GOD, GREED & EVE: A Personal Revelation

As an altruist without biases to the sexes, God or nature, I herewith inform the reader with natural facts and persistent patterns over time. For nature (if observed as it really is) and history (if recorded without bias) are our only true teachers.

We are taught that heterosexuality is natural and therefore normal, that the God spoken about in religious books is the real God, and that our material way of life is something to be cherished. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, the inventions of heterosexuality, religion and materialism, are inextricably linked - the one serving as the handmaiden to the other.

In order to put the jigsaw puzzle together the author has used natural and historical facts. Furthermore, by utilizing several disciplines, the reader can see for him/herself that a common motif must, like Occam's razor, demonstrate the validity of the research. Early Mythology, Anthropology and Ethology (animal behavior) are the three main disciplines utilized for such a comparative methodology, yet there are certain natural and logical facts that are presented from other disciplines such as Sexology, Biology and Psychology. The author tries to avoid as much speculation as possible.

This paper is no private rocking horse in search of a theory to suit any biases. Indeed any search for truth must remain as objective as possible, and thus the natural and historical facts dealt with are not the author's opinion.

A note to heterosexuals, religionists and materialists : Please do not be alarmed at the facts contained herein, for after the first reading you will find that they contain more natural, spiritual and loving than you would first imagine. It is hard for anyone to give up their cherished and most dear illusions, however the world is changing ... let's sincerely hope, for the best.

One of the most startling realities at the end of the day, no matter what we believe (or more accurately, hope), is that we humans were evolved on this planet in a way that would be different to evolution of many other planets.

Several different species were created, each one wanting to protect its own cultural boundaries, and thus each one wishing to keep up its numbers for this and other more noxious reasons.

At the rise of farming, humans could be bred more than ever before; and with the realization by a few clever men that they could achieve their greedy goals by manipulating a greater mass of people, all too soon breeding became a political phenomenon.

In later times these men were called the religio-politicians.

At the same time, during our evolution on this weird and wonderful planet, humankind began wondering if it was indeed lonely is a seemingly anonymous and impersonal Universe. Hence the concept of God arose.

Unfortunately, the religio-politician, playing upon humankind's fear, managed to change the noble aims of a spiritual quest, and hence organized religion was born. However, and sadly, instead of religion being the spirituality and regulatory law it could have been, it became more of an enslavement of humankind, with little spirituality in its make-up [read "The Liberation of Mankind" by Hendrik Willem van Loon"]

It wasn't long and the religio-politician created myths that would enforce heterosexuality. Heterosexuality did not exist in nature, nor could it if the ecological cycle was to be successful. No species can over-breed lest it devour and thus make extinct the next species down the ladder. But that was of no concern to the religio-politician.

As in the animal kingdom with its brief mating seasons, so prehistoric humans too procreated when necessary. In fact the first male-female relationships of any lengthy period only came about when man invented tools. Here hunters (males) exchanged the meat they hunted for grubs and vegetables gathered by the womenfolk (gatherers). Hence the term hunter-gatherers, and hence the first male-female long term relationships were economic. [read "World Prehistory" by Grahame Clarke]. This has never changed, and today we find that heterosexuality has been enforced upon humankind by resorting to such a materialistic process. Due mainly to the fact that human males and females are largely mis-mated. Materialism, it was hoped by the religio-politicians and other idealists, would help humans overcome the sex differences.

The religio-politician knew that materialism alone would not ensure that humans would try to pass off these differences (an impossible task), and decided that humans would more likely maintain the difficulties of heterosexual life if God said that they should 'marry and multiply'. So God was then made to say exactly this. Moreover woman's differences and problems were passed off casting Eve in the role of 'sinful', where such an excuse would hopefully allow the male to understand why he had to put up with these unhappy aspects of his new heterosexual relationship. The cherry on the cake was that if he overcame this 'challenge' to put up with the Eve's, he would gain salvation and at least some bliss at last in an afterlife.

Factually speaking there is no evidence of heterosexuality in animals or prehistoric humans. The reader here needs to make a clear distinction between heterosexuality and male-female coition. Male-female coition has to do with procreation, and is a brief act as seen in the brief mating season. Heterosexuality, as it is defines in real terms, is "male-female bonding beyond any brief relationship, and sex beyond the natural act of procreation for recreational purposed".

Heterosexuality can not thus be natural, especially in the biological sense, since recreational intercourse would lead to procreation if the condom (or 'pill') was not utilized. And condoms (or the pill) are hardly natural. "If heterosexual pleasure was natural, condoms would grow on trees". This alone shows that the real definition of heterosexuality cannot be natural.

There are of course many other biological and psychological reasons why male and female cannot bond or have sex naturally and happily. The male is innately numerical and spacial, while the female is innately verbal. He is an athlete and roamer who has different interests to her (which is why he is a spacial creature who detests traps/nests), who is child-bearer, nest-builder and child-rearer (which is why she is verbalizer). Indeed there are so many psychological differences that they have difficulty in communicating, to and understanding each other; thus there is not much appreciation of the other at the mental level. As the saying goes "Women will never understand man, nor vice-versa"

Biologically, he reaches a sexual peak at around 17 while she does so only in her late twenties. Without the unnatural devices of contraception, it is difficult to maintain any greatly fulfilling sex if women are pregnant and child-rearing most of their lives (which they would be if contraception was not available, and if men are supposed to be as insatiably attracted to women as we are led to believe). Moreover, she can only have penetrative sex one way, while his is a two-way street; and where he can enjoy the prostatic orgasm ... the highest sexual pleasure know to humankind.

Countless other differences can be found in any good biology or psychology textbook. And examining the above, it is not hard to see why the Anthropologists insist that prehistoric males and females "did not display any long-term monogamous relationships". And when they have been enforced to do so (largely by the religio-politician), the sexes still try to avoid each other, hence the 'eternal male bond' (even in the most heterosexually indoctrinated societies, e.g.: on the sports field, at pubs. etc) and the 'eternal charges against women' (complaints). [read "The Homosexual Matrix" by C.A.Tripp Ph.D who sums up the research of sexologists the world-over]. Socio-biologist Vern Bullough sums the matter up by stating that if males were 'made' for females [for any long period of time, my brackets], then they would have been 'made' more alike, both biologically and psychologically.

Gleaning from the above, it also becomes clear why homosexuality is an obvious option for those who refuse to be indoctrinated. And certainly, recreational sex is entirely natural for the homosexual. However such labels, and the false behaviors that have been learned by both heterosexuals and homosexuals, has nothing whatever to do with nature (reality). Firstly there is male-female coition in the natural setting (animals and prehistoric man), but there is no heterosexuality. Neither early man nor the animals invented contraception. Moreover the propaganda we have been fed has been disproved. For instance so-called hareem-keeping animals protect their food sources and a host of other things rather than maintaining a hareem of female 'lovers'. Those few male animals which the heterosexual documentary narrator says "are fighting over females", are actually fighting to see that the best genes will win out in their offspring. Such is the goal-seeking nature of DNA.

As Richard Dawkins's book "River Out Of Eden" sums it up: DNA just is, and we dance to its music. And in the handful of species (mainly some birds species) some hoped 'mated for life', we find that they pair where the female is so similarly marked to the male, that she becomes an easy target for predators. Hence he is protector. In some species he is food provider. But the greatest shock, and the straw that has broken the camel's back for the heterosexual propagandist (who had hoped to demonstrate heterosexuality must be natural if it could be found in the animals), is the fact that scientists have recently found (search the 'net) that the male's DNA seldom matches that of the eggs of the nest. The animal male in this handful of species protector, food-gatherer and everything but 'lover' in our human terms. Indeed the little 'husband and wife' team on the cookie tin is as much a myth as heterosexuality is in humans. But then nature does not care, as long as DNA survives.

Another less known, yet indisputable fact is that found in sexology/ethology : There is no sexual instinct to guide male to female in humans or animals [refer Tripp, p.33]. In the mating season, where male-female coition is desired, the smell of the 'rut' is so non-guiding, that it encourages homosexuality as well. Hence farmers separate the animals. These facts alone expose the heterosexual myth. It also exposes the fashionable 'gay' and 'straight' gene myth. There simply is no heterosexual or homosexual design in nature, not is there any need of it.

But how does nature then ensure procreation takes place?

Darwin observed that the wind carries thousands of grains of pollen (male) in the hope that a few chance grains will land on the ovule (female) by sheer fluke. Hence procreation is guaranteed by mere chance through what is called the 'male excess'. In humans and animals this excess is always the semen. As an extra guarantee we find a preponderance of males over females. For instance there are 3,000 male garter snakes to 1 female [also: where would heterosexual pairing be?]. In another one of nature's variations from the original single cell, we find species with three sexes (bees, termites, moles) where there are countless thousands of males to one female (queen). Due to the 'male excess' there is thus no need for any sexual instinct to guide one sex to another, since the variety of sexual acts, male-male, female-female and male-female will ensure procreation takes place. [read "Corydon" by Andre Gide and any comprehensive science text book]. Again, nature does not care that males and females were created so differently. It does not care that there was 'The Fall' (similar to the religious one) from the perfect single cell splitting into two imperfect sexes. It does not care that the mating season is brief or that nature forgot the mating season entirely for humans.

Sex only occurs at all because it is pleasurable. The offshoot is procreation, and hence there is some intention (Order/God) in nature's accidental trial and error process of natural selection (Chaos).

All in all, with male-female differences, and the wide variety of sexual acts in nature, perhaps nature is not as uncaring as we think; for these aspects must show nature is balanced so that over-population will not occur. If it did, species would all die out far more quickly than the inevitable extinction they will one day face, and nature itself would come to an abrupt end - hardly DNA's aim at all. Heterosexuality as created by the religio-politician, as regards over-breeding, is a threat to all nature and ultimately ourselves. Furthermore, it threatens God's only law ... natural law. One can hardly say then that God ordered humankind to 'marry and multiply'. And indeed God never stated that the religio-politician should enjoy the riches as a result of such greedy mass-building, no matter which supposed 'holy' book says so.

The invention of heterosexuality has created innumerable problems for humans. It has also enforced the creation of its opposite, viz: homosexuality. As Freud had to reluctantly admit, we are all born bisexual. Yet, it is clear that humans are homosocial, where homosexual pleasure, mirroring and reciprocity are naturally found to a far higher degree than could be in heterosexuality. Hence we find at the psychological level 'the eternal male bond'. And so difficult are the problems between males and females, that when they are enforced into an unnatural bond, 'the eternal charges against women' are made. So much have the poor womenfolk had to endure the onslaught of male heterosexuals, that we find the most hideous charges. For instance in Peru (c.500 B.C.) we find statues of penises holding their own noses when about to enter the vagina. We find in the literature that common motif of 'even the devil taking flight from the vulva'.

More insidiously, males have a distinct regards to 'from' (art), for they are indeed in any species the 'artful' (athletic sex). Women do not constantly upset themselves with the way their bodies were 'made'. But the male is constantly upset. His innate makings (he is numerical and spacial remember) make him eternally see the less artful amidst Plato's Universal Forms, where one's perception of a Universally less artful form cannot be overcome by a change in perception - much as an angry face is Universal. Biology thus sees him vehemently attack the vagina, where if he is to briefly overcome this, he must resort to a pathological fetishism. She must too (only 2.9 % of females like penises). At a psychological level male and female have to become psychical hermaphrodites as Katz points out. [read "The Invention of Heterosexuality" by Jonathan Ned Katz]. What is even more inconsistent between male and female is that neither knows the many 'g-spots' of the other, and even if they did, the one cannot mirror nor know the other's stimulation in sexual acts. Moreover females are not attracted to chests and strong arms very much, yet they like the male buttocks. But females can do nothing with the male buttocks (maybe another reason for female penis envy), and only other males will admire the architecture of another male's chest and arms (amongst other things). There are thus many aspects that make the opposite sexes incompatible, yet there are just as many that make the same sexes compatible.

In sum, males and females can perform the brief act of procreation, but there is nothing in nature to suggest they do more than this. If they do, it results in problems and neither can fully appreciate the other biologically or psychologically as much as the same sexes can - nor in some instances is it natural or even possible to do so. And the same sexes cannot procreate like they did at the time of single cell early in this planet's evolution. It seems to some as if it is a glorified mess all round. Yet nature must have a reason for it all. That reason can only be that nature has a mechanism to prevent over-population, as it is in all animal species, and as it must have logically been for prehistoric humans, otherwise we would not be here today.

One good reason why women have been perceived by men as dangerous is due to the lack of the penis ('penis envy'). The female is more reliant on the male than other females if she wants penetrative pleasure; which has led to her being seen as a 'temptress', 'seductress', 'harlot', 'devil' and so on. And as this paper demonstrates, males and females are both attracted to males in the natural setting. Moreover, the male can play inserter and insertee. In addition he can play these roles with just other males if he so desires, whereas the female is totally reliant on the male for natural penetrative sex. To make matters worse, the male can find all the pleasure, and more, from other males; without the plethora of problems females have. There are no offspring to worry about, no pregnancies, no traps, no menstruation problems, no biological and psychological problems, no false behaviors like psychical hermaphroditism nor pathological fetishism. Indeed, with other males he can mirror, identify, mutually stimulate, mutually understand/appreciate the entire sexual act; and to top it all he can know the highest pleasure and quite naturally (an impossibility for heterosexual relations).

Since sex occurs only due to pleasure at all, and since it is the single most sought-after goal of our existence; it is clear that of all sexual combinations, nature has disadvantaged the poor female and exalted the male, particularly when he engages other males. In addition, he can find all the 'art forms' he innately desires in other men, including any he might find in women. If he seek the female bosom, he can exchange it for the male buttocks. If he seeks the orifice, he can find that too. Smooth, soft skin and a host of additional sexual objects that women do not have (the penis, more graceful bosoms/nipples etc.) can also be found in another male. Indeed, females have far less to offer men than men can offer men. Other men can express every aspect of sexual pleasure with each other, including a show of gentleness or strength; women by contrast can offer men a great deal less. She was 'created' for procreative purposed, but that's it. Anything beyond that, she can offer little. Indeed, sexual pleasure, our most basic desire, is impossible for male-female penetrative sex, unless the unnatural (condom, pill) is employed. No amount of debate could ever change the picture. And if men were not heterosexually indoctrinated, females would not see as much part of heterosexual activity as they do today. Indeed, males would certainly enjoy other males. And why wouldn't they if there was no indoctrination, and since there is no sexual instinct to guide one sex to the other ? And particularly in the human species, whose sex differences are more unlike than is found in any other species on this planet.

This ... is what the greed-monger and other idealists fear the most, and hence the daily bombardment of heterosexual enforcements. And having understood the woman's disadvantage, unless she is not indoctrinated, how can anyone blame her for becoming as false as she is today in order to gain the only pleasure (males) she is told she is allowed to partake of. Indeed, one can also understand the male heterosexual who becomes as false and macho as he is today, since he believes only women are right for him. Is it any wonder that he becomes as aggressive as he is today considering all the problems he faces with 'Eve'. Yet some homosexuals must also realise that they too have adopted false behaviors, as if gender (effeminacy) has anything whatever to do with being homosexual.

In nature, nearly all of us humans would procreate when necessary, however much of the time we would be homosocial, with a heavy emphasis on homosexuality. So neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals should get too excited that either of them are superior to the other, or that one of them is right. However, it should be noted that the homosexual is far more natural than the heterosexual, and it is clear that the good, beauty and truth expressed by them (e.g.: Plato, da Vinci, Jesus) has formed (or should have formed) the very basis of our cultural heritage in all aspects of daily life. And these great men of genius were 'whole' persons, not the half wits like Einstein whose 'genius' lay merely in one aspect ... Materialism.

Sadly, the heterosexual can never be a 'whole' person, nor can he/she know the whole of the good, the beauty and the truth. It is an utter impossibility, for they cannot integrate verbal, numerical and spacial skills; nor do they know love. They simply become the fodder that feeds the greed-mongers' canons, the foragers that keep the social organism kicking (a bit too severely), the common and average rather than the normal, or as Paul said in Corinthians "ordinary people" who shall experience "problems daily". While nature never intended the labels, it is clear that the homosexuality, being closer to nature and the 'whole', is not only the greatest moral good of the Universe (it has never caused human misery), but it is indeed the closest today that can come to the good, the beauty, and the truth ... but above all ... LOVE ! Had homosexuals, and particularly heterosexuals, followed natural law, all of us would have known these things. [read "Corydon" by Andre Gide]

The earliest myths show us that the authors reflected nature as it really is, which gives us a strong clue to what was going on in their sexual behaviors. Since the Pontifical Academy has accepted evolution, even the devout now have to accept that we emerged from the animals - besides we have the bones to prove evolution. The question most gloss right over is “Why would we have suddenly become so different the next evolutionary day after we emerged from the primates ?' The answer is, "We wouldn't have". Moreover, the bonobo chimps, our closest ancestors, are living examples that prehistoric humans (and modern humans if they were not indoctrinated) engaged in all sort of sexual behaviors. Taylor states that their sexual activities would make the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah a vicar's tea party. The only taboo observed in bonobo is that of mothers with male over the age of six. [read "The Prehistory of Sex" by Timothy Taylor].

Thus prehistoric man would not have overnight become heterosexual. Indeed, like all the animals he would have remained naturally bisexual, with a slant towards homosexuality, and a heavy prevalence shown for homosociality. The earliest myths show this to be true, for we find no evidence depicting heterosexual creation myths. Only much later when a few greed-mongers (and later, the religio-politicians) arise, do we find the more heterosexually oriented myths. And even then, one finds the sex differences emerging. In the Nyame African myth, woman is referred to as "of many moods". In the Judeo-Christian myth she is excused due to her ‘sinful' nature. Anything to indoctrinate and convince the male that this is his lot (he is not given any alternative to resort to his natural bisexuality, and to enforce him to stick to females creates massive problems).

Most heterosexual creation myths are very recent, dating back to around a mere 6,000 years ago in our four and a half million years of hominid history. However it took a while for the religio-politician to change nature in order to suit his noxious pursuit of greed, and thus in this time period we still find several common motifs that express the earlier myths. In the Epic of Gilgamesh we find the people of Uruk (in Sumeria) crying out to their god to create a mate for Gilgamesh and his excesses (remember the ‘male excess'). And so Enkidu (a male) is created for him. During the Epic a woman tries to coax Enkidu out of the edenic garden and engage him in sex (on a permanent basis). When he returns to the garden "the animals sniff him and run away". Gilgamesh and Enkidu then "kiss and form a friendship" The Epic is clearly a smack in the face to the heterosexualizing of myths by other cultures of the day. Indeed, scholars sum up this aspect of the myth as ‘the noble love between two men'. It also clearly shows the inherent problems between male and female.

As one reads the history of the natural philosophers (those committed to nature and natural/God's law), one finds some surviving fragments of their bisexual and homosexual relationships. Loving God, and thus nature, they would have had nothing to hide. The shamans of the tribes, the philosophers of Greece, in fact any altruistic being of any era who preached good, beauty and truth; leaves us with traces of their sexual endeavors. Jesus and John is a well known story, while Jesus and the ‘youth' (a male) is not as well known. Ruth and Naomi, as well as David and Jonathan's love, has miraculously survived in the bible (at the hands of the more spiritual/natural) and we find that well known excerpt in 2 Samuel 2 : "my love for thee was great, surpassing the love of women." In Greece we find Jupiter taking the delightful Ganymede up into ‘heaven'. The list of affairs is endless. [read "Jonathan Loved David : Biblical Homosexuality" by Tom Horner, "Gods & Men" by John Bailey, "The Secret Gospel of St.Mark" by Morton Smith).

However this all had to change if the religio-politician was to see his aims of ego, self-aggrandizement, and greed fulfilled.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, which predated the bible by centuries, was quickly changed to a heterosexual myth per se, with only the edenic garden and a few other bits remaining. Of the few fragments written long after Jesus (or more accurately, Joshua ben Joseph), known as the ‘Q' source (since the authorship is unknown); Paul changed the real history of Jesus forever when he concocted the mythical Christ we now know, for the Roman Emperor Constantine who saw the advantages of making a new religion (Christianity) work for him and his greedy pockets.

In fact, the invention of religion has more suited the religio-politician than it has ever been spiritual, altruistic or a well-meaning moral law. None of them are based on much truth, and any child can read the history and development of religions to find that no-one has ever been revealed to by God - or - how one religion borrowed its ideas from an earlier one and so on. When Moses got the idea of the decadon (commandments) from King Hammurabi's inscriptions upon diorite pillars in Babylon, the Judeo-Christian ethic was forevermore to follow a heterosexist Mosaic law. [read "The Eastern Philosophers" by E.W. Tomlin]. The ‘sacred' theocrat would hardly want us to know these things, for the invention of religion to replace a natural spirituality, was largely due to greed's pockets being fulfilled than much else. [read "The Supernatural A-Z" by James Randi, and "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, for more details on man's futile superstitions and mythologies, and how same have been used to enslave humankind.]

From infancy the child is heterosexaully indoctrinated.

At first, children are taught to learn gender roles (a false construct). Boys are given harsher phonetically sounding names and are handled roughly, while females have softer names and are handled gently. The male is taught to repress or deny all his ‘feminine' or gentle traits, while the female has to repress or deny all her ‘masculine' traits. Although these are innate, it is hoped that by denying and repressing the other half of one's psyche, that the one sex will try and find it's other half in the opposite sex. While this is thought to aid heterosexual indoctrination, in reality it creates ‘half' people, who live and appreciate ‘half' lives. The next time you hear "let me introduce you to my other half", know that this is a reality, not a mere metaphor.

So many problems have been caused by inventing socialized genders, that at unisexuality and the feminist movement tried to resolve the problems that arise from such polarizations. However these movements never helped anyone, particularly due to the fact that one cannot change that other gender, viz: biological gender. To do that, one would have to equalise the XX chromosomes of the female with the XY chromosomes of the male. The female in this respect is half of the male (we read that Eve was made from Adam), and she can never be made to be XY by any stretch of the imagination. Thus the biological and psychological differences are innate (nature) and eternal (history) and cannot ever be changed.

So, to further ensure that children become heterosexual (they never really become this), during the psychosexual stages of development, Freud insists that the child does not become ‘fixated' (stuck) at any one of the phases. Male children are particularly encouraged to stop sucking their thumbs. And while Freud tried to steer our attention to the idea that thumb-sucking had something to do with security, he avoided the ‘problem' that the thumb was digit as large as the phallus. There is more to the oral phase than many would like us to know. Indeed, there is much that is kept secret about the other phases too. For instance, boys and girls both admire the phallus in the phallic stage. Males enjoy the ‘retention and expulsion' (paralleled with anal intercourse) of faeces in the anal phase. It is clear that he is enjoying the first experience of what later becomes the highest of all sexual pleasures, viz: the prostatic massage (hence the term ‘anal retentive' for male heterosexuals). Dream research has also shown that both males and females dream mainly about males, something which no amount of heterosexual indoctrination has been able to change.

While all the underlying mechanisms abovementioned are obviously created by nature in order to keep the population in check, this would not appeal to the greed-monger and other idealists. Thus the child is given heterosexual kindergarten readers, while indoctrinated to become a ‘half person', who at all costs must not become ‘fixated' at any stage of ‘psychosexual' development.

The fact that Freud finally had to admit that we are all bisexual, and that due to heterosexual indoctrination "all men are latent, repressed or overt homosexuals"; is one that is kept under wraps.

The secular technocrat would hardly want us to know these things.

The theocrat of sacred indoctrination, and the technocrat of secular indoctrination, amidst the plethora of idealists that have arisen over the millennia; are more responsible for the invention of heterosexuality, and religion (as we know it today), than any other group of greed-mongers. And it does not take much to see why these falsehoods had to be invented if greed's pockets were to be fulfilled; although it is certain there are other equally erroneous decisions and noxious reasons as to why they were invented.

Nature does not care about our wants, especially greedy wants. It does care that we follow natural law, where the consequences of not doing this, we can plainly see.

Religion definitely does not show us a path to what God is or could be. Our anthropomorphic image of God as human, and our anthropocentric idea that we are the only intelligent species in this massive Universe, is not only erroneous thinking, but is obviously an idea created by the greed-monger. How many simply gloss over the fact that green coloured aliens on another planet would see their god as green. We neither have the monopoly on God, nor do we know much about him/her/it. St. Thomas's five proofs for the existence of God, have all been disproved, as has Aristotle's 'Prime' or 'Unmoved' Mover (the oscillating Universe could not have had a beginning, for what would have then caused that beginning, and so on.) Neither old age religion, nor new age religion (and all its pseudo-sciences and dangerous alternative therapies) has helped us find God. The eternal cycles of nature (the oscillating Universe of astro-physics, and Einstein's phrase "energy is never created or destroyed, only transferred" : talk about eternal life) would give our ego's greater comfort than religion. And just maybe if we saw God in all things, and if we did not know of an afterlife, we might all treat each other better in this life. [read "God and The New Physics" by Paul Davies].

Nature does not care that a few greed-mongers want male and females to bond per se. Indeed on other planets where evolution follows a different path to ours, there may be several sexes or only one (on this planet we already find one, two and three; where some can change their sex e.g.: oysters).

Nature abhors materialism, for like religion and heterosexuality, it too is anti-nature. Our mechanical Materialism kills nature, and in the end it kills us; for natural resources will not last for ever in an over-populated world.

Males are not as insatiably attracted to females as we have been told. In the natural setting they would enjoy males too. 'Any hole can yield pleasure' in the non-indoctrinated setting. While researchers will try to put today's high divorce rate down to men seeking younger slimmer hipped women (women develop wider hips and other ‘less artful' forms due to the inevitable oestrogenic process), they keep quiet about the fact that men could find the ‘art' they so desperately seek (but never quite find in heterosexuality) in other males (who by the way, have no such oestrogenic problems.)

Few know that at every level in the Universe, from atom (microcosm) to the largest supernova (macrocosm), the clash of opposites is what causes movement, change, Heraclitus's 'fire', and thus life. If the Universe/Nature was perfect, it would be static. There would be no movement, no change and thus no life ... no Existence. Indeed for God to exist, God must then also be imperfect. Indeed opposites unite briefly (quite in contract to the alchemical-hermetic and Jungian propaganda of the 'union of opposites') as seen in the brief mating season (and in prehistoric humans as a result of nature's intended male-female differences); just in order to procreate. The rest of the time, opposites clash and enjoy there own identities in what we call a changing, thus living Universe.

There is order amidst the chaos, yet some would like to change that order to suit their noxious pursuits, thus creating the unbalanced situation we find today (over-population etc.). There is sexual drive (libido) to ensure order within the chaos (ie: lack of sexual instinct to guide one sex to the other).

Nature and its necessary imperfections, is the enemy of theocrat, the technocrat and other idealists. To them, Nature's (God's) law is a constant threat, as is the eternal (history) and innate (nature) problems of male-female differences. These are all pure anathema to the yesterday's theocrat and today's technocrat and their pursuit of ego, self-aggrandizement, power and ultimately wealth (greed). That is why they have to constantly enforce the secular and sacred indoctrination we have read about above, on a daily basis. However if it was so plain for all to see in nature, this would hardly be necessary. For instance, take note of the italics in the paraphrased passage that follows from Genesis:

"In his perfect wisdom, God created male for female, so that they should marry and multiply, and subdue all nature; and by the sweat of their brow, toil all the days of their lives".

It is abundantly clear that the entire design of God's supposed ‘word' is to the benefit of greed, and the followers of such myth never realise for whom they are toiling. They accept that if this is God's word, then this is their lot. Thus the problems of heterosexuality, religion and materialism must be God's design, and therefore to be obeyed by the sheep who follow the ‘good' shepherd.

All those so-called noble aims of civilization that were passed off as supposedly "for the good of all", have only ever been for ‘a select few'. And hence many of us have been duped by religion, heterosexuality and materialism. Indeed most of us have used the very material rewards who have made the greed-mongers richer than ourselves, as a replacement for our lack of bliss; and thereby played right into the theocrat's and the technocrat's trap. The plan could not be more perfect.

For those who might suggest that the so-called ‘human condition' is responsible for greed, one must remember that this ‘condition' was more an invention than being anything as innate as we are led to believe. The bonobos chimps, who ‘make love not war' are strong evidence that prehistoric humans were not greed-mongers. And how could they have been, if they emerged from primates who were not greedy.

As per all of nature, the animals and prehistoric humans, are for nature's own good reasons, innately bisexual. In humans, male-female relationships are fraught with difficulties due to humans being the most unlike between the sexes (biologically/physically and psychologically/mentally/ emotionally), than any other species. Without a shadow of a doubt, religion has done everything but reveal God to us, and it is clear that quantum physics (all is energy) and astrophysics (the oscillating Universe with no beginning or end) is a surer path to God (or Universal energy/mind or whatever you like). But Science and Nature have always been a threat to religion and heterosexuality. Moreover, if humans become empowered by the God within them and all else (pantheism), duality (separation of God and humans) would not see God's supposed ‘word' having much effect on the sheep.

At the end of the day, the ‘divide and rule' formula works in all instances for the greed-monger. However there are simply no gay and straight genes, we don't know much at all about God, and materialism simply has not worked. All that we have been enforced to believe is evident of but a noxious process of the enslavement of humankind: god (greed-mongers) over humans, slave over master, white over black, christian over jew, male over female, and heterosexual (over-breeding) over homosexual. All in the name of MONEY!

Since no-one is sure what happens to us after death, and if one wants to live a whole life (rather than a half life) in order to really know Plato's ‘the Good, the Beauty and the Truth'; then the very opposites ‘Materialism, Heterosexuality and Religion' (respectively) have to be abandoned. It is clear that if one tries to follow heterosexual relationships per se, males and female have to heavily ‘compromise' their biology and psychology (as the anthropologists put it). The final words of the Epic of Gilgamesh make total sense : "It seems immortality is reserved for the gods alone. Life is short and we best enjoy it while we can."

If we are to live by anything, we need to return to our natural bisexuality, albeit that it favours homosexuality and homosociality. We have no reason to fear extinction, for the animals and prehistoric humans followed these paths for millions of years. Moreover, Ford and Beech have shown in their studies of 100% homosexual tribes of today (e.g.: the Siwans of Africa etc.), that they have high fertility rates. To achieve comfort in a seemingly lonely Universe, we would be far happier if we knew more about the eternal cycles of nature (quantum and astro physics also help us understand this). We would understand that to be really spiritual, we would have to embrace a natural spirituality. For if there is a God, nature can be God's only law. And we have to flow ‘with' rather than ‘against' nature. We have to flow ‘in the spirit of the thing'. As for materialism, need one say much more than that it has left a wake of destruction much like religion and heterosexuality.

We would do well to heed that one ‘golden rule' that predates all religions, and which needs to be understood in its non-political context : "Do ye unto other humans, animal, environments and God, as ye would have done to oneself". If we slap nature (God) and natural (God's) law in the face, we shall suffer. And no-one can doubt for a single moment that we have.

The reader does not have to resort to theories or books or 'thinking' to know what I have stated in this paper. One can find it simply by 'looking' directly at nature. Natural facts are indisputable and paint a very different picture to what the greed-monger and other idealists have unsuccessfully tried to create. When these facts persist over history, it is clear that the time has come to make changes lest this planet die too soon ! As Wittgenstein put it when he put a stop to all philosophical speculation "Look, Don't Think !"

As explained in the beginning, the author does not want to ride a private rocking horse, however with humanity reaching maturity, the author like so many others has tired of heterosexual, religious and material superiority. I thus hope that this essay pulls the carpet right out from under the feet of those who so fervently believed they were natural, righteous and correct in their utilitarian motivation to abuse nature. That the author has had to on some occasions bring to light uneasy truths, was necessary in order to bring the facts home. However, some will still insist that the proof is in the eating of the pudding. These are the people who want living examples ie: of this time period. Fortunately, the author can meet these requirement and has the proof, where he has left the pudding for last. And here it is:

As anyone knows, Nature shows great variety. Some plants are hermaphroditic (have both sex organs) while a few were split into male and female. Procreation takes place where pollen (the equivalent of human/animal semen) amidst landing on countless other stamen (male genitals of the plant), also happens to land on some ovules (female genitals of the plant) by mere fluke. All due to the male excess. There is thus no need for any guiding sexual instinct to make one sex seek the opposite (or the same sex for that matter). There is also no need for the male tree to uplift its roots and stroll over to the female tree. Indeed, there is no need for bonding at all. One does not find homosexual and heterosexual trees or plants by any stretch of the imagination (there are thus also no 'gay' and 'straight' genes, nor any need of them). And in animals and prehistoric man, we do not find heterosexual bonding in our human sense of the word. Nor would we modern humans if we were not indoctrinated. And nor is it plausible or even natural as regards recreational sex. And if we want to apply our humanistic reasons why males and females should bond, there is no sound reason why they should. Indeed the matter has nothing to do with procreation at all.

Male-female bonding is thus an invention in a process known as 'socialization', with which the right amount of biased indoctrination, tries to enforce males to bond with females (with dire consequences, as we have seen).

Whilst we found at the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder, that a handful of species appeared to mate for life, we soon found that they bond for every other reason than 'lover' in our human terms. Indeed, we also found that the male partner was not the same over time. We also found that those species which appeared to mate for life, were those where the female is so alike to the male, that she becomes an easier target for predators, and thus needed the male as protector (but not 'lover). We thus find 'bonding', but for reasons far different to our wishful thinking, in a handful of species, where males and females are alike.

However, as we climb the evolutionary ladder, we find that male and female become more unlike. We also find that intelligence increases. In addition, we find there is more capacity for 'socialisation' and biased indoctrination, as more 'thinking' evolves. And at the very top rung of the evolutionary ladder, we find human males and females, who are the most intelligent, most able to 'think' (thus most able to manipulate and indoctrinate), and where males and female are the most unlike than seen in any other species we know.

Primates, being but only the next rung down, also have the ability for a great deal of socialization and biased indoctrination (some say this results from food exchange, greed etc.). In one species we know of, the Gibbon, we find male-female bonding' however not in our heterosexual sense of the word. The Orangutan remains solitary (we think). All the other primates range from bisexual to homosexual and back again, with our closest living ancestors (the Bonobo chimps) displaying bisexuality and a favouring to homosexuality (actually, female homosexuality). Such is the ability of thinking creatures to be able to order their cultures (societies), regardless of what nature has to say. It is clear that they order their societies in a manner that suits their own noxious aims (greed of food, or the plethora of theories other researchers have offered).

Since we are ourselves primates, there is no reason that we should be any different. And we aren't of course. Indeed, as above mentioned, whether we want to accept the natural reasons for it or not, we are as bisexual with as much a favouring of homosexuality, as our closest living ancestors. And more so due to male-female extreme differences. Indeed, human females appear in nature to be as much the 'alternative' as is the analogy of the ovule who sees procreation take place due to pure fluke. Indeed, the indoctrination that homosexuality is the 'alternative', can never be further from the truth. Then again, who would want us to know this. Certainly not the greed-monger (theocrat and technocrat).

Thus amidst some other reasons for which religion was invented, one of the main reasons was to cover these facts. Hence the word 'myth', which means to hide the truth. And materialism was introduced as a supposed replacement (which it is not) for the lack of ecstasy heterosexuals would suffer. It does not matter to the greed-monger that any of these inventions are false; and certainly the average heterosexual, religionist and materialist is unaware of such falsities too. All they really know, is that they are distinctly unhappy, never realising that their sexuality, religion or abuse of nature is false, unnatural and anathema to natural law.

But, we have drifted far away from the point. I stated that we would see some living proof. So here is the pudding:

Heterosexuality, is already an unnatural state of affairs, which we can prove by sheer logic, nature and history alone. However, the living example is best.

Dr Tripp, who examined the findings of all the world's sexologists (and nearly all of them are heterosexual themselves), finds that they have to eventually and reluctantly admit that in societies "where homosexuality is lauded, or even merely approved of [take note of the latter statement : my italics], it tends to be prevalent ... " [p63 in "The Homosexual Matrix"]. This verifies that the female becomes a mere 'alternative' for the male.

Of the several examples of this today I shall briefly quote verbatim (since this is an academic work not for gain) from Gregersen's, Maugham's and Cline's separate writings on the Siwans of North Africa. And since the Siwans have no laws banning homosexuality, we can use them as proof of the above statements:

"All normal Siwan men and boys practice sodomy ... Among themselves the natives are not ashamed of this; they talk about it ... openly ... and many, if not most of their fights [for sexual partners/pleasure] arises from homosexual competition. In the warrior caste (zaggalah) there was a formal bride price given for a boy" [Walter Cline in "Islamic Homosexualities" by Stephen Murray & Will Roscue].

Some will argue that the Siwans are homosexual (by the way they still have male-female coition) due to socialization and biased indoctrination, as if male-female innate (natural) differences have nothing to do with it.

However they are dead wrong. For indeed "They will kill each other for a boy. Never for a woman" [Robin Maugham in "The Story of Human Sexuality" by Edgar Gregersen].

To further strengthen that natural differences between male and female will never see the two sexes bond happily together; no amount of indoctrination, not even the most powerful of religions, will force any male to overcome these natural and unchangeable differences if his society shows no law to ban homosexuality. So natural and attractive is homosexuality. As living proof of all the afore going, I leave the reader with this last bit of 'pudding':

"Boy marriage was practiced until at least 1926, when a high Egyptian official escorting an English tourist was scandalized to find that an elaborate wedding celebration was in honour of a man and boy. An imaam (a Moslem holy man) was sent to help the Siwans mend their ways, but ... two years later this same imaam married a boy" [Gregersen and Maugham in "The Story of Human Sexuality" by Edgar Gregersen]

The same prevalence is found in other cultures who have no ban on homosexuality. This is thus no isolated case. Like it or not the proof has now been given, and many are enjoying the pudding ...

... "where homosexuality is lauded, or even merely approved of, it tends to be prevalent ".