, 2011) - który opisuje kolejny z całej epidemii przypadków gdy uzbrojeni z broń palną maoryscy nastolatkowie rabują sklepy i banki, czasami strzelając do ludzi; [7#J2.4] "Pupil bashes teacher unconscious in corridor attack" (tj. "uczeń pobił nauczyciela do nieprzytomności w ataku na korytarzu") ze strony A1 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie ze środy (Wednesday), June 15, 2011) - w którym raportowany jest jeden ze sporej liczby aktów agresji młodzieży nowozelandzkiej przeciwko swoim nauczycielom; [8a#J2.4] "Youth jobless a time bomb says business lobby group" (tj. "Bezrobotna młodzież jest bombą zegarową stwierdza grupa strategii byznesu") ze strony A3 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post (wydanie z piątku (Friday), May 6, 2011) - który napomina że w niektórych częściach kraju zasiłek dla bezrobotnych pobiera aż 27.5% młodzieży (artykuł ten NIE wyjaśnia jednak, że pracodawcy NIE chcą zatrudniac młodzieży z powodu jej arogancji, lenistwa i bezużyteczności w charakterze robotników); [8b#J2.4] "Youth unemployment hits crisis point in the north" (tj. "niezatrudnianie młodzieży osiągneło punkt kryzysu na północy") ze strony A10 nowozelandzkiej gazety Weekend Herald (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), June 11, 2011) - który alarmuje że już 29% młodzieży w wieku 18 do 24 lat z północnych części Nowej Zelandii żyje z zasiłku dla bezrobotnych (ciągle jednak atrykuł ten przemilcza sprawę powodów dla których pracodawcy NIE mają odwagi aby zatrudniać nowozelandzką młodzież); [8c#J2.4] " 'Expensive paperweight' fired after Facebook posts" (tj. " 'kosztowny przycisk do papieru' wyrzucony z pracy po poście w Facebook") ze strony A3 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post Weekend (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), December 18, 2010) - który opisuje jak jedna młoda Nowozelandka która zdołała znaleźć pracę została z niej wyrzucona ponieważ wyjaśniła w Facebook że jest "wysoce competentna w artyźmie marnowania czasu"; [8d#J2.4] "Let's embrace our grey-haird workers" (tj. "Przygarniajmy naszych srebrno-włosych robotników") ze strony A10 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z czwartku (Thursday), May 5, 2011) - w którym namawia się emerytów aby kontynuowali pracę (nie wyjaśnia się jednak że powodem tej potrzeby zatrudniania emerytów jest nieprzydatność młodzieży do wykonywania jakiejkolwiek użytecznej pracy); [9a#J2.4] "Female youth suicides highest in decade" (tj. "Samobójstwa młodych dziewcząt najwyższe od 10 lat") ze strony A9 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z wtorku (Tuesday), December 21, 2011) - który wyjaśnia że w 2008 było 497 samobójstw; [9b#J2.4] "String of suicides sparks law plea" (tj. "strumień samobójstw wzniecił apele o zmianę prawa") ze strony A3 nowozelandzkiej gazety Weekend Herald (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), May 21, 2011) - w którym m.in. omawiany jest apel aby rząd zniósł dotychczasowy zakaz publikowania danych o samobójstwach młodzieży; [9c#J2.4] "We can't bury our heads in the sand" (tj. "nie możemy chować naszych głó w piasek") ze strony A1 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post (wydanie ze środy (Wednesday), May 25, 2011) - który informuje że w tylko trochę ponad 4 milionowej Nowej Zelandii co roku popełnianych jest około 540 samobójstw; [9d#J2.4] "It's a delusion to think that banning discussion saves lives" (tj. "jest majaczeniem wierzenie że zakaz dyskutowania uratuje życie") ze strony A26 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post Weekend (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), May 28, 2011) - który dysputuje zakaz rządu Nowej Zelandii aby NIE publikować i NIE dyskutować samobójstw obywateli tego kraju. Innymi słowy, próby polityków Nowej Zelandii aby "bawić się w Boga" i "ustanowić zupełnie nowy rodzaj moralności" okazują się kompletną klapą która całkowicie rujnuje ów niegdyś wysoce moralny i zamożny kraj.
       Powyższe dosyć jednoznacznie uświadamia, że "niemoralni politycy i wypaczone mody przeminą, zaś my zostaniemy z takimi dziećmi jakie sobie wychowamy". Dlatego faktycznie rodzicom NIE wolno zważać na to co niemoralni politycy lub wypaczona moda stwierdzają na temat wychowania ich dzieci, a muszą moralnie kształtować swoją przyszłość dyscyplinując i wychowując swoje dzieci tak jak nakazuje im to Bóg za pośrednictwem Biblii.

#J2.5. Moralność robota:

       Moralność jest cechą NIE tylko ludzi, ale także i wszystkiego czemu ludzie nadają "życie". Stąd przykładowo, jeśli ludzie zbudują "roboty" - jak te opisane w artykule [1#J1] powyżej, albo zbudują "drony" (czyli bezpilotowe samoloty kierowane "sztuczną inteligencją"), owe roboty czy drony też będą wykazywały jakąś nadaną im przez ludzi formę "moralności". Wymóg Boga jest przy tym taki, że wszystko czemu ludzie nadają jakąś nową formę "życia", powinno wykazywać własną "moralność" która jest zgodna z nadrzędną moralnością daną ludziom przez Boga. Jeśli zaś ów wymóg "moralnej zgodności" NIE zostanie spełniony, wówczas można się spodziewać, że takie niemoralne ludzkie twory staną się źródłem wielu przyszłych problemów. (Stąd już obecnie biorą się "ostrzegające" ludzi filmy w rodzaju "Terminator", czy "ostrzegające kataklizmy" - jak te opisane w punkcie #B5 ze strony o nazwie seismograph.htm.)

#J2.6. Moralność psa lub innej żywej "maskotki":

       Jeśli ktokolwiek z nas posiada pasa lub jakąkolwiek inną żywą "maskotkę", wówczas jest odpowiedzialny za "moralność" którą przekazuje temu zwierzęciu. Przykładowo, przekazanie (wtresowanie) mu niewłaściwych zasad moralnych spowoduje, że pies ów zagryzie jakieś dziecko na ulicy, czy pogryzie sąsiada na jego ogrodzie. Za takie "niemoralne" czyny swoich maskotek, faktycznie odpowiedzialni są ich właściciele.

#J3. Obusieczne działanie moralności - tj. "jaką moralność zasiewasz, taką też będziesz zbierał":

       W punkcie #C4.4 tej strony opisane zostało tzw. "Prawo Bumerangu". Jednym z następstw działania tego prawa, a ściślej dzialania "karmy" którą prawo to zarządza, jest że "jakąkolwiek moralność sam zasiewasz, taką i będziesz zbierał". W faktyczne działanie tego prawa wcale NIE trzeba mi wierzyć na słowo, bowiem każdy może je sam sobie odnotować i sprawdzić na niezliczonych przykładach z rzeczywistego życia jakie bez przerwy mają miejsce wokół nas.

Part #K: Jakie następstwa dla naszej rzeczywistości wnosi definicja "moralności" wypracowana przez "totaliztyczną naukę" i wdrażana na niniejszej stronie:


#K1. Jeśli kogoś się kocha i szanuje, wówczas należy mówić mu "prawdę, całą prawdę i tylko prawdę":

       Wszakże 'postęp" NIE jest możliwy bez "poznania i szerzenia prawdy" '. Dlatego ujawniając całą prawdę temu kogo się kocha, faktycznie oddaje się mu wielką przysługę - na przekór że dzisiejsi ludzie typowo ani NIE lubią mówić prawdy, ani NIE lubią wysłuchiwać prawdy - wszakże zwykle prawda jest dosyć nieprzyjemna do wypowiedzenia i do usłyszenia. Tymczasem "prawda jest esencją moralności". Stąd mówiąc komuś prawdę stwarza mu się szansę aby udoskonalił swoje drogi i sposoby, a w ten sposób aby stał się znacznie lepszym człowiekiem. Szerzej wszystko to jest wyjaśnione w punkcie #F1 strony o nazwie totalizm.htm oraz w punkcie #P1 strony o nazwie quake.htm.
       Oczywiście, jednym z najważniejszych składowych owej "całej prawdy" którą mamy obowiązek mówić lub przekazywać tym których kochamy, jest właśnie prawda na temat "moralności" - ujawniana definicją "moralności" zaprezentowaną na niniejszej stronie, a także prawda na temat następstw jakie do naszego życia wnosi owa definicja.
       Wszyscy wiemy, że niezależnie od tzw. "intelektów indywidualnych" opisywanych w punkcie #F1 tej strony, niemal wszyscy z nas kochają także niektóre tzw. "intelekty grupowe" też opisywane w punkcie #F1 tej strony. Przykładowo, ja osobiście ogromnie kocham i szanuję (i wcale nie wstydzę się do tego przyznać) m.in. takie "intelekty grupowe" jak cała ludzkość - w tym szczególnie dwa kraje które ze zrozumiałych powodów są ogromnie miłe mojemu sercu, tj. Nową Zelandię oraz Polskę. To właśnie też z powodu swej miłości do owych intelektów grupowych czynię wszystko to co czynię, zawsze też szczególną uwagę przykładając do faktu, aby to co piszę lub mówię było całą prawdą wynikającą właśnie z tej miłości do nich. Wszakże głosząc konieczność mówienia prawdy i tylko prawdy, ma się też moralny obowiązek aby faktycznie mówić prawdę, całą prawdę i tylko prawdę.

#K2. Jeśli chce się aby nasz intelekt grupowy uniknął kar za niemoralne prowadzenie się, wówczas należy ujawniać prawdę o jego niedoskonałościach i błędach:

       Tylko bowiem ujawnianie prawdy pozwala aby błedy te i niedoskonałości zostały naprawione. Pytanie jednak które warto sobie zadać, to czy nasze postępowanie wobec ludzi którzy ujawniają prawdę faktycznie jest takie jakie być powinno - jak przykład rozważ losy założyciela "Wiki-Leaks", czy też losy bloggerów ujawniajacych prawdę.

#K3. Dlaczego mechanizmy rządzące "moralnością" nakazują przestrzeganie zasad "przedawnienia":

       Definicja "moralności" opisywana na tej stronie ujawnia również jeden istotny aspekt losów ludzkich, mianowicie że "w świecie rządzonym przez Boga każdego spotyka dokładnie taki los na jaki faktycznie zasługuje". Innymi słowy, jeśli ktoś przykładowo jest bogaty lub ma wspaniałą żonę czy dzieci, tak się dzieje tylko ponieważ faktycznie na to zasługuje. Jeśli zaś ktoś traci majątek lub pozostaje bezdzietnym, zaś uparcie zawodzą wszelkie jego wysiłki aby zmienić ten stan, wówczas również to oznacza, że na taki los zasługuje w/g praw i mechanizmów moralnych.
       Jeśli bowiem coś się traci w świecie rządzonym przez Boga, wówczas istnieć ku temu mogą tylko dwie przyczyny, mianowicie albo (1) Bóg poddaje tego kogoś "próbie" jaka ma na celu wykazanie się determinacją, uporem i aktywnością w osiąganiu swych celów, lub (2) z powodu niemoralnego życia ktoś ten w oczach Boga zupełnie NIE zasługuje aby to coś posiadać. W obu też tych przypadkach, jeśli dany ktoś włoży wszystko na co go stać w odzyskanie tego co utracił, jednak tego NIE odzyska w okresie swojego życia, wówczas to oznacza, że faktycznie NIE zasłużył sobie na posiadanie tego. Jeśli zaś ów ktoś NIE zasługuje na posiadanie tego czegoś, wówczas NIE ma też prawa aby to przekazać swoim potomkom. Jego potomkowie też więc NIE mają prawa aby wysuwać do tego jakiekolwiek roszczenia. Innymi słowy, w świetle działania mechanizmów moralności, zupełnie niesłuszne są czyjekolwiek żądania w rodzaju, "mój dziadek był właścicielem tego pałacu, jednak wojna mu go odebrała, więc jako jego potomek i spadkobierca obecnie ja chcę otrzymać ten pałac". Faktycznie bowiem jeśli ów dziadek stracił swój pałac i go NIE odzyskał ciągle za swego życia, wówczas jego potomkowie tracą do tego wszelkie prawa. We wszelkich więc stratach i zmianach właścicieli, zgodnie z definicją moralności obowiązuje tzw. "zasada przedawnienia". Zasada ta stwierdza, że jeśli ktoś stracił cokolwiek i NIE odzyskał tego ciągle w okresie swojego życia, wówczas jego potomkowie NIE mają już moralnego prawa aby wysuwać do tego jakiekolwiek roszczenia własności.
       Powyższe jest szczególnie aktualne w dzisiejszych wysoce materialistycznych czasach - kiedy to każdy rości prawa właśności do praktycznie wszystkiego o co tylko jego przodkowie otarli jakoś swoje portki. I tak przykładowo dzisiejsi Maorysi z Nowej Zelandii chcą otrzymać z powrotem niemal cały obszar owego kraju, bowiem około dwóch wieków temu europejscy osadnicy kupili od nich ową ziemię za bezcen - np. za muszkiety lub za butelki wódki (patrz też punkt #L2.2 poniżej). Zapominają przy tym że ich przodkowie też ziemię tą zrabowali od wcześniejszych plemion które na niej żyły zaś oni je pozjadali. Żydzi chcą z powrotem np. obrazy i dzieła sztuki które ich przodkowie utracili z powodu rabunku Hitlerowców. Zapominają przy tym że te same działa sztuki najpierw były wyłudzone za grosze od głodujących malarzy których potomkowie też mogliby teraz rościć podobne prawa do ich obecnej wartości. Wielu potomków przedwojennych Niemców chce z powrotem domy, ziemię, fabryki, a czasem nawet całe dzielnice Polski, które obecnie są własnością Polaków. Zapominają przy tym, że te same ziemie kiedyś odebrali Polakom którzy oryginalnie na nich mieszkali. Itd., itp.
       Łatwo wydedukować, że takie bazujące na historii roszczenia są sprzeczne z moralnym postępowaniem. Wszakże, przykładowo, ich faktycznym motywem jest zachłanność, a nie sprawiedliwość. Podobnie też jak każda forma zachłanności, nigdy NIE ulegną one nasyceniu. Jeśli bowiem jednym roszczeniom się zadośćuczyni, natychmiast pojawią się następne. Są też powodem poróżniania i dzielenia społeczeństwa na zwalczające się obozy. Faktycznie więc kraje które tolerują jakiekolwiek roszczenia własnościowe, z czasem całkiem tracą spójność narodową, narastają w nich sprzeczności i rozruchy, oraz zbliża się ich rozpad. Takie roszczenia są też sprzeczne z nakazem Boga aby wybaczać bliźnim. Ci co je wysuwają postępują więc niemoralnie - a stąd też będą ukarani przez Boga. Na dodatek, do każdej rzeczy która dziś jest wartościowa, takie właśnie roszczenia mogą też wysuwać potomkowie wszystkich uprzednich właścicieli tej rzeczy - każdy z nich powinien przecież mieć takie same prawa. Co jednak najgorsze, aby roszczeniom tym zadośćuczynić, konieczne okazuje się popełnianie kolejnej krzywdy niemoralnego wywłaszczenia obecnych właścicieli - większość z których nabyła to już moralnie i legalnie, oraz zainwestowała w to już znaczne ilości uczuć, sentymentów, pracy, wysiłku, itp. Stąd satysfakcjonowanie takich roszczeń bazujących na historii, jedynie eskaluje łańcuch niesprawiedliwości. Dawną historyczną krzywdę zastępuje ono dzisiejszymi krzywdami.
       Dla wszystkich kategorii historycznych roszczeń własnościowych, opisywana na tej stronie definicja moralności powtarzalnie wykazuje ich bezzasadność. Wszakże, zgodnie z tą definicją, to co się stało z czyimiś przodkami wynika z osądzenia przez wszechwiedzącego Boga, że albo właśnie na to oni zasługiwali, albo też że dla egzaminu czy próby należało ich poddać takim właśnie a nie innym kolejom ich losów. Skoro zaś owi przodkowie zakończyli już swoje życie, stan obecny jest stanem wynikającym z decyzji Boga i z działania mechanizmów moralności. Jako zaś taki, powinien on być akceptowany jako niepodważalny. Dlatego moim zdaniem jest też istotne, że prawodawstwa ludzkie zaczną bazować na opisywanej tutaj definicji moralności i wprowadzą "zasadę przedawnienia" również i do ludzkich praw własności. Wszakże, zgodnie z opisywaną tu definicją moralności, roszczenie własności do tego co ktoś utracił z dowolnych powodów, NIE może wykraczać poza okres życia osoby która poniosła daną stratę.

Część #L: Przykłady użycia opisywanej tutaj definicji "moralności" do kategoryzwania i oceny faktycznie zaszłych przypadków z rzeczywistego życia:


#L1. Problem dzisiejszych ludzi: "wierzą że wiedzą wszystko o moralności, jednak faktycznie to NIE potrafią wybrać moralnie poprawnego rozwiązania dla niemal żadnego codziennego problemu czy decyzji"

Motto: "Postępowanie 'moralne' ma tą cechę, że nikogo ono NIE krzywdzi ani nigdy NIE trzeba go potem korygować czy naprawiać."

       W punkcie #A1 tej strony już wspominałem, że w dzisiejszych czasach niemal każdy wierzy że wie już niemal wszystko na temat "moralności", a stąd NIE uważa za stosowne aby chociaż zerknąć na opracowania takie jak niniejsza strona. Wszakże niemal każdy uważa, że mu wystarczy dla "moralnego życia" to co zawarte w przykazaniach boskich i kościelnych, albo to co zobaczył w telewizji przy okazji najróżniejszych programów o wymowie moralnej. Tymczasem, jeśli to co ludzie faktycznie czynią w życiu przeanalizuje się z punktu widzenia standardów moranych, praw moralnych, oraz wskażników moralnie poprawnego postępowania (tj. tych wielkości które opisane są np. w podpunktach #C3.1 do #C4.5 tej strony), wówczas się okazuje, że ludzie NIE potrafią znajdować na codzień i potem wdrażać moralnie poprawnych rozwiązań dla nawet najmniej skomplikowanych problemów życiowych, ani NIE potrafią podjąć niemal żadnej moralnie poprawnej decyzji.
       Jeśli ktoś mi NIE wierzy iż ignorancja ludzka w sprawach "moralności" jest aż tak duża, wówczas proponuję mu aby albo sam rozwiązał poprawnie, albo też prosił jakiegoś "eksperyta" z etyki czy moralności (np. profesora filozofii, czy księdza) o wskazanie które jego zdaniem wyjścia, czy decyzje, są moralnie najbardziej poprawne w następujących przypadkach jakie dosyć dobrze oddają rodzaj dylematów moralnych wymagających codziennego rozwiązania przez dzisiejszych ludzi (a także aby poprosil owego "eksperta" o uzasadnienie "dlaczego" te właśnie wyjścia czy decyzje są poprawniejsze od innych). Jako przypadki dla takiego "przeegzaminowania" ludzkiej znajomości mechanizmów i zasad moralnych, proponuję użyć następujące sytuacje: (1) który model małżeński jest moralniejszy: jednożeństwo (monogamia) czy wielożeństwo (poligamia)? - odnotuj że moralnie prawidłowy wybór wskazuje już punkt #J2.2.2 powyżej, (2) jeśli masz jedno jabłko, to komu je dałbyś: babci czy dziecku?, (3) czy byłoby "moralnym" podwyższenie wieku emerytalnego np. do 70 lat po to aby wygospodarować budżet na rozdawanie mleka i bułek dzieciom w szkołach?, (4) czy zwiększanie podatków jest moralne czy niemoralne?, (5) czy wprowadzenie "najniższego dopuszczalnego zarobku" jest moralne czy niemoralne?, (6) czy wprowadzenie "najwyższego dopuszczalnego zarobku" jest moralne czy też niemoralne?, (7) czy zawód "prostytutki" jest bardziej niemoralny od stosunku seksualnego pomiędzy parą nieżonatych ludzi?, (8) czy użycie "kondonów" jest moralne czy niemoralne?, (9) jeśli biedny i głodny rolnik ma ostatni worek ziarna, to czy powinien wypiec z niego chleb, czy też obsiać nim swoje pole?, (10) czy będąc bezrobotnym wziąłbyś proponowaną ci posadę w wytwórni papierosów, czy też raczej wolałbyś wydać na przeżycie całe swoje oszczędności?, (11) jeśli przypadkowo odkryłbyś że przedsiębiorstwo w którym pracujesz bogaci się poprzez oszukiwanie, okradanie lub szpiegowanie innych (biednych) ludzi, to czy dałbyś jakoś o tym znać gazetom lub telewizji wiedząc że spowoduje to zlikwidowanie tego przedsiębiorstwa?, (12) gdybyś wiedział, że ujawnienie jakiejś ogromnie istotnej dla ludzkości prawdy którą znasz, z całą pewnością skieruje na ciebie furię bardzo mściwej i niebezpiecznej osoby przy władzy, która bezapelacyjnie albo pozbawi cię pracy, albo nawet spowoduje że padniesz ofiarą śmiertelnego wypadku, to czy ujawniłbyś czy też przemilczałbyś ową prawdę?, (13) gdyby za wypowiedzenie jakiejś prawdy która rozjuszyła kogoś bardzo wpływowego, stało się pewnym że musisz utracić swoją pracę, to czy sam szybko zrezygnowałbyś z zajmowanej pozycji, czy też odczekałbyś aż po jakimś czasie siłą usuną cię z pracy?, (14) jeśli nocą do sypialni w której spisz z żoną i dziećmi wpada z rykiem ogłupiony narkotykami bandyta wymachujący ostrym nożem, to czy bardziej moralne byłoby wezwanie policji, czy też natychmiastowe postrzelenie go bronią którą właśnie przy sobie posiadasz?, (15) czy jest moralnym wyprzedzenie wroga o którym wiesz że właśnie planuje napadnąć i obrabować twój dom, poprzez szybsze napadnięcie i pobicie go w jego własnym domu?, itd., itp. Warto przy tym odnotować, że jeśli do znalezienia moralnie najpoprawniejszego rozwiązania użyje się wskaźników moralnej poprawności oddanych nam do użytku przez filozofię totalizmu i opisywanych w podpunktach z #C4 tej strony, wówczas wskaźniki te dają nam całkowicie jednoznaczne odpowiedzi dla każdego z tych pytań i to w każdym układzie okoliczności. Wszakże najmoralniejsze rozwiązanie czy decyzja zawsze wyróżnia się tym wśród innych, że albo (a) "wspina się najstromiej pod górę pola moralnego", albo (b) "przysparza nam najwięcej energii moralnej", albo (c) "jest najbardziej zgodna z treścią znanych nam praw moralnych", albo też (d) "generuje nam karmę której zwrot chętnie i z przyjemnością sami potem przyjmiemy z powrotem". Te więc nasze rozwiązania lub decyzje, które w danym zbiorze alternatyw i okoliczności są wyróżniane jednym lub kilkoma z powyższych wskaźników (a) do (d), zawsze reprezentują moralnie najwłaściwsze postępowanie - po odpowiednie przykłady patrz podpunkty z #L2 tej strony, lub podpunkty #A2.1 do #A2.6 strony totalizm.htm.
       Decyzje o charakterze moralnym, podobne do tych wyszczególnionych w powyższych przykładach (1), (2), ... egzaminujących moralność "ekspertów", każdy z nas musi podejmować praktycznie niemal bez przerwy. Nie znając zaś działania mechanizmów moralnych, typowo ludzie wybierają i wdrażają to co "niemoralne" zamiast tego co "moralne". Zaś z wdrożeniem "niemoralności" jest poważny problem - mianowicie później zawsze musi ona być korygowana i naprawiana, podczas gdy w międzyczasie krzywdzi ona wielu ludzi. Dlatego jest ogromnie istotne aby ludzie nauczyli się wybierać i wdrażać tylko to co "moralne". "Moralne" bowiem NIE krzywdzi nikogo, zaś jego następstw nigdy NIE trzeba już potem korygować ani naprawiać. Z tych powodów w podpunktach niniejszej "części #L" wskażę dla rzeczywistych przypadków jakie faktycznie miały miejsce, która decyzja jest poprawna moralnie i "dlaczego" jest to właśnie ta a nie inna czy odwrotna.
       Dla opisywanych tu przypadków obowiązuje "typowy" przebieg "pola moralnego" (tj. typowe okoliczności). Chodzi bowiem o to, że w okolicznościach niektórych "nietypowych" przebiegów "pola moralnego", moralnie poprawne rozwiązanie mogłoby być tym odwrotnym niż przy przebiegach "typowych". Przykładowo, w typowym przebiegu pola moralnego nawet "biedny rolnik" posiada ziemię która rodzi zboże, a stąd jej obsianie jest moralnie poprawniejsze niż np. zjedzenie zboża przeznaczonego na zasiew (wszakże raz zjedzonego zboża "biedny rolnik" NIE może już odzyskać, zaś jeść może on też wiele innych rzeczy poza zbożem, np. w biedzie zjadać się daje lebiodę, pokrzywy, dżdżownice, a w czasach wojny w Polsce ludzie to nawet przypiekali muchy na ogniu i też je zjadali). Jeśli jednak rozważyć "nietypowe" okoliczności w których biedny rolnik mieszka np. na pustyni, gdzie panuje piasek - a nie gleba, oraz gdzie nic się NIE sieje, wówczas wysianie tam zboża byłoby jego marnowaniem - dlatego tam moralniejsze byłoby jego spożycie, a nie wysianie.

#L2. Faktycznie zaistniałe przykłady wyjaśniające jak wybrać najmoralniejszą alternatywę w najbardziej reprezentatywnych przypadkach podejmowania codziennych decyzji:

       Przykłady opisywane w podpunktach niniejszego punktu wybrane zostały z puli najbardziej moralnie reprezentacyjnych przypadków dyskutowanych często lub obszernie w prasie nowozelandzkiej. Jest aż kilka powodów dla takiego ich wyboru. Przykładowo, ich dyskutowanie w prasie oznacza, że jestem w stanie wskazać tutaj przykłady źródeł w których przykłady te były dyskutowane. W razie więc większego zainteresowania się którymś z nich, czytelnik może odnaleźć więcej pisanych informacji na jego temat. Proszę tu jednak odnotować, że ich zaistnienie na terenie Nowej Zelandii wcale NIE oznacza, że są one unikalne tylko dla tego kraju i że podobnych przypadków NIE da się znaleźć w żanym innym miejscu na świecie. Faktycznie bowiem są one wysoce reprezentacyjne dla całej naszej cywilizacji, zaś jedynym powodem dla którego wybrałem je z prasy Nowej Zelandii, jest że mam łatwy dostęp do prasy tego kraju, zaś NIE mam dostępu do prasy innych krajów. Oto więc owe przypadki:

#L2.1. Zagładzanie staruszków aby jeszcze bardziej rozpieszczać młodzież:

Motto: "Każdy kto wydłuża wiek emerytalny poza 60 lat bierze na swe sumienie aż dwa niemoralne następstwa, bowiem (1) powoduje niemoralną eksploatację staruszków, oraz (2) blokuje prawo młodzieży do zarobku i do miejsca pracy."

       Na stronie A21 gazety The New Zealand Herald (wydanie z piątku (Friday), July 8, 2011) ukazał się artykuł [1#L2.1] o tytule "Raise super age, doctors say, and spend up on kids" (tj. "Podwyszmy wiek emerytalny, stwierdzają lekarze, oraz wydajmy pieniądze na dzieci"). Bardzo podobny do niego artykuł [1b#L2.1] o tytule "Lift super age and spend money on kids - doctors" (tj. "Podnieść wiek emerytalny i wydać pieniądze na dzieci - lekarze") ukazał się też na stronie A17 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post Weekend (wydanie z soboty (Saturday), July 9, 2011). Oba one reprezentują kolejne przykłady całego szeregu artykułów "domorosłych moralistów" Nowej Zelandii, jacy terroryzują starsze pokolenie owego kraju groźbami, że wiek emerytalny zostanie wkrótce tam podwyższony do 70 lat, zaś staruszkowie owego kraju nagle zaczną głodować lub będą musieli poszukać sobie jakiejś pracy. Inne podobne artykuły opisuję np. w (1) z punktu #E1 strony o nazwie rok.htm, czy w #108 podrozdziału W4 w tomie 18 monografii [1/5]. Jeśli jednak sugestie zawarte w powyższym artykule [1#L2.1] przeanalizować z punktu widzenia zaprezentowanej na niniejszej stronie wiedzy o działaniu mechaznizmów moralnych, wówczas się okazuje że są one aż podwójnie "niemoralne". Wszakże po pierwsze nakazują one aby obedrzeć staruszków z prawa do emerytury i zmusić ich do pracy, po drugie zaś nakazują one aby dodatkowo rozpieszczać nowozelandzkie dzieci które i tak są już niesamowicie rozwydrzone i oderwane od rzeczywistości - patrz punkt #J2.4 powyżej na tej stronie. Powody "dlaczego" oba te posunięcia są wysoce "niemoralne" najlepiej ujawnia analiza co czynią one z "energią moralną" opisywaną w punkcie #C4.3 tej strony. Wszakże "moralne" jest tylko to co "generuje" i "przysparza" u ludzi ową energię, zaś wszystko co ją od ludzi "odbiera" lub "upuszcza" jest "niemoralne". I tak "pozbawianie" kogoś czegokolwiek, lub nawet tylko "groźba pozbawienia", jest już upuszczaniem owej energii moralnej. To dlatego pozbawianie staruszków prawa emerytury, lub choćby tylko postraszenie tym odebraniem, jest już wysoce "niemoralne". (Podobnie jak niemoralne jest np. postraszenie kogoś rabunkiem, pobiciem, pokaleczeniem, rozwodem, itp.) Na dodatek, jeśli staruszków pozbawi się prawa do emerytury, wówczas będą oni zmuszeni iść do pracy aby zarobić na chleb i życie. Liczba miejsc pracy jest zaś ograniczona - szczególnie w dzisiejszych czasach bezrobocia. Kiedy więc staruszkowie będą zmuszeni pracować, pozbawią oni prawa do pracy młodych ludzi - co dodatkowo odbierze dalsze ilości energii moranej od młodych ludzi. Już obecnie w Nowej Zelandii kontynuacja zatrudnienia przez tak zastraszanych starszych ludzi powyżej wieku 65 lat, powoduje że 27.5% młodzieży w wieku 15 do 19 lat nie ma tu zatrudnienia i zmuszone jest żyć z zasiłku dla bezrobotnych - patrz artykuł [2#L2.1] "Older workers seem hogging jobs" (tj. "starsi pracownicy blokują zatrudnienie") ze strony A3 nowezelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post (wydanie z czwartku (Thursday), July 7, 2011). Na dodatek do powyższego, "dawanie" czegokolwiek dzieciom też jest rządzone odpowiednimi prawami moralnymi - w szczególności prawem stwierdzającym, że "za wszystko czego się jeszcze nie zarobiło, a co się kiedykolwiek otrzymuje, przychodzi potem słony rachunek" (opisanym m.in. w podrozdziale I4.1.1 z tomu 5 monografii [1/5]. Stąd wydawanie na dzieci tego co odebrane staruszkom będzie kiedyś drogo kosztowało owe dzieci - jako zaś takie też jest postępowaniem "niemoralnym".
       Powyższe analizy uzasadniły "niemoralność" sugestii z artykułu [1#L21] na bazie wpływu jaki sugestie te miałyby na zachowania "energii moralnej". Jednak z tzw. "zasady jednomyślności" (opisanej powyżej w punkcie #D5) wynika, że do tych samych wniosków prowadzi też użycie innych wskaźników moralnego postępowania. Przykładowo, "pole moralne" stwierdza, że w typowych okolicznościach "podnoszenie wieku emerytalnego" i "wydawanie na dzieci", są działaniami najłatwiejszymi do dokonania, a stąd biegną one "w dół pola moralnego" czyli są "niemoralne". Warto tez odnotować, że zgodnie z tym co wyjasnia punkt #C8 strony o nazwie pigs.htm. ludzie powinni być odsyłani na emeryturę w wieku dokładnie 60 lat - stąd każde wydłużanie wieku emerytalnego ponad wiek 60 lat jest wysoce niemoralnym postępowaniem za jakie wydłużającym przyjdzie kiedyś słono zapłacić.

#L2.2. Następstwa niemoralnego rezygnowania samemu z pracy kiedy prawda którą się ujawniło "uraziła" kogoś wpływowego:

Motto: "Jeśli sam rezygnujesz z pracy aby uniknąć represji za mówienie prawdy (lub za czynienie czegoś moralnego), wówczas karzesz siebie podwójnie, bowiem (1) popełniasz niemoralny czyn na sobie samym za który będziesz potem ukarany przez mechanizmy moralne, oraz (2) odbierasz sobie prawo do moralnej nagrody przynależnej ofiarom represji za prawdę."

       Na stronie A2 nowozelandzkiej gazety The Dominion Post (wydanie z poniedziałku (Monday), July 11, 2011) ukazał się artykuł [1#L2.2] o tytule "Party of cowards says Ansell of ACT" (tj. "Partia tchórzy stwierdził Ansell o ACT"). W tym interesującym artykule zawarta jest m.in. informacja, że były dyrektor marketingowy nowozelandzkiej partii politycznej o nazwie ACT zmuszony został aby się sam zwolnił z zajmowanego stanowiska ponieważ gdzieś tam wyraził się o rodzimej ludności Nowej Zelandii zwanej "Maorysami", że, cytuję w moim własnym tlumaczeniu: Maorysi "zostali przeniesieni z wieku kamienia łupanego do wieku podboju kosmosu w przeciągu 150 lat i nie powiedzieli dziękuję" (w oryginale angielskojęzycznym: Maori "have gone from the stone age to the space age in 150 years and haven't said thanks"). Problem polega na tym, że stwierdzenie to jest prawdą. Faktycznie bowiem, zanim Europejczycy około 1840 roku podjęli kolonizację obecnej Nowej Zelandii, zamieszkający tam Maorysi NIE znali metali ani wyrobów ceramicznych, zaś dla przetrwania ciągle czasami uprawiali ludożerstwo - tak jak wyjaśnia to strona o nazwie newzealand_visit.htm. Nic dziwnego, że kiedy przybyli do nich pierwsi europejscy osadnicy, mogli kupić od Maorysów duże połacie ziemi za jeden muszkiet czy za butelkę wódki. Teraz jednak potomkowie tamtych Maorysów NIE tylko że chcą ową ziemię odebrać z powrotem, ale dodatkowo wysuwają dziesiątki innych żądań i oskarżeń. Nic dziwnego, że współżycie z nimi staje się coraz bardziej napięte, zaś niektórzy dzisiejsi potomkowie europejskich osadników przypominają prawdy takie jak ta zacytowana powyżej. Niestety, za wypowiadanie takiej prawdy, są oni ciężko karani przez pro-maoryskich polityków. Lokalna zaś tradycja jest taka, że jeśli ktoś się narazi komuś wpływowemu, wówczas otrzymuje dwie alternatywy, mianowicie "albo sam zrezygnujesz z zajmowanej posady, albo też my cię wyrzucimy z pracy" (do owych alternatyw zwykle dodawane jest też kilka dalszych szczegółów, jak np. że "jeśli my cię wyrzucimy z pracy, wówczas będziesz miał trudności ze znalezieniem następnej, zaś jeśli sam zrezygnujesz, wówczas my ci dorzucimy sporą pożegnalną sumkę"). W opisywanym tutaj przypadku ów dyrektor marketingowy zdecydował się widać sam zrezygnować.
       Istnieje jednak poważny problem moralny jaki wiąże się z powyższymi "alternatywami". Mianowicie, kiedy takie osoby mówiące prawdę są konfrontowani z naciskami aby zrezygnowały z zajmowanej posady, to czy faktycznie powinny one wówczas same rezygnować, czy też raczej odczekać aż ich przełożeni wyrzucą ich siłą z pracy. Moralne ustalenia filozofii totalizmu opisywane na niniejszej stronie nakazują, że w typowych okolicznościach w żadnym wypadku NIE powinni oni sami rezygnować, a odczekać aż ich przełożeni ich siłą usuną z zajmowanego stanowiska - tak jak to uczynił dyrektor EMA opisany w punkcie #J2.2.1 tej strony. Powodem jest, że każda utrata pracy wywołuje znaczącą stratę "energii moralnej". Stąd osoba która powoduje tą utratę energii moralnej popełnia "niemoralny czyn" - nawet jeśli to ona sama zwolni siebie z pracy. Każdy zaś niemoralny czyn jest potem karany przez Boga - w tym przypadku za to że po "pierwszej wymianie ognia" ktoś taki NIE walczy już dalej aktywnie o wypowiadaną przez siebie prawdę, a pasywnie daje wygrać wrogom tej prawdy. Dlatego mechanizmy moralne nakazują, że zamiast samemu popełniać niemoralny czyn zwolnienia siebie z pracy, takie mówiące prawdę osoby powinny odczekać aż ktoś inny popełni ten niemoralny czyn na nich - zaś w międzyczasie nadal walczyć aktywnie o daną prawdę. W takim bowiem przypadku ten ktoś inny będzie potem surowo ukarany przez Boga - co m.in. pozwoli aby "wytłumiacze" danej prawdy otrzymali kiedyś wymagany "zwrot karmatyczny" zaś sprawiedliwość została przywrócona. Na dodatek, każdy kto zostaje usunięty siłą z pracy za głoszenie prawdy, automatycznie staje się rodzjem "martyra" - za co w przyszłości oczekuje go znacząca nagroda od mechanizmów moralnych. Taka nagroda NIE czeka jednak na tych co dali za wygraną w sprawie tej prawdy i sami zrezygnowali z pracy.

Part #M: Dlaczego warto naukowo poznawać naszego Boga:


#M1. Jeśli naprawdę kocha się swego Boga, wówczas chce się naukowo i obiektywnie poznać całą prawdę na Jego temat:

       Jest tylko jedna droga do wyrażenia naszej miłości do Boga. Polega ona na obiektywnym i naukowym poznawaniu wszytkiego na Jego temat. Wszakże jeśli kogoś naprawdę się kocha, wówczas chce się wiedzieć cała prawdę na jego temat. Więcej informacji na temat związku pomiędzy miłością do naszego Boga, a potrzebą obiektywnego poznawania całej prawdy na Jego temat, zaiera m.in. punkt #F1 na stronie o nazwie totalizm.htm.

#M2. Tylko naukowe i obiektywne poznanie całej prawdy o naszym Bogu pozwoli ludzkości żyć w szczęściu, zasobności i harmonii:

       Jeśli poznamy prawdę o Bogu, wówczas będziemy mogli mu służyć lepiej niż dotychczas. To zaś, zgodnie z zasadą omówioną w punktach #C4.4 i #J2 - że "tak jak my traktujemy Boga, tak samo Bóg potraktuje nas zwrotnie", będzie powodowało że Bóg pozwoli w końcu ludzkości żyć w szczęściu, zasobności i harmonii.
       Oczywiście, poszukiwanie i ujawnianie prawdy musi także obejmować całą prawdę na naszym Bogu. Tylko bowiem kiedy faktycznie poznany naszego Boga, wówczas jesteśmy w stanie właściwie z nim współżyć i spełniać jego nakazy i wymogi. Dobrze więc zadać sobie pytanie, czy np. znane nam religie faktycznie szukają i ujawniają prawdę na temat Boga.

Part #N: Droga do prawdy o Bogu wiedzie przez oficjalne uznanie i ustanowienie "nauki totaliztycznej":


#N1. Jeśli chce się postępu ludzkości, koniecznie trzeba oficjalnie ustanowić drugą (konkurencyjną do monopolu) instytucję "nauki totaliztycznej":

       Szerzej jest to wyjaśnione w punkcie #A2.6 strony o nazwie totalizm.htm, oraz w punkcie #C1 strony o nazwie telekinetics.htm.

#N2. Skoro nawet będąc prześladowaną i bez żadnego finansowania "nauka totaliztyczna" zdołała już wypracować aż tak ogromny dorobek, jakiż ogromny postęp by ona wniosła do ludzkości gdyby uzyskała oficjalne uznanie i finansowanie na badania:

       Nowa "nauka totaliztyczna" ciągle działa w warunkach jakby "konspiracji", kiedy jest prześladowana na wszelkie możliwe sposoby przez broniącą swego "monopolu na wiedzę" dtychczasową "ateistyczną naukę ortodoksyjną". Na przekór tego ta nowa nauka na już ogromny dorobek, którego dowodem są wszystkie już rozpracowanie tematy opisane m.in. na stronie o nazwie skorowidz.htm.

Part #O: Summary, and the final information of this web page:


#O1. The summary of this web page - means benefits which result from learning an objective truth about "morality" (e.g. allowing people to defend themselves against ill fates and disasters, confirmation of the need for an official establishing the new "totaliztic science", another proof for the existence of God, more happy and fulfilled life, etc.):

Motto: "The new 'totaliztic science' merges the ‘pursue of knowledge’ with the ‘love to God’."

       In present times we all work in categories of "investments" and "returns". In turn when we extrapolate these categories to our lives, then it turns out that our most vital life "investment" which in the lowest "costs" of efforts and inconvenience on our part brings to us the highest "returns" of benefits, is just "morality" described on this web page - which the "atheistic orthodox science" to-date taught us to chronically ignore and unappreciated.

#O2. How with the web page named "skorowidz_links.htm" one can find totaliztic descriptions of topics in which he is interested:

       A whole array of topics equally interesting as these from the above web page, is also discussed from the angle that is unique to the philosophy of totalizm. All these related topics can be found and identified with the use of content index prepared especially to make easier finding these web pages and topics. The name "index" means a list of "key words" usually provided at the end of textbooks, which allows to find fast the description or the topic in which we are interested. My web pages also has such a content "index" - only that it is additionally supplied in green links which after "clicking" at them with a mouse immediately open the web page with the topic that interest the reader. This content "index" is provided on the web page named skorowidz_links.htm. It can be called from the "organising" part of "Menu 1" of every totaliztic web page. I would recommend to look at it and to begin using it systematically - after all it brings closer hundreds of totaliztic topics which can be of interest to everyone.

#O3. Blogs of totalizm:

       It is also worth to check periodically the blog of totalizm, available under the address: totalizm.wordpress.com (with a mirror copy available under the address totalizm.blox.pl/html). On this blog many matters discussed here are also explained with additional details written as new events unveil before our eyes.

#O4. Internet discussions on topic presented here:

       Links to internet forums that discuss selected topics presented on this web page are provided in item #E2 from a different web page named faq.htm.

#O5. Emails and contact details to the author of this web page:

       Current email addresses to the author of this web page, i.e. officially to Dr Eng. Jan Pajak while courteously to Prof. Dr Eng. Jan Pajak, at which readers can post possible comments, inquiries, or replies to questions which I ask on my web pages, are provided on the web page about me (Dr Eng. Jan Pajak). That page also provides other commonly used contact details to the author.
       The author's right for the use of courteous title of "Professor" stems from the custom that "with professors is like with generals", namely when someone is once a professor, than he or she courteously remains a professor forever. In turn the author of this web page was a professor at 4 different universities, i.e. at 3 of them, from 1 September 1992 untill 31 October 1998, as an "Associate Professor" from English-based educational system, while on one university as a (Full) "Professor" (since 1 March 2007 till 31 December 2007 - means at the last place of employment in his professional life).
       However, please notice that because of my rather chronic lack of time, I reluctantly reply to emails which contain JUST time consuming requests, while simultaneously they document a complete ignorance of their author in the topic area which I am researching. Therefore, if the reader sends a request to me, I suggest to let me know somehow that he or she actually went through the trouble of reading my web pages and learning what these pages try to say.

#O6. Copyrights © 2012 by Dr Jan Pajak:

       Copyrights © 2012 by Dr Jan Pajak. All rights reserved. This web page is a report from outcomes of research of the author - only that is written in a popular language (so that it can be understood by readers with non-scientific orientation). Ideas presented on this web page (and also in other publications by the author) are unique for the author’s research, and thus from the same angle these ideas were NOT presented by any other researcher. As such, this web page presents ideas which are the intellectual property of the author. Therefore, the content of this web page is the subject to the same laws of intellectual ownership as every other scientific publication. Especially the author reserves for himself the credit-rights for the scientific discoveries and inventions described on this web page. Therefore, the author reserves that during repeating any idea presented on this web page (i.e. any theory, principle, deduction, interpretation, device, evidence, proof, etc.), the repeating person gives a full credit to the author of this web page, through clearly explaining that the author of a given idea is Dr Jan Pajak, through indicating the internet address of this web page under which this idea was published, and through mentioning the date of most recent update of this web page (i.e. the date indicated below).
* * *
If you prefer to read in Polish
click on the Polish flag below

(Jeśli preferujesz czytanie w języku polskim
kliknij na poniższą flagę)

Date of starting the previous (first) version of this web page: 27 March 2004
Date of starting the present version of this web page: 25 May 2011
Date of the latest updating of this page: 12 December 2012
(Check in "Menu 3" whether there is even a more recent update!)