A Look At Human Nature Through Two Societies

While the subject of disasters and end-of-the-world scenarios have always been with us, today we are faced with threats that are not the plots of science fiction, they are real, and eminent. Most of my writing is romantic adventure fiction, intended to be entertaining. This paper, and a few others I have published on my website, are much more sobering. I know they aren’t as much fun to read, but I feel compelled to help people discuss the issue we face, and reach through those conversations to find solutions.

At the risk of arresting reader enthusiasm for taking the time to study this paper and consider the opinions I offer, I thought we might start with a snapshot of a few of the more serious threats we face in 2025.

*We are on the brink of a war unlike any we’ve seen before. Switches will be flipped, technology will be employed, other technology will collapse, and all of the destruction of World War Two will happen in a matter of a few weeks. In the aftermath, the modeling shows the numbers of dead will approach two or three billion people, 340 million in North America.

*Super resistant bacteria is projected to kill more people by 2050 than does cancer.

*Chemical and plastic particle contamination. Recent studies indicate commonly used drugs like hormonal birth control and acetaminophen are now resident in the water supply and are known to lower testosterone and fertility in humans and other animals. 40% of the world’s rivers contain dangerous levels of pharmaceutical drugs.

*Falling fertility rates. In the 1800s American women had seven children, of course many did not survive. Today the number is 1.7 and falling rapidly. Biological replacement is 2.55 surviving children before a woman reaches the age of 30. At one child per woman, it takes only four generations for the society to become extinct.

*The United States has $150 Trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities and a GDP of $28 trillion. That is a debt to GDP ratio of 535%. Globally, debt is more than $318 trillion, 328% of all economic activity. It is generally understood that a manageable debt to GDP ratio is about 60%.

*Due to the practices of industrialized farming, food processing, and the use of hybrid seeds, nutrition levels in food has declined dramatically in the past sixty years. The result is a dramatic increase in diseases associated with nutrient deficiencies and lower fertility levels.

*Autism is rapidly rising. Once considered a rare disorder, in the 1960s it was diagnosed in 3 cases per 10,000 children. Today that number is 1 per 31 school age children in the USA. The increase in diagnosed children rose 12.5% in the two years between 2020 and 2022. The effect this will have on society is unknown. Factors such as the ability to maintain relationships and how many children they have indicate potential issues as the numbers rise significantly.

*While the statistics can be difficult to analyze, abortions are increasing. One of the challenges with gathering statistics is the use of telemedical chemical abortions. Nineteen percent of abortions are performed using pills prescribed online, meaning there is no medical exam.

*Diagnosis of gender dysphoria in teenagers increased 209% between 2016 and 2019. Today, .6% of adult Americans claim to experienced gender dysphoria as opposed to 1.4% of teenagers, a 231% shift in four years. While adults claiming to be transgender are 1:235, teens claiming to be so are 1:71. It is unknown what effect this will have on society, but it is well documented that gender dysphoric individuals participate in much higher risk behaviors than non-dysphoric populations, and it can only be surmised that it will have an increasing effect on infertility. How much is an unknown since it is generally observed that this trend is socially influenced by the popularity of the status and may fade in time.

*Studies indicate a 79% increase in early-onset cancer over the past twenty years. At the current rate of increase, which seems to be holding, by the year 2050 there will be a 240% increase in global ANNUAL cancer deaths in the period of time between 2012 and 2050.

*The escape of a pandemic virus from laboratory research is almost certain. According to the National Institute of Health publication, I quote: “the likelihood of at least one escape from 10 labs in 10 years becomes 91%, almost a certainty.”

In that same paper, a comment specific to a “planned National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas estimated a significantly higher escape risk, over 70% likelihood for the 50-year life of the facility”

In another statement from that paper, it says: The risk of a man-made pandemic from a lab escape is not hypothetical. Lab escapes of high-consequence pathogens resulting in transmission beyond lab personnel have occurred. The historical record reveals lab-originated outbreaks and deaths due to the causative agents of the 1977 pandemic flu, smallpox escapes in Great Britain, Venezuelan equine encephalitis in 1995, SARS outbreaks after the SARS epidemic, and foot and mouth disease in the UK in 2007. Ironically, these labs were working with pathogens to prevent the very outbreaks that they ultimately caused.”

That paper, published in the National Library of Health, titled “The Consequences of a Lab Escape of a Potential Pandemic Pathogen”, was written in 2014. How prophetic, given that we know for certain that the COVID-19 virus escaped from such a lab in Wuhan.

As sobering as that list might be, if we don’t face our issues we will never find solutions, and as I will discuss herein, waiting for an end-times apocalypse, or for quantum computer-driven AI to solve our problems is not a solution.

Three – My Background

I was raised in a middle-class American protestant environment. I was an intelligent, energetic, curious child, and as was common among suburban kids, when not in school, we were usually left unsupervised. That fact resulted in my delinquency, and by the time I was eleven years old, my parents were at their wits’ end. My father worked long hours building his business. My mother sat at home. She wasn’t a soap opera watcher; she kept an orderly house, and every afternoon, one of her neighbors, also a stay-at-home mom, would visit to drink coffee, smoke cigarettes, and talk.

The kids were in school or outside playing in the neighborhood. This is completely unnatural behavior, designed and promoted to advance an industrial society with the intended consequence of enslaving the populace willfully. Think about how humans developed over many thousands of years. Fathers were hunting, or in the fields. Their sons were alongside them, learning and expending energy in a supervised manner. There were adventures to be experienced while hunting and fishing. Women worked among a community of others, and their daughters were alongside them. After boys got to be old enough to keep up with the men, meaning puberty, there was a separation, and boys weren’t around girls in isolated situations. Kids weren’t left to their mischief while dad and mom were away at the office.

My mischief resulted in my enrollment in a Catholic military academy when I was in the fifth grade. I was an excellent student when interested in the subject matter, a National Merit Scholar, and excelled in the biological sciences.

I started college with the intention of getting an undergrad degree in biology then specializing in herpetology, the study of reptiles. I suppose that I was an agnostic, but science was my naive passion. That dream got derailed by the discovery that science, as it is practiced, is a religion. I felt betrayed by the lack of honesty and how the scientific process was being misused to promote ideas that its practitioners admitted were mathematically impossible. I decided that I much preferred business. It was more pure in its pursuit of the truth. I guess I’ve been chasing truth all of my life. Oddly enough, the closer I get to it, the less I like what I find. At least I don’t like what humans have become and how we twist and pervert that which is natural into something unnatural. Nevertheless, I am enjoying this study. Perhaps by helping people to see what path we’ve taken, there can be some peace from it. My romantic nature leads me to pray that if we end up starting over as a species, observations of what went wrong this time might provide part of a better solution. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating of it.

As I said, in college, I had an epiphany. Upon questioning my science professors about the mathematical improbability of Darwinian Evolution as it was promoted, I was told, “Yes, it isn’t mathematically possible, but it is what we believe.” Science had become a religion.

I changed my major to the School of Business. After my father’s death during my sophomore year, I left school early and went to work. A couple of decades later, I had a wife, children, and a business of my own. Unlike my father, however, I was ever present in my kids’ lives.

Along the way of my life, I had years of experience that opened my eyes to the realm of human sexuality, and social and family structures. I lived with two women in a polygynous relationship, and I had the opportunity to observe thousands of women in a society where the bonds of social convention had been removed. This was a parallel world, where men and women… again, many thousands of them… lived very typical lives in public, but out of the public eye, were very different from the façade they presented to the world. I am completely certain that you have known, worked with, and possibly lived with people who belong to that society. I met people there that I knew in the parallel world. Friends, co-workers, fellow church members, pastors, bosses, and employees. Some people even told stories of surprise encounters with family members, and I was good friends with a couple who came face to face with the husband’s parents one evening. Face to face, being a relative term, since they were all naked at the time.

I am not here to debate the manner in which millions of humans expressed their nature. Studies have indicated that up to 48% of people have participated in nudism and naturist activities. Seventeen percent of the population describe themselves as being in poly relationships.

I began to question which side of society’s coin was actually healthy and which was perverse. The natural environment I witnessed is widely practiced but denied by “polite and righteous” society. I observed these situations for years, especially the behavior of women when they were given freedom from the constructs of socialization and expectations regarding their behavior and sexuality. Please understand what I just said. When you remove the structures of society that provide for a natural expression of what God created, you get secretive and potentially unproductive behaviors. You can complain about our nature, but it is impossible to avoid. You may believe that it can be eliminated, and in certain rare individuals it might, but not usefully. It is baked into our genetics as part of our survival and reproduction mechanisms, and no amount of self-flagellation will bury it within a society.

The Catholic church acknowledges thousands of cases of priests fathering children, and estimates based on what information has been released, place that number in the tens of thousands.

We would be far better off to embrace what is natural and stop trying to convince ourselves that what God created and intended, is sinful.

Across thousands of years, humans created polygynous family structures to take advantage of our natural instincts and behaviors. If read accurately, the Biblical scriptures and other societies’ writings through history, describe that culture as it was instructed by God to align with our natural beings. Modern society, starting in the second century, has (including Judeo-Christians) twisted and perverted itself into something that is killing us. When I talk to Christians today, they almost entirely misunderstand scripture, misquote it, and misappropriate passages to support this perversion, and the result is what we have: a broken culture.

As I began collecting my thoughts about this subject it occurred to me that my readers are going to belong to one of two beliefs, those who believe there is a God, and those who believe there is not. Although this paper is not an attempt at evangelism, it will explore the way that deists influenced society. That influence can’t be denied, even by those who don’t believe in a creator.

We have reached a point in history where, as I argue often, we are doing everything wrong. It hard to find even one aspect of our lives that can’t be criticized. We are convicted by our crushing infertility rate, antibiotic resistant super bacteria, chemical and plastic particle contamination, violence, drug addiction, abortion, declining nutritional value of our industrialized food, debt-based fiat monetary systems, our obsession with the military industrial complex and war, medicine vs health, an education system that doesn’t educate, and I could go on, but the point is made.

If we want to explore how we got to the place where we are staring into the collapse of human society, we can’t avoid the evidence that the followers of Jesus affected that path. I avoided the term Christian on purpose. As I will explore herein, I find little of Jesus in his believers, although I am one of them.

I have long struggled to understand how humans can accept narratives that are foolish, and even ingrain behaviors such as drug abuse and smoking into our society, influences that threaten our very existence. It seems obvious that something in our past has predisposed us to following destructive social practices, or perceived authorities, regardless of the heinous orders they give. Over and over throughout history we see the evidence. The Nazi movement and the killing of millions of Jews, and the policies of Communist China that resulted in hundreds of millions of girls being killed are two of the worst. You may think that this pattern of following misdirection pertains to cultures like those two, but allow me to give you two more from a more familiar experience.

Four – COVID: An Example of Human Nature Gone Wrong

In 2021, I remember driving across the 520-floating bridge in Seattle during a stormy, windy day. In the middle of that mile long bridge, over open water, in a torrent of rain, with no other person in sight, was a young woman out for a run, wearing a commonly seen mask.

The Federal test standard (ASTM F2100-19) for the fabric those masks are made of advises not to wear them as protection against an air born virus or bacteria, as they are ineffective and were never intended for that purpose.

The legal disclaimer on mask packaging clearly states they are “Non-Medical.” Today, billions of people around the world still wear them.

Finally, on this subject, there is evidence that frequent wearing of N95 style masks may actually increase the statistical probability of infection. I will quote from a publication on epidemiology and infection dated November 2023 titled: “Association between face mask use and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Cross-sectional study.”

The study, using cross-sectional data from 3,209 participants in a randomized trial, found that, “the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 was 33% (aRR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03-1.72) higher in those wearing face masks often or sometimes, and 40% (aRR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08-1.82) higher in those wearing face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported wearing face masks never or almost never.”

The first reported SARS outbreak was in November 2002 in China. In the following two years, 8,000 cases were reported in 30 nations and 774 people died. Between the year 1999 (2 years pre-covid) and 2020, there were more than 4,000 patents filed related to that virus. It was clearly known at the time that there was an effective cocktail for treating this virus: zinc, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin. Zinc was the catalyst that allowed the other combination to perform properly. This was known information, and publicly available by a simple internet search. During the virus experience I reviewed more than one hundred published studies; studies that the media paid great attention to as evidence that hydroxychloroquine was not an effective treatment. Not one of those studies used the correct combination, nor in the right dosages. They were all designed to fail. That “evidence” was used by the pharma industry to invoke a law that enabled them to promote an experimental vaccine that had never been tested, and avoid liability for the deaths and injury they caused.

Stoked by fear, forced isolation, and mistakes by the medical community in early 2020 treatments, the public wore worthless masks and eventually lined up for the vaccine.

Thousands of doctors objected to what was being promoted. They were castigated and punished for their objections; many lost their medical licenses.

A study was done in 2020 that indicated trust in Government increased all over the world by as much as 17% in one year. By 2024, the evidence produced by subsequent studies and congressional investigations made it clear that governments and industry had lied to the public. The virus was created in a lab in Wuhan, China and was partially paid for by the US Government. There were known treatments that were ignored in favor of industry profits, and the media had covered for them by spewing lies across the world. A billion people suffered under lock downs and even violent abuse by the authorities if they ventured away from their restriction. Millions of people died unnecessarily, and many millions more were damaged by treatments.

I want to make it clear, and I was on record at the time speaking of it, our intelligence agents (US, British, and Israeli) were talking to the scientists in that Wuhan lab in late 2019. They reported to the government in briefings about that event. I know one of them personally. I have long suspected, although it would not be confirmed even if asked, that they smuggled one of those virologists out of Wuhan. The authorities KNEW, and they lied.

The most stunning aspect of this, in my opinion, is that this information was readily available at the time but people were so programmed to conform that they didn’t make even the smallest effort of research. Not only that, but people who were telling the truth about the event were persecuted, and in 2025 the government is still advising people to take that experimental vaccine.

The Lancet, a leading medical journal, reported a study in October of 2024 titled “Cardiac manifestations and outcomes of COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis in the young in the USA.” That study was derived from the experience of patients in 38 hospitals in the United States.

In that report, it states that, “the primary outcome was presence of myocardial injury as evidenced by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging.” And “No cardiac deaths or heart transplantations were reported until the time of submission of this report. LGE persisted in 60% of the patients at follow up.”

I quote from a search on what LGE is: “Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in cardiac MRI is a technique used to identify and characterize myocardial fibrosis (scar tissue) in the heart. It involves injecting a gadolinium-based contrast agent and capturing images a delay after injection when the agent has washed out of healthy tissue but remains in areas of scar. In essence, LGE is a valuable technique in cardiac MRI that helps doctors visualize and assess the presence and extent of scar tissue in the heart, aiding in diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis of various cardiac diseases.”

Again from the Lancet publication: “In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis has a mild initial clinical course but myocardial injury as evidenced by LGE on CMR (cardiac magnetic resonance) at the initial presentation is common.”

So, we clearly see that 60% of the vaccine receiving patients studied in 38 hospitals had evidence of scarring of the heart following injection with the COVID mRNA vaccine. Even though they may not have experienced symptoms, the scarring was there and could lead to heart disease later in life.

Humans are unfailingly willing to accept and follow perceived authority even in the face of common sense and the evidence provided by dissidents. That even extends to areas where they are damaged as a result of obedience.

Five – Infertility: The Extinction Decision

The second example I will give you is even more difficult for most people to accept. Humans have largely stopped reproducing, and unless women want to tell men that it was the responsibility of the male population to force them to stay home and have babies, then women need to accept responsibility.

It could be observed that it is only societies that have been influenced by Western Christianity that are choosing to become infertile, but the truth is that as the rest of the world is exposed to western culture, the more likely they are to aspire to that lifestyle. Even Muslim families who emigrate to western societies soon adopt that society’s behaviors and it is common for parents to lament the way that their daughters stop acting traditionally, including declines in birth rates.

Family structures went from 4+ children per household in the 1970s and earlier, to the current projection of about 1.3 and falling. Nearly 20% of women currently state that they do not intend on having any children and of those who do, nearly all of them are delaying childbirth until their mid to late 30s.

Even having two children per household is a path to extinction. Math and biology, as I so often say, are tyrants.

If all women had two children, only 47.5% of them would be female. Of those in developed countries, one in four women, approximately 25%, struggle with biological fecundity, difficulty conceiving. The implication in the United States is that at the rate of decline in our fertility rate (1.7 and falling rapidly), for every 1,000 women today, there will be approximately 50 in four generations.

South Korea is an excellent example, if you call it that. Of every 100 Koreans alive today, there will be 4 by 2100. That is a 96% depopulation, and they have reached the point where it can not be reversed. In biology this is called the evolutionary trajectory point of no return, where the math and biology collide to indicate that even if every woman alive started doing nothing except having babies, our gestation period and the length of time it takes to reach reproductive puberty cannot overcome the curve of the population decline.

Similar to South Korea, every developed nation on earth is at or nearing that event horizon.

A recent article I read on the website Cofertility, indicates that in the year 2024 the increase in women freezing their eggs in the hope of delaying fertility is growing at a rate of 30% year over year. At the same time, sperm viability is falling to the point where only 4% of prospective donors qualify. The implication of this, combined with other trends, is that in the near future humans will essentially be inbred father-daughter breeding.

One of the most rapidly growing trends is that women with college degrees are as much as 54% more likely to have their first child after the age of 30 and family size will be one child. In 1960, half of all babies were born to women under the age of 22 and family size was four children.

It is clear that we are approaching a point in history that has never been experienced. Perhaps we should turn our attention to discussions of how we got to this point in our society and what can be done about it.

As I often say, Math and Biology are rational tyrants. To understand the fertility crisis, let’s explore further what happens over a 100 year example when we take two populations of 1,000 women with one of them having children at twenty years old, birthing four babies by the time they are thirty; then take the other population and have them start at age 35, having only one child.

This is just an example, and there are many variables, including that about 20% of women are either infertile or struggle with fecundity. Looking at this simple exercise though, will give us the general idea of the issue.

Consider that the global ratio of girls born to boys is only .95. That means out of 200 births, 95 will be girls. The implication of this is that in the first generation, the second population of 1,000 women only produced 475 girls with a 35-year spread in pregnancies, but the first population produced 1900 girls spread 25 years apart. The second generation produces 3600 females in the first group, but only 226 in the second group. That is the last birth generation in our model for the 35-year group, but the 25-year group has two more generations to go.

When you extend these theoretical populations and their birth demographics over a one-hundred-year time frame, you will find that at the end of that period the first population of 1,000 women has grown to more than 27,000 people, but the second population has shrunk to under 500 people, less than half of which are female. At that rate, the group that only has one child becomes extinct in four generations.

Six – Different World Views

As I studied these matters and attempted to find solutions, I worked backwards through time, seeking the origin of our dilemma. It quickly became obvious that we as humans have different perspectives on the universe, and that meant I had to determine which of those paradigms affected our situation and in what manner.

First, there is the humanist perspective. We are but animals, void of souls, and morality is mutable. We live and die, and returning to dirt is our fate. The mantra of this viewpoint is “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we may die.”

Second, there is a traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim view: We have souls and are related to a supreme being who created all things. The oldest system of this is rooted in the Hebrew culture and there are societies today that adhere more to those precepts, namely the Amish, Mennonite, and other Anabaptists that focus on closed societies and strict rules of behavior that emphasize simple living.

There is a Hebrew example in history, which is largely represented by the Muslim community today. They organized society to deal with our human nature, believing that they were responsible for their wickedness and had the ability to pay for it through a system of sacrifices. For the purposes of this exploration Muslims are a version of the Hebrew society we will explore.

Then there is the Christian view that Christ paid for the sins of humanity. This society, formed by the early practitioners, view human nature as sinful also, but they adopted a culture of self-denial and abuse as their solutions for dealing with that sin. The premise is that since Christ paid for their sins already, they are unworthy. They diverged from the Hebrew culture when they began proselytizing the gentile nations and adopted the belief that prosperity is wicked, and to suffer is righteous. For those who disagree with that tenant, I will speak to that argument in this paper as I believe it is the root of humanity’s current challenges.

Of course, there are other religions and how they view the world, but in the modern era, the great preponderance of the world is influenced by the history of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim experience. Even socialism and communism resulted from the path of influence exerted by the early Christian church.

As I stated, I began this study with the observation that we are destroying ourselves, which led to the question: “What went wrong?” I decided to look at two different societal solutions, Hebrew and Christian. What became more and more apparent during my study, was that the Hebrew/Muslim model focused on harnessing human nature and directing it through social structures for the purpose of increasing productivity. We might not like the specifics of some elements of that society as it is expressed, but neither can we deny the deplorable things Christians have done in the name of their own faith.

As difficult as it is for Christians to accept, Islam is growing rapidly and when you look at the pinnacle of their society nations, are among the wealthiest, most secure societies on earth. These successful nations have refused to admit their cultures’ bad examples into their society, isolating cultures like Boko Haram, ISIS, and the Taliban from their banking systems or immigration. This has been a big point of the request for these nations to take refugees from Gaza. They have refused them whereas the Christian nations have opened their doors and welcomed the dregs of the Muslim world, even allowing them to hold public office and influence the culture. In the references section there is a link to an interview where the matter is discussed. What we can’t deny, is that Muslims are the only culture in the world today that is not on a path to extinction. Ultimately, survival MUST be a metric of success. The death of a culture can hardly be evidence of its value.

The early Christian society viewed human nature as evil and something to be eliminated by punishing people for what is natural. That path usually involved denial and castigation, frequently resulting in horrific acts of unchristian conduct. When we step back and look at where the past 2,000 years have led us, we are faced with an undeniable fact. Every culture on earth that originated through Christian influence is facing a mathematical and biological course to extinction. This can be easily demonstrated using a common spreadsheet. Take the population’s reproduction rate, factor in the age of mothers at the time they currently give birth, and human gestation periods, there is a point where the birthrate falls to a number where the population can’t recover. We are past that time in every culture on earth except one, and that culture’s metrics are still falling.

I want to be clear that my exposure of human constructs is not a rebuke of faith or of God. This work is purely looking at organizations of human activity and the results of those efforts. We need solutions and those always come from understanding the base issue.

Likewise, this paper isn’t meant as a specifically Christian message, but I encounter certain arguments so often in that community that I feel the need to expose the errors we have embraced. The deeper I dove into the subject matter, the more obvious it became that beginning in the second century, Christian and Jewish leaders began teaching behaviors and practices that changed our naturally inclined society into one that denies our nature and even describes it as evil. That was not the message Jesus came to deliver, and the error resulted in a dramatic change in how we conducted our family affairs, social structures, and our view of what is morally right and wrong.

One of the many results is that people are driven to do natural things out of public sight, whereas they didn’t have to do that before. One of the tenants of our faith is that you can’t avoid your nature. We have stopped dealing with it and now simply deny its expression. What was righteous is now clandestine.

Seven – How I Began this Discovery

I began my journey of studying scripture in the original languages after listening to a sermon in church one Sunday in the late-1980s or early 1990s. I can’t honestly remember what that sermon was about, but it motivated me to dig deeper into scripture in an attempt to understand the subject. I remember going to a Christian bookstore in Bellevue, Washington to look for study resources, whereupon I came across a software program called Logos. At the time, there were limited internet tools compared to today’s offering. The Logos program was on discs, and I purchased it, as it offered cross referencing English translations of scripture with the original languages.

To my surprise, I found that the teaching I had heard in church wasn’t what the original scriptures actually said. To clarify that statement, the church I went to was one of the largest in the State of Washington with a large pastoral staff, all of whom were seminary educated. The head pastor held a PhD from Biola University’s Talbot Theological Seminary. He was a great man and led tens of thousands of believers over the years. Regardless, there were issues with his exegesis, his explanation of the verse, because the Hebrew wasn’t accurately translated in The Bible.

That was my first exposure to the issues with theology as taught in seminaries. I once heard a comment that seminaries taught people about God, not how to know him. This is not the paper to fully explore that subject, but it is clear that the authorities of the church have been wrong on many subjects over the course of history.

That experience, having seen that what was being taught did NOT represent the original message of the scripture, pushed me to try and understand how that could happen. As the authors of the book Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes explained so well, the cultural, literal, and translation issues surrounding The Bible have resulted in a long history of errant teaching that began as early as the original apostles. I know this sounds arrogant and insane, but when we look at history and compare what Christians believe to what scripture actually says, I can come to no other conclusion. Now that errant teaching is so ingrained within the church that the principles of those errors have become the tenants of our faith.

One of the biggest issues is that Hebrew and Greek are highly accurate languages, but English is not. One example is that nearly forty different words and nuances in Hebrew scriptures were all translated into one word: Wife. That word has a very limited meaning in English, but their culture the original words conveyed MANY different nuances.

I also suggest that we keep in mind that these misdirected church leaders were the ones who translated and assembled the current Bible and almost certainly some of that bias became part of the translations. Even the insertion of a comma or connecting phrase that wasn’t there in the original language can change the implication of a translation. This is why I suggest studying for yourself and not relying on the traditions of the church, nor on classically trained theologians. They have a long history of being in error.

Some people claim that I am denying the tenants of the faith, and a heretic. Fine, but you then must explain how a logical God who created and ordered trillions of universes, suddenly decided that people should be unproductive self-abusive zealots. If you disagree with my findings, then come up with an explanation for how modern society has collapsed.

Some have written the entire mess off as being part of mankind’s “sin nature.” Then explain how for thousands of years Hebrew society didn’t share the problems we have now. Explain why the anabaptist societies avoid the problems the rest of Christian society is dealing with. Why are there no single teenage mothers? Why is giving birth an honor, and in the Hebrew cultures, families with many wives were celebrated?

There are those who might say the answer is that humans have no hope outside of Christ’s return. Perhaps. That conclusion, however, is fearfully agnostic and leads to fatalism. There MUST be answers to questions, and those answers need to be logical. If not, how then can we evaluate our lives and live in a morally successful manner?

If we can’t find legitimate answers, then we are condemned to an inevitable submission to fate, which is a rebuke of our faith, and I can’t accept that.

So, there is the dilemma, one I have not solved. It is a circular reference and not solving questions is a torment. Nevertheless, the discovery of the truth is before us, so let’s proceed.

I am an unconventional Christian. I am comfortable with my faith and conclusions, but conflicted by how the faith has been presented to history. I hear other Christians talk and preach, but too often, as I will show you, there is no alignment with scripture. As I study Christ’s message, I can’t find any instructions to build enormous, gilded buildings, or global trillion-dollar church organizations. I don’t want to get too far ahead of the topic, however. Let’s take this step by step and I pray you will walk alongside me on this journey, and please feel free to disagree, but if you do, bring the kind of deliberate evidence I am sharing with you.

There are always people who disagree, that is natural. What I often encounter is that people who dissent from my findings ask for examples to support my statements. For this reason I have provided detailed analysis of the points that I make, both herein and in the references section that follows. If you disagree with me, and I pray you think about this subject enough to develop an informed opinion, bring the conversation. Please, though, do research. I am going to give you serious documentation from history and written records. I appreciate others who do the same and not just call me a heretic without substantial rebuttal.

Eight – The Flat Earth Group, and the End-Timers

I have no use for paranoid expositions regarding the Masonic secret society that rules the world, the Bilderbergers, Rothschilds, Illuminati, or Luciferian worshipers. I have doubts about their existence in the manner that the flat earth society people rant. Those folks give me no reason to spend my time in that pursuit.

If they do exist, or if these are the end times, then so be it. We have no control over those potentials and I choose not to waste my time debating them. I have done business all over the world and not one person has ever asked me for the secret handshake. My entire experience leads me more to blame ignorance, laziness, and corruption for our problems instead of massive obscure conspiracies.

Yes, I have encountered members of the Illuminati in my international business dealings. I have found them to be irritating and disruptive, but inevitably powerless. It is my opinion that it is a scam, promoted by the charismatic corrupt to convince people to give them money in exchange for salvation. I am also aware that people worship Satan, and even sacrifice humans to their lower-case-‘g’ god. Although their associations are heinous, again, I find no global governance in such fraternities, although I do not doubt that they exist.

Before we begin the “deep dive,’ into the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, let’s talk for a moment about the segment of our faith that focuses on the book of The Revelation To John, and the suggestion that human society will reach the point of an apocalypse, where upon such time God will return and intervene.

I had a beloved uncle who enjoyed endless hours of biblical argument about The Revelation To John. I never found that kind of unending circular debate useful. The writing itself is vague and fantastic, and there is no ability to define or make use of it to solve the temporal problems we face.

While I certainly agree with that possibility, I can’t get past the fact that the book itself is extremely vague and clarity is impossible. I also have little assurance, based on the history of the faith and how its canon came into being, that this book deserves the attention we put on it. I’m sorry, but as we are going to discover, there is a tremendous amount of bias and agenda in how the current version of The Bible was created. Questioning and debate is at the base of our faith and always has been. If we can’t question and research as a means of uncovering wisdom, then what is the point of scripture’s existence?

Finally, we are instructed that we can’t measure the time of such things. The final verses in 2Peter: 3 are clear about that. Every generation for 2,000 years has believed that they live in the end times. Meanwhile, we have evidence of dozens of major societies that are either completely gone or are diminished to the point of being relatively inconsequential. I find no conviction in John’s revelation as it pertains to what we face. If this is indeed the brink of the apocalypse, then so be it. If not, then we need to attempt to decipher some solutions that are based on what we know to be successful. This is where a study of history and scripture is helpful in a scientific sense.

Nine – Hebrew Society and Family Relationships

This portion of my study begins a challenging introspection of modern society and one of our central tenants, family relationships. I chose this specific chapter title and worded it deliberately because I believe family is the core of society and from what I have observed, most of our problems originate from the twisting of that institution.

I do want to be clear as well, that there might be any number of examples within that society of behaviors and laws that we would find objectionable. That is not the purpose of this paper. I want to focus on families and how we went from a sustainable culture to one that us utterly debased and collapsing rapidly.

Personally I believe that God created animals and gave us natures to insure our survival and abundance. Like other animals, humans have natural energies that need to be expressed. They originated as part of our DNA because they benefit the survival of the species. In modern times, largely because those energies were so successful, the very elements of our nature that got us here are destroying us. Some of those instincts, like seeking the path of least resistance to reduce calorie consumption, and the drive for carbohydrates, especially sweets, were valuable for thousands of years. Now we have largely overcome the lack of food and the abundance of it is the cause of major health problems.

Other instincts, such as mating behaviors, are deeply ingrained in our hormone production, genetic behaviors, and biological rhythms. Over thousands of years, societies were structured to channel and harness those energies in constructive ways. If they are repressed or inhibited, they become destructive. All animals are like this. I’ve known dogs to destroy things out of boredom or the need to release energy. Most dogs need a regular period of exercise every three or four days. In the wild, this would align with the pack’s hunting routine. Nature exists for a reason and failing to structure society to align with nature leads to unintended consequences.

I have stated my opinions regarding the development of modern societies, especially the disastrous influence during the second century by ascetic Christians and Jews. Those men and women believed that natural human behavior was ‘sinful.’ They believed that it was important to separate people from that which their natural state, their DNA, led them. This perversion led to the invention of the concept of ‘sin nature,’ and the instructions to deny our instincts.

People were told that they would go to hell for behaving exactly as they were designed. This is obviously illogical. The result was an undoing of thousands of years of social development intended to harness our genetic behavior for success, and twisting it in such a way that it might result in our demise.

Ten – Polygyny

If asked, modern Christians will usually say that polygyny is sinful. If we look at the Book of Job, we see a man described as “perfect.” He was “the greatest of all the men of the east.” The English translations are not very accurate, but in Hebrew, he is described as having many women in his family household. In Hebrew the word for household in Job 1 verse 3 is עֲבֻדָּה ʿăḇudâ. It is a female noun that means the sum of his household servants. The passage in English says that he had: “a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.” The word translated as “great,” in Hebrew describes what he possessed, his wealth. The magnitude of it is the implication. So, Job is described as having many female servants, in his household, and that was a blessing from God. According to the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, this word servant was a feminine noun. It was used twice in scripture, the other time being Genesis 26:14.

As you will see in the coming pages, there was an obligation on the part of a man to provide the conjugal privileges of his female servants. Some of those might be handed off to sons (Job’s lived in their own households so that wasn’t an option.) Others might be given sexually to male servants, thus satisfying both people’s needs (I will show that in a few paragraphs). For the most part, however, if female servants (who were indentured), lived within the household, their master had sex with them.

Clearly, being married to multiple women, and having concubines and slaves as sexual partners was not considered sinful, it was admired. Further, for those who claim that behaviors were allowed in the “Old Testament” but were not in the “New Testament,” polygeny was practiced long after Christ was crucified, Paul implied it in his instructions that Bishops should limit themselves to one, and Jesus clearly stated in Matthew 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

While we are on the subject of passages that deal with being married to one woman, I would like to turn our attention to one of the most frequently misapplied, Paul’s instructions in 1Timothy 3: 1-2.

The word in this verse is specific to those men who aspire to the position of Bishop, the passages refer to the office of “Bishop”. The word is episkopē in Greek. It means the presiding officer of a Christian Church. It is NOT applied to other positions. It does not apply to the counsel of deacons, it is the Bishop. The specific reference in Thyer’s Greek Lexicon for that word, identified as Strong’s G1984, in 1Tim 3:1 and 2, says: “After the analogy of the Hebrew, פְּקֻדָּה  (Numbers 4:16; 1 Chronicles 24:19 (here the Sept. ἐπίσκεψις), etc.), oversight i. e. overseership, office, charge; Vulg.episcopatus: Acts 1:20, from Psalm 108:8 (Ps. 109:8); specifically, the office of a bishop (the overseer or presiding officer of a Christian church): 1 Timothy 3:1, and in ecclesiastical writings.”

Notice in that definition, applied to the passage we are referring to, 1Tim 3: 1-2, the word applies SPECIFICALLY to the person who desires to holds that office. To apply that passage as indicating that monogamy was instructed by Paul is wrong.

I want to explain this topic with complete accuracy because it is at the root of our decline. Christ was clear that he did NOT oppose the “law” or the “prophets,” so let us look at what that specifically says and some passages that have been often misused.

One such passage is Deuteronomy 17:17. One commentary says this passage: “instructs future kings not to “multiply wives,” implying that polygamy is not ideal for those in positions of leadership.”

That statement is completely untrue. What the word “multiply” rāḇâ in Hebrew, means to “increase greatly, exceedingly.” Strong’s Definitions translates it as “Exceedingly.” Further, the word rāḇâ is an “imperfect plural.” That means it is describing a past action. The example in the dictionary is “I was watching tennis.” Watching is an “imperfect” verb.

In this case, Deuteronomy 17, what is being described is that the Israelites were being instructed that when they entered the land God was going to give them as they came out of Egypt, they must choose a King from among them who would focus on not returning the people to Egypt (Chapter 16), but rather on serving the people instead of using the situation to magnifying his wealth. Horses, gold, and silver were specifically mentioned, along with wives. It doesn’t say he can only have one wife or one horse and it certainly doesn’t say or imply that the people are so limited. That is a mistaken teaching. Scripture says that he should not use that transition period from Egyptian captivity to add to his wealth “exceedingly.”

Again we see commentators in error, promoting their bias when the tools are readily at hand to see what the passage was actually saying. Clearly, in future generations, the kings of Israel had many wives, concubines, and slaves. The only rebuke they suffered was when Solomon married FOREIGN women, who worshiped other gods. THAT was his rebuke in 1 Kings:11.

Moses wrote the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy as part of the Pentateuch, the five books which are accepted as a direct depiction of how God instructed his people to live. In Exodus 21:1, it clearly states, “Now these are the judgments (H4941) which thou shalt set (H7760) before (H6440) them.”

The numbers shown are from Strong’s Concordance, an authoritative word study in the original languages. H4941 means “ordinance, or what is proper and fitting,” as a judge would use in deciding a matter brought before him. So, the laws that followed are how God wanted the people to live and how their judges decided cases.

Exo 21:2 describes that Hebrew servants can be purchased and after six years they would be offered freedom without payment to their master.

Exo 21:3 says that if the man is married when he is purchased, his wife comes or goes with him, she does not belong to the master, nor do his children.

Exo 21:4 states that if his master gives him a wife, the wife and her children belong to the master and after six years the servant does not take her, nor her children, with him if he decides to accept freedom. Remember, there are about 40 Hebrew nuances all translated into the word WIFE. Clearly this relationship does not conform to what we view as marriage or what is described in Genesis 2:24, which we will discuss further down in this paper.

Exo 21:7 explains that a man can sell his daughter to be a “maidservant.” That word in Hebrew means “maidservant, female slave, maid, handmaid, concubine.” That passage clearly states, “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”

So, at the end of six years of service, female slaves did not get freedom because their master was having sex with them, and they would be defiled for marriage. In verse 8, it is described that if the master no longer wants her, he can sell her into slavery in another nation, but not in Israel. Verse 9 describes giving her to his son as a concubine. The word “Betrothed” refers to a woman who is under contract to either become a wife or a concubine. No slave would become married to her master. Again, men had sex with their slave girls, and this was considered righteous by God.

Verse 10 is interesting because it clearly states that if the man takes another wife, the new wife cannot reduce a slave’s clothing, food, or conjugal rights. So, not only was a man allowed to have sex with his maidservants, but he is required to. She had a right to sex, and his wives could not diminish his duty.

Verse 11 dictates that if the master does not do one of the three things described in verses 8, 9, or 10, the slave woman (be her a servant or concubine) shall be set free without payment to the master. Specifically, if he does not fulfill conjugal rights to the woman servant, she can gain her freedom without him being compensated for her loss to his household. I am certain that it would have been a rare thing for a man to voluntarily lose property like that. What would be the purpose?

Eleven – Divorce and Adultery

Deuteronomy 24 is a famous passage that deals with divorce. The first thing I would like to point out is that the prerequisite for divorce is that the woman is found to have been seen naked with another man. The word “uncleanness” in verse 24:1 literally means to expose her pubic area to another man. The Hebrew-Chaldean Lexicon says: (הʻervâh, er-vaw’; from nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish):—nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).)

Again, only a man can issue his wife a writ of divorcement. A wife cannot divorce her husband, she was his property. If he divorced her by a written decree, she left and could marry another after a prescribed period. In that culture I believe the term of separation was four months and ten days, just as it is in the Muslim world today. If that second man also divorces her, she cannot return to the first husband.

There is a very clear point to this, and it relates to Leviticus 20:10, which says, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” The word Adultery, Strong’s H5003, means: “Literally commit adultery: Usually of man, always with wife of another.” It is not the act of sex itself, but through the act of sex the woman turns away from her relationship with her husband.

The first point is that adultery can only be committed with a married woman; again it is the theft of another man’s property. It is her turning away from the lawful right of her husband. Similarly, the word Adultery was used when Israel turned away from God. As in Jeremiah 3: 6-8.

The second point is that the penalty is death to both parties. In the Book of Matthew, chapter 19, Jesus discusses divorce. In verse 8, he says, “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

The Greek word for “hardness” is: sklērokardía. It means “Destitution of spiritual perception,” Meaning that the Hebrews were refusing to obey the law, creating problems in society.

What law was it? In the event of married women having sex with another man, the husbands were refusing to kill their wives, the mothers of their children. This was an issue of inheritance, and it was clearly said in Deuteronomy 24 that once a woman had sex with another man, her husband can’t take her back because it “caused the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”

A married woman having sex with a man who wasn’t her husband was a violation of their genetic path of inheritance. Once a woman had sex with another man, the paternity of her children was in doubt, and that was a grievous issue in Hebrew culture.

I am not going to get into a debate over science or biology. Neither am I going to dive into morality of modern society and the modern roles of women versus those in history. We’re talking about a culture that was created to avoid many of the issues we face today. In another paper I will explore our modern culture and possible solutions we can apply from the lessons we learn from thousands of years of Hebrew culture.

There is another interesting word used several times in Deu 24: House, or Household. In Hebrew, this word is a proper masculine patriarchal adjective or noun. It means the place where his family dwells, especially referring to descendants. The word is inclusive and implies that there is already a family living there. The clear implication in these passages is that the man is taking these women to the place where his other wives, servants, and children live.

Twelve – Marriage

Let’s look at another frequently misquoted passage of scripture. Genesis 2:24 says: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

The Pentateuch was written a long time AFTER Adam and Eve. Verses 21, 22, and 23 are specific to Adam and how Eve originated from his body. Verse 24 starts with the word “Therefore, or As Such.” The reference is Strong’s H3651. It is a transition from the illustration of the relationship before, and how it relates to the time of Moses and the revelation of The Pentateuchal Law.

Verse 24 was NOT referring to Adam and Eve as an example of monogamy, it was explaining how, in their culture, a man and his women were to be “glued” for life. It was about men and women breeding and creating an immutable line of inheritance with women being the property of men.

Now, let’s dive into that passage word by word, looking at the Hebrew using Strong’s Numbers and the Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Therefore (H3651, it means ‘surely thus’ or ‘after that’. This word refers to the preceding verses 21,22,and 23.) shall a man (H376, Masculine emphatic absolute noun, One Singular Man) leave (H5800, to remove himself and leave behind) his father (H1) and his mother, (H517) (this statement indicates that he has left the household of his parents to start his own, starting his own household would only happen once.) and shall cleave (H1692, to stay with permanently, glued.) unto his wife: (H802, woman belonging to a man. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon says of the word represented as Strong’s Number H802: אִשָּׁה (1) A woman of every age and condition, whether married or not. In Hebrew this is an irregular plural female noun, meaning it is the same in singular as in multiple. In Leviticus 18, the form of this noun says, ‘one of your father’s wives’ (not your mother, that would be a different word.) In Gensis 30:4 the form is translated ‘concubine.’

An example of an irregular plural form in English is the word ‘Deer.’ You might say, “I saw a deer today.” Someone else might ask, “How many deer did you see.” In English, the word wife is an emphatic absolute noun. In Hebrew the word translated into wife is not, it is like saying ‘deer.’ Strong’s Definitions clarifies that this word is “often unexpressed in English”, meaning that the exact implications of its use is ambiguous in English but specific in Hebrew, it is often implied without being specifically stated. It is significant that the writer did not choose to use the noun in a manner that would construe it as being specifically limited. For instance, in Genesis 2:23 the word ‘man’ has a suffix ‘N added to indicate that it is ‘emphatic absolute’. In Genesis 2:24 he did not use that suffix; he chose the irregular which specifically does not limit the statement to a single woman, in fact according to Strong’s it includes the implication of ‘each and every.’) and they shall be one (H259, an ordinal adjective. Ordinal signifies a position in a sequence. In Hebrew this means first of each) flesh. (H1320, a masculine noun, literally ‘his family,’ as in blood relations or genetic family. In this specific case, it says ‘Shall combine their genitals and create his family.’)

It does not limit the relationship, it describes them mating and starting the man’s offspring. Inheritance is through the man, not the woman. Again, I am not debating modern concepts, I am describing Hebrew culture.

So, when we view this in Hebrew without trying to tie each word to an English word, which forces misinterpretations, but rather focusing on the meanings, it says: Thus (or as such), a man leaves the household of his parents and begins his own genetic family with a first woman and they are then considered immediate family (genetic, blood). From that point they are permanently joined and they will unite their genitals and begin a new family.

That is the literal meaning of Genesis 2:24.

Not only is there nothing that limits the use of this phrase to a single woman, but by the use of an irregular plural female noun rather than an emphatic absolute form, and the ordinal adjective ‘one’, it is also explicitly implied that there would or could be more than one, as in ‘each and every’ time such a union happens.

Another interesting study is the story of Jacob and Rachel, Bilhah, and Leah, Rachel’s sister. The substance of the story is that Jacob was sent to Padden-aram, where his uncle lived, to find a wife. When he arrived, he met Rachel, his cousin. He desired her and struck a deal with his Uncle for her hand in marriage, the deal was that Jacob had to work for his Uncle for seven years as a bride price. After seven years, his uncle snuck Leah into Jacob, tricking him into marrying the wrong woman. When Jacob complained, Laban made him work another seven years before also marrying Rachel.

As it turned out, Rachel did not conceive easily and was envious of her sister wife because she had children and Rachel didn’t. So, she had her handmaiden, Bilhah, mate with her husband, Jacob, and she bore him children. After that time, Rachel conceived Joseph. In verse 20, Leah comments that Jacob is pleased with her for bearing him six sons. After that, having fulfilled his obligation, Jacob asked to leave the place of Laban. Jacob had served Laban for 14 years in payment for both Leah and Rachel. In verse 26 Jacob clearly states of his desire to take his women, plural, and leave. The suffix נָשַׁי  in Genesis 30:26 shifts the noun אִשֹּׁת (Strong’s H802) to plural.

I could go passage by passage through scripture, in Hebrew and Greek, and the results are always the same. Ephesians 5:31 says a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to a woman. The specific Greek description γυνή τινος,. The word is a nominative singular feminine noun, nominative means that it is the subject of the verb, The verb it is subject to is “Join.” In Greek this word is προσκολληθήσεται and it is only used twice in the New Testament. It is in the Future Passive Indicative, third person singular. That means it is not a commandment, in English we might say, “this is probably going to happen sometime.” The joining means “To be glued together.” The passage is not restrictive. It is the same kind of phrase as if you were to say he bought a car. It does not limit him to one car, it describes the specific transaction being described. There is a related passage in Ephesians 5:28 (So husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; ) The word for husband in that specific use is the nominative plural masculine ἀνήρ, it is Strong’s G435 it means men, and it is used 31 times in the New Testament. The word for wives is Strong’s G1135 in the accusative plural form. It is the same noun and form found in 1 Titus3:11, 1Titus2:9, Ephesians 5:25, and a total of eleven times in the New Testament. It is translated as WOMEN, plural.

The second time Strong’s G1135 is used in Eph5:28, it is the accusative singular feminine form γυναῖκα that is used 50 times in the New Testament. It is the same word used in Luke 4:26 as WOMAN. And again in Luke 7:50, and Luke 7:44. It clearly means one woman or wife.

Therefore, we can read Ephesians 5:28 as, “So, husbands should love your wives (plural) as their own bodies. He who loves his wife (singular) loves himself.”

Can you see how looking at passages in the original language brings different meanings to the subject? Time and again as we study scripture we find these biased teachings, but when you take the entirety of scripture into view, I believe the message is clear.

So if righteous society was built around poly family structures, then why did we see a shift to monogamy? The answer is as simple as the ascetic movement, human greed, and politics. As the struggle for influence within the gentile church continued through the third and fourth century, that part of the world didn’t have the Hebrew experience. They were more focused on the Greek philosophy of asceticism and introspection, and there became an outcry that wealthier men in the church had multiple wives, but other men didn’t have the means to even attract even one. Remember, women had no rights. There were very limited options for them to NOT marry, and almost entirely marriages and contracts of concubinage were arranged by the parents of girls during their early teen  years. The promotion of monogamy was intended to appease the desires of less successful men by forcing women to marry them. It also suited the philosophy of the ascetic leaders by aligning with their “poverty theology.”

There was also an issue that polygyny was the prevalent social structure within both the Jewish and Christian churches through the second century, and the Romans were fearful that those cultures were out reproducing theirs. Remember, there was a struggle between the Pagan and Judeo-Christian societies.

I use Judeo (Muslim) – Christian society as an example, but the same truth is found in indigenous populations worldwide. My research indicates that 85% of global societies are polygynous. This is proper human behavior and in my opinion, deviating from it has helped produce our current debacle. The evidence is clear if people will actually look. I will tell you that I have many people debating me on these subjects. None of them do so from the original languages and history. Few of them are willing to spend the time needed to do research for themselves.

Thirteen – The Rise of Asceticism

Through history, humans have responded to our natural selves in different ways. As I looked at the sad state of human societies in the year 2025, I found myself wondering how we got to this point in our decline. I started thinking about the issues and wondered if they could be traced backwards through history to find some evidence of a starting point.

Some experiences in my life gave me reason to question our conventional social structures. That is how this paper became a study of history and human nature. The journey strikes deeply into some of our most passionate beliefs, and I keep returning to an unsettling conclusion that humans are easily deceived. We would rather accept commonly repeated statements as truth, than do even the most modest research to verify them,. We easily deny the opinions of someone who disagrees with us rather than spend the time to disprove it. If we do any research, we go to sources that repeat our bias, or scan the surface of the debate without digging into the depths of the subject. We just accept and repeat, which is how lies and harmful misdirection become part of our culture. embedded as immutable fact.

To disagree with the popular narrative brands the dissenting party as a heretic. People have literally been burned alive for questioning the authorities of the church.

If someone stated that what you believed was untrue, and gave you evidence from your own authority, what would YOUR response be? Would you reject the message outright, or would you work to provide a rebuttal?

Authority. How many times in human history do we need to be threatened by the corruption of power before we learn that the things we are most at risk from are authority and our nature. Our first impulse should be to question those in authority and mistrust our instincts. This paper is written in the year 2025. Four years after the horrific COVID experience, we still see people wearing worthless masks, medical facilities requiring them, and advertisements for mRNA injections. The folly and corruption of every authority on earth has been exposed and still the true believers follow, many unaware of the truth. Millions of doctors, hospital administrators, nurses, and officials lined up and repeated the mantra, and all were wrong. This was not a unique example, and the medical world is full of them. Is there an authority system that isn’t wrong about their positions? I wonder.

The combination of my professional experiences and the research I do as part of my writing, have exposed the depths of the challenges we face as a race, and I am left with several questions that torment me.

I started this paper as an exploration of what I perceive to be the sad state of western-influenced society. By every measure we are on a path of total collapse and I find no plan that provides for our society to exist as we know it past the middle of this century. I am not predicting extinction. I’m simply saying that I have found no plan that overcomes the existential threats we face other than placing our fate in the hands of either a biblical apocalypse or artificial intelligence. I find that to be curious and disturbing. Perhaps that is the test of human nature, then. We can recognize a threat but are powerless to address it with proactive, self-directed solutions.

As we explore how our belief systems contributed to our current state of affairs, I went back through history, tracing the development of modern society. It became obvious that history is being shaped by two cultures: Hebrew and Christian. Setting the religious difference aside, these are two different social systems within which humans dealt with our nature. First there were thousands of years of Hebrew culture. It was based on the belief that humans were sinful and dealing with that fact was a perpetual struggle. Core tenants of Hebrew culture was that wisdom could be learned, and prosperity in all things were blessings from God. There are many passages that support this opinion, both in the Old and New Testament.

I offer this evidence that for thousands of years, prosperity and wealth were considered blessings, not debasements:

Deuteronomy 28:11 states, “The Lord will make you abound in prosperity, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your beast and in the produce of your ground, in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give you”.

Proverbs 22:4: “Humility is the fear of the LORD; its wages are riches and honor and life.”

Proverbs 3:9-10: “Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the first fruits of all your crops; then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine.”

Joshua 1:8: “Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.”

2 Chronicles 31:21: “In everything that he undertook in the service of God’s temple and in obedience to the law and the commands, he sought his God and worked wholeheartedly. And so he prospered.”

Job 36:11: If they hear and serve Him, they will end their days in prosperity And their years in pleasures.

Proverbs 22:4: The reward of humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, honor and life.

Psalm 37:11: But the humble will inherit the land and will delight themselves in abundant prosperity.

Although this is not a religious paper, per se, I am a person of faith, convicted by logic and evidence. I believe Christ gave us a message of love and compassion. We were also given 1Corintians:13 as an example, that wonderful and detailed message of the excellence of brotherly love and charity.

Again, you don’t need to believe as I do, that isn’t my point, but if you don’t you still have to deal with the influence of our culture on history and its current result.

In the second and third centuries, history took a dramatic shift. We went from a society that believed prosperity is a blessing, to one where it is considered a curse. Even our tax structure punishes people who make more money and the government attempts to steal our path to inheritance through death taxes and property taxes. That shift resulted in a level of perversion that is both incontrovertible and horrific.

As we explore this subject together, perhaps we can answer a great quandary: How did Christianity start with God incarnate and the twelve men who spent several years learning at his feet, and end up with those men and their disciples becoming the twisted version of faith that the church has embraced for the past 2,000 years? How did a message of love become a sermon of hate and corruption?

For many, those questions produce an instant rejection. I suggest that you allow me the grace of discussing our history and an honest inspection.

Is this perversion the inevitable result of human nature? That would seem to be the message of our authority, that even a person who was hand chosen to learn from God in a face-to-face encounter can’t avoid immediate corruption once that temporal interaction stopped. If we accept that answer as our salve, then perhaps there is no reconciliation with messages that these first twelve were chosen to build a church that represented Christ, yet didn’t have the wisdom or character to carry their heritage forward even a few years before they began perverting it into something wicked.

Of course, that is the root of the question. One person I read suggested that it was all God’s plan that people would fail to follow his message. Nothing about that kind of Machiavellian strategy seems logical to me, since one of my premises is that God and his natural law is the source of all logic.

Many believe that the ascetics were holy. They are seen as righteous and venerable. Some believe that the correct path of enlightenment is through the denial of what is natural. I want to share with you a statement that comes from one of the predominant influences in the Christian movement, the ascetic belief structure. This quote was borrowed from a publication by the adherents to that influence:

“Asceticism is a necessary part of the spiritual life. Saints John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila espoused an absolute asceticism of complete detachment and relentless mortification.”

They believed that complete detachment from reality and relentless self-abuse was NECESSARY for a spiritual life. Relentless torture. I am stunned that masses of people were drawn to that pathology.

Starting in the second century, asceticism, the belief that suffering, denial, detachment and isolation, and “relentless” mortification, became a driving influence of Christianity. For those not familiar with the word mortification, it means the death of one part of the body while the rest lives. This is very important. John of the Cross literally taught that “life is achieved through death.” He died in a cell, “expressing in his prison-cross the ecstasy of mystical union with God in the Spiritual Canticle.”

Life through death, taking a spiritual principle that Christ sacrificed himself for human sins and twisting it into some morbid message that salvation by grace wasn’t enough, each person had to earn holiness by suffering.

His life became one of the pillars of the Franciscan Movement. How can anyone look at these examples and see anything healthy? How did we take a few simple messages that were specific to situations Jesus was addressing, and apply them broadly to all of humanity?

Again, I am amazed that human society, the one that believed in the God that created heaven and earth, transitioned from building a healthy culture that embraced families and blessings of prosperity, to one of perversion, death, and isolation.

The movement began with an over-focus on a few passages of scripture. Two of them are found in Mark 8:34, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me,” and Mark:10, the story of the interaction between Jesus and the “Rich Young Ruler.” In that story, verse 21, we are told that Jesus looked at him with love and saw that the love of wealth was deep in his heart. As a test of that pride, Christ said, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

In verse 22 we are told, “But he was deeply dismayed by these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.”

As I studied the belief in ascetism, I found reference time and again to the same few passages. As with all cults, and asceticism clearly meets the test of that word, there is a focus on one or two messages to the exclusion of many others that contradict their out of context interpretations.

The practice began with the belief that it was proper to take part of our lives and dedicate that time to prayer during a period fasting. Within one hundred years it became twisted into the ascetic monastic movement. These strict practitioners of asceticism believed that isolation, celibacy, poverty, begging as a means of shaming themselves, and self-inflicted pain were the REQUIRED means of spiritual purification.

From that point, the logical step was to require others to observe all or part of that belief. They moved away from Jesus teaching of the value of life, loving your neighbor as yourself was one of the two greatest commandments, and a society that was structured to productively manage human nature, and legislated a culture that demanded what I have called “Poverty Theology.” They embraced the torture of people they perceived as lacking righteousness, torture for the good of the tortured, of course.

It is one step further to allow the practice of abortion, which is directly related to poverty theology and eugenics.

Muslims should take no position of superiority in this conversation. They practice the disgusting abuse of little girls called Female Genital Mutilation, FGM, wherein they brutally remove the genitals of girls and sow them together in order to assure they can’t have sex and will never enjoy it. Both societies have atrocities enough to make them ashamed.

I want to leave this discussion of Hebrew society with a final example where the ascetics went off track. They focused on Mark 10, especially verse 25, but they didn’t seem to read the rest of the story. In this famous passage, Jesus said: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

That passage is often misquoted. In the next few verses, Jesus qualified what he meant: And they were even more astonished, and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?”

Looking at them, Jesus said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and have followed you.”

Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.

That seems very straightforward. In principle, Christians who followed him were promised that righteous living would not keep them from the difficulties of life but would also not keep them from prosperity, and in a future time, to eternal life.

Remember, most of the early Christians didn’t read. Even in the modern age I have heard priests discourage believers from reading scriptures. The ascetic movement misdirected the church and we are left to question if that errant teaching destroyed our social structure.

I want to draw your attention to the word “house,” (singular) in Mark:10, verse 29, Strong’s Number G3614. That word in Greek is οἰκία. According to Strong’s Concordance it means the family that lives in the house, the household, persons dwelling there. In verse 30, the promise is applied to the word, “he.” “He” references the word “one” in the preceding verse 29. That word “one,” is Strong’s G3762, a singular pronoun. Singular. So, we are told that the promise includes many family members per man, and specifically mentions “houses, brothers, sisters, children, farms, and mothers.”

In Chapter 29, he specifically used the word MOTHER, in the Greek that word is an accusative singular feminine noun, and FATHER, again, singular, but it Chapter 30 he is promised “Houses”, an accusative plural feminine noun, and “Mothers,” an accusative plural feminine noun. In the Greek it is intentionally plural.

Fathers are not mentioned, only “mothers.” We have seen in Hebrew society what that meant, to have many mothers in your household.

Notice also that there is no mention of leaving a wife, a man could not have left a wife. He left his father and mother, but not a wife, and he will have a great household with many mothers.

Fourteen – The Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and the Reformation

As we explore what I believe was the turning point in early church history, I want to refer to a post in a Catholic website: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8782

In the chapter on Justyn Martyr, one of the leaders of the second century church, is the quote from his Defense of Christianity: “And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, have preserved their purity at the age of sixty and seventy years; and I am proud that I could produce such from every race of men and women.”

What he was saying is that he is proud to have produced a group of influential people who remained virgins and childless all of their lives. How is that good for society? How can those people minister and guide a healthy culture? I think the history of the Catholic Church provides evidence that it does not. According to an article from NBC news, in recent years, Catholic agencies in the United States shared the names of more than 5,100 clergy members credibly accused of child sexual abuse. Those offenders were hidden by the church and allowed to continue abusing until the public pressure became so great that the church could not deny it.

In that article from catholicculture.org, it further states: “He cites these examples because he obviously considers that Antoninus, who was a practicing Stoic, would understand the meaning of virtue and self-denial, and would be impressed with this asceticism.”

This is a stunning exposition of how a group of men transformed a culture from a prosperity producing society that understood how to live within the natural world (even if they struggled), into a perverse, self-debasing mess.

If you want to do a deeper study on Asceticism, you will find it a morbid and twisted practice, and it was greatly pursued by early church leaders like Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Evagrius Ponticus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Barsanuphius of Gaza, John the Prophet, Anthony the Great, Mary of Egypt, Simeon Stylites, and many others. It formed much of the culture of Christianity, extending up through the Middle Ages, where it twisted doctrine and scripture.

Those tenants continued to be promoted through the Middle Ages and into the Protestant Reformation, where Martin Luther wrote as an ascetic who later decried the monastic life, calling it an abomination. Unfortunately, he also advocated burning the homes and churches of the Jews, which influenced Hitler and Marx. For more on that, you can refer to https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0039338X.2020.1746397#d1e100.

Deniers of my opinions can’t deny the truth of history. They can put their hands over their eyes, ears, and mouths, but the truth is before us. We are living the consequences of the second century church leadership’s influence. Step by step you can trace their malfeasance through history like footprints in fresh sand.

For thousands of years prosperity was considered a blessing from God. In the second century we suddenly find many single men in the ministry. These unnatural men taught that celibacy, stoicism (the denial of temporal needs or desires), and asceticism (the belief that suffering and self-mortification increases spiritual enlightenment) were to be valued above parenthood and family life. They even influenced people away from marriage, and in the case of Thomas apparently encouraging canceling a wedding. They beat themselves, isolated and starved themselves, cut and burned themselves. They punished their bodies to drive out natural desires in the belief that suffering was a way to earn purity of spirit. I find nothing virtuous in NOT building a society and having children. How does it make any sense for Christians to deny what God created?

When it came to non-believers, Christians judged, then sometimes burned them alive to purify them from evil. In one case in Alexandria, the Christians chased down a famous non-believing philosopher, beat her, dragged her to a church, then proceeded to skin her alive on the alter using oyster shells. Once she was dead, they tore her body limb from limb and burned her parts on the alter. What a fine example of 1Corinthians: 13.

These acts were not isolated, as the Dark Ages and the Inquisition testify. Extreme physical punishment and even burning live people at the stake to purify them was common. Christianity was supposed to be a demarcation from heathenism. I find nothing of Christ in these actions and everything of evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning

Fifteen – Humanism, Democracy, and the Rise of Feminism

It was during the 14^th century Renaissance that Muslims shared some early Greek writings on humanism with European scholars. The intellectual transformation in Europe between the 1300s and 1600s fostered the belief that people deserved to determine their destinies, at least men did. It was the emergence of humanism and self-determination that fueled the 16^th century Reformation. That movement , combined with Martin Luther’s antisemitism, eventually influenced political and economic systems promoted by Hitler and Marx. The result was more than a billion human deaths in the 20^th Century. A billion deaths, and still counting.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Reformation, governments consisted of rulers in positions of hierarchy, controlling the individual citizens. Even worse, people were usually considered to be owned by the elites, taxed and used as a means of creating wealth. This is the warning of what to avoid as the Israelites left Egypt, to elect a ruler who was a servant, not a tyrant.

The Christian church, in its many forms, was embedded politically in that hierarchy, drawing money out of it. The Catholic Church became one of the wealthiest organizations on earth, drawing tithes from its impoverished parishioners and selling “indulgences” to wealthy people who could afford to buy forgiveness for their sins. Can you imagine what Jesus would have said about that?

I will provide a quote from an official catholic website. “An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God‘s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.”

Penance “salesmen” were commonly seen, soliciting money in return for forgiveness of sins. The popular phrase of the time was: “When the gold in the coffer rings, the rescued soul toward heaven springs.”

I also quote from worldhistory.org: “The Church could accept one’s penitential acts or one could pay a certain amount of money in penance, which allowed one access to the treasury of merit (treasure of the Church). That merit could be applied to oneself in this life, banked for oneself in the next to shorten one’s stay in purgatory or, for the right amount, bypass purgatory entirely, or be applied to one’s family and friends already thought to be suffering in penitential fires in the realm between hell and heaven.”

The selling of these indulgences were marketed as allowing people to apply them to other people, or to store them up against future sins. They were even able to apply them to dead relatives who were supposedly waiting in purgatory, thus freeing them to pass into heaven.

This isn’t a rant on the Catholic Church, only an observation that the church and the hierarchies of government worked together to oppress the people

The American experiment was unique in all of human history. Between May 25th and September 17, 1787, a group of men met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to create a new system of government. The result was a network of sovereign states, and a federal government with limited powers designed to serve them. This was the first government in history that created a system of responsibility starting with the individual person at the top, then the family, community, state, then federal government at the bottom.

Not only was there a separation between the church and the state, but the intention was for this government to be a constitutional republic, where the minority was protected from majority rule. Land owners held a vote, one vote per family. The legislatures were supposed to be made up of business owners, not professional politicians. The point of that was to have the people who had a vested interest in the outcome of governance to be the ones who were voting, the land owners. Again, we see something that came from the Hebrew culture, inheritance of wealth and culture through the land.

That system, with individuals holding the most power, did not suit the desires of those who wanted control over the populations for the purpose of harvesting their productivity. They wanted a hierarchy with them being at the top, creating control over the population of powerless people.

Oddly enough, this was a debate even in the earliest days of the nation. Alexander Hamilton was a proponent of Federalism and a national bank. Jefferson and some of the others rejected the idea as being unconstitutional, since that power wasn’t given to the Government. Hamilton was a close associate of the Rothschilds and the London bankers who financed the war. So, you see, even from the start there was a desire to pervert the new networked nation into a hierarchy so the bankers could manipulate and control the people.

That was the debate that caused the Civil War. Eventually the Federalists won, and Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg stunned those who attended. These were new concepts, that the Federal Government was superior to the states, and reigned over the citizens themselves. In the end, the very issue of slavery was used to enslave the population with federalism, democracy, an income tax, and eventually a fractionalized fiat currency.

If you disagree, just consider that you can not own anything that isn’t registered and taxed. You can’t travel outside the country without permission, marry who you wish without permission, or educate your children without notifying them where. The dollar bill in your pocket is even the legal property of a central bank, they just loan it to us with interest. If you go to a bank and deposit more than $100 cash in your account, you legally have to provide identification so they can report it to the Federal Government. They have perfected slavery and call it citizenship.

From the standpoint of our conversation, democracy is a challenging philosophy. Its tenants derive from the humanist viewpoint that each person has equal value, and as such should participate in self-determination. As a concept it sounds admirable, but in practice it always becomes the tool by which the majority oppresses the minority.

The challenge is that while each person may have equal value, they don’t have equal capacity, knowledge, wisdom, or (arguably) roles within a society. The right to vote in a Republic isn’t related to the person, it was related to ownership and representation of property. We can argue the ability to own property, or to conduct business, but the point remains that a vote wasn’t intended to represent an individual person.

In a democratic society, each person votes, regardless of the value that person has to the society at large. The results of that belief system and the manner in which it was deployed have brought us to the point where vast numbers of the population vote who are being influenced in ways that are destructive to that society and themselves as a result. Again, we know how easily humans can be deceived by those they perceive as being in authority. The COVID experience of the early 2020s being the perfect example as billions of people acted in completely irrational manners, resulting in millions of people being needlessly harmed.

If you reject that statement, I have provided ample evidence in the references section of this paper. I will also share that I and my associates were deeply inside that situation, including the events at the laboratory in Wuhan, and nothing about it was accurately represented to the public, but I digress. My point is that, as writers like Bastiat have observed, humans can easily be influenced to vote in ways that are unproductive. All you have to do is offer them trinkets and they will give you their valuables.

I understand the challenges this philosophical conversation can create. It leads us to some extremely uncomfortable observations, and conclusions are even more difficult to discuss. The passions that surround core beliefs often remove our ability to analyze facts using logic and reason.

In 1848 a group of women met socially to enjoy their afternoon tea. It is said that this was the event where Elizabeth Cady Stanton shared her views that women were being oppressed by men, and that became the start of the Feminist movement. I can think of no subject that presents a greater conundrum.

As the father of daughters I want my girls to have every opportunity my sons have. Education, freedom, and safety being the foremost among them. I am also convicted that there is only one essential role that women play in any society, motherhood. If the world never saw another woman doctor, lawyer, business executive, or politician, society would continue. If women stop having babies, and they have, we die. Either that, or our society is replaced by one where women are not given choices. The other option is one where women elect to focus on life and family as their career, choosing childbirth early in life. I see some indication that this may be increasingly embraced, but I fear the speed of that transition is too slow.

The root of this conundrum is that in every nation on earth where women have been given the privilege of self-determination, they have chosen infertility. What then can we judge from that fact? How do we reconcile ourselves with the truth that if women don’t have 4-5 babies by the time they are 30 years old, that society will be replaced by one that does. Math and biology are tyrants.

I think we need to face the fact that unless we use our knowledge of history and devise a new system of society, we will suffer a complete collapse. In a separate paper on marriage, I will explore some ideas on how we might incorporate timeless biological truths into modern society.

Next: We begin the challenge of coming to conclusions.

Sixteen – Conclusions

Feminism and the empowerment of women has destroyed society. I hate even saying that, but what other conclusion can we make if women have chosen every wrong path? I can’t say that I blame them when the entire society is lying to them. Ten percent of American women between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four are sex workers. Tens of millions of women are choosing infertility. The education system, where 75% of teachers are female, is encouraging the extinction of society as it drives its own industry profits by encouraging women to get college degrees, delay having children in favor of careers, and promoting student loan debt. 74% of teachers polled express unhappiness with their profession.

Young women are being programmed by society to fail. I will use a very personal illustration to point out examples of the issues young women face. My wife and I help dozens of girls around the world and the situation is very common. This morning I was chatting with one of my “kids,” a brilliant young woman in a third world nation. Her family is poor and there was an argument last night. The grandparents were complaining that their adult grandchildren were expecting them to use their meager pension to fund the girl’s lifestyles and education, which is far greater than theirs was. Both parents had legal issues and only one parent is helping with schooling. The twenty-five-year-old sister, an unmarried mother of two kids, refused to pay for her expenses. She is unemployed and her statement was that she would just go to live with the family of the father of her kids. The college age girl that we help support, complained that without the support of her grandparents, she could not afford her schooling, especially her “snacks, shampoo, and transportation.” Student employment is virtually unheard of and there is rarely food in the house. Medical and dental care is nearly non-existent. These girls want to go to college, and the social pressure to do so is extreme, yet getting their eyes checked and buying a pair of glasses is a major expense. The largest industries in that nation are exporting workers, largely women doing domestic or factory work in Asian nations with crushing infertility, and supplying wives overseas. Very few women in that nation are getting married, even if they have children by men who don’t marry they, and very few teenage girls express and interest in being a mother. They have seen what it is like to raise children in a society that has poor family structures. The government and the predominant church organization have bad policies that aggravate the situation.

This illustrates the issue that these young women face. Rather than reaching the age of their late teen years with the goal and societal support to become professional wives and moms, they want to enjoy a social media lifestyle, post TikTok videos, go to college, and travel. I understand. They want to have freedom and the lifestyle they see on Korean Dramas and are told about in school growing up. The problem is that the Korean fantasy dramas they are watching are produced by a society that is depopulating at a 96% rate. The entire thing is a lie, they will be virtually extinct by the end of the century and there is nothing they can do about it. These girls can’t achieve the lifestyle they desire because their families don’t have enough money, and to a large degree the families are poor because of the policies of the church, the government education system, and the lack of proper inheritance values.

Similarly, even for the girls who desire to marry, the available inventory of men who are able to provide for and support a family is very, very small. In any mammal population the number of males who qualify as good biological and sociological candidates for reproduction is usually around 10% – 20% maximum. The other issue is that in most nations, extremely few human males in their twenties qualify financially to support a wife and four children, perhaps as low as 2%. It takes many years for a man to mature and build a business or career that allows the finances to support a wife and kids, so in many cases, the women end up working outside the home. The problem in many nations is that these men are having sex with young girls and babies are born to single moms who end up raising them in poverty, like the girls we help.

I know another woman in Uganda, an unmarried mother of two children by different men. She is a Christian woman, active in her church, and routinely asks for money to cover her expenses as employment is scarce for uneducated poor woman. Her pastor has not encouraged her to find a decent man and get married. Having many poor women devoted to church activities looks good to man pastors. I have actually even introduced her to a wonderful man, but she wasn’t interested. I understand that quality husband candidates are hard to find, that is part of the subject of my paper on Marriage. In her social circle, polygamy would be discouraged, but there are few good men, so the women and children suffer. Think about how much it would improve if three or four of these women grouped together and shared a husband, worked together to improve finances and raise children. Modern Christian culture does not support this kind of wisdom, so we have single mothers and unhealthy children.

My grandfather was a world-famous behavioral psychologist who specialized in elephants. I often heard him say that the role of the dominant males in society are to pass on their excellent genetic material and control the young males. Humans have done a very poor job of that.

This is our current global situation and it is an enormous problem. Girls running loose, having recreational sex, breeding, destroying families, populating prisons with problem offspring, and nobody has the courage to tell the truth. Combine that with rouge males who are taking advantage of the sex being offered by promiscuous women and girls. Irresponsible alpha males did that. Men, who should have known what would happen, allowed women to make mistakes that are destroying society. I know that many people will object to that, but the raw truth is that women can’t do anything men don’t allow. That is a physical fact, therefore if women don’t want to be returned to a place where they have no power, such as in the Muslim culture, then they need to be responsible for having babies.

I have chosen one topic, family structures, to explore the issues we face as humans. That isn’t the only existential threat we face, however. Our obsession with doing things that we shouldn’t do, just because we can, is a horrific example of our folly. Who thought it was a good idea to enhance viruses in laboratories?

What manner of lunacy caused us to think that we should abandon health in favor of medicine? Why are humans so obsessed with war that entire economies are built around the industry of manufacturing weapons? What demonic influence has produced the industry of human trafficking, slavery, and the butchering of children to harvest their blood and organs?

The answers are easy to find, but difficult to solve. These evils are deep within our DNA and whether you attribute that to Satanic influence or simply our biology run amok, solving the questions is equally challenging. One of the most difficult questions is whether we’ve come so far down the path of destruction that we can’t get back to sanity.

So, what is the point? Can we conclude anything constructive from exploring the past? Can we use any of this? In my paper on Marriage we can explore modern society and I make some suggestions on how to solve the issues we’ve created by changing our family structures.

One thing is certain, we will not solve our problems by doing more of what we’re currently mismanaging. There is an old adage that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. It is the foolishness of secular humanism and liberalism (see my paper on liberals and conservatives) to believe that the solution is to do the wrong thing better.

I fear that the changes are too great, and we will not address them voluntarily. We aren’t talking about minor issues, we’re talking about mass extinction and the threats are very real. Many of the issues I shared earlier have momentum and inertia. Some are part of events that are being planned. I can testify of dinner meetings with Chinese leaders, and years spent investigating government corruption in the United States. I am currently working on a team that is attempting to solve the vulnerability in our electrical grid. The risk is that if the grid collapses, 340 million people in North America will die within 24 months. We’ve known about it for many years, yet nothing is being done to solve the issue inside of the threat window. The average person is only peripherally aware of the happenings around the world, and most of us would rather just not think about our reality; it is too frightening. Humans are not proactive, we are reactive. In the event of a collapse, the survivors within the remnant may take a thousand years to recover.

Humans don’t like change. Nevertheless, change is coming. Dramatic change. We have a choice of choosing when and what to do, or to allow the tyranny of a collapse to force it upon us. The path we are on is impossible to sustain and the estimates of our collapse range from five years to twenty-five years, depending on the window represented by individual threats. What concerns me is that there is currently no plan that sees humanity as we know it past the year 2050. In any of those events, there will be a die-off of humans that we haven’t seen in history. Most likely, we’re talking about billions of people dying over the course of a few years. That seems fantastic to most people, who view such conversation as so far outside of their imagination that it is rejected off hand. Some believe these are the ‘end times.’ Perhaps so. That is scary because if true, we did it.

I assure you that unless we change EVERYTHING about how we live, the statistical probability of one or more extinction level events happening in the next 25 years is nearly 100%. AI won’t fix our biological fertility decline in time to reverse it. AI isn’t going to change Putin, the Ayatollahs, or Xi Jinping. There are five known risks from AI, one of those is that it will be used by evil people to do evil things. Given history, can we discount that?

AI won’t solve the debt issue, or the fact that humans persist in creating diseases that are increasingly impossible to control. Robotics can’t solve our fertility issues, and it has been suggested that in two generations, humans will ‘marry’ robots because there simply won’t be enough people left. I suppose the next suggestion would be that, as Aldous Huxley predicted, there will only be test tube babies.

Someone once said that Abraham Lincoln would be amazed by the technology deployed during Desert Storm, but he wouldn’t be surprised by the evil of Sadam Hussein. Human Nature is baked into our DNA, and Artificial Intelligence can’t change that. The question is whether we can, or if we’ve gone too far and it will be left to a remnant to solve.

There have always been doomsday scenarios. Most of them are isolated conspiracy theories, muddled and obscure in their accusations of Luciferian organizations, or the unclear fear of some foreign power invading us. Things have changed. We currently have multiple, credible existential threats with plausible windows of time within which they come to fruition. I started charting these potentials more than forty years ago, focusing on our growing national debt and anticipated decline in population demographics. Even then, it was obvious that the metrics of those subjects appeared to converge in the proximity of 2030. My most common question was: “What is the solution?”

The answer I received was always, “They will figure something out when we get there.”

There was never the suggestion that we halt the velocity or trajectory of these concerns by changing our behavior. The pathologically fatalist answer was to continue on our foolish path until a collapse was near, then, at the last minute, some future group of people will find a way around the problem.

That time grows near, so very near, and if anything we have even more extinction level threats than were ever anticipated. Forty years ago there was no concern over Cyber-attacks, artificial intelligence threats, crushing infertility, chemical contamination, scientific experiments enhancing viruses, and our ability to conduct inconsequential warfare using the mass destruction of civilizations without ever employing a soldier or bomb. Those threats were not part of our experience. Now they are present reality and as we add those metrics to the chart that illustrates our threat, they seem to all converge in the period between 2030 and 2050.

Inconsequential war you ask? Yes. Destroying a civilization used to mean physical destruction and the people in power were also at mortal risk. Now our leaders have isolated themselves to the point where the pushing of a button could wipe out hundreds of millions of people, but the elites have created refuges for themselves and their cronies. They have no fear of a bomb or physical attack. If you destroy populations with cyber or EMP attacks, chemicals, or a virus, the structures remain in place, only the people disappear. It is as if they play a video game, then they go to dinner as millions die. They perceive themselves to be too important to die from the wars they doom others to fight, so they created safe harbors for themselves and their peerage. Thus, they feel no pain from their own actions.

One of the best examples of this is the current threat to the North American electrical grid. We have known of its vulnerability for decades. We are aware that it is being targeted by the Chinese Communist Party and that they have approximately 50,000 active spies, agents, and active military personnel on our soil.

There are three basic categories of ways that the grid could be collapsed: EMP strike, physical assault, cyber-attack. Each of those has a variety of methods, but one strategy would be to destroy a few substations, which would create a cascading surge of energy that would quickly build as it gets promoted from area to area. The most immediately devastating would be an EMP weapon, an electromagnetic pulse. That energy pulse would hit the transmission grid and grow as it travels through the wire, eventually ‘frying’ every component it encounters.

The resulting loss of life in North America over a two-year period would be almost extinction level. Only a small remnant would remain, mostly people from remote areas who were able to hide from the violence and predation. We know what the threat window is, the time frame of proposed attacks has been stated. We have the technology available to prevent this situation, but our leadership has been playing politics with it and we are years late in implementing the solutions.

Human nature.

So, in modern times we see that there are many challenges that threaten humanity. We can look at these challenges and deduce that they result from the way we have moved away from natural living, both personally and as a society. I had this conversation just this morning with a wonderful nurse that I know. She made the statement first, saying, “we have created a world that opposes nature, and we’re now paying for it.”

Seventeen – Suggestions

• Be suspicious of authority. If you assume it is corrupt, against your best interest, and ignorant, you are almost surely correct.
• Avoid associating with government agencies, the media, and the celebrity culture. Those entities, and probably other cultural influences, are created to manipulate you in ways that harm your family. Use social media wisely.
• If you read the Bible, read it as a study guide to actual scripture. You will find resources in the References section of  this paper. What you will find is that in almost every situation, the popular narratives of the faith are wrong.
• If you go to church, remember that almost all pastors are seminary educated. Seminaries are more about indoctrination than they are education. They represent an industry and, like secular education systems, there are biases that need to be considered.
• Be suspicious of anyone who claims to have an inside knowledge of God. Studying and making observations is appropriate, but humans aren’t capable of comprehending trillions of universes, nor a being capable of creating it and holding it together. I am not certain the word “create” even accurately describes the situation. It implies a beginning and therefore and end, and that strikes me to be a human perspective. If you are a believer, in Exodus 3:14, Moses asked God who he was. God replied, “I am that I am.” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) The Hebrew word is hāyâ, it means “I exist.” Or “I have always been.” The implication is not something of becoming or creating. It implies eternal existence in combination with everything.
• Avoid allowing your children to be indoctrinated by government schools. The education system does not exist to serve you or to educate your children. It exists to create workers for a socialist system that is designed to mine our productivity through regulation, taxation, insurance programs, and interest charges. Do not think that any of this happened by accident. If you doubt that we live under a socialist system, here is the definition: “Socialism is an economic and political system characterized by social or collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, aiming for economic equality and often involving government control or administration of these resources.” We discussed the extent to which the government actually controls and taxes everything.
• Avoid debt unless you can pay if off without interest.
• Stockpile supplies of food like rice and beans. They are cheap and keep a long time. Store canned goods and rotate them. Keep fuel, a generator, some gold and silver, bullets, seeds, and water. This is common sense. If we can learn anything from history it is that hard times will come.
• Learn to grow food and live in a place where you can.
• If you are watching, you are being programmed. Read more than you watch. They call it TV programming for a reason and it isn’t to help you be financially independent.
• If you are being entertained, remember that you aren’t being productive for yourself, you’re being used in the creation of someone else’s wealth.
• Learn to be financially literate and teach your children to budget. Study the Parables and Proverbs, they are considered timeless for a reason.
• Build a library of books that give you a knowledge base of survival techniques and classic wisdom. You or your children might need it.
• Have multiple income sources. Instead of watching TV, study ways of making money that do not rely on classic employment.
• I wrote more on my suggestions regarding family and social structures in my article on marriage.

Eighteen – References

Both King James and NASB20 Bibles

https://hellenisticgreek.com

This link is to a video that does an excellent job of representing one view of the Islamic world. I think he makes some excellent points:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKUl9Y2Mvb-/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0039338X.2020.1746397#d1e100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ordinal_adjective

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/nearly-1-700-priests-clergy-accused-sex-abuse-are-unsupervised-n1062396

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Blessings-And-Prosperity

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8782

THOMAS, THE APOSTLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle

https://www.blueletterbible.org

https://www.history.com/articles/feminism-womens-history

https://www.google.com/search?q=feminist+movement&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/luther_martin.shtml

https://www.elca.org/faith/elca-teaching/luther-and-lutheranism

https://www.ajc.org/news/on-luther-and-his-lies

https://www.iwu.edu/history/constructingthepastvol9/paras.pdf

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/727124?journalCode=jr

https://www.britannica.com/event/Reformation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation

https://academic.oup.com/book/49431/chapter-abstract/416822774?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

In the following article, written in 2020, it states that “As we fight COVID-19, we must also remember that there is another virus—civic distrust—attacking our democracy.” Hundreds of articles hit the media claiming that the disbelievers were guilty of promoting falsehoods. As you read the links to articles written several years after, we were right to distrust authority. They were lying to us.

https://newprofit.org/impact-story/covid-19-and-civic-distrust-why-we-need-a-democracy-renaissance

https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-lie-the-century-the-origin-covid-19

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-dr-faucis-top-advisor-held-accountable-for-covid-19-federal-records-violations-undermining-nih-operations

A University Promotes the Lies:

https://libguides.marshall.edu/c.php?g=626590&p=7530486

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/opinion/we-now-know-the-likely-truth-about-covid-and-how-scientists-lied

**https://nclalegal.org/lies-covid-lies-and-statistics/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19

https://www.tropicalmedicine.ox.ac.uk/news/hydroxychloroquine-provides-moderate-covid-19-prevention-large-clinical-trial-shows

None of the more than 100 studies I read actually tested these drugs as suggested. They all were designed to fail.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014

It was known from the start that Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin must be combined with zinc in order to be effective. This was known for more than ten years prior to the COVID 19 outbreak, as it was used previously in other SARS outbreaks in India.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1

COVID-19: Early Treatment With Zinc Plus Low-dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Reduced Hospitalizations

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-americans-witnessed-a-breakdown-of-scientific-debate-during-covid-19

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-dr-fauci-held-publicly-accountable-by-select-subcommittee

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Quay-2024-06-18.pdf

There were 4,000 SARS patents between 1999 and 2019.

4,000 Patents: Why the ‘Novel’ SARS-CoV-2 Virus Isn’t so Novel

Lancet publication in 2024 that corrects the errors of previous publications. Heart damage from mRNA vaccines.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(24)00388-2/fulltext

https://www.nymc.edu/newsroom/stories/supriya-jain-myocarditis-study-lancet.php

https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program/survey-chinese-espionage-united-states-2000

THREAT SNAPSHOT: CCP Espionage, Repression on US Soil is Growing

https://www.newsweek.com/watch-out-physical-sabotage-chinese-spies-us-opinion-2058610

Chinese spies and the security of America’s networks

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-spies-in-us-60-minutes

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/indulgences

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1902/medieval-indulgence–martin-luther

https://www.vogue.com/article/in-defense-of-having-one-child-and-one-child-only

Only Child Resource Center: Is One Child Enough?

How Many Kids Will 30-Somethings Have?

https://www.cofertility.com/freeze-learn/state-of-egg-freezing-2024

https://fee.org/articles/new-danish-study-finds-masks-don-t-protect-wearers-from-covid-infection/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21607921915&gbraid=0AAAAADkIVmd3Rzfmvve7NXnrGHUI5cIPR&gclid=Cj0KCQjw0erBBhDTARIsAKO8iqQT98VI-IUfjsHqGUcU0xXnGSRiqOEn4ReOaTbBIye1hqv25pC79jEaApviEALw_wcB

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37952983/#:~:text=We%20found%20that%20the%20incidence,face%20masks%20never%20or%20almost

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176722001171

Super Resistant Bacteria by 2050.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2482071-how-does-the-pill-affect-your-brain-were-finally-getting-answers

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4128296/#:~:text=or%20an%2018%25%20likelihood%20of,from%20the%20CDC%20data%20alone.

Post