In the latest publication of, "Immodesty of an Egoist Mind", I discoursed about the concept of "Intellectual Minority" and my views on it, but now, I think it's the time for me to start talking about "morals". We can see in various cases in history, that different people, on different places, with different contexts, had different views on morals, but in every single case, they had especific, almost identical forms and structures. But why? The answer is simple. - Need for power to control the individual - In the most prehistoric times of humanity, "morals" didn't exist, but as time passed, and with larger communities forming, that needed more organization for being maintained, social hierarchy became a reality, and with that, resentment of the "lower castes" began to form. With this emminent fear of overthrown of the "higher castes" by the lower ones, a need for order, a need for castration of will took place, and with that, "morals" began to took root, and what is more functional than a social structure that maintains the view of being "good" and doing "good deeds" while the individual will of power and freedom is slowly taken away. Christianity took place in west, Zoroastrianism on the Middle East, Confuscionism in China, etc. Morals are good for only one thing, taking power, and maintaining it. You could say that I'm totally against morals? But that's not the truth, with the advent of "Doublethink", morals could be very useful, but only on the purposes stated above. Morals are nothing more than laws of society, constructed to control how the individual - the state's property - behaves and thinks, that is an assault against the very core of human life. - Self-Freedom -