"Morality" in "a priori" interpretation of the "totaliztic science"
(multilingual, e.g. in English ,
Polish , etc.)
(Parts of this web page are still to be translated into English)
Updated:
15 November 2014
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.
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:
(The same list can also be displayed
from "Menu 1" by clicking
Menu 2.)
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:
(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 "discreetly" 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 "discreet" 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 discreetly hints
us which our 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 of "moral correctness"
and "morally correct conduct" so-far could NOT
be detected nor described by neither religions
nor by the old "atheistic orthodox science" to-date
(i.e. by the science we still must learn in schools
and at universities), and thus that it was necessary
to create the
philosophy of totalizm
and the new "totaliztic science" in order to reveal
these indicators to people and made them available
for the use of general public. These indicators take
on particular importance in the light of the
principle of "survival of
the most moral" discovered only in 2012,
which may also be named the principle of
"extinction of the most immoral intellects",
and which is described in more detail, among others,
in items #G1 to #G7 from the page named
will.htm,
item #B1 from the web page named
changelings.htm
or item #A2.7 from the web page named
totalizm.htm.
This principle reveals to us the fact, that for people
who do NOT act morally, God shortens their life
and causes their premature deaths at ages that
are proportional to the assessed by God harm
that their immorality causes against God's goals
and intentions. Therefore below we will briefly
review the most important amongst these indicators:
#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 (i.e. affecting our minds). The action
of it is quite similar to the action of gravity
onto objects suspended in midair (e.g. on
birds). The moral field has this feature, that
everything that we do in our life, either climbs
us uphill, or slides us down in it. Namely,
everything that is
moral requires from us a laborious and difficult
climbing uphill in the moral field.
In contrast, everything
that is immoral causes our effortless and
pleasant sliding down in the moral field.
It is because of just such work of the moral field
that really is true that popular saying which states
"everything enjoyable
in life is either immoral, illegal, or makes us fat" -
i.e. the saying usually attributed to Dorothy Parker
(this saying is highlighted in the "instruction of use"
from my web page named
p_e.htm
which provides "playlists" of videos with totaliztic songs).
Because of the capability of the moral field to
"dynamically shift us back", in this field one always
needs to put continuous effort and work NOT only
when one wants to climb higher, but even when
one wants to just 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 back and 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 the 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.)
A more comprehensive explanation, as to what
actually is that "moral field" (and also what is the
"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].
In turn, the graphical illustration of the work of
moral field in four most typical life situations, is
provided on "Fig. #I1" from my web page named
pajak_for_mp_2014.htm.
#C4.2.1.
The "principle of contradiction of the short-term
and long-term effects of the work of moral field" -
that acts as an excellent "indicator of moral correctness":
Moral field is the primary field very similar to the
gravity field - only that instead on the physical
masses, it acts on our minds. However, the work
of moral field slightly differs from the work of
gravity. The point is that gravity works much
approximately in the same way in both a short-term
and in the long-term. On the other hand, the
moral field always in the long-term works completely
contrary to its own work in the short-term. Namely,
doing what is morally correct always in the short-term
requires to overcome a clear and significant resistance
of the moral field. So in a short-term the moral field
works as if it tries to "punish" those people who do
whatever is morally correct. However,
in its long-term work the moral
field always reverses the kind of its work when compared
to how it worked in the short-term. Thus,
e.g. towards the people who worked morally and hence
whom in the short-term this moral like tried to "punish",
in the long-term work the moral
field always adds its "prize" to the fruits of actions of these
people, who in a given matter acted morally correct.
At the same time, towards the people who in a given matter
acted immorally and hence whom in the short term the moral
field as if tried to "help" by making their life and work easy
and pleasant, in the long-term
the moral field always severely "punishes" for previous immoral
acting, by invalidating everything that has been achieved
in the short-term with the help of the moral field for the
previous immoral actions in a given matter, and additionally
by escalating further the problems that this immoral action
supposed to solve. This principle of moral field
work is called the "principle of contradiction
of the short-term and of the long-term effects in the moral
field work". The detailed description of it, together
with examples of its work drawn from the real life, is provided
in item #J1 from the web page named
pajak_for_mp_2014.htm.
Consequences of the abovementioned "principle
of contradiction in the short-term and in the long-term
effects in the moral field work" are so repetitive and
so decisive, that they can be utilised as yet another
perfect "indicator of the moral correctness".
This is because, for example, if
we notice that whatever we just are doing is met with a
significant resistance from the "moral field", then this
means, that our action is morally correct and thus if we
only feel that we are able to overcome such resistance
then we should persist in the continuation of this our
action. True is also an opposite situation.
Therefore when we notice,
that whatever we just are doing is easy and pleasurable,
means that it does NOT encounter clear resistance from
the "moral field", then this practically means that our
action is immoral and thus for our own good we should
abandon it. For an example of the use of this
principle as an effective "indicator of the moral correctness"
see items #A1, #B5 and #F3 from my page named
solar.htm.
Because of the principle discussed here, all the human
conducts that are immoral, are pleasant and easy
only in a short-term. In turn, in long-term effects,
they always turn out to be unpleasant and inducing
problems and evil. For example, all immoral decisions
in a short-term are fun and easy to implement, and
seemingly they look as if they solved the problem
for which they were taken. However, in long-term
effects they always turn out, that they never solved the
problem for which they were taken, and in addition they
escalated this problem. As an example consider the long-term
consequences of the introduction of antibiotics and
pesticides into common use, or the introduction of the
theory of relativity to the official education - analysed
and described in item #J1 of the abovementioned web page named
pajak_for_mp_2014.htm,
or consider the long-term consequences of today's
introduction of the "battery-deprived" solar
systems for the domestic generation of electricity from
the energy of sunlight - described in items #A1, #B5
and #F3 of the abovementioned web page named
solar.htm.
#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.
Their content provided e.g. in item #A1 from two web page named
quake.htm and
seismograph.htm.
In turn explanations of the reason of their issuing
by God are provided in item #B1.1 from the web page named
antichrist.htm.
One amongst the best formulations of such warning
is provided 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 spite of the apparent simplicity of the above warning,
in fact its work is immensely wise and far-sighted.
On one hand it allows people the earning of a wide range
of life experiences, which later are useful for them
in their role of "soldiers of God" (described
more comprehensively in item #B1.1 from the web page
antichrist.htm).
On the other hand it guarantees that the humanity
continually moves in the direction from "immorality"
towards increasingly moral behaviours.
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 discreetly 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]): 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 discreetly 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.
In turn an example of probable reaction of God
to the official approval of homosexuality is documented
in in item #I3.1 from the web page named
petone.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 - as
explained in item #B5.1 from the web page named
will.htm
and in item #F3 from the web page named
wszewilki_uk.htm.
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,
while documents (with examples known to me
from reali life) item #G1 from the web page named
will.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
subjected to the recomended by God so-called
"principle of of reversals",
menas, must be frequently 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:
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.
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,
opinions, descriptions, or information which in
their opinion I should learn, are provided on the web page named
pajak_jan_uk.htm
(for its version in the HTML language), or the web page named
pajak_jan_uk.pdf
(for the version of the web page "pajak_jan_uk.pdf"
in safe PDF format - which safe PDF versions
of further web pages by the author can also be
downloaded via links from item #B1 of the web page named
text_11.htm).
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.
This web page is also available in the form
of a brochure marked [11], which
is prepared in "PDF" ("Portable Document
Format") - currently considered to be the
most safe amongst all internet formats, as
normally viruses cannot cling to PDF. This
clear brochure is ready both, for printing,
as well as for reading from a computer
screen. It also has all its
green links
still active. Thus, if it is read from the computer
screen connected to internet, then after clicking
onto these green links, the linked web pages
and illustrations will open. Unfortunately, because
the volume of it is around a double of the volume
of web page which this brochure publishes,
the memory limitations on a significant number
of free servers which I use, do NOT allow to
offer it from them (so if it does NOT download
from this address, because it is NOT available
on this server, then you should click onto any
other address from
Menu 3,
and then check whether in there it is available).
In order to open this brochure (and/or download
it to own computer), it suffices to either click on
the following green link
or to open from any totaliztic web site the
PDF file named as in the above green link.
If the reader wishes to check, whether some other
totaliztic web page which he or she just is studying,
is also available in the form of such PDF brochure,
then should check whether it is listed amongst links
from "part #B" of the web page named
text_11.htm.
This is because links from there indicate all totaliztic
web pages, which are already published as such
brochures from series [11] in PDF format.
I wish you a fruitful reading!
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: 15 November 2014
(Check in "Menu 3" whether there is even a more recent update!)
![Fig. #C1 (A1 in [1/5])](15/15_a1.jpg)