People’s nature hasn’t changed much since the Late Neolithic period. Before the Bible, there was no particular reason why one person should not kill another if the moment seemed to call for it. It was the way people survived to fight again. From this perspective, there is not much daylight between human barbarism and an amoeba eating a paramecium. The amoeba-paramecium munching analogy among people continues only marginally abated into the twenty-first century.

Image created using AI.

It is the Bible that seems to have changed social expectations by couching clear and simple restrictions on behavior as imperatives: Procreate and fill the earth (that is, children are not tender snacks or sexual objects). Don’t fill your head with idolatrous fantasies that were and are still often confused with sexual acts; take off a mandatory day a week to rest (you, your servants and work animals); honor your parents (i.e., don’t discard them as in most of the animal kingdom); work the land, but also give it a rest one year in seven; and don’t kill, kidnap, or commit adultery. Give up the quintessentially barbaric presumption that if you wanted something badly enough, you could take it without asking and using violence. Perhaps the most esoteric commandment given to mankind from the Bible is “Choose Life!”

These commands were to be taught to children, generation after generation. In this way, the directions or commandments are markers in time between barbarity and civilization. No other ancient document came close to being as comprehensive and influential. Part of the brilliance of this approach was that only a portion of the world, the newly created Jews, were obligated by the Bible to keep the full panoply of restrictions. Others could come along in part or diverge, but at least the example of self-restriction by a large group now existed.

Humanity has done, at best, a fair job of giving up its barbarous heritage. This is unsurprising, given the inherited components that determine some of our behavior—that is, the instinctive need to survive under any and all conditions. Therefore, complying with Biblical commands only serves survival if there is a substantial group of people who flourish under Biblical restrictions. The root is that no one will ask more from anyone else than they would be willing to give of themselves voluntarily—a form of reciprocity.

Today, there’s a striking example of the violations of “Choose Life” and “Do not Murder” to a point of Neolithic barbarity that is about to be exposed. The Kenyan Supreme Court has lifted Bill Gates’s immunity for his alleged involvement in launching a tetanus eradication campaign in Africa. It turns out that the vaccine contained a substance that caused an autoimmune reaction in pregnant women, causing miscarriages. If this was deliberate (as is alleged to be the case), this must have been done by someone who devalued life to the point that pain and suffering to millions of others could be ignored.

To me, that seems quite like unselfconscious Neolithic barbarism. Based upon the ‘reciprocity’ rule, it would appear that Bill Gates has forfeited his own life if society can grab it from him. If we are sticking with the Biblical narrative, Bill should be buried up to his neck in sand, and the women (and men) who were affected by his scheme should pass by his buried body and stone him to death. (Making people childless against their will is no different than killing them.)

Of course, before I’m charged with fomenting violence, I fully understand that we do not stone people to death anymore, and I’m not suggesting that we do that to Bill Gates. It would not be civilized. However, if he is found guilty in a Nuremberg-style court of law, perhaps he could issue a public statement begging Kenyans (and other Africans) for forgiveness and then voluntarily seek a lobotomy as an act of penitence, thus advancing civilization with his public selfless act.

After a careful reading of the cited research confirming the tainted tetanus toxin vaccination, it appears that many others should suffer Bill’s fate. It seems that the World Health Organization (WHO) has been engaged in anti-pregnancy vaccine research since the 1970s.

I suspect that many of the people associated with this research would claim money as a motive (they needed a job). However, to serve their acquisitive needs, they gave themselves permission to engage in this secretive, insidious project. That is a choice civilized people should naturally reject. That they did not make better choices makes them culpable under a RICO-type conspiracy.

However, no matter the motive, we’ve witnessed just another example of the Neolithic barbarity we cannot seem to shake. In the end, our Neolithic origins will end us all unless we grab hold of ourselves. Our choices are a balance between self-restriction and tyranny or complete extinction.