Tag Archives: Humandynamics

History, Human Morality, Nature, Society

Does Good always prevail in the end? The nature and future of Humanism.

1 Comment

A little munchkin
came to his father and asked,
‘What is good and what is bad?’
V. Mayakovsky

I heard on the news recently that American human rights organisations are accusing Donald Trump of inciting racism, xenophobia and discrimination in his speeches, and that Trump is strongly denying these accusations.

Then I began to wonder… why is Trump justifying himself? Why does not he openly declare that he supports such views? For America is a free country, where every individual has the right to hold their own opinion.

  • Why do politicians always defend themselves with claims that they have been misunderstood whenever they begin to reveal their unorthodox beliefs?  Why did Hitler and Stalin initially present themselves as peace lovers? Then, only once they neared the peak of power in their countries, openly declare that certain people have the right to enact violence against others, from Aryan to non-Aryan in the former, and Communist to non-Communist in the latter?
  • When and why did widely (though not universally) accepted notions of Good and Evil emerge on Earth?
  • Why is it good to feed the hungry, save the drowning and protect the downtrodden, but evil to steal, rape and kill?

These are serious questions. It is no secret that members of the criminal world choose the opposite morality. Moreover, a small criminal world is nothing in light of the fact that almost entire nations could easily switch their beliefs to those of a criminal nature and devastate the lives of tens of millions, as we saw in the Communist Soviet Union and China as well as in Nazi Germany.

  • Could we see a repeat of Communism or Nazism in the world?
  • Why is it that people in ancient societies allowed cannibalism and human sacrifice to flourish, yet in today’s society we worry about the imminent disappearance of some rare animal?

In this article, we show that the advancement of human society towards humanism was brought about not by the mysterious forces within us (as Immanuel Kant would have us believe), nor by the influence of some divine being from above (take any religion), but on account of two very clear, simple reasons:

  1. The expectation of an evil response to a show of evil.
  2. In the long term, there is an obvious benefit to humanistic rather than aggressive relationships between individuals and human societies.

Unfortunately, this benefit only becomes obvious to the majority of people after the next man-made humanitarian crisis. In other words, the humanistic ethic always makes a positive step forward a posteriori.

We will also show that the driving force behind both these reasons is the Law of Gene Preservation, Freedom of Choice and Humandynamics (see “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer“). We will demonstrate this using numerous examples.

For almost three million years, 99% of the duration of its existence, human life differed little from the life of other living creatures on Earth. That is, just like animals, humans lived motivated only by the Law of Gene Preservation. There is no need to speak of humanity having any kind of morality during this period.

But relatively recently, just a few tens of thousands of years ago, the first signs appeared that humankind had something resembling the expansion of the freedom of choice. Humanity began to domesticate useful wild animals and cultivate nutritional wild plants.

The nature of community life and shared livelihood must have facilitated the origin of the rudiments of morality. Yet it is unlikely that at that time this looked anything like what we call humanist ethics today.

It is hard to imagine a primitive father wearing a mammoth skin instructing his offspring, also in mammoth skins: “Do not hit the boy from the next-door cave. Don’t take his sweet bone from him! It’s bad, it’s not humanist.” Even these words are unlikely to have existed then.

I imagine the lesson of such a father to be more like this: “If you want to take something from another boy, then choose someone weaker than yourself. A stronger one will beat you. And don’t forget to look carefully to check that the boy’s father is not around and won’t come running up to you screaming and rip your head off. “

If this were to happen today, people would accuse the father of providing his son with an immoral upbringing. Yet how else could the father have acted, if for millions of years the human being was just a link in the natural food chain, and not even at the top of the chain? Humans hunted animals weaker than themselves and were in turn hunted by those stronger than themselves.

The father taught his child to behave as adults behaved. And if the father did ever teach his son to restrain his aggression, then it would only be for the purpose of protecting the child from retaliatory aggression. In the end, this would be because he was striving to preserve his genes in the best way possible.

Naturally, tribal chiefs and later czars and kings, along with the aristocracy, enjoyed enormous privileges. This gave them incomparable advantages (material and otherwise) in the task of preserving their own genes in comparison with the rest of the population mass.

It is totally understandable that they should have educated the tribes and peoples subordinate to them in a morality that enshrined those privileges, and that they should create and instil myths about the divine right of kings calling others to serve their interests without a murmur of objection.

This kind of hierarchical community has reached the present day with similar myths enshrined in the constitutions of some countries. Even in the recent past, advantages in the matter of gene preservation existed in the “right of the first night” in feudal societies and may still very likely exist in isolated primitive tribes in the jungles of the Amazon.

The existing right of polygamy among wealthy citizens in Muslim countries also secures this advantage.

It seems to me that if it were not for the problem of the human resource, tribal chiefs in ancient times would have ensured themselves the sole right of reproduction, as dominant males do in the animal world.

  • Why is it that today we increasingly hear calls for tolerance towards all society’s minority groups, at least towards those that are not a threat to others?
  • Why are all these changes taking place in human society moving in one and the same direction? From a racial society to a non-racial society, from a class system to a classless system, from gender inequality to gender equality, from intolerance to tolerance?
  • What mechanism is the driving force behind these changes and where does this mechanism find its energy?

We all know that primitive tribes still exist, which openly profess the ideology of war. But whereas Sparta, the first fascist state known to us in history, did this openly, the Communist Soviet Union led by Stalin, and Nazi Germany led by Hitler, armed with aggressive ideologies, demagogically presented themselves as peace-loving states and sought far-fetched grounds for their aggressive actions.

And whereas until very recently by historical standards, prior to the onset of the twentieth century, women enjoyed a lower social status than men in the US and the majority of developed European countries, today even Islamic countries are, one by one, legally consolidating gender equality in their constitutions. That said, full gender equality has not yet been achieved in any country in the world.

There were open outbreaks of racism in the United States right up into the 1960s, and yet today, just half a century later, it is the United States that places such high demands on public observance of racial political correctness.

There are fewer and fewer states in the world remaining where class division is legitimate and where kings and aristocrats are endowed with legal privileges.

  • So what is happening on the planet?  And why is it happening
  • Surely men the world over haven’t suddenly become so wise and mellow that they simply decided to give women equal rights
  • Could it be that the white people of America and South Africa suddenly became so wise and mellow that they decided to give black citizens equal rights?
  • Surely the aristocracy did not voluntarily give up their privileges?

In order to answer these questions, we must return to the example of the stone age father and son mentioned earlier in this article.

In bringing up his son, the father emphasises the fact that any aggression will always be answered by aggression and not only in the case of murder. Any infringement, inflicted pain or insult evoked a thirst for revenge and often turned into a bloody feud that lasted for many generations. All subsequent human history is witness to this fact.

Of course, no one has ever voluntarily renounced their privileges and advantages. And it is only the confidence that resides in every oppressed person that they have been given exactly the same right to Gene Preservation as anyone else, that has lifted up humanity and given the oppressed the strength to engage in the fiercest of  struggles for this right and all the natural rights to life that result from it – their own and that of their children; the right to provide them with housing, food and health, together with all the social rights of today’s world.

Any oppression, any infringement of this most natural human right necessarily evokes a reciprocal reaction.

It was not that men gave women equal rights. It was that women fought a long, hard, exhausting battle to win these rights, subjecting themselves to cruel acts of persecution and even imprisonment. The feminist movements and the suffragettes who have shaken the Western world in recent centuries are a perfect illustration of this.

It was not that the metropolises granted independence to the peoples of their colonies in Asia and Africa. It was the insurgent peoples, who won the right to dignified Gene Preservation in the terrible anti-colonial wars of the 20th century, sacrificing at the altar of freedom millions of lives of their best representatives.

Never have the hereditary, ruling, aristocratic classes voluntarily refused their privileged rights to an unequal portion of income generated from labour in society as a whole. The abolition of privilege has always resulted from bloody revolution. World history is witness to this fact.

The abolition of slavery in the USA and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa were no gift from white citizens to their fellow black citizens. Change would have been impossible without the desperate, ferocious, sacrificial struggle of the black population for equal rights.

At some point, the simple truth dawned on Man, that you cannot safely preserve your genes by means of oppressing others. Human beings began to understand that we must look for other ways to preserve our genes, without forcibly denying this opportunity to others.

In this process, the deciding role was played by Freedom of Choice, something endowed exclusively to human beings. It is specifically Freedom of Choice, the force which enabled ancient man to domesticate animals, master agriculture and exchange goods with neighbours, that brought about the understanding that in the long run, the absence of oppression secures a more reliable means of feeding oneself and preserving one’s genes than denying the same to one’s neighbour, and this means is particularly reliable if one’s neighbour understands this also.

Here we turn again to the ancient world. Time passed. The vital necessity, which today we call globalisation, forced people to unite into ever more sizeable communities, motivated by the need for collective hunting methods and collective protection of land boundaries.

With the shared living space of large communities, strict containment of aggression became a requirement and so now parents began to teach their children the skills necessary for this type of cohabitation without referring to the other party’s possible response.

Gradually, the original reasons for the former style of upbringing were forgotten and the teaching of tolerance, at least in relation to members of one’s own tribe, became mandatory.

This is how the first humanist skills were born. Later, this type of education was called humanistic, and those who professed it unconditionally, humanists.

Today, humanism is consolidated in society in the form of Human Rights and countries with governments built on the priority of human rights, are referred to as human rights states. No-one would argue that these countries primarily include Europe and North America, where not only human rights are respected but animal rights as well.

Has it always been this way? No!

In the fifteenth and sixteenth century, Europeans began a series of colonial acquisitions, which in fact began with the crusades of the eleventh to the fifteenth century. These colonial acquisitions were marked by a particular cruelty formerly unknown to Man, and the mass genocide of native peoples which, according to various estimates, led to the annihilation of hundreds of millions of the indigenous peoples of Asia, Africa and America.

It should be noted that these shocking figures had little impact on European consciousness despite, weak, lonely protests from the voices of European humanists.

Only two world wars later, in which the Europeans themselves lost millions of lives, and after the bloody wars of independence waged by the colonial peoples, that the voice of the humanists sounded loud enough to reach the level of national governments and newly formed international organisations.

But it was neither the losses of the anti-colonial wars, nor the massive anti-war protests which undoubtedly raised the bar of humanism to unprecedented heights, that played the decisive role in metropolitan countries freeing their colonies.

The truly decisive role in this process was played by the unprecedented development of technology and resultant, buoyant economic growth brought about in part by the high levels of Freedom of Choice achieved by this time in Western countries.

Finally, Western rulers realised that it was much more beneficial to develop science, technology and competition, thereby supporting advanced economic development, than to constantly deal with problems of uprisings in the colonies, as well as mass anti-war and anti-colonial protests at home.

They realised that it was much more beneficial to produce high-tech goods that could be sold to third world countries, than to live with the constant risks associated with plundering their resources.

Incidentally, as a point in case, the colonies were freed strictly in the order of the level of Freedom of Choice existing in the corresponding metropoles. The French colonies were the first to be liberated, and the last were the Portuguese.

The level of violence in the world has significantly decreased.

When we say, “more beneficial” here, we should clarify that what we mean by this is “more beneficial for the majority”, but not for everyone.

Historically, the majority has always prevailed because, in the end, it was the stronger and not because someone persuaded us that this was ‘fair’.

In the end, the ‘majority principle’ was consolidated in the notion of democracy. But let’s not forget that for all the democratic reforms, there are still segments of the population who are losing their privileges and are therefore worse off as a result of these reforms. This is the essence of democracy.

But life does not stand still. The rapidly growing economic gap between rich countries and their former colonies on the one hand and the inevitable accelerated process of globalisation on the other, is presenting a new challenge for Western society.

The first signal of this challenge can be seen in the huge streams of refugees coming to Europe, the United States and Canada from the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

If in the forthcoming decades, the West together with China, Japan, Australia and South Korea do not take urgent measures to reduce the terrible gap between rich and poor countries, we will soon find that there is no-one for the West to sell their goods to, and the stream of refugees, constantly increasing due to both the internet and the modern transport system will lead to a general economic collapse.

Perhaps now we can explain what is humanism as suggested in the title of this article… Let’s break our explanation into three parts:

  • Is there an innate humanistic morality in us?

Sadly, the answer is no! A long history of human beings destroying other human beings is proof enough of this fact. Moreover, as far as modern science can tell, all peoples experienced phases of human sacrifice and even cannibalism in the early stages of development, so what innate humanist ethics can one possibly speak of? In other words, all our humanist traditions are the result of a many-thousand-year long process of evolution, which developed progressively through a process of trial and error.

  • Can we hope that the humanist traditions so hard won have become instilled in us and taken root?

Sadly, the answer is again, no! Any tradition, including humanistic traditions, can disappear in the blink of an eye when external factors are intent on destroying them. In the twentieth century, the peoples of Russia, Germany and China, all with a sufficiently developed history of human civilisation easily accepted the destruction of hundreds of millions of people in the world including their own citizens once they came under the influence of the teachings of Communism and Nazism. In addition, we have seen humanitarian disasters in Cambodia and Rwanda, where these countries destroyed between a quarter and a third of their own population. In other words, humanist ethics, like any other set of ethics, is nothing more than a conditioned reflex to external circumstances.

  • Does all this mean that there is no hope for a humanistic future?

Fortunately, no! We observe a distinct growth in the number of people with humanist principles who govern human and international relations, despite periodic deviations from these principles.

It appears that Humanism actually serves as a beneficial foundation for a society in which the main human instincts: Gene Preservation and Freedom of Choice can be most effectively realised (see “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer“).

A society that values gender equality turns out to be more beneficial than a society that discriminates against women. It is enough to compare these societies to the Islamic countries, and see the huge streams of refugees, ignoring Islamic principles relating to women, fleeing the Muslim countries of Asia and Africa trying to gain entry to the countries of the Western world! Those who have children dream of bringing them up in a safe, free world. And those who don’t already have children dream of the same being possible in the future. Gender equality came to the Western world not only because women struggled to win equal rights, but because men realised that a society built on the principles of equality would be more stable and prosperous.

America abolished slavery not only because the blacks fought for their rights, but also as a result of the fact that the bulk of white Americans came to realise that a society without racism is more productive and safer for everyone, i.e. more beneficial than a society that practices racial segregation. Of course, change was eventually brought about to some degree by the enlightening speeches and demands of the humanists.

Corruption, that has wholly taken over the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, with a few exceptions, serves the interests of an absolute minority, usually a powerful minority, and is witness to the low level of Freedom of Choice existing in these countries. In democracies with a sufficiently high level of Freedom of Choice, thanks to the free press and the control exerted by civil society, it is possible to keep corruption within rigid limits, despite the natural inclination and willingness of most people to take part in corruption, however sad it might be to acknowledge this fact. And again, this serves the interests of the majority.

In the twentieth century, a number of fundamental reforms were carried out in Western capitalist countries, aimed at significantly raising living standards among hired workers. These included the shortening of the working day, minimum wage guarantees, pensions, all sorts of social security, stimulation of employees ‘interest in the growth of their companies’ profits via share sales and numerous other measures. The laws corresponding to these reforms were adopted not as a result of the humanistic mood of the ruling capitalist class, but as a result of strikes by wage workers, fears of bloody Communist revolutions like those that took place in Russia in 1917, fear of the difficulties of raising children in an unstable country, i.e. fear for Gene Preservation.

But very quickly everyone was convinced that humanistically reformed capitalism was more beneficial for almost all members of society and produced an unprecedented increase in labour productivity, general welfare, and therefore the best conditions for the realisation of Gene Preservation.

World society will continue to become more humanistic in nature as a requirement of the most fundamental human instincts: Gene Preservation and Freedom of Choice (see “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer“).

Since humanism is essentially one of the facets of Freedom of Choice, according to the Law of Humandynamics (see “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer“), it will grow along with it.

Our most important conclusion is that a society structured on humanistic principles is more beneficial for the majority than any other type of society model.

The question arises, “Why should we even consider a society built on the principle of the will of the majority to be fair? After all, the minority loses out, doesn’t it?” Indeed it does! Yet in a democratic society, Human Rights remain unshakable and inviolable. This is the guarantee of stability in a democratic state.

In connection to the question posed above: “When does a nation gain immunity from being susceptible to a totalitarian ideology?”, We can now propose the following answer: “Only when that nation has long-term experience of democracy, lasting at least several generations.”

Russia, China and Germany, who became victims of Communist and Nazi ideologies in the first half of the twentieth century, did not have this experience. German democracy which began with the Weimar Republic lasted for less than one generation, while Russia and China to this day have no true experience of a real democracy.  Let’s take Italy as an example of a country that does have this experience. Under Mussolini, fascism became the ruling ideology even earlier than in Germany, although it did not succeed in taking root as a national idea.

There is not a single nation in the world that can guarantee to be exempt from the possibility of a totalitarian ideology being adopted by state power. The possibility of a new communist or fascist regime emerging somewhere in the world still exists and yet the probability of this happening becomes smaller and smaller as time goes by, and the surety of this is the Law of Humandynamics (see “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer“).

Nonetheless, the ‘good’ has to be continually instilled in us as a cultural value and we must recognise that ‘evil’ can spread of its own accord like a garden weed.

As the reality of history shows, humanist ethics can never prevent the occurrence of a social catastrophe. As we have said before, the awareness of these ethics always develops a posteriori.

If this is the case, do we, in fact, need a humanist ethic at all?

Yes! Without a shadow of a doubt!

Humanist ethics save us from repeating the same catastrophes again and again and in this way, we acquire experience. Humanity is, in fact, becoming more humanistic. “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer” cites numerous examples, which we won’t repeat here, of unprecedented expansion of Freedom of Choice particularly around the middle of the previous century, and by connection, a growth in humanism.

Here, in short, we will simply answer the question as to why the public rhetoric of politicians has changed over time. The culture of war, through which all nations have passed from antiquity (remember Sparta!) up until the middle of the last century, is today considered taboo among politicians. At least, they will not admit to supporting the culture of war openly. We no longer hear delusional ideas from the mouths of politicians concerning the superiority of one race over another, or of one class over another, as was the case in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, relatively recently in South Africa, and even earlier in the US before the adoption of desegregation laws. No less delirious ideas that used to divide society on the principle of “blue blood” into patricians and plebeians have long sunk into oblivion. We no longer hear politicians openly expressing sexist views.

Just because we don’t hear them, does not mean that they do not exist. They do still exist and always will do!

We conclude this article with a very recent example of how a new element of humanistic ethics is being created before our very eyes in the form of condemning sexual harassment.

So far, only the USA has been prepared to condemn this phenomenon openly and categorically. In France, a group of actresses led by Catherine Deneuve have expressed their concern that the fight against harassment has been excessive, although from the very beginning it has been quite obvious that what is being addressed is the unacceptable harassment of women by men. Almost immediately after the confident statement of the famous director Andrei Konchalovsky that one would never see a similar reaction to harassment in Russia, three brave Russian journalists began an uncompromising struggle against the harassment of a State Duma deputy.

Given that everything in the twenty-first century is happening at such huge speed, we can confidently say that within just a few years, the Western world will have done with the problem of harassment.

P.S. Those interested in a proof of the conclusions above can refer to an enlightening lecture by Professor Steven Pinker who presents various statistics showing a constant decline in violence and rise in tolerance since the ancient times despite the wide-spread myth that “the world used to be a better place”.

Karmak Bagisbayev, professor of mathematics, author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”

History, Human Morality, Society

Freedom of Choice and Morality as a Conditioned Reflex (Part 2)

2 Comments

As The Last Faith professes, levels of Freedom of Choice on Earth are constantly increasing (fluctuations notwithstanding) by virtue of the Law of Humandynamics (see: “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”). As a consequence, levels of acceptance and tolerance in society are also growing: political, religious, racial, cultural, sexual and many others.

The reader will no doubt make the same conclusion by simply observing how life has changed over the past few years and/or by comparing the acceptance and tolerance levels of various historical periods to the present times.

Growth in levels of Freedom of Choice and tolerance is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. Whereas previously, one would have to review quite a large period of time, at least several decades, in order for change to be visible, now, similar change can be perceived with every passing year.

How does the Law of Humandynamics work? Recognising the undeniable fact of a growth in moral virtues from one generation to the next and the accumulation of humanistic principles in society, one might be tempted to believe that each succeeding generation is born smarter and kinder than the one before it.

Is there a physiological explanation for the buildup in one generation of the experience of previous generations? Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), there is not.

The most in-depth research shows that there is no spiritual or intellectual difference between a statistically average child born in a primitive tribe in the Amazon Jungle and an average child born in the centre of contemporary London. Similarly, there is no such difference between a child of the present day and a child of say, one hundred years ago. Judging from the methodical observations of teachers of that time, junior schoolchildren solve the same mathematical tasks today just as well or as poorly as their peers of a century ago. There is every reason to believe that no significant change has taken place in this regard over the past thousand years.

In order to understand more fully why humanity’s sense of moral ethic develops, we must first look at the cases in which it is compromised and the influencing factors that bring that change to bear.

It is a well-known fact that when a small group of people finds themselves in the wild, isolated from the rest of the world as the consequence of a shipwreck or other disaster, the moral virtues to which they have adhered throughout their previous life up to this moment are almost instantly swept aside. The individual’s entire expression of Freedom of Choice is directed exclusively towards securing the survival of self and family, if they are still together, in other words, towards Gene Preservation. In cases of extreme hunger, people will not only steal food from one another, they will go as far as to commit murder or an act of cannibalism. There are numerous accounts of such cases, in literature and particularly in documentary sources.

Lord of the Flies, the wonderful, allegorical novel by the English writer and Nobel Prize Winner William Golding comes to mind. With horrifying realism, the writer tells the story of how a group of teenage children end up on an uninhabitable island after a plane crash and how the relationships of a primitive community form and develop among the group based only on the privilege of force and how, eventually, they divide themselves up into tribes who hunt and kill the members of other tribes.

The thing is that this kind of tragedy is quite likely to take place, not only among children, whose sense of morality is not yet consolidated, but among entire nations in the context of conditions of military, economic or political crises, and not only in conditions of extreme survival.

In the first half of the twentieth century in Europe, the world witnessed two global catastrophes: firstly, the coming to power of the Communists in Russia, and secondly, the Nazis in Germany fifteen years later (subsequently in China and Cambodia).

How did the Communists and Nazis manage to control the souls and minds of millions of people and force them to reject so rapidly the humanistic moral ethics that had developed over centuries (including the Christian commandment ‘thou shall not kill)?  How is it that millions of people not only agreed to the mass murder of millions of innocent people but actively participated in the act?

One has to acknowledge that people not only feared for their own lives and the lives of those close to them, huge masses accepted a new cannibalistic morality!

What did the Communists and Nazis use to lure and entice millions of their followers?

The answer is easy to find when one considers the conclusions set out in “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”. As the book explains, man (like any other living being) lives first and foremost for the sake of preserving his or her genes on Earth. Secondly, human beings (and only human beings) live constantly striving to expand their personal levels of Freedom of Choice. Of course, the extent of this striving may differ between any two individuals, as much as the earth differs from the sky.

Both the Communists and the Nazis played on promises to fully satisfy all conditions essential for the realisation of the primitive instinct for gene preservation, i.e. the promise to feed everyone until they were full, to provide everyone with adequate housing, and generally, to create a high material standard of living in all areas of life.

At the same time, they made no attempt to hide that this state of affairs would be achieved via plunder, suppression and, if necessary, the physical annihilation of the non-proletariat on the one hand and the non-Arian race on the other. People followed the Nazis and Communists because the horizons they promised were so tempting and, it would seem, so easily achievable that the existing humanistic moral principles were not enough to support the population in withstanding the introduction of a new misanthropical morality.

Yet, neither Lenin nor Hitler, nor their ideologists ever mentioned the natural right of man to Freedom of Choice and its associated Human Rights. Moreover, they made public warnings that anyone who failed to comply with their ideology would be destroyed.

Nonetheless, people followed their line. True only to the Law of Gene Preservation and the satisfaction of the flesh, people forgot and betrayed God’s second law, the Law of Freedom of Choice, turning their backs on the moral principles of the past. The link in time was broken! And finally, the peoples of the countries in question paid for it dearly in a manner known to all.

Those who believe that all these events are in the past and that humanity’s humanistic morality is strong enough never to allow such events to be repeated are fatally mistaken.  Alas! Sacrificing Freedom of Choice and encroaching on the freedom of others will inevitably lead to the tragic mistakes of the past being sorely repeated.

And so we can only draw the sorry but honest conclusion that the true nature of human beings does not improve with time. And yet, thanks be to God, it does not worsen either.  It remains unchanged.

That leads us to the question of how the Law of Humandynamics actually works. Who among serious observers of historical change would argue that morals in the world today are largely much more relaxed than they were yesterday, just as yesterday they were more relaxed than they were the day before that? Why does this happen?

This tendency emerges because every new generation begins not from a point of zero but from the point at which the previous generation left off in the battle to expand Freedom of Choice. This is the reason why levels of Freedom of Choice increase in human society and it is for this reason only that the Law of Humandynamics functions. Even though this law is guaranteed to work across relatively large periods of time, we cannot assume that it works consistently.

As we can see from the above, wars, revolutions and other disasters lead to relatively powerful fluctuations in the working of the Law, albeit tiny changes on a historical scale, when the link in time is broken and when the entire achievement of society’s morality is jolted far back into the past. The fundamental difference between the world of man and the animal world is that human beings are capable of transmitting an entire history of labour skills and morality from one generation to another. Animals, on the other hand, are incapable of doing this.

The life of each and every one of us, together with the rest of our own generation represents a single point on the Arrow of Time. Nobody wants a fluctuation to occur in their own lifetime and so, there is no cause for complacency. Virtuous morals are always very fragile. In just two to three months, television propaganda alone was enough to evoke hatred in one people towards another brotherly people transforming them into a mortal enemy (i.e. Russia’s occupation of Ukraine).

Whereas, we may be unable to influence the entirety of the Arrow of Time, either its future or its past, we are capable of bringing influence to bear in a subtle way on the point at which we currently find ourselves.

This brings us to our final question. Why is it that Human Beings strive to expand Freedom of Choice, driving the workings of the Law of Humandynamics? Could it be that there is someone above who takes care of us in this manner, nudging us further towards humanism? If only that were the case!

Man’s striving to expand Freedom of Choice was described in “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer“ as an independent ‘physical’ law, confirmed by the endless number of observations.

And among the many consequences of this law, there is one key consequence: without doubt, growth in Freedom of Choice facilitates an increased guarantee of Gene Preservation. This means that the Law of Gene Preservation, in turn, will push human beings towards an expansion of Freedom of Choice, towards democracy and towards an expression of humanism. It’s like Yin and Yang…

This explains the endless stream of refugees from the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, who risk their lives en route, striving to gain entry to the Western world.

I call to mind how in the 1990s an elderly friend of mine, a retired colonel of the Soviet Army took the decision to emigrate to the United States. I asked if he was not afraid at his age to face the challenges associated with having to adapt to a totally foreign world, to which he replied that he was well aware of the insurmountable psychological difficulties that awaited him and his wife in America, but that he was doing it for the sake of their children and grandchildren. That is the Law of Gene Preservation at work!

Might one fear the possibility that the peoples of the third world will one day turn away from Democracy, ceasing to find it attractive?  One can say with confidence that this will never happen whilst the countries of the democratic world provide their people with the best conditions necessary to realise the most fundamental human needs, Gene Preservation and Freedom of Choice.

(Part 1 of this article on human morality is available here)

Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson

This article isn’t intended to give a comprehensive overview of the topic. It is simply an addition to the book’s contribution to the theme of morality already considered at length in “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”.

 

History, Society

The Law of Humandynamics takes strides throughout the world

Leave a comment

In accordance with the Law of Humandynamics, the level of freedom of choice that human beings enjoy has grown continuously throughout the entire planet since the very outset. Stumbling on its way, sometimes completely capsizing during times of war, it nonetheless always gets back up on its feet again spreading outwards and upwards and continuing its journey towards the fulfilment of purpose known only to itself and to God.

If you compare levels of freedom of choice at the beginning and the end of any 50 to 100 year period of history, you will see that this statement related to the rise in levels of freedom of choice is true. Sometimes, an increase in freedom of choice occurs spasmodically over a short period of time as a result of a democratic, or even a scientific, technological revolution.

The main reason for the growth in freedom of choice is that it becomes profitable to the absolute majority of the people. It benefits the economy, which cannot develop without the existence of freedom of choice in economic relations, and it benefits the arts and the sciences which cannot develop at all when freedom of choice is suffocated.

In this short post, we cite five examples of the most pronounced signs that levels of freedom of choice are increasing. All four examples, taken from diverse areas of human life, made the headlines around the world at some point over this year.

(1) Women in Saudi Arabia have been granted the right to drive, overturning a cornerstone of Saudi conservatism. King Salman ordered the reform in a royal decree, requesting that drivers’ licences be issued to women who wanted them.

(2) The Tunisian government scrapped the decades-old ban on marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim men. This was announced by the press secretary to President Beji Caid Essebsi, who congratulated women on securing the ‘right to the freedom to choose one’s spouse’.

(3) After a centuries-long history of a complete ban on abortion, the Congress of Chile approved a bill that legalises abortions in limited cases. Who would argue that as a result of the approval of the bill, the level of freedom of choice enjoyed by women in Chile has not increased?

(4) The recent funeral ceremonies linked with the 20th anniversary of the passing of Diana, Princess of Wales, illustrate the extent to which custom within the Royal Family has softened and become freer over the past one hundred years.

The historical norms of the residents of Buckingham Palace, their strictly regulated upbringing and traditions are known to all.  As a member of the Royal Family, you cannot get into a scrap at school, get drunk in a pub, marry freely or openly enjoy a romantic relationship. No deviation from prescribed traditions is allowed. You have to play the role you were born into, otherwise, being expelled from the family is inevitable.

It was not long ago, back in 1936 that King Edward VIII abdicated for the sake of the right to freely choose a spouse. Do not forget that the inhabitants of London responded with hostility to Edward’s choice, who in their opinion, was ill-suited to the role of future queen. Compare that to the living relationship which the British people, despite everything, have with Princess Diana.

It is a relationship that simply could not have existed even just a few decades ago, when a man was forgiven what a woman was not.

That the growth in freedom of choice, which is mainly finding expression in the acknowledgement of equal rights to freedom of choice between men and women, has reached as far as the gates of Buckingham Palace is clearly illustrated in the participation of the entire Royal Family in the funeral ceremonies mentioned above.

 (5) The final significant event of recent times on our short list is the peace agreement between the Government of Colombia and the radical left-wing rebel movement FARC, which could put an end to a civil war that has continued for more than 50 years and cost an estimated 200 to 300 thousand lives.

It had taken half a century of bloody war aimed at mutual destruction for the Law of Humandynamics to bring both sides to the understanding that war does not achieve freedom of choice for anyone and what’s more, it deprives the dead of any kind of choice at all!

And whereas 50 years ago, poverty, privation and lack of human rights depriving many Colombians of the certainty of gene preservation forced them to arm themselves with weapons and take to the jungle, today, Colombia’s economic success story, establishment of the rule of law and exercise in democracy have for the very same reasons caused the rebels to reconsider their goals, make different choices and meet the government at the negotiating table.

Just as the fall of the Berlin Wall led to a dramatic surge in levels of freedom of choice for all the German people, the influx of rebel army fighters back into the civilian population based on peace conditions will undoubtedly lead to increased levels of freedom of choice for Colombia’s population as a whole.

Karmak Bagisbayev, professor of mathematics, author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”

The Last Faith Analysis

The Last Faith Analysis – Movies: “Marriage Italian Style” and “My Step Brother Frankenstein”

Leave a comment

This article opens a special cycle called The Last Faith Analysis, dedicated to the analysis of well-known books and movies from the perspective of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”.

We will assume that the content of the books and films discussed is well known to a wide circle of readers, so we won’t retell the whole plot here.

Since the author is unfamiliar with much contemporary literature and cinema, the examples will mainly be taken from works of previous centuries.

So, let us begin…

Film #1: Marriage Italian Style

A famous film by Vittorio De Sica with actors Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni in the key roles, set in post-war Italy.

Domenico Soriano, a successful “Romeo” and businessman who values his Freedom of Choice more than anything else in the world, particularly when it comes to the objects of his passion, remains a bachelor up to a mature age.

When he finally resolves to fulfil the Law of Gene Preservation, in other words, to marry and have a child, he learns that his housekeeper and main mistress of many years, Filumena Marturano, has three adult sons, one of which is his own.

This is where it all kicks off. By hook or by crook, Domenico is determined to find out which of the three young men is his son. He dreams of singling him out and giving him a good education, a wealthy, successful future.  The Law of Gene Preservation fully at work!

For the mother, all three children are her own genes and so she, naturally, refuses to reveal the secret. Again, the Law of Gene Preservation!

Film #2: My Step Brother Frankenstein

A film by director Valery Todorovsky, Russia. A prosperous Moscow family whose father (Yarmolnik) suddenly discovers that his adult illegitimate son Pavlik (played by Spivakovsky) is living in the same province. His son is left physically and mentally disabled as a result of the Chechen war and is now waiting for surgery in a clinic in Moscow.

After the father takes his son back with him into his Moscow family, a terrible tragedy unfolds, which results from the Law of Gene Preservation. The father is torn between his eldest son and his wife, with whom he has two teenage children. His wife (played by E. Yakovleva) naturally protects her own children (her own genes), and not without reason, fears for them living with a stepbrother with a damaged psyche.

We instantly recall the “wicked stepmother” from countless tales of all the peoples of the world. Today, justice demands, if not rehabilitation, then at least impartial clarification of the stepmother’s behaviour in the light of The Last Faith. Protecting her own children, her own blood and trying to eliminate stepbrothers and stepsisters from their path, the “wicked stepmother” blindly follows the basic law of nature, the Law of Gene Preservation.

Who could blame her? Only a woman with a truly noble soul (possible only with a developed sense of Freedom of Choice), so noble that she would be capable of overcoming this blind instinct and accepting another woman’s children as if they were her own.

Such women are rare, but they have always existed.

From the end of the last century, we have been hearing more and more cases of families (not necessarily childless!) in wealthy Western countries who choose to foster children from the troubled countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America and often these are children with serious health conditions.

What is this if not a reflection of the Law of Humandynamics, according to which the level of Freedom of Choice in the world can only increase over time?

Karmak Bagisbayev, professor of mathematics, author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”

History, Human Morality, Society

Why was the Christian notion of nonresistance to evil doomed from the very beginning?

Leave a comment

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus Christ, The Gospel of Matthew

Why has this seemingly sensible call from Christ to let go of the need for revenge never generated any noticeable response or understanding? Why is it, for example, that in response to a slap, any mentally and physically adequate man will not hesitate to throw a punch? Is it really possible to let go of the need for revenge?

It would not be quite correct to say that no-one at all has responded to Christ’s call. In different parts of the Christian world, groups and individuals have appeared at various times who have tried to follow Christ’s commandment.

Probably the most famous among them is the great Russian thinker and writer Leo Tolstoy, who coined the phrase, “nonresistance to evil”. The handful of groups called the “non-resistants” who followed Tolstoy quickly adopted a sectarian nature and lasted for less than a generation.

Why is it that in the vast majority of cases, people are unable to follow the commandments of Christ and do we have the right to judge them for it?

No! We don’t!

Human beings do not live their lives according to other people’s principles, even those set forth by the most brilliant of individuals.

According to the God-given (or Nature-given) Law of Gene Preservation, human beings are not only capable but have a duty to protect their own life and the lives of their family at all costs.

In order to combat evil, which will never cease of its own accord, particularly if it encounters no resistance, civilisation has introduced into the courts the law of retaliation which satisfies the majority of the population. Yet when evil comes from the State itself, when it subjugates the courts to its power, transforming them into a superficial formality, people will instigate revolution to protect their natural right to the living conditions necessary to guarantee Gene Preservation.

Why have all the other romantic and utopian teachings, like communism suffered historical defeat?

The problem is not that the Communist idea came to power in a solely bloody manner. When it came to power the idea of communism tried, at least in the initial period, to implement equal rights to Gene Preservation. This took the form of genuine, equal access to education and medical care, almost equal access to severely limited material wealth, and even equal opportunities to civil careers, as long as the career did not involve the field of governance, in which the Communists reigned alone and unchallenged. One has to admit though, that they even succeeded in the beginning.

So why did Communism go down with such a bang?

As always, the answer is simple. Having obtained more or less tolerable conditions to support the instinct of Gene Preservation (bread and shelter), the people instantly began to feel the no less urgent need for the Law of Freedom of Choice. More specifically, they felt the need for the constant expansion of Freedom of Choice: freedom of speech, freedom to elect and be elected, freedom of movement, freedom to choose one’s place of residence, freedom of enterprise, freedom of conscience, etc.

The Communists completely denied the people of all these rights, openly stating a contrived dictatorship of the proletariat! As a result of the denial of Freedom of Choice, the USSR saw an inevitable decline in the level of Gene Preservation (living standard).

By rejecting the Law of Freedom of Choice and creating a powerful punitive apparatus to suppress dissent, the Communist idea came into direct conflict with the law of nature (or God), namely, the Law of Humandynamics, according to which humanity’s Freedom of Choice steadily increases over time. And with that, the Communists condemned themselves to a rapid decline.

Nowhere in the world, whether in the USSR, China, Cambodia or anywhere else, has the communist idea ever managed to retain power without hard coercion, violence, suppression of Freedom of Choice and the destruction of millions of the country’s own population. In this regard, communism was no less an idea filled with hate for humanity than fascism or nazism.

It only remains to add that similar ideas such as Chuchheism, Chávism and Chegevarism, which demand the suppression of Freedom of Choice in order to preserve power, are all historically doomed.

This article began with a criticism of Christ’s commandment of “nonresistance to evil” because it is impossible to put into practice. However, is it not this commandment that made Christ great, and it is not on account of this commandment that Christ will remain forever in the hearts of mankind.

His other commandment: “love thy neighbour as thyself” or better “have compassion for your neighbour as for yourself” is just starting to gain momentum and understanding in the world and this call will continue to be heard for as long as mankind exists.

 

Karmak Bagisbayev, Professor of Mathematics,  author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”

History, Society

How reliable are the prognoses of The Last Faith? Betting on the internet generation.

1 Comment

Towards the end of last year, we published various large-scale and smaller social prognoses on our blog, some of which have already come true, some of which are still in the process of being realised.

In one way or another, all the prognoses we made were based on the Law of Humandynamics which asserts that Freedom of Choice on our planet can only grow and that it is, in fact, increasing exponentially, notwithstanding short-term and local fluctuations.

The Law of Humandynamics represents a consequence of the striving of the majority to expand their personal Freedom of Choice. This striving facilitates the development of communications, which in turn influences the growth of Freedom of Choice. In the twenty-first century, the internet is the key means of communication influencing this trend.

In “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”, we predicted that the internet would reduce the gap in world view between advanced and catching-up social groups and peoples. The internet has particularly affected the younger generation and we see now the emergence of a new internet generation, who since birth have lived in a huge, global, virtual space in which Freedom of Choice is taken for granted, something which their parents could only have dreamed of. Unlike their parents, this new generation knows nothing of the racial, religious and political intolerance characteristic of the older generations.

This influence of the internet has been so fast and furious that even before “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer” was published, extensive research was carried out in the West which we discovered just recently. On 13th of November 2008, The Economist magazine published a review of “The Net Generation. The Kids Are Alright”, written by American researcher Don Tapscott based on studies involving over eight thousand people from twelve different countries born between 1978 and 1994.

Contrary to widespread expectations of the negative impact of the internet on young people, the research results showed the opposite to be true. The internet generation turned out to be smarter, more tolerant of diversity, more well-read, socially aware, optimistic, decent and compassionate to the needs of others than the preceding television generation.

“These empowered young people are beginning to transform every institution of modern life. They care strongly about justice, and are actively trying to improve society,” said Mr Tapscott, who puts it down to the advantages of the net which is interactive and stimulates the brain over one-way broadcasting via television. People who play video games have been found to have more rapid decision-making abilities, are better at multi-tasking and process visual information more quickly.

I must confess, that although I was confident in the great role the internet would play in the coming revolutionary transformation of our world, I didn’t know exactly what form it would take.  Now I know.

“The ‘internet generation (Net Geners) values freedom and choice in everything they do. They love to customise and personalise. They scrutinise everything. They demand integrity and openness, including when deciding what to buy and where to work. They want entertainment and play in their work and education, as well as their social life. They love to collaborate. They expect everything to happen fast. And they expect constant innovation.” Tapscott writes.

It’s just exactly as “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer” describes it: Freedom of Choice and the Rights of the Individual.

Now to Russia. Mass participation by students of colleges and universities throughout the country in the 26th March 2017 anti-corruption protest rallies came totally out of the blue. Both the authorities and the opposition were at a loss to explain the new phenomenon. Nobody had noticed the new generation ‘Net Geners’ growing up in Russia with exactly the same social demands as those described in Tapscott’s article.

In another 10-15 years, when Net Geners begin to take up key positions in society, the world will change quite significantly for the better. Once again in history, we shall bear witness to another positive leap forward in levels of Freedom of Choice. The Law of Humandynamics will reveal itself once again, just as it should.

And once again, we see that in accordance with “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”, no people on earth has its own unique historical path. We are all moving in the same direction, in accordance with the Law of Humandynamics, just as we leave some behind, overtake others and push each other aside.

The only real challenge that stands before international organisations and the economic superpowers, as they act on behalf of humanity, is to find a way of reducing (but not eliminating!) the huge 50-100 year gaps that exist between the different peoples taking part in the race.

And the sooner we understand this, the better it will be for all.

The simultaneous existence of such huge gaps in the economic and cultural development of different nations on a backdrop of intense globalisation is impossible and dangerous.

But will we understand?

Written by Karmak Bagisbayev, an author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”

Translated from the Russian original by Joanna Dobson.

Culture, Nature, Politics

Is it reasonable to appeal to the conscience of corrupt officials and to dream of having honest political leaders?

Leave a comment

In robbing their own people, corrupt presidents, ministers and officials are fulfilling the instinct of gene preservation which is inherent in human nature, i.e. they are taking care of their own children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. It is reasonable to appeal to the conscience of corrupt officials and to dream of having honest political leaders?

I would answer directly and without hesitation: No! It is not reasonable!

In developing countries there exists the widespread misconception that the low levels of corruption that exist in highly developed democratic countries is down to the greater honesty of the ruling elite. I am sorry to have to disappoint you but even in countries with a developed democracy, the gene preservation instinct functions in just the same way as it does in more backward countries. You only have to look at some of the most recent examples:

  • As soon as sales dropped in the business belonging to the daughter of America’s newly elected president Donald Trump, the President used his official account to protect her business, and his official Counsellor Kellyanne Conway in an attempt to gain the favour of her boss, openly advertised Trump’s daughter’s company products on national television.
  • French presidential candidate Francois Fillon is accused of embezzling public funds during his time as member of parliament and minister ‘illegally’ paying large sums of money to his wife and children;
  • Vice-president of Samsung, Lee Jae-Yong, was arrested on charges of corruption.

Anyone who comes to power and is faced with the opportunity of providing a secure future for their offspring even if it means doing so in a dishonest manner at the cost of robbing the offspring of ordinary people, will almost always succumb to committing this kind of crime. However, it is true that there are countries in the world where corruption exists at a very low level whilst in other countries, the power vertical is clearly corrupt through and through.

Evidently, it’s not all down to the gene preservation which works in the same manner the world over. So is it down to people’s freedom of choice? That is exactly it!

The percentage of the population that actively manifests freedom of choice, otherwise called ‘civil society’ defines the position of a country on the time axis; it defines the country’s level of democratic development, and finally, it defines the intensity of the nation’s struggle against corruption.

Based on Freedom House estimates the percentage of ‘civil society’ fluctuating between 25-35% in the developed countries of the West thanks to the free press and independent justice system, between 2-5% in the majority of post-Soviet countries, and being almost equal to zero in totalitarian states.

However, the scenario isn’t as gloomy as it first appears. As explained in “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”, the freedom of choice, and consequently the percentage of ‘civil society’, will steadily increase on a global scale, as indeed we see happening from a historical perspective. Such tendency towards ‘civil society’ is also accelerated by an increasing access to internet throughout the world and easier access to knowledge and education for both men and women.

Culture, History, Nature

Racism, Nationalism, Patriotism as the consequences of Xenophobia. Why and how did they arise and how long will they continue to exist?

1 Comment

Xenophobia, as a primordial instinct, arose with the appearance of living beings on Earth as a natural response to the threat posed by other species, and even members of the same species who belonged to external groups. We have all witnessed one to three years old children crying when they are approached by a stranger.

The phenomena of racism, nationalism and patriotism exist among humans as a result of the kind of xenophobia that existed when primitive humans, gregarious by nature, could only survive and Preserve their Gene with members of their own tribe existing on the same habitat, considered the homeland.

Exactly the same phenomenon can be observed in the animal kingdom only then we use different terms to describe it. This same behaviour can be clearly observed in a pack of wolves for example, who will fight other wolf packs as ferociously as other species of animal such as bear.  

Unlike xenophobia, neither racism, nationalism nor patriotism can be said to be biologically inherent in human beings. Take children’s pre-school groups for example. Children of different races will play together without it ever occurring to them that they are in some way different from their play-pals. All racial prejudices are adopted from by the child from their parents as they get older, who in turn adopted the prejudices from their own parents etc, going back to the era of race wars.

Aside from ethnic racism, other forms of discrimination exist in the world against religion, gender and class. Why do these forms of discrimination continue to existence in modern society?

The answer is simple – apartheid. Wherever schools exist in which children are separated into groups on account of race, religion, sex or class, discrimination in all its forms will continue to exist. The adoption of desegregation laws in the USA more than half a century ago represented a significant step forward in achieving the eradication of ethnic racism in America. On the territory of the former Soviet Union class racism, proclaimed by Marxism-Leninism that asserted the superiority of the proletarian class, receded into oblivion together with the Communist regime that fostered the ideology.

Whereas racism born of xenophobia is condemned throughout the world and nationalism disapproved of, patriotism is universally encouraged. 

Yet even this tendency is changing. In united Europe attempts are clearly being made to foster in children a feeling of pan-European patriotism in place of an ethnic, state-based patriotism.

There is every reason to suppose that the consequences of xenophobia will be mitigated by examples of rapprochement between nations and increasing globalisation as all these developments are accompanied by an increase in global Freedom of Choice driven by the Law of Humandynamics.

And yet, it is still very early days.

Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson.

Karmak Bagisbayev is an author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”, an Amazon bestseller in Russian Literature, Atheism and Agnosticism.

Economics, Politics

How long Trump will remain in power?

Leave a comment

Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson

Today, anyone and everyone who hasn’t been living under a rock is busy predicting how long Donald Trump will remain at the wheel of power in the United States. We are making our own prediction based on the principles of The Last Faith.

Trump’s election promises can be divided into two main categories. The first, to increase the population’s standard of living by reducing taxes and re-shoring manufacturing jobs. In other words, to improve conditions necessary for Gene Preservation. The second category includes Trump’s promises and open threats to reduce levels of Freedom of Choice in the United States, first and foremost for African Americans, Latin Americans, immigrants, Muslims and women by building walls, restricting entry and banning funding for abortion services. Trump continues to attack the independent justice system and America’s free press.

In my previous article written immediately after Trump’s election prior to his assumption of office as President of the United States, I tried to make a short-term forecast regarding his political future. However, Trumps’ first decrees aimed at implementing his threats allow me, in fact require me, now, to speak more definitely.

First of all, let’s look at the following question: Just exactly who is the Trump voter?

As I wrote in The Last Faith, the number of people who actively practice Freedom of Choice on a daily basis, even in a democratic country like the United States, barely exceeds one-third or even a quarter of the population.  The portion of the population that needs improved conditions essential for Gene Preservation more than they need Freedom of Choice, as we saw after the election, accounts for no less than half (by comparison, in Russia it’s 86-91%). These are the people who voted for Trump and this fact has to be acknowledged. About 20% of the population voted for Clinton for various reasons.

So does this mean that Trump will be settling into the White House for a long time to come? Absolutely not! This is why.

Firstly, America is not North Korea or post-Soviet Russia. Two hundred years of practicing democratic freedom, in other words, broad Freedom of Choice, won’t just disappear just because Trump or anyone else wants it to. And even though, as we said, the number of people in America practicing Freedom of Choice on a daily basis is no more than a third or even a quarter, look at the types of people who make up this portion of the population.  The group includes almost all America’s celebrities: famous scientists, Hollywood directors and actors, well-known musicians and singers, artists, architects, sportspeople and writers i.e. people with huge moral influence over the people of the United States. The protests we see happening won’t just settle down all by themselves. Most importantly, Trump’s policies are being harshly criticised by CEOs of companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others who represent the face of large-scale business in twenty-first century America.

In our last article, we said that if Trump were to begin his busy activities of office by raising living standards i.e. by improving conditions for Gene Preservation, then he stood a chance of winning the support of at least half the population of the United States thereby remaining in office – at least temporarily! Instead, Trump began his term in office by curtailing Freedom of Choice across the entire country. Without complete Freedom of Choice in manufacturing relations the economy will be doomed! This is a fact that has been illustrated many times by the economy of twentieth century communist countries, which could not be saved from ruin even by shooting millions of peaceful civilians. Only China, which maintained its Communist regime but blatantly replaced communist industrial relations with limited capitalist equivalents, managed to keep its economy afloat. Sooner or later, evolving Chinese capitalism will exhaust its limited resources of economic freedom and demand the establishment of true democracy in the country, or, in other words, full Freedom of Choice. It is inevitable.

Trump however, has not limited himself to threats which curtail political freedom. In his election program, he promised to re-shore manufacturing capacity with the goal of creating new employment opportunities. It was strange to hear such statements from a businessman evidently not comprehending the inflation of prices that would ensue to say nothing of all the other obvious ramifications associated with implementing such madness. Something tells me though that this won’t happen. The law of Humandynamics, in the form of the American business world, won’t allow Trump to enforce limitations Freedom of Choice in industrial relations to such a degree that he dictates where and how manufacturing companies may do their business. If Trump attempts to curtail these freedoms, he’ll be forced to stand down.

P.S. The news has just come in that the Court of Appeal in the United States has upheld a block on Trump’s immigration ban. Now it is up to the United States Supreme Court to bring an end to this dispute. Is it quite possible, that America has reached a bifurcation point in its democratic development. Whether or not the Supreme Court realises this or not, we shall see in due course.

Culture, Economics, History, Politics

Genghis Khan, Brexit, Trump and Burkinis

Leave a comment

Causes of the Birth, Rise and Fall of the Great Mongol Empire.

The personality of the leader and conqueror, Genghis Khan, is something that continues to intrigue historians to this day. All the major events related to Genghis Khan’s life and empire, when, how and in what order he carried out his many conquests, have been exceedingly well-researched. An abundance of ancient Uighur, Arab, Middle Asian, Persian and particularly Chinese written documents exists which describe these events in some detail. But that was the thirteenth century!

Historians today tussle over the issue of the ethnicity of the khagan and his descendants. In the vast expanse of the Russian Internet, you will find many different types of articles on Genghis Khan. Some are written in the traditional style of Russian historiography and describe the catastrophic “Tatar-Mongol” invasion which destroyed much of the nation and saw the onset of the almost three-hundred-year Mongol Yoke, responsible for holding Russia back for centuries. Others vary in theme ranging from claims that the invasion was a fake to the life of Genghis Khan and his grandson Batuhan, to the Russian princes and the period of their reign described as being one of great prosperity for Russia.

Often the authors of such articles make reference to portraits painted by Europeans which they themselves have never seen. I remember seeing portraits and sculptures in Central Asian, Caucasian and Slavic style, depicting Vladimir Lenin with the same ethnic features as the artists and sculptors who created them. That’s not to mention those who left to conquer China, Central Asia, Caucasia, Misr (Egypt), Syria and Persia.

Kazakh historians claim rights to Genghis Khan referring to the “concrete” argument of the khan’s tribal affiliation. Apparently, the khan, along with his entourage and entire army (which according to Chinese sources consisted entirely of representatives of the clans and tribes which survive to this day in the Middle and Senior “zhuz” (Kazakh tribal divisions) belonged to a uniquely kazakh tribe of direct Genghizid-Tore descendants. Naturally, the Mongolian people, who share the same name as the invasion, cannot but claim affiliation to Genghis Khan. That said, their historians have not yet been able to successfully respond to their opponents’ argument that the term “Mongol” did not exist prior to the birth of Genghis Khan and was invented by him personally. The historians of many nations that may or may not once have been part of the Mongol Empire claim relatedness to Genghis Khan. Among them, the most surprising is perhaps the Japanese claim.

I don’t intend to get caught up in the arguments of professional historians, however. My goal is simply to provide answers, as far as that is possible, to my childhood questions: ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’.

How were Genghis Khan and his descendants able to create the largest empire in the history of mankind in just fifty years, even though they started with nothing?

Why is it, that despite the fact that there are documented incidents in which whole towns and their inhabitants were annihilated, the conquered peoples were generally willing to accept Genghis Khan’s rule and lived peacefully within the Mongol Empire right up until its decline?

Why did the Mongol Empire rule for less than three centuries before disintegrating and finally disappearing when historical records show no significant attack either from external enemies or local uprisings? Why did a similar historical scenario repeat itself seven centuries later in the same geographic area in the form of the Soviet Union, which existed for just 70 years before its own decline?

With rare exceptions, why have none of the peoples inhabiting the areas of the former Mongol Empire achieved the democratic gains of Western countries, despite the fact that some of them have survived civilisations of the past that were in their time more sophisticated than the contemporary civilisation of Europe.

Why?

I’ll try and answer some of these questions from the point of view of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”.

First of all, it is worth remembering which historical time and circumstances surrounded the formation of the identity of the legendary conqueror, Genghis Khan. It was a time when in most of Eurasia, ferocious war was ongoing aimed only at destruction. Everyone was at war with everyone else. Extensive farming methods dictated the need for new pasture and arable lands. War raged not only between nations but between tribes and kin. The Chinese Three Kingdoms were fighting amongst themselves, as well as dozens of individual principalities of Rus’, all the proto-Kazakh tribes and everyone else as well… There was all-out human destruction throughout the vast territory of Eurasia. It was as if every human being believed that the only way to preserve their own gene was to annihilate that of their neighbour.

Ironically, the greatest earthly crime against the Law of Gene Preservation was committed in its name. Someone had to put an end to the bloody feast and history saw fit to call on Genghis Khan.

The young Genghis Khan, at that time still called Temujin, lost his father and all his senior male relatives to war and ended up a head of his family line when he was still a child. The young Genghis Khan had the sole aim of putting an end to the constant conflict, at least in his immediate environment, in order to save his family and prevent his genes from being totally wiped out. Displaying the remarkable abilities of warrior, diplomat and organiser, he quickly achieved his goal by uniting the free herders of clans close to his own and subjecting to his rule neighbouring tribes and their lands. However, fearing imminent clashes with new and more powerful distant neighbours, he had no choice but to continue running campaigns against them. From then on things developed according to the internal logic characteristic of all imperial conquests, revolutions and wars, which ultimately takes control of their leaders, sometimes even against their will.

Once an army of shepherds, who have since forgotten their nomadic livelihood, becomes a professional military force, growing in number, it has to be fed and given a share of the spoils of war. To maintain the army, the empire is forced to continually expand.  So then followed the conquering of the Kingdoms of China, the Central Asian khanates, the Russian principalities and later, the countries of the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

The first question that must be answered is how Genghis Khan was able to conquer such enormous territories with a population ten times, if not hundreds of times larger than that of the Turkic-Mongol tribes that followed him? Military professionalism and the fearlessness and valour of the steppe nomads could not have been sufficient. We know that Genghis Khan’s army was able to resist the well-equipped professional armies of local kings, princes and khans, but why has history left almost no trace of widespread popular resistance to the foreign invader?  The only exception might be the battle of the Kalka River, where the Western proto-Kazakh tribes and the Russian princes and their ‘druzhinas’ attempted to resist two ‘tumen’ of Jebe and Subutai the Valiant, which consisted mainly of members of the tribes of the Eastern proto-Kazakhs.

I am convinced that the main “secret” of Genghis Khan’s victories and his success in maintaining peace with his conquered peoples lay in the style of governance that his administration applied on occupied territory.

Marco Polo writes: “Conquering an area, he did not punish the population or violate their property rights. He simply instated a few of his own men among them, and then left with the rest for further conquests in distant lands. And when the people of the conquered land realised that he would protect them from all their neighbours and that they suffered no evil under his rule, and when they saw his generosity as emperor, they became loyal to him in body and soul, and went from former enemy to faithful servant.”

For example, during the period of the Tatar Yoke not one church was destroyed in Rus’. On the contrary, thousands of churches and hundreds of monasteries were built. I should add, that the Mongols refrained from interfering in the way of life of their conquered peoples as a matter of principle. Neither did they interfere in the economy, religion or rites and customs of these peoples. They levied a reasonable tax of ten percent on all types of income and took upon themselves the responsibility of protecting the perimeters of the territory from external threat. It has to be said that the Tatar-Mongols fulfilled their obligation quite conscientiously, one example being the well-known battle at Chudsk Lake against the German knights. The protection of the perimeter was not only a matter of guarding borders; it meant staunch isolation of the peoples of the empire from any external relations and was a method borrowed by local kings and khans and again later under Communist regimes.

As a result, the peoples of the Mongol Empire were virtually cut off from the developing outside world for eight centuries right up until the end of the twentieth century. Any sign of internecine feud was punishable by death. This was not for the sake of the conquered peoples of course, but for the sake of peaceful rule and tax collection. With the same aim of streamlining the taxation system, the Mongols built roads and initiated the postal service. They basically pioneered the process of forcibly globalising conquered peoples by administratively uniting disparate concentrations of single ethnic groups. They laid the foundation for the creation of powerful future states, such as the unified state of China formed from the Three Kingdoms and a unified Russia, from dozens of autonomous principalities. This fact was openly acknowledged by the grateful Chinese in the creation of their seventeen-part serial film “Genghis Khan”.

Expressed in the language of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”, the Mongols created the ideal conditions for the realisation of the Law of Gene Preservation for the empire’s entire population, which had not existed under the previous rule of tzars, khans and princes.  In my opinion, this explains the lack of serious popular revolt against the Tatar Yoke, a fact to which other historians have paid relatively little attention. There is evidence to show, that during the relatively calm and peaceful period of the Tatar Yoke, the Russian and Chinese ethnoses who came under the protection of the Mongol army, increased in size transforming later into the continental ‘superethnoses’.

Although the Western and Eastern proto-Kazakh tribes clashed tragically once again after the battle on the Kalka River near Ain-Zhalta (now Israel) in the armies of the Egyptian Mamluks and the Mongolian troops, it was nonetheless, during the reign of the Mongol Empire that their rapprochement began, a rapprochement that should have culminated in the formation of a single Kazakh ethnos after the collapse of the Empire.

The slogan the leaders of the Mongol Empire gave to their people sounded thus: “Be fruitful, multiply, work, pay the tithe and don’t meddle in things that don’t concern you!”. It is basically a slogan that is still used to this day.

With regard to Freedom of Choice, levels of personal freedom were low even among the conquerors. The individual need for Freedom of Choice was generally low during this historical period. It was the traders and merchants who were realistically able to expand their Freedom of Choice. The merchants were permitted to move freely, and most importantly, safely with their goods throughout the entire gigantic territory of the Mongol Empire.  Having banned the people from building armies and administrative systems based on the principles of familial kinship and ethnic affinity, Genghis Khan made the inhabitants of the empire equal in their civil rights. Each individual had equal opportunity to advance their career within the empire’s own social and political structures. In other words, he gave equal rights to Freedom of Choice, albeit at a very limited level and this undoubtedly facilitated the strengthening of the Empire.

In fairness, similar reforms were made in all “successful” empires both prior to the Mongol Empire and subsequently. At least, this was the case in the Roman, Napoleonic and Ottoman empires. In contrast, empires that have tried to found their power on the principles of giving precedence to one particular group, such as the racial principle in the case of the German Nazi’s, and the class principle in the case of the Soviet Communist’s, have all met an early death. Whereas the German Empire, in which a person was physically incapable of overcoming the racial barrier, lasted for just twelve years, the Soviet empire, lasted for seventy due to the fact that it gave its more unprincipled members the opportunity to “change” their class nature and “accept” the Communist ideology.

In all fairness, there was one act that mitigated the very low levels of Freedom of Choice in the Soviet Empire which extended the period of its existence, and that is the fact that education was universally accessible to all.

So why did the Mongol Empire collapse? The answer lies, once again, in the nature of the two laws: Gene Preservation and Freedom of Choice, or rather, in their contradiction.

Time passed, aggressive territorial campaigns were brought to an end and life began to adopt a more peaceful course. The Mongolian elite on the ground, who were granted unlimited power, became maddened by the endless possibilities of huge Freedom of Choice. Driven by the Gene Preservation instinct, they embraced the compulsion for unlimited wealth and increased personal power, naively believing that they could keep their riches for eternity, leaving it all to their descendants. Where are they today, the descendants of that elite and their wealth?

Blinded by power and looting, not only negating the general moral principles that had developed by that time, but also rejecting the direct admonitions of Genghis Khan’s ‘Great Yasa’, his descendants began a relentless fratricidal war. In the madness of the greed for personal wealth, even Genghis Khan’s original purpose was forgotten: the accumulation of wealth for the sake of posterity, in other words, for the sake of fulfilling the Law of Gene Preservation. Explicit and implicit father-child-brother and son-in-law killings became common in the courts of crown princes throughout the empire. Is not a similar scenario taking place today among the presidential families who inhabit the former lands of the Mongol Empire?

The collapse of the Empire became inevitable. The strict power vertical created by Genghis Khan, the likes of which, had never been seen before, finally crumbled and other independent state formations appeared in its place.  Palace coups were also plotted, as a result of which, power fell to the hands not only of the Chingizids, as was the case in Central Asia, but also to representatives of the comprador elite, such as those who ruled in Russia and China, who had previously served the Mongolian authorities in collecting taxes and controlling the population. Whatever their original status, all who claimed the title of king, khan and emperor, installed a totalitarian form of government in the Mongol Empire, and immediately set about building local power verticals in the style of Genghis Khan but which were much more ferocious in relation to the local community and their neighbours. At the same time, the law of serfdom was finally being written and consolidated in Rus’. The new rulers continued to mercilessly rob and oppress their own people, who, never having tasted Freedom of Choice, took it all without so much as a murmur. The spirit of slavery created by the Mongols stuck for centuries.

It is hardly surprising then, that five hundreds years later, the communist dictators who came to power throughout the lands of the former Mongol Empire chose the same totalitarian (or at best authoritarian) ideology and form of government, and displayed the same predatory and contemptuous attitude towards their people. In the Soviet Union, which took seventy years to accept the total inefficiency of the communist economy, the leaders of socialism, continued to take a firm grip on power and backtracking, installed in their countries equally inefficient principles of oligarchic, state-directed capitalism.

According to the Law of Humandynamics, the level of Freedom of Choice in the world is increasing. Is the law is effective though on the territories of the former Mongol Empire? Yes! I have total confidence that it is. It might be slow, creeping along with creaks and groans, but it is working. One hundred and fifty years have passed since the abolition of serfdom. We no longer see the communist kolkhoz and Sovkhoz state farms that brought with them Holodomor that took the lives of millions. The Marxist-Leninist ideology no longer lives to justify the annihilation of millions of innocent people. Among other rights that have appeared since those times, we now have a right to own property, to leave the country and to re-enter it when we choose. So, yes, there is evidence that the Law of Humandynamics is effective in lands of the former Mongol Empire.

Can one also say, that the peoples who inhabit the former territory of the Mongol Empire today are free? With the exception of South Korea, absolutely not! There is no genuine freedom of speech or freedom of the press in these areas of the world. These states have no independent electoral courts, no free elections and in a word, no Freedom of Choice. The ruling elite, continues to educate its population in an authoritarian and paternalistic spirit, intimidating them with the threat of what the outside world would do to them if it weren’t for the “father of the nation” – their only real support in an uncertain and ever-changing world. Even the Russian saying, ‘the sheep led by a lion is stronger than lions led by a sheep’, has been hammered into our heads since those times.

The ruling elite will always strive for wealth without limits. They will always push to consolidate and expand their position of power, in other words, their own Freedom of Choice. It would be foolish to think that one could appeal to the conscience of the elite and request that they moderate their appetites. The elite will never take the initiative to change this pattern. It will continue to focus on increasing its own wealth at any cost, like fermenting bacteria continue to absorb sugar from grape juice, transforming it into alcohol until there is no sugar left and the concentration of alcohol destroys it completely. It is more efficacious to remind the rest of society that they are justified in protecting their two sacrosanct rights to Gene Preservation and Freedom of Choice.

The behaviour of the elite is just as natural as a business that strives to expand, merge and swallow up other businesses. In democratic societies, people have learned to oppose this tendency by creating anti-monopoly laws and multi-party systems, in other words, by creating and protecting Freedom of Choice. I will never forget times in the Soviet Union when the sum total of the Freedom of Choice Communist leaders granted to the people was the right to choose between drinking vodka in the kitchen or watching football on television.

The more that freedoms are usurped by the elite and denied to the rest of society, and the lower the general level of Freedom of Choice among a people, the deeper corruption will go and the quicker (peacefully or otherwise) the Law of Humandynamics will kick in, obliged as it is to raise the level of Freedom of Choice in society as a whole.

Brexit, Trump and Burkinis.

To conclude, it is worth considering two minor fluctuations in Freedom of Choice that have taken place recently in countries with high levels of Freedom of Choice: Brexit in Great Britain and the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States.

In Britain and America, the fluctuations occurred due to the choices made by the less educated portion of the population, mainly living in provincial areas – roughly half the country’s population.  The establishment and more progressive portion of the population, who mainly live in large cities and who have enjoyed more Freedom of Choice thanks to the technological revolution of recent decades, “forgot” about those who have been left out of the process and were quite taken back by the results of the elections in the USA and Britain’s referendum. The vote of the more ‘backward’ portion of the population was more a vote of protest that a vote explicitly in favour of Brexit or Trump.

As a result of Brexit, Britain is already anticipating a drop in Freedom of Choice among large and medium-sized businesses since the free marketing of their products throughout Europe will become limited. British pensioners will no longer enjoy the free and affordable choice of residence on the warm seashores of France, Spain and Italy that they had before. And British youth will be much more limited in their choice of university in Europe. As it is not clear how those who did vote for Brexit will experience more Freedom of Choice, one can only expect resistance towards Brexit to increase.

When, earlier this year, local authorities imposed a ban on wearing a burkini in some French départements, I predicted that it could not hold. The Freedom of Choice of French Muslim women did indeed drop, but the ban did not lead to an increase in Freedom of Choice for any other portion of the French population. Consequently, the overall level of Freedom of Choice in France fell and the ban on burkinis quietly disappeared into history as an example of the stupidity of local officials. Similarly, it is difficult to see exactly how Freedom of Choice can increase for the portion of the British population, who voted in favour of Brexit, except perhaps for those who live by outmoded slogans of independence. I have no doubt that the British establishment is secretly wishing that they could ‘quietly forget’ about the referendum just as officials quietly forgot about the burkini ban in France.

The potential consequences of Trump’s election in America are less obvious. If he does actually implement the promises he made in the run-up to the election, then Freedom of Choice in America will fall for a huge army of Afro-Americans, Muslims and immigrants. Women will feel the effects as well.  On the other hand, if Trump succeeds in significantly and quickly reducing levels of unemployment and raising the economy through tax cuts, which in turn leads to a higher standard of living (in other words, if he increases opportunities for Gene Preservation among the majority of the population) then anti-Trump protestors may well calm down temporarily. If however, those who voted for Trump don’t feel any personal growth in Freedom of Choice that would promise increased living standards, then the protests will be revived on a national level.

As we can see, whatever the time, whatever the place, measures that increase Freedom of Choice for anything less than the majority of the population lead to revolutionary change. Those changes may be peaceful if, as in democratic countries, they come as a result of referendums and elections. Change that occurs in countries where the population does not have political freedom may, on the other hand, be catastrophic.

Karmak Bagisbayev, author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”.

Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson.