Party of Invincibility
A global movement for everbody who loves life
Please also visit my personal homepage at: http://www.cdvolko.net/
The Party of Invincibility is a global movement for people who love life. Its aim is to connect people around the globe who share the aim of having an infinite life, an open-ended lifespan, living forever.
The following text is taken from an essay which I published freely on the Internet in May 2017.
For centuries, the Occident has been dominated by the Christian religion. He who did not faithfully follow what the priest preached from the pulpit was executed as a heretic. Crusades should contribute to the extermination of foreign religions outside Europe.
Only in the last few decades have people gained the opportunity to think and express their own thoughts freely, without risking their own lives. This is the reason why there are only a few newly developed religions beyond the traditional faith. Too little time has passed. Moreover, one can still be disadvantaged even today if one does not follow the majority religion. It is said that religious confession continues to play an important role in the allocation of posts at medical universities, for example.
At my father's funeral, a religious song was sung. I was the only one in the room who didn't sing along. The reason was quite simply that I was the only one who didn't know the text. Because I hadn't been brought up religiously. I belong to a new generation that grew up without a traditional religion. Born in Vienna in 1983, I am the son of parents who have been baptized, but who soon ceased to practice religion actively; my father even left the church. As a child, I was therefore free to develop my own religious beliefs independently of conventional beliefs.
As a child, I was particularly disturbed by the postulate that earthly life was finite. I wanted to live an infinite life. So I decided to make this the core of my religion. I perceived the world as a struggle between the divine forces of life and those of death, whereby I myself, as the demigod of invincibility, stood on the side of life. Not the world that we can perceive with our five senses, I regarded as the real world, but the fantasy world that we humans can develop with our thoughts.
The method of science is something I learned to appreciate very much as a teenager. After all, scientific statements must be logically consistent and inter-subjectively verifiable. For example, the statement that a virgin had given birth to God's Son would not be scientific, because it is not consistent. (A son can only be born of a woman who has had intercourse with a man, and so this woman is not a virgin! Daughters, on the other hand, could be born of virgins if it is assumed that parthenogenesis actually exists. However, sons cannot develop without fertilization because the unfertilized eggs do not have the Y chromosome. Unless a radical mutation occurs, which converts an X chromosome into a Y chromosome - which is highly unlikely!)
Science cannot, however, explain everything that is partly simply due to the fact that deduction of statements is only possible if one assumes that at least one basic statement is given.
In this respect, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to act as a "religious founder" and to think beyond the scientific.
My private religion, which I came up with as a child, is quite easy to explain. Basically, I assume that there is a world which we cannot perceive with our sensory organs, but which we can imagine in our thoughts. The fact that living beings are born and die is what I imagine to be the result of a struggle between quasi-divine powers taking place in a world that is not directly accessible to us. The state in our world, in which there is a constant coming and going, is interpreted by me as a consequence of the fact that the struggle between the divine powers of life and death has not yet been decided. Consequently, it is our task as a human being to decide for one of these two sides and to support this side in our thoughts.
I have chosen the side of life, and it is important to me that I want to give every living being the opportunity to live indefinitely long. In my imagination, I thought that in the true world which is hidden from us, I was a kind of demigod who serves faithfully as a vassal to the God of life and is himself invincible, that is, cannot even be defeated by death. I perceive myself as a kind of prophet and see myself in competition with those who prophesy the immortality of men. The latter I consider to be false prophets, because the concept of immortality implies the theoretical possibility of dying, while invincibility can also exist in a imaginable world in which no one has ever died and no one will ever die.
As an additional force besides life and death, I also perceive love and invisibility, whereby love is closer to life, invisibility is closer to death, but there are basically all four possible pairings.
I started practicing my faith as a child by doing some regular rituals to assure me that I am invincible.
The exploration of reality, that is, the world we can perceive with our sensory organs, and its laws is a venture to which I began to devote myself later. The insights I think I have gained so far should be regarded as provisional.
Basically, I think the Darwinian doctrine of natural selection is plausible, although I believe that this selection also takes place in human society. My impression is that a person's whole life is a permanent process of selection. It is primarily the fellow human beings who decide whether a person can continue to exist or not. Every human being is thus dependent on his or her fellow species in existence.
This is not necessarily inconsistent with my private religion, but what is striking is that in reality, apparently many actors together decide on the existence of an individual, not just two quasi divine forces. It is unclear whether this can be interpreted in such a way that these actors support the two divine forces. In any case, one has to bear in mind that people prefer or reject each other for various reasons. Hardly any human being clearly supports the side of death, as a rule he stands up for the life of certain types of people, whereas he would prefer to remove others from this world. This does not have to have anything to do with nationalism or racism; even within a people, most of the relatives find some of their compatriots sympathetic and worthy of support, others less so.
On the whole, however, my perception of reality seems to be quite compatible with the teachings of my private religion. Religion is thus not refuted - whereby a refutation would be difficult insofar as it makes statements about a world which is not accessible to us humans at all (unless in thoughts). These statements can therefore not be subjected to scientific judgement.
The social reality with its merit principle - in order to live, we need money to be able to buy the goods necessary for life, and we have to earn this through performance - has the effect that most people have little time to really think about the essentials, that is, about the essence of the world itself.
There may also be people who have no interest in thinking like that, and who may even be put off by the teachings of a traditional, recognized religion. Everything is theoretically conceivable. However, my impression is that many people are forced to follow a faith which they reject internally. This may not be the case in Europe for a few decades now, but I think it is still the case often enough. If children are baptized before they have the linguistic skills to be asked whether they want to be baptized, this is a compulsion, an imposition of religion. According to the current legal situation, it is necessary to wait until one's fourteenth birthday before voluntarily leaving a religious community and then is no longer obliged to attend an appropriate religious lesson.
The life of the people in reality is decisively shaped by the fact that - as far as we suspect from the experiences of past generations - it is finite. If life were infinite, there would be no need to consume food. We would not have to earn any money in order to afford it. There would then no longer be any supply bottlenecks in developing countries either. A lot of things would be easier, like a game. People would no longer have to fight for their survival; self-realization would become a realistic perspective for the entire population.
My father was convinced that modern biotechnology would change many things in people's lives. This may indeed be true, but one thing must be borne in mind: According to my private religion, the belief in an infinitely long life would already lead to, or at least contribute to, living indefinitely long lives (if not in reality, then in the world of thoughts). In this way, the whole of biotechnology would be unnecessary to prolong life. But the fact that I finally studied medicine at my father's request is due to the fact that the social consensus nowadays is based on the assumption that there are only inter-subjectively perceptible facts - that is, what matters is reality, not a fantasy world from which we cannot say whether it really exists. Under these premises, an infinitely long human life could only be achieved by technical developments on a scientific basis.
The fact that I studied medicine is in principle at odds with my private religion; medicine mistrusts the power of faith and assumes that it is possible to prolong people's lives on a strictly rational basis. In this respect, it is perhaps understandable that I have not been motivated to learn for the whole duration of my studies and therefore needed a little longer (my second degree course can also serve as a rational explanation).
The idea of scarcity is what underlies the economy. The scarcity is the reason why one has to be careful and not everything is in abundance. I do not know whether this view is realistic. In any case, a lot of things in people's lives are based on this chain of arguments. A system in which no one would have to pay for someone else's services because they would get everything they need for free is made unthinkable.
Perhaps one could change some things in people's lives under the assumption that life is finite. To be able to judge this, I still lack knowledge, including knowing the answer to the question of whether there is anyone who has the appropriate knowledge.
My adherence to liberal economic policy results from the fact that, on the one hand, I do not question the basic assumption of scarcity and, on the other hand, the alternatives (keyword: socialism) seem even less desirable. In addition, economic liberalism usually goes hand in hand with social liberalism, which gives you the opportunity to develop your thoughts freely. Without such liberalism, I would not be able to write these lines down.
It is noticeable that there is a recognized religion which has certain similarities with my private religion. This is Zoroastrianism. Neither my parents nor anyone in our circle practices this religion. I learned about this religion only in adulthood on the Internet. Since this is a very old religion, the question arises as to whether it might not be possible for certain religious beliefs to be congenital with humans. Perhaps the idea of a divine duality of good (Ahura Mazda) - evil (Angra Mainyu) is something that people are so familiar with that when they are not educated religiously, they themselves develop such a concept. The idea of the Amesha Spentas is also reflected in my private religion.
My private religion, on the other hand, has little in common with Christianity. With Judaism neither. These two religions are likely to be more recent in their evolutionary history and are less in keeping with the intuitive, innate ideas of human beings. Apparently, these religions were conceived by their founders only in adulthood, where the innate beliefs have already been superimposed by experiences from "reality".
I find the Christian idea of a God who becomes a human being and then dies and thereby saves humanity rather strange, not to say repulsive. I also reject Judaism, with its fundamental negation of the possibility of infinite life and its draconian punishments for those who break the rules. And Islam, of course.
My statement that I reject Islam could bring me a great deal of trouble if the Muslim population in this country were to gain the upper hand. In this respect, I understand why some people think that Christianity should be strengthened or that a kind of defensive Christianity should be enforced. The defence of a great folly by a perhaps smaller folly, which is still a folly, is basically not a satisfactory solution. Rather, one should examine the question of why people are at all intolerant towards other religions or why they want to impose their respective religions on their fellow human beings. There are probably psychological motives in the game that I can't yet comprehend.
The previously written text should summarize the core of my thoughts. There are certainly many aspects that have not yet been sufficiently discussed. I therefore reserve the right to extend this text - perhaps even to expand it considerably.
While I originally created a homepage explaining my ideology and put it online already back on June 30, 2017, I have decided on October 21, 2019 that it is time to make the next step and make it a movement which everybody can join who agrees on the view that an infinite lifespan is a desireable goal.
Claus D. Volko, October 21, 2019
Contact me at: cdvolko (at) gmail (dot) com