Book: Global Goodness Which Motivates Good Behavior

 

Global Goodness Which Motivates Good Behavior

Executive Summary

                In Genesis-1 an ancient scribe benchmarked primitive perception that Homo sapiens has sole responsibility to bring order to earth’s chaos. In the next chapter, other scribes embarked on development of The God, a mystery. So far, most cultures resist responsibility by developing doctrine predicated on a higher power to usurp Homo sapiens’ role. Utopic theories vary from 1) every individual choosing good behavior to 2) global destruction that eliminates competitive doctrine and delivers peace to the victor. This book proposes to individuals: accept the Genesis-1 message, especially Genesis 1:26-27, in order to discover and practice goodness which motivates good behavior in their community, state, and nation. Rather than pursuing a utopia, Homo sapiens may and can manage choices from wickedness to goodness, in order to annihilate evil -- to assure each person the opportunity to discover and practice good behavior in time to benefit before their death.
                I would not have published this book at this time were it not for my family; walking and talking in Perkins Road Park, Baton Rouge; becoming unchurched; appreciating President Trump’s pursuit of goodness; and reconnecting with classmate F.DeWolfe Miller.

Preface

                I think human opportunity on earth could and should improve through education departments. Newborns naturally pursue practices to survive if not thrive. The community may-and-can[1] inculcate in youth the comprehension and intention to pursue fulfillment as Homo sapiens, the superior species on earth. The United States republic abstractly engages inhabitants to choose to be either citizens or subjects*[2]; that is, either aid the republic’s intentions or just tolerate the ebb and flow of their life.

In a culture of goodness, most newborns have the opportunity to pursue the mature person they will not regret. By example, a culture of goodness facilitates the individual’s quest for good behavior. In a culture of goodness, citizens engage in public goodness and subjects, excluding evil people, benefit from civic integrity.

Inhabitants of the world, after nearly 11,000 years pursuing writing and grammar seems politically split: left, right, and undecided. The book proffers discovery and practice of goodness-which-motivates-good-behavior as a means of pursuing order despite the earth’s chaos, never expecting utopia.

Introduction

                Not knowing the ineluctable truth*, I won’t review speculations that anything existed the moment before the Big Bang happened, 13.8 billion years ago. In that moment, good versus bad phenomena began as the laws of physics conducted creation and destruction. There were no species – no intelligence to choose behavior, so adaptation to developments, such as the first formation of water, suffered neither opinion nor fear. Evolution was purely physical – no psychology in play. Today, water, essential for future biology and psychology, seems a good thing.

Before humans evolved and chose to work for tolerable if not favorable living, biological species either adapted to environmental developments or struggled until their extinction. Much later, animals with minimal awareness emerged, some mutating, in order to adapt. Even later, more aware humankind, anxious to survive, sometimes neglected research* onto “truth”; primitive peoples often missed ineluctable evidence by settling for rationalization*.

As history unfolded, many people misused words to repress and control collaborative thought, weakening tinkers. Proposing colonial revolution, Thomas Paine elevated John Locke’s “common sense” as religious belief to civic reasons for independence from England. Thereby, Paine failed to directly address Locke’s will to impose religious opinion as “common sense”. In this book, each time I encounter divisive usage, I suggest replacements that facilitate collaboration to good behavior. For example, I prefer integrity* to both “common sense” and “civility”. I think “the horizon” used as a curve rather than a line would help retire the flat-earth-perception. I try to stay focused on ineluctable evidence for the reader to explore, by assigning word-usage-debate to Appendix A. There, words I’d like to see out of usage are in red letters.

                Notwithstanding everything that happened since humankind chose to work for a way of living, past generations left to the 2026 Homo sapiens* ample opportunity* to collaborate for goodness to ourselves and our descendants. I am writing to promote “goodnesswhich”*, a new word I explain below.

I have no way of knowing primitives’ and ancients’ facts and opinions, which subsequent generations competitively plagiarized or manipulated. In other words, I cannot discover who first expressed a thought. Therefore, there is no bibliography. I aid collaboration using footnotes. I use searchable phrases to express actual-reality and leave it to the reader to consider the ineluctable evidence that may ground my pursuits/opinions. The reader can explore opposing thoughts, perhaps using creative, AI-assisted search.

                Goodnesswhich seems simple on presentation yet is so complex that it would take an AI team to take the philosophical approach: surveying select scholarship on the topic as grounds for validity.[3] Philosophy requires explanation of history’s jargon according to selected scholars; I plan to avoid jargon by selecting words and phrases that directly impact goodnesswhich, rather than preserve traditions. I assign this work to Appendix A and invite the reader to master each entry, in order to grasp the importance of precise, accurate, and deep words. Sometimes, I’ll seem repetitious. When I fail to communicate, I hope the reader will improve my work.

If I were writing for my birth family --- Southern Baptists --- I could be brief; however, I am attempting to write for Homo sapiens – past, present, and future. Not dialoguing-with the audience, I cannot presume to write for them. I perceive my open pursuit of public dialogue broadens my opinion like Paul’s accumulated thought from pagans he visited in order to develop augmented Jewish beliefs. I think readers who comprehend will be glad they took the time a new word, goodnesswhich. Regardless, I would like to learn your suggestions for improving this book’s message.

I have a policy not to raise a concern without suggesting a remedy. I introduce potentials for goodnesswhich to impact legislation in the United States republic. Judges, lawyers, and law professors would agree that it would be folly for a chemical engineer to profess expert advice on amendments to political law. I reserve the opportunity to be wrong. I hope readers will aid the work.

Chapter 1: some people would dismiss unknowns* as “mysteries”

                Since the universe exists, it follows that before existence, there was potential for the Big Bang. That is, it was possible for the Big Bang to happen. But so far, neither the potential nor a cause is known. Nonetheless, whatever preceded the Big Bang grounds all subsequent opinion.

When I was a boy, my parents and community often responded, “This is what we believe”, when I questioned authority, especially religious imposition. In our community, The God had no say in the face of belief.

Now in my ninth decade, I pursue the ineluctable truth or whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. It is important for each Homo sapiens in each generation to glimpse if not study the past’s vastness in time, space, extinctions, and survivals. Actual-reality is so huge I can only share curiosity. I think I was born with knowledge capacity I’ve never tested, and want to encourage young people to humbly neither fear nor doubt their personal goodness.

Origins

                Immediately after the Big Bang, extreme temperature dissipated and quark-gluon became ionized-plasma then transitioned to protons, neutrons, and then electrons. Perhaps 100,000 years later, oxygen formed and eventually combined with hydrogen to form water. Earth’s planet formed 4.6 billion years ago. Life on earth began 3.5 billion years ago, perhaps as bacteria. Earth’s atmosphere reached 21% oxygen 400 million years ago. Hominins, who were bipedal and had larger brains, appeared about 6 million years ago. They made tools, increasingly around 2.6 million years ago; research began with trial, error, and correction. In other words, bipedal hominins chose work and research about 3 million years ago. The dominant species, Homo sapiens, appeared about 0.3 million, or 300,000 years ago, and is now humankind --- the only superior species. The vastness of actual-reality does not justify defense of badness over goodness. And evil must be annihilated.

Progress

                Homo sapiens led creation of spoken language and grammar 135,000 years ago, then migrated out of Africa 70,000 years ago, dark-skin lightening to adapt to less UV radiation. They invented religion* 50,000 years ago, advanced symbols to art 40,000 years ago, then imagined systems of gods with human images; polytheism. By 15,000 years ago, Homo sapiens was the only human mutation. Adaptation to light-skin became genetic by 12,000 years ago. In Mesopotamia, 11,000 years ago, war captives of various skin colors were made slaves. Indigenous slavery was common in Africa and North America. Primitive polytheisms usually featured a sun god, Ra in Egypt and Utu in Sumer. Sumerians invented writing 5500 years ago, treaties 4350 years ago, and the first law code 4100 years ago. Competitive monotheisms developed 3600 years ago warping goodness versus badness into competitive worship and praise. Whereas polytheism was destined to decline into extinction as research explained phenomena, like the sun, a natural nuclear reactor. Imagination without discovery makes monotheism limitless. Religion increases psychological mysteries while research discovers and solves physical and psychological unknowns.

A political philosopher, Yeshua of Judea, written-about 1950 years ago, suggested Homo sapiens can perfect good behavior. Arab and North African merchants 1700 years ago created the Saharan slave trade that ballooned to the Atlantic slave trade with European countries 400 years ago. Researchers, 1200 years ago, recognized ineluctable evidence, imagined new instruments of inquiry to pursue reliable discovery, then utilized statistics to resist/skirt ineluctable evidence. About 340 years ago, Europeans erroneously promoted reason more than discovery. About 140 years ago, the United States conducted a civil war to end slavery. Independent people started and maintain a new world that might lead to a new earth.

                In 2026, Space Force intends to colonize the moon then Mars, yet Homo sapiens does not seem to collaborate for goodness-which-motivates-good-behavior, “goodnesswhich” for short. Only 234 years ago, the one and only United States republic* proffered the means to pursue order from chaos yet has not discovered goodnesswhich.

Is Homo sapiens sufficient to order the earth? Will a mutation be required? I suggest that Homo sapiens may-and-can benefit from history’s evidence by accepting goodnesswhich as the constraint that demands humility. Because there will always be badness and evil, the more individuals who pursue goodnesswihich, the better.

Power over consequences

                Whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice, perhaps the laws of physics*, seems to hold humankind responsible to establish goodnesswhich out of the chaos that rules the earth. This seems evident from the history of discovery. To accept the challenge, Homo sapiens may-and-can accept the power, authority and responsibility*, PAR (the only acronym I’ll maintain in this book). While Homo sapiens has prevailed over other species and progressed since humankind chose to work intelligently, so far, goodnesswhich has not seemed attractive enough to prevail. I think that’s because education departments have not taught goodnesswhich.

                Prevalence of unknowns is evident in one of the world’s most impactful literary endeavors: scripture* including the Hebrew canon plus Pauline debate[4]; the Judeo-Christian competition. The first chapter, Genesis 1, suggests a deity created the Big Bang, then the earth with the deity’s spirit, then awareness (light), which implies the spirit is goodnesswhich. Some Christians argue that the deity, spirit, and light constitute a divine Trinity.

The scribe arrogantly imposed earthly presence onto Elohim.[5] Toward the end of the chapter, “G-d” created the animals then assigned human PAR to order life on earth. Order requires goodnesswhich if not Goodnesswhich. Then, in Genesis 2, another scribe imposed Hashem Elohim to grant even more earthly presence, talking to the only human, a man, Adam, in the garden Hashem planted.

                The whole western scripture -- think of it as all the sacred literature which derived from ancient Mesopotamia -- impacts modern people worldwide. Unfortunately, it partitions both the primitive literature and advanced awareness everywhere. Primitive addresses discovery between 3 million years ago, when humankind chose work as a means of ordering life, to 4000 years ago when competing monotheisms attempted to discount ancient political philosophies. After the primitives, then comes the ancients, then contemporaries. The ancients ought not separate the contemporaries from the primitives.

By “advanced awareness”, above, I mean reliable research during the 1400 years since the Quran was published. The Catholic canon came 1600 years ago, then the Protestant canon came 380 years ago. The United States republic was ratified only 235 years ago. And if Homo sapiens is failing its PAR to order life on earth, the scripture offers clues as to how to respond to whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. In other words, the scripture helps inform readers about the consequences of erroneously choosing badness, vice, or evil instead of goodnesswhich. That is to say, the scripture can be taken seriously with humility rather than doctrinal pride or cultish arrogance – superiority or isolation.

Political Ideas from the primitives and the ancients

                Most primitive peoples imagined other-worlds (godly utopia) controlled the objects and events. Unknowing humans perceived mysteries. Typically a system of gods controlled everything.

Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian polytheisms influenced later cultures. In the Middle East, patron gods evolved into competitive monotheisms, each culture promoting its God. See physics in Appendix A.

                Mesopotamian Terah, in Ur, was an idolater, took his family to Canaan to resist human sacrifice to gods, and his family gradually converted to monotheists under Yahweh. While dominantly Sumer-speaking (5100 year-old language isolate), some Ur-residents were East-Semitic speakers, mostly Akkadian (1450 years old). Terah’s son, Abram, lived during emergence of Canaan languages, 3700 years ago. Here are some major developments from the end of Sumer, 3780 years ago, until the Pauline Epistles[6] were completed, 1960 years ago:

1.       5200 then 4900 years ago, respectively, primitive Egypt then Sumer practiced polytheism. Subsequent polytheisms differ yet reflect Egyptian and Sumerian influence: Canaan, Persian, Greek, Roman, and independent Celtic paganism, 4400, 4000, 3600, 3000, 2700 years ago, respectively.

2.       4100 years ago, Sumerian law codes, asserted:

a.       Humankind, serving the gods, is solely in charge on earth

b.       Most crime was adjudicated with fines, but some, like sacrilege and murder, imposed capital punishment.

c.       The strong must not take advantage of the weak.

d.       Some civil duty, like threatened-king-surrogacy, involved death/sacrifice.

e.       Sumerians killed animals and humans for flesh and blood to offer the gods.

3.       4000 years ago, Terah, an East Semitic-speaker, left Sumer, perhaps following a local god, Yahweh, I speculate to resist human sacrifice to idols yet continue animal sacrifice.

a.       His son, Abram, became Canaanite-speaking and proto-Hebrew.

b.       His 3 mates, Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah, were matriarchs with many descendants.

4.       3600 years ago, Zoroastrians and some Persians committed to Ahura Mazda as the only god and champion for good against evil.

a.       They did not legislate capital punishment.

b.       Leaders intended to protect the weak.

c.       They did not sacrifice animals to their god.

5.       3500 years ago, the Levite, Moses, received from Yahweh commandments for the 12 tribes of Jacob or Israel to obey in return for divine favor.

a.       Jacob was Abram and matriarch Sarah’s grandson.

b.       Moses legislated capital punishment.

c.       The strong were to care for the weak as opposed to not taking advantage of them.

d.       Israel sacrificed animals and had trouble resisting human sacrifice.

e.       Some prophesized a Judean Messiah to unite the 12 tribes in obedience.

6.       3400 years ago, Egypt worshipped one god, Aten, then briefly restored polytheism

a.       Aten worshippers did not practice capital punishment.

b.       They did not protect the weak from the wealthy.

c.       They did not sacrifice animals as a principal practice.

7.       2600 years ago, Greek philosophers advanced polytheism to human goodness and justice*. Contemporaneously, Zoroastrian Cyrus the Great founded the Persian Empire.

a.       2400 years ago, Plato developed political philosophy that discouraged democracy and favored justice grounded in human wisdom and goodness [goodnesswhich]

                                                               i.      Zoroastrian Georgius Gemistus Pletho collaborated with Plato.

                                                             ii.      Socrates did not write; writers had him suggest that the god is goodness

1.       2435 years ago falsely-accused, unjustly-sentenced Socrates chose death, in order to defend the rule of law, civically unjust as it may be

                                                           iii.      Agathon thought [goodnesswhich] softly comes from the mind yet firmly neither causes nor accommodates harm.

b.       2357 years ago, Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire.

                                                               i.      Soon, the Seleucids, Greek aristocrats, governed from the Aegean Sea to what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan then expanded into Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.

                                                             ii.      They governed Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians, Georgians, Persians, Medes, Jews, Mesopotamians, and more, with centers in Seleucia and Antioch.

                                                           iii.      They accommodated many religions: Hellenism, Babylonian Sumerian mythology, Greek Judaism, and Zoroastrianism.

                                                           iv.      Hellenization dominated until annexation by Rome 2089 years ago.

c.       1800 years ago, the Sasanian empire ruled Middle Persia, part of ancient Iran

                                                               i.      It fell to the Muslim conquest 1375 years ago

                                                             ii.      The Twelver Islamization of Iranian Persians prevailed 500 years ago

                                                           iii.      Modern Zoroastrian population is small.

d.       2350 years ago, Aristotle defined citizenship as public engagement for [goodnesswhich]

                                                               i.      760 years ago, Aquinas developed Aristotelian ideas as Christianity

                                                             ii.      360 years ago, the Age of Enlightenment developed and peaked relatively soon

8.       1965 years ago Pharisee-Jewish entrepreneur Sha’ul[7] projected Yeshua of Judea as a Messiah intended to shed blood for everyone who believes Yeshua projected selective Hebrew-canon prophesy.

a.       Most Jews still await a Messiah who will unite the 12 tribes of Israel.

b.       The trinity, nonetheless one God, has 3 characters and functions, including electing believers.

                                                               i.      Messianic Jews are Christians

                                                             ii.      Some Christians are nontrinitarians.

9.       1390 years ago Muhammad reported that all humankind will submit to Allah.

Geo-political debate for the recent 1400 years essentially ignores goodnesswhich from the prior 3800 years, at the leading edge of 300,000 years’ Homo sapiens adaptation. The primitive Egyptians as well as the Sumerians each accepted PAR to rule on earth. A Semitic-speaking group left Sumer to resist human sacrificial-killing yet continue blood offerings. A Semitic minority, Israel, developed Yahweh predicated on divine favor in return for obedience including blood sacrifice. When Israel did not obey, they predicted a savior would develop from one branch and unite 12 tribes. A miniscule faction projected Yeshua onto the savior and modified the savior to serve pagans, too. Another Semitic-speaking group, Arabs, developed their primitive literature beyond obedience unto submission. Unfortunately, all that energy never discovered goodnesswhich.

Scripture which affirms the laws of physics

                Many features of scripture suggest good behavior as humankind’s power to resist badness on earth. If we take the many Biblical deities as attempts to represent goodness, most passages can seemingly make dialectical sense. Substituting goodness for “God”, here are 4 pillars from only Judeo-Christianity:

1.       Rule life on earth in the image of goodness[8] (to me, practice goodnesswhich)

2.       Homo sapiens may choose to perfect goodness until death[9]

3.       Behave perfectly during life[10] (meaning individuals and groups can pursue perfection[11])

4.       Goodness will not correct Homo sapiens failure[12]

The individual is in charge, faces death, can pursue perfection, and cannot expect relief from error. On these 4 principles, call them pillars, taken from the Hebrew canon plus subsequent Pauline debate, a person may choose to trust-in and commit-to personal goodnesswhich.

The rest of Judeo-Christian scripture informs the consequences of choosing either bad or evil behavior. Newborn infants and the adolescent may-and-can[13] pursue goodnesswhich, practice it the moment they discover and intend it, then perfect their unique person, no matter how low they may be at the moment. Individuals who adopt this way of living have the opportunity to influence their community, nation, and the world to pursue goodnesswhich.

Ancient barriers to goodnesswhich

                Goodnesswhich may-and-can influence every Homo sapiens in every generation. However, scripture bemuses believers with competitive deities and doctrine. The person who humbles to whatever-constrains-the- consequences-of-choice can collaborate to influence goodnesswhich. However, the typical life is so short and busy that few take the time to consider goodnesswhich. I hope to change that millennial trend. The world’s education departments could encourage comprehension and intention to civic integrity* of, by, and for Homo sapiens.

Language and culture

Some estimates report 7,000 languages in the world, with 135 language families. The region from which western scripture developed, Mesopotamia, had 4 cultural influences: 2 language families, Afro-Asiatic (including Egyptian and Semitic languages – at least Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic), Indo-European (including Greek and Persian), an isolate, Sumerian, and later ones such as early Turkic.

Original scribes of the Hebrew canon used Hebrew and Aramaic. The Septuagint is a Greek translation. The scribes repressed/disparaged each other and 10 contemporary cultures: Egyptian, Babylonian (which succeeded Sumer), Persian, Roman, Canaanite, Philistine, Hittite, Assyrian and others. Each of these cultures featured diverse opinions, such as whether blood is needed/provided for divine bargaining. Egyptian, Babylonian, Sumerian, and Canaanite primitives and ancients practiced human sacrificial killing.

Excluding Chinese, languages used, include Hindi, Spanish, French, Arabic,  and American, in proportion to English, 0.41, 0.38, 0.22, and 0.15, respectively. English dominates because of early British colonization plus recent American leadership. The fact that American English is only 15% of the total is little appreciated and insufficiently defended. Compare definitions of “racism”, for example.  

·         American usage: belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

·         In British usage: the belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief.

The American usage addresses the laws of physics (blonds and brunettes are nonetheless Homo sapiens), while the British usage addresses social trends in some groups (white men are evil).

Competitive religious doctrine from Canaan and Judea

Beginning in 50 CE, Pauline scribes wrote in Greek about Yeshua, son of Yosef and Miryam of Judea, projecting him as blood sacrifice for believers’ sins, whether Jew or pagan. Descendants of Ishmael, Abram’s first born son had developed Arabic ideas, and Muhammad assembled the ideas before he died in 632 CE. Ancient scribes imagined individual quests for tribal benefits and wrote competitive scripture. Political power has dominant impact; for example, Zoroastrianism may be ethically strong but easily defeated in war.

Organizers and institutions are responsible for widespread interest in scripture. Israel canonized the Hebrew canon 2200 years ago. Rome and Hippo (Algiers) canonized Pauline debate 1630 years ago. The complete Quran was published 1375 years ago. Interpretations of each are available in 800, 1800, and unreported number of languages, respectively, with fragments in more than 4000 languages. Almost everyone in the world, 99%, has access to at least part of the Hebrew canon and/or Pauline debate, yet most Homo sapiens don’t consider the whole story: the scripture with the Quran and more, such as Zoroaster’s writing and Sumerian civil codes.

Judeo-Christian dominance

                Europe was originally polytheistic, for example, “Celtic” pagan. Worship would bargain favor in the afterdeath. Subjects lived or died on the whims of kings.

Church entrepreneur Sha’ul of Tarsus, was executed in pagan Rome in 67 CE. He was more convincing than fellow-Jew, Simon, who had denied the unjustly-accused Yeshua 3 times before the execution. In 312, Emperor Constantine converted to Pauline beliefs then led Rome to adopt Pauline-Catholicism (but with Simon as the rock), in order to control the pagans. The Roman canon was adopted in 382 CE. Beginning in the 16^th century, Western[14] Christianity competed exponentially in Europe, especially through Protestantism.

                Before its fall, the Roman Empire expanded eastward, with its Byzantine capital in today’s Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire invaded the European portions of Byzantine and captured Constantinople in 1453, establishing Islam as the state religion. The Byzantine Empire changed to the Turkey unitary presidential republic in 1923. While the population is 99% Sunni Muslim, there is no state religion. I think Islam spreads slower, because Homo sapiens prefer humility to submission. I could be wrong.

Institutions sustain Judeo-Christianity at the civic factions’ expense

                Moses’ law used blood sacrifice to bargain with Yahweh, who had promised favor for Israel’s obedience. When Israel continually disobeyed, they predicted a savior would come and reform believers individually and also unite the 12 tribes unto a kingdom of peace. In 30 CE, a minor faction of Jews said that political philosopher Yeshua of Judea was the savior. The rabbinic faction, who swore against killing, persuaded the government to execute Yeshua in 33 CE. Pontius Pilate chose to execute an innocent man.

                The execution exacerbated both the stories about Yeshua and projection of those stories onto Hebrew-Bible-predictions. Yeshua’s apostles, expected to know, were questioned by eager people. But scribes had Yeshua complaining that apostles he chose did not understand.

Sha’ul of Tarsus, a Pharisee, advocated strict Mosaic law and persecuted Yeshua’s followers. Sha’ul was not among Yeshua’s 12 chosen apostles. Observing the executed Yeshua’s influence, Sha’ul dubbed himself apostle-to-the-pagans and in 36 CE developed church theory in Tarsus before moving to Antioch in 44 CE then taking his first missionary journey until 46 CE. Pauline doctrine expanded with each city he visited.  

The pagans disliked circumcision, required by Mosaic law. In 49 CE, Sha’ul went to Jerusalem to meet with the small faction of Jews who projected Yeshua as savior, in order to request relief from Mosaic male-circumcision[15] so the pagans could join Yahweh worship. Yeshua’s circumcision was reported.[16]

Counselors included Yochanan[17] and elders, Kefa, and Ya‘akov. The elders commended Mosaic law and circumcision. Kefa suggested that Jews were hypocrites to the pagans if not to humankind. Ya‘akov suggested allowing pagans to join believers, if they would practice neither 3 consumptions associated with idol worship nor fornication. Scriptural importance of sex rather than spousal appreciation and bonding seems shocking! The Counsel of Jerusalem, 49 CE, put the compromise in writing.[18] Arrogantly, Sha’ul departed to develop Pauline theology and churches. Ya‘akov advocated mimicking his brother, Yeshua[19]: pursue perfect behavior. Sha’ul promoted his churches rather than Yeshua’s influence to good behavior.

By 56 CE, Sha’ul wrote that Yeshua was Yehweh incarnate and blood-savior to all humankind.[20] In 57 CE Sha’ul arrogated Genesis 1, writing that women are not in The God’s image.[21] Sha’ul died in 64 CE and someone wrote in 100 CE that Yeshua was savior to all believers.[22] And another writer in 88 CE implied that Yeshua was Yahweh incarnate and died to fulfill his covenant.[23] Sha’ul may have, but Ya‘akov did not equate Yeshua to God.[24]

Sha’ul’s 7 epistles to 6 churches were written by 58 CE They provide insights into early development of church doctrine and ethics. The rest of the Pauline canon came between 68 CE and 130 CE. Much of it seems opinion and commentary on Pauline theology. Since Yeshua did not write, authors were free to speculate, plagiarize, and construct stories. The book of Mark, in 69 CE, reports Yeshua’s use of healing and miracles to influence good behavior without suggesting theology. Matthew, in 78 CE, adds a virgin birth, rebuke of religious authority, and resurrected appearance to the apostles. Luke, in 86 CE, details the virgin birth and celebration, then in Acts details post execution interactions with the apostles and their eventual persecutions. Ya‘akov, Yeshua’s brother, published in 89 CE, addresses the 12 tribes of Israel rather than the pagans and thus includes Jews among humankind, emphasizing that regardless of grace, Christians may choose goodnesswhich. John, in 95 CE, is theological, claiming that Yeshua was The God, as proven by resurrecting a body after 3 days’ decay. The book, Second Peter, in 130 CE, accepts that the kingdom of peace has not yet come. Claims that refute the laws of physics are suspect.

Israel remains expectant of a savior to them, so Yeshua-son-of-Yosef-of-Judea is not a feature of their modern literature. An ancient exception is Josephus, writing in 94 CE. Israel discontinued blood sacrifice and ceremony when the Romans destroyed the second temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. They could choose to resume ceremonial/sacrificial blood when a third temple is built.

Pauline canon hides goodnesswhich

                Opinions about Yeshua the political philosopher rather than competitive creator suggest he influenced goodnesswhich. He seemed to know of and advocate the Genesis 1 suggestion that only humankind may-and-can develop order from earth’s chaos. For example, when asked if a man can divorce his wife without cause, Yeshua’s response[25] was grounded in Genesis 1. Each time the scripture depicts Yeshua speaking with a person or teaching a crowd, his influence to goodnesswhich seems reliable. I think reports of Yeshua reversing the laws of physics are fiction and admit I could be wrong.

                Egregiously, institutions and churches misdirect Yeshua’s 4-step process[26] for human-conflict resolution. In his process, first, a person who thinks another has offended/harmed him or her, should privately discuss the concern. If the accused demonstrates that they were the harmed party, the accuser may reconsider and either defend or accept, apologize and make amends. Without resolution, second, the concerned party asks another to consider their opinion and whether or not the third party is willing to engage the accused. If so, they approach the accused for discussion. If tripartite discussion happens without resolution, third, they consider taking the deliberation public. Without satisfaction, fourth, the accuser terminators association with the accused. Yeshua brought this instruction back to Genesis 1 – on earth, humankind is in charge.[27]

                The Pauline canon advocates church opinion yet has many instances of Yeshua encouraging goodnesswhich, and I encourage the reader to discover them and share with us. However, I think Yeshua’s inherent influence to goodnesswhich is the reason most of the civic faction, especially in the United States republic’s separation of church from state, who pursue Judeo-Christian religion, reserve humility to whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. Through goodnesswhich, Yeshua’s influence lives even though many people are unware.

Developments in Europe

Boosted by Rome, Pauline debate became impactful in Europe, especially through church competitiveness. Martin Luther, a German theologian, 500 years ago, protested the Pauline canon, especially inclusion of 2 books -- James and Revelation. Luther advocated personal judgment and choice. Protestant versus Catholic debate over Pauline canon repressed any goodnesswhich that could be informed by the Hebrew canon (the Tanakh).

In Western Europe, England’s Magna Carta (1215) promised to protect Catholic Church authority. But in 1534, the Church of England separated from the Catholic Church. Catholic monopoly on Judeo-Christian debate led to European Protestantism. German theologian Martin Luther posted Church objections in 1517. Religious wars ensued, including the Thirty Years’ War ending in 1648 and the Glorious Revolution in 1688 that started the Nine Years’ War ending in 1697. Desire for religious independence motivated many colonists to leave Europe and risk life in the new world. France, Spain, and Holland allied with the American-English colonists against England with German mercenaries to win USA independence at Yorktown, VA, in 1783.

The United States Republic

Colonial America favored Protestantism yet the nation established and maintains religious freedom. In 1790 the United States was mostly Protestant -- Congregationalists, Baptists, and Anglicans. In 2024, United States religious demographic was 62% Christian (19% Catholic), 2.4% Jewish, and 1.2% Muslim or nearly 2/3 factional-Bible believing. The other 38% pursue other traditions or sacred texts. Again, personal religious choice is not restricted in the United States republic.

Proffered American opportunity

                The United States republic, ratified in December, 1791, has flourished for 234 years. It is a one-of-a-kind constitutional-republic that is authorized by the civic people, each one in their state. By “civic” I mean people who accept PAR-citizenship and preserve each other’s opportunity to pursue happiness. The civic faction* manages both their local and state governments and influences national representatives: Congresspersons, Senators, President with Vice-President and others.

Any citizen may have reason to motivate a US Constitutional amendment but only 2/3 majority representatives in each the House and the Senate or 2/3 of states can effect subsequent ratification/rejection by 75% of the states. Some states may use a referendum for their ratification. The national-republic’s disconnect from democracy, with protection of each civic citizen’s vote is embedded in the amendable Constitution. The republic prevents national democracy.

                I think independence empowers the United States to accommodate religious choice yet maintain constitutional law. That is, no religious doctrine has overthrown the civic faction. The non-believing civic citizen happily preserves various believer’s opportunities to choose. Religious believers may-and-can be civic – collaborate with the civic faction. Most of the world and many citizens do not comprehend the United States republic, yet its excellence sustains the civic citizen and their collective faction. So far, the civic faction prevails.

                In 2026, the United States seems to be rising from an abyss due to factional aliens: un-civic domestic subjects and foreigners cling to personal badness. Many people promote “our democracy”, hoping to defeat the United States republic. The civic faction may ponder how more individuals might join the happiness of pursuing joy through goodnesswhich. The Judeo-Christian majority claims excellent pursuit of goodnesswhich yet cannot subsist without non-believing civic citizens. And it is up to minorities to collaborate and suggest better practices. I think the USA could be great and am writing to suggest: accept imagined-mystery as unknown, in order to focus on goodnesswhich. Humbly accept The God without further interest, in order to appreciate whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice.

Chapter II. The Laws of Physics Constrain Psychology

                The aware individual faces two major questions regarding an intentional life: what does it take to be Homo sapiens and how does a citizen aid public life where they live? Most people are too busy living to develop these questions and earn opinions. Education departments, worldwide, could and should promote, facilitate, and encourage youth and adults to comprehend Homo sapiens and commit-to civic integrity. Educators only train the workers the country assumes it needs. Most children want goodnesswhich from birth and would be happy to comprehend, intend, and have opportunity to pursue perfect behavior. Children would like to pursue what they would have wanted to be if they had known from the beginning. That’s right: the human condition is burdened by the fact that the future world cannot be imagined and the adolescent must choose a path without knowing the destination they desire. The infant is one miracle in 8 billion who may survive to create the future.

Accepting “faith” in goodnesswhich

                As the most aware species, Homo sapiens has capacity for goodnesswhich that is rarely employed. This is so, because education departments inculcate fear and doubt rather than trust-in and commitment-to goodnesswhich. Education departments teach higher power rather than PAR; doubt rather than humility; doctrine rather than the laws of physics.

                Also, past concepts of goodnesswhich fell to greed. For example, the Sumerian demand that the rich not take advantage of the poor, widows, and orphans morphed into philanthropy, tithe, and taxes, so that organizers can skim the money streams. Capitalism hinges on consumption by choice and supply by creative viability. Governments and religions redistribute revenues from workers in order to strengthen consumption by the poor, in order to aid the entrepreneurs. Correcting civil provisions for gaming the welfare system starts with the organizers. Only the civic faction can constrain the organizers.

Basic lessons in goodnesswhich

                How does a person pursue goodnesswhich?

                A fundamental practice is to earn the food and shelter that supports personally wanted lifestyle. The person who uses employment to fund self-development for life rather than to build wealthy wealth finds joy. The person who is satisfied with average living makes certain they can both pay the bills and save for the future. Often, they work for an entrepreneur or corporation, who accepted the burdens and risks to manage a business. The person who wants a wealthy lifestyle may take entrepreneurial risks to provide a good or service. Informed consumers appreciate the hard work reliable entrepreneurs deliver. Economic viability is balanced by the laws of economics, a subset of physics: when there’s no market, there’s no reward. When providers don’t serve the customer’s needs, the customer finds a different product or service. Innovation promises loss of interest in today’s products and services.

                In daily encounters, when personal conflict is perceived, many times, the offended party retreats to egocentric forgiveness. Instead, by informing the accused party, they might either learn they were the offender and make amends or receive apology and preserve friendship. Even with egocentric forgiveness, action chosen is permanent.[28]

                Egocentricity is so universal that “the Golden Rule” has nearly 10 versions. The oldest is from Egypt, 4065 years ago, "Do to the doer to make him do." If this oldest version motivates good behavior by choice rather than coercion, it effects goodnesswhich. But confidence in the Golden Rule suppresses goodnesswhich. Even the popular expression encourages invasion of another’s privacy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others," 2575 years old, ignores the other party’s wishes. In other words, the rule imposes the actor’s preference.

                There are times when civic integrity requires action. For example, if someone is killing you, fight back. If professing a religion threatens your role as spouse and parent, retreat to privacy or change religions: maintain your opportunity to serve your family and their descendants.

When harm invades privacy

                In integrity, the civic faction aids development of justice in their nation. First, they civilly observe the law, even if it is unjust. Second, they consider ideas to amend unjust laws. Third, they engage fellow inhabitants in mutual pursuit of responsible living.

In the United States republic, the civic faction is engaged for life. Civic citizens encourage dissidents and rebels to help prevent harm. Civic citizens influence religious fellows to be humble toward whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. Civic citizens help constrain criminals. Civic citizens oppose wickedness and violence. Civic citizens aid annihilation of evil. Not everyone participates in civic citizenship, and privacy is paramount as long as there is no harm to or from anyone.

I think the United States republic is the best candidate to establish and maintain goodnesswhich. But what if the English language constrains thought? It would do me no harm if Farsi-speaking or Koine-Greek-speaking people imagine and influence order from earth’s chaos. I wonder if the Farsi-speaking faction in Iran would like to update Zoroastrianism, in order to aid Homo sapiens in the pursuit of goodnesswhich.

Chapter III. Goodnesswhich requires open-minded consideration of missteps

                In Chapter 1, we briefly reviewed some things that had to happen before Homo sapiens reached the year 2026. In Chapter II, we related both government and religion to the laws of physics. In Chapter III, we review bad behavior recorded in the literature, in order to suggest not utopia, but a global increase in goodnesswhich.

Slighting Eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamian primitive progress

                Primitive Homo sapiens speculated that otherworldly beings acted-on and could be mimicked on earth. Sumer, Egypt, Greece, and Germany became polytheistic 6500, 5100, 5000, and 4000 years ago, respectively. Sumer was conquered. Egypt, Greece, and Germany became monotheistic -- Egypt to Aten, a sun god 3351 years ago then to Allah in 1971. Greece adopted Christianity in 380 CE, influenced by Constantine. Charlemagne imposed Christianity to German Saxons around 800 CE. In this timeline, Charlemagne was distant enough from the Abrahamic religions[29] to fruitlessly imagine ending the competitiveness.

Polytheism lessens as research resolves unknowns. For example, once research discovered that the sun is a natural nuclear reactor, it was difficult to convince people that the sun responds to sacrificial bargaining. As discovery lessens the pantheon of unknowns attributed to gods, the need for gods reduces to either zero or The God; except for competition for political power. It seems impossible for churches to spare humility to whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice, be it the laws of physics, The God, or something else. But every church could adopt humility.

Kings believed that a patron god gives a city/nation hope against natural threats and military power. Thereby, gradually, polytheism gave way to monotheism; but without integrity. Competitive cultures claim their God and attempt to impose it on your God, other Gods, The God, Homo sapiens, and whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice.

The principal slight to Egyptian and Mesopotamian primitives is the ancients not recognizing that polytheism was destined to eliminate religious doctrine, while monotheism opened unlimited unknowns with no evidentiary bases – no integrity. But there’s more. What the primitives learned has been hidden from this generation: there is opportunity for good intentions to ourselves and our posterity.

The sequence of Sumer kings was astonishingly accomplished

Situated in the Middle East’s trade corridor, Sumer, with female and male gods, had both women and men in leadership roles, invented the wheel for work, invented irrigation, invented writing, and developed law codes. Society was organized to support the gods, especially each city’s patron god. Elite people educated for priesthood or government. The earliest recovered code, Ur-Nammu, punished criminals using fines rather than physical revenge (which causes disability); yet they applied capital punishment for murder and sacrilege. Slaves were deemed property yet could marry a slave. The rich and powerful could not take advantage of widows, orphans, and the poor. I know of no other civilization that so intentionally worked to order life in their part of earth. The Babylonians conquered Sumer 3775 years ago.

A Semitic-speaking group invents an influential monotheism

A Semitic-speaking group in Mesopotamian Ur, perhaps to escape human sacrifice[30] that was practiced by some cultures there, departed, 4015 years ago to find a new place to live. They continued blood sacrifice by killing animals and birds, but worked hard to prevent human-killing for sacrifice to gods.[31] When they decided to record their experiences, they briefly reviewed human history, in their opinion, in Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:5. That scripture claims a creator charged men and women to rule on earth, perhaps a Sumerian suggestion.

However, the Semitic Mesopotamians wrote on to subjugate both women and the poor and illustrate the consequences of avoiding responsibility to rule on earth. They employed violence. A locally developed God, Yahweh, directed Adam to tend a garden[32] then victimized women by creating Eve from Adam’s rib, bemusing female creation claimed in Genesis 1.

From the Semitic Mesopotamian clan, in Northern Syria, about 3850 years ago, Terah’s great-grand-son, Jacob, with 2 wives and their 2 servants -- 4 matriarchs --- sired 12 sons who would become Israel.[33] (With multiple mates in men’s lives, it is more reliable to consider tribal behaviors through matriarchs. For example, Mesopotamian Abram’s firstborn was Ishmael, the son of Hagar.) The 4 matriarchs of Israel were Leah (older) and her servant Zilpah and Rachael and her servant Bilhah. Leah and Rachael were Mesopotamian and Zipah and Bilhah were foreigners.

Thus appeared the tribes to be called Israel, a small branch of the descendants of Terah and a small branch from Abram’s second son, Isaac. Moses received God’s instructions to Israel about 3473 years ago, and gave written instructions to the sons of Levi:  If Israel will obey God’s commands, they will unite as the kingdom that will bring peace to the earth.[34] As they planned to take the land of Canaan, Moses instructed that Yahweh would champion Israel.

Monotheism fosters irresponsibility

                Because the Semitic-Mesopotamians who left Ur did not appreciate polytheism’s example of taking care of the gods and life on earth, they developed competitive Gods. One faction, Israel, depended on Yahweh to protect them in war and other choices.

                Among Moses’ instructions to Israel is charity to the poor.[35] It is well known that the best form of care for the weak is to motivate them to obtain the education that empowers them to earn their food, shelter, and security, plus savings for the future. However, entrepreneurs leaving scraps for the poor has developed into widespread religious philanthropy and taxation. Organizers skim the revenues to aid entrepreneurs. Welfare taxes the middle class in order to maintain the poor so that they can consume whatever entrepreneurs supply – not necessarily what the poor want to consume. That strengthens the consumer side for the supplier’s benefit at the expense of workers. In other words, the powerful skim taxation of the middle class that is used to support the welfare state. The churches skim a similar scam.

                Taking 5500 year-old advice from Sumer, we might educate youth and adults to constrain chaos in their ways of living, in order to avoid, for example, tolerating the food a bureaucrat or a philanthropist would choose to provide them. With more citizens taking responsibility in their way of living, entrepreneurial power to manipulate consumers weakens.

                While individual responsibility is important, the larger problem with monotheism is the competitiveness it establishes and maintains. Moses’ instructions incorporate violence against non-Jewish peoples, and Homo sapiens empowers imaginations that empower competition. Israel is vulnerable, because it is predicated on obedience to an unknown power. Internal dispute arose when a politically active person, Yeshua of Judea, asserted improvements on Moses’ law. Yeshua advocated goodnesswhich.

Christianity disputes Judaism and goodnesswhich

                When Israel habitually failed Moses’ law, they developed expectation of a king and priest who would unite the 12 tribes and grant them a kingdom of peace on earth. Moses, expecting Hosea to lead Israel to conquer Canaan, changed “Hosea”, meaning “salvation”, to Joshua; in Hebrew, "Yehoshua", meaning “Yahweh is salvation”. Yehoshua shortens to Yeshua, "salvation" or "to deliver."

                Sha’ul, in letters written 17 years after local and Roman officials executed Yeshua, projected Yeshua of Judea onto Hosea,[36] who saved Israel in their invasion of Canaan. The Hosea prophecy is expanded by Hebrew writers.[37] However, Pauline writers top Hosea, claiming Yeshua is the God, incarnate.[38]

                Thus, from 4000 years ago to 2000 years ago, the Hebrew canon suppressed 1500 year-old primitive thought. Then, 1900 years ago, Pauline debate projected Yeshua of Judea onto Hebrew prophesy, increasing neglect of 1500 years of thought. Add to that a competitive Semitic-people’s school of thought, Arab speakers united to parse the Quran, 1375 years ago.

The Arabic Semitic-speakers

                Not so humbly, the author of Genesis 16 disparaged the house of Hagar, mother of Abram’s firstborn, Ishmael. Hagar was Egyptian. Their women could own property and witness against men in court. Ancient Jews were patriarchal, even misogynistic. For example, Abram, to save himself, hedged wife Sarah as sister.[39] When Sarah became pregnant with Isaac, Hagar considered fleeing to Egypt but decided to stay under Abram’s care. On that day, Isaac was 37 years old and Ishmael, whom Abram loved,[40] was 51.

                Some Arab Semitic-speakers empathize with firstborn Ishmael rather than second born Isaac in Abram’s temptation to murder his son.[41] The Hebrew canon reports it was Isaac.[42]

Abram’s third spouse, Keturah[43] also had descendants who were Arab-speakers.

Without the subjugation of women, Abram’s role seems negative.

European age of enlightenment

                In 1452 then 1493, respectively, the pope authorized Portugal then Spain to colonize non-Christian indigenous peoples in the Americas and elsewhere, using African-slave labor. Europeans had advanced Chinese technology from the 10^th century to invent the musket, which empowered them to explore the world and colonize unarmed peoples. Exploration reached beyond international trade.

                Only 416 years ago, Galileo Galilei, announced convincing evidence that the earth rotates about the sun annually and on it axis daily, crushing the religious theories that the earth is the center of the universe and flat. The power of ineluctable evidence inspired a misguided age of reason labeled “Enlightenment”. Since reason cannot undo the laws of physics, the age ended when individual liberty, solidarity, and democracy producing the bloody French Revolution of 247 years ago.

Failure of reason a segue to liberation theology

                The French Revolution, 1789, failed to defeat capitalism. Karl Marx had imagined (1848) that the working class could overthrow government using communism. Only 70 years ago, in Latin America, Catholic dissidents joined Marxists to create liberation theology --- the theory that the oppressed class can overcome their oppressors, who are “diabolically” empowered by Christianity.

                The misguided global consequence is diversity, equity, and inclusion – the religion of Homo sapiens whom feel owed the happiness they perceive they-want, even though they commit-to nothing, even self. It seems preposterous yet is a natural resistance to the exclusivity of Pauline beliefs. In other words, it seems rebellion against Judeo-Christianity. Relief could and should come from widespread adoption of goodnesswhich.

One nation pursues independence

                Reacting to the wars grounded in European social democracy, the settlers in the eastern seaboard of North America became aware of the PAR they accepted, in order to settle a new world. Reacting to initial discovery by Portuguese and Norse explorers, then colonial competition between Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Great Britain, the settlers on the eastern seaboard of North America realized and resisted being subjects of European competition.

                In the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763), Great Britain defeated France regarding lands on 4 continents. The colonists, as subjects fought against France and indigenous inhabitants and in 1763 recognized that their colonies did not benefit. This exacerbated continual objections to placement of African slaves in America, beginning with the Dutch delivery to Virginia in 1619 but dominated by England in the Atlantic Slave Trade of the 18^th century. The first Continental Congress, on October 20, 1774 published the statement,

We will neither import nor purchase, any slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it.

But first, they had to win independence.

France, Spain, and the Netherlands helped the colonies win global statehood at Yorktown, VA in 1781. Having won independence to 13 named states, in 1783, George Washington urged formation of a nation with 4 pillars: one federal administrator, justice, military strength, and domestic goodwill [civic goodnesswhich].

In late May 1787, delegates from 12 of 13 states met and framed the United States republic. The required 9 states ratified the Constitution in 1788, and 11 states began operations in March 1789. They scheduled termination of slave importation for 1808. Congress completed its assignment to add a Bill of Rights, and the negotiated Constitution was ratified in December 1791.

The consequences of the work begun in 1763 and completed in 1791 accommodates the intentions of Genesis 1:26-27: humankind is charged to order life on earth. But the work was only begun. And ending slavery took another 74 years and a civil war which claimed more American lives than lost in all others through the Korean War.

What remains is acceptance that civic independence requires comprehension and beneficiary use of the laws of physics. None of obedience, surrender, submission, or conformity expresses humility to whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice.

Personal awareness

                In Chapter III, we outlined opinion about what happened to original goodness, so far, asserting that each person may-and-can pursue goodnesswhich. In the next chapter, we will consider how an individual or group might pursue civic integrity. The 1763 Treaty of Paris gave Great Britain territories in Canada and east of the Mississippi River and Louisiana to Spain. (France regained Louisiana in 1800.) The taste of PAR motivated Americans to intend independence. Europeans cannot imagine the American meme.

Chapter IV. The pursuit of civic integrity

                The reader may have formed a view of goodnesswhich during the review of Homo sapiens development so far. In this chapter, I want to share opinion about the potential for each infant to preserve and pursue goodnesswhich by experiencing civic integrity. I speculate that the sooner a person perceives potential personal integrity, the more likely they will intend goodnesswhich.

Civic categories

                Recalling that by “civic”, I mean protecting and defending mutual opportunity to choose goodnesswhich in every personal action, it is important to comprehend the possible outcomes. The civic concerns are enumerated in the preamble to the United States Constitution, in my view: integrity, justice, safety, strength, prosperity, and responsibility. (See Appendix A on “civic faction”.) The preamble’s intentions apply to every race and religion excepting evil. The preamble accommodates the actual “creation” expressed in Genesis 1.

                I address 8 categories of civil inhabitants or subjects of statutory justice: civic, passive, dissident, rebel, religious, criminal, wicked, and evil. The civic faction works to stay informed about legislation and accommodates six groups, each subjects of the rule of law -- excepting the evil ones. The non-evil seven together experience goodnesswhich according to their discovery and practice. Unfortunately, many people do not survive badness and some would never intend goodnesswhich even if they comprehended it.

Among Homo sapiens, citizenship expresses inclusion in the legislative provisions of the land wherein the person claims permanent residence. Physical conditions in specific countries impose custom work. For example, responsible living in cold climates like Siberia differs from living in Hawaii. Also, peoples may have different religions or none. As a result, social attitudes differ, and one consequence is division of humankind into nations with differing civil obligations. However, there remains the possibility of individuals who perceive civic obligation to influence their nation to pursue goodnesswhich, thereby advancing the Homo sapiens potential to favor good behavior, never expecting a utopia. Thus, some individuals, societies, and nations pursue civic integrity and amend their government when injustice is discovered. But so far, national competition keeps humankind divided and subject to local law. There is no community of goodnesswhich-nations.

The civic citizen

                The civic citizen accepts the responsibility to practice, promote, encourage, and facilitate goodnesswhich. Thus, he or she impacts their family, associations, societies, city, state, and nation to discover and practice goodnesswhich. Any mistakes are not to be repeated. Thereby, people develop goodness rather than badness or worse.

                The civic citizen might start each day by reminding themselves that they want to behave so as to evoke appreciation. When they observe personal error, they accept it and make amends, either immediately or in retrospect. For example, I now realize that in the confusion I recently suffered, I egregiously got in front of a family in the Costco-checkout-chaos. I contributed a precious $100 to a foundation as a civic penalty and reminder to myself. In other words, the pursuit of good behavior is personal yet can be managed on a universal scope. I will not allow Costco-confusion to control again, because I do not want to subject myself to more $100 penalties.

The passive subject

                The civic faction tries to persuade passive inhabitants to not let others fulfill civil necessities and perhaps civic duty. For example, uncivil passives don’t stay informed about legislation and don’t vote in elections and referenda. Thereby, they let others abuse personal opportunity to improve life or not. Un-civic passives don’t take action when they see someone needs aid. For example, an arthritic person was having trouble using the swimming-pool ladder, and the nearest person gave aid while others took no interest.

The dissident subject

The civic faction offers and facilitates dialogue with inhabitants who oppose their nation. For example, people who want democracy oppose the United States republic. Democracy, is chaos, because the public pursues temporal ideas of success if not survival. One purpose of this writing is to assert that the United States republic pursues goodnesswhich.

Among dissidents to the United States republic are ancestors of Europeans who never understood goodness which motivated some emigration to North America. Settlers perceived opportunity and accepted the PAR to brave the risks. Their accomplishments influenced the attitudes of both their offspring and newcomers arriving daily from Europe and other continents. Neither religious-preference nor skin-color distinguished civic-opportunity seekers.

Some European businesses imposed slavery in North America, creating two oppressed populations: the slaves and the overseers. Black people who came on their own were free to join in the pursuit of civic-opportunity. Slave owners were free to admit the evil and sell all their “property”.

When the civic faction in the British colonies declared independence from England, they forestalled the slavery question until after winning the revolutionary war. Nearly a century later, white Christians fought white Christians in civil war. The United States emancipated the slaves.

In the beginning, Homo sapiens were dark-skinned. Only 15,000 years ago white-skin became genetic after 50,000 years with less UV radiation. Some inhabitants to this day contend that skin color is a valid basis for exclusion. They subject themselves to racism, which is dissident to the United States republic and to humankind.

I hope this book motivates some citizens to consider whether or not anyone unwilling to choose the intentions of the United States republic is a citizen. I think people living here who neither comprehend nor aid the intentions stated in the preamble to the United States Constitution are dissident subjects.

The rebel subject

The civic faction opposes rebel inhabitants, who distinguish themselves by perpetrating violence, whether psychological or physical.

Inhabitants who are violent over racism are rebels.

Most of the media is rebel, because reporters take the position that the First Amendment guarantees irresponsible/harmful freedom of the press. However, the civic faction, defined by the preamble to the Constitution, demands a press that aids pursuit of the republic’s intentions.

Inhabitants who oppose gun ownership are rebels, because civic integrity demands strength when self-defense is required.

Ancestors of Europeans who did not return to their home country after the United States won independence may not have overcome belief in democracy, socialism, or government other than the unique United States republic. They are rebel subjects.

The religious subject

The civic faction cautions religious inhabitants who refuse PAR, taking hope and comfort in relief from mystery, often their God or their church. They take pride in their hopes without reserving humility to whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice, which could be The God, the laws of physics, or something I can’t imagine.

Some religious inhabitants elect a God to comfort their life and wait for divinity to assure civil and civic goodness. They overlook the possibility of accepting and pursuing a God yet adopting PAR to aid goodnesswhich. I think it is possible to be religious yet maintain civic integrity.

The clergy know this human weakness but perpetuate it to preserve their institution. The Popes sequentially pretend eternity will fulfill their latest opinion.

Some governments are aware of the power of heartfelt belief so partner with religion in order to control the people.

In the United States republic, the civic faction may-and-can control. Each civic citizen can influence their group to pursue goodnesswhich. The image of “beacon for freedom and democracy” may-and-can be retired, in order to favor goodness-which-motivates-good-behavior.

When religious inhabitants accept PAR, their religious choice is not less-important than preferring a professional sport or musical genre.

The criminal subject

The civic faction constrains criminal inhabitants and facilitates reform in hope of restoring mutual opportunity.

The wicked subject

The civic faction resists wicked inhabitants, hoping for reform.

The evil subject

The civic faction aids elimination of evil inhabitants, who are so psychologically obsessed/demented that their only relief is death. For example, the person who would behead an infant is evil. The civic faction may-and-can accept the PAR to annihilate evil people and their organizers.

Terminating an evil person is a civil responsibility that must be adjudicated. The leaders of the world’s nations are ultimately responsible for justice, preferably statutory justice or written law. Where there is written law, the evil person, by intolerable behavior or deeds, accommodates his or her lawful execution.

Summary

                There are other ways to categorize behaviors. My analysis is intended to show that civic integrity accommodates a myriad of behaviors, excepting evil. Fellow inhabitants may live by combinations of the 7 behaviors excluding evil, producing 823,543 variations. Maybe earth’s 8 billion inhabitants exists in proportion, or 9714 evil people live today.  

But in actual-reality, each person is unique. Persuading most people to pursue goodnesswhich is not easy, as history has shown. But imagining widespread good behavior is a first step.

So far, I have opined about the way politics developed at the edge of 300,000 years of Homo sapiens. In Chapter V, I suggest how to effect a step change from the status quo to the pursuit of goodnesswhich.

Chapter V. Education

Every department of education both for youth and for adults can be reformed so as to promote goodnesswhich. The community is an educator and can practice, promote, and facilitate goodnesswhich.

Each generation pursues three necessities: present, future, and past. What do I need at this moment? What do I want my person to become? How could the past inform me? Considerations are increasingly staggering. Opinions from other people are bemusing. How can education departments succeed?

Educating to preserve tradition may burden the student with past error. Preparation for the future cannot anticipate unexpected happenings. Adults who struggle to survive cannot inform youth about unknown, future challenges. Adults may-and-can accept PAR, in order to inform youth about the evidence-for, methods-of, and actions-that pursue goodnesswhich. The adult who expresses gratitude for personal PAR rather than pleads for PAR proffers the example youth need.

The present competition between DEI, conservative education, and parental choice can be replaced with civic collaboration for goodnesswhich. But who determines goodnesswhich, and what are the standards?

Education competition

                Recent US emphasis was to “train the workers we need” rather than to educate youth to comprehend each 1) what it means to be a Homo sapiens and 2) how to be a citizen rather than a subject to the law or power. Recently, emphasis has turned to parental acceptance of responsibility for their offspring. School-choice is popular for K-12, and civil education has arrived on campus. But the human responsibility is civic order. Subjects cannot be expected to rear their children to pursue goodnesswhich.

Homo sapiens is the only living species that may-and-can choose to pursue order on earth --- other species are dominated by instinct or less. Citizenship requires comprehension-of and commitment-to a nation’s intentions to pursue justice. The United States pursues perfection of its unique republican government. The United States republic states its intentions in the preamble to the Constitution. Inhabitants who do not trust-in and commit-to the United States republic are nonetheless subject to its laws, whether they submit or not and even if the laws unintentionally feature injustice. Conversely, no government can force subjects to be citizens.

Some educators perceive each student should experience a classical liberal education. But what does that mean? Reading, writing, and arithmetic, or the trivium: grammar, logic, and rhetoric, plus the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy? There doesn’t seem enough time in the human lifespan to teach the ineluctable evidence by these methods, and Homo sapiens awareness and knowledge is expanding exponentially. Imposing selected past on current youth expresses doubt in individual PAR.

Progressive educators refute the Genesis-1 premise that female and male Homo sapiens is in the image of whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. To progressives, if a person decides to change their gender, the consequential life-dependency is worth the supported attempt at arrogance against the laws of physics. How can uninformed autonomy facilitate pursuit of mystery? How can progressives imagine imposing their will on youth? How can misled youth perceive the maturity they’d like to achieve? Perhaps what is important is discovering goodnesswhich early, in order to pursue it for life.

Religious institutions intend to impose faith-in-doctrine by age 7, hoping the person will believe for life. Consequential revenues sustain the institution. As Homo sapiens discovers and resolves the unknowns, the clergy modify their doctrine so as to maintain residual mysteries unto eternity. History shows believers don’t object to unreliable doctrine. The civic faction may-and-can end this charade, by influencing their chosen religion to pursue goodnesswhich.

The purpose of this book is to inspire educators in all institutions to collaborate to practice, promote, facilitate, and guide both youth and adults unto goodnesswhich. The laws of physics constrain psychology and thereby goodnesswhich. In other words, goodnesswhich applies to both the physical and the psychological aspects of life.

Strong start

There’s no delight that compares with eye and facial engagement with an appreciative newborn Homo sapiens. Fortunate is the child who maintains self-confidence through age 7, and rare is the adolescent who maintains appreciation of independence. Usually, appreciation turns to doubt and develops into fear. The nonagenarian who is enthusiastic to live another 3 decades then suddenly die is rare.

I think such appreciation is rare, because humankind, so far, has not accepted the Genesis-1 message that Homo sapiens may-and-can choose to practice goodnesswhich on earth. For example, my birth community tried to convince me that I am a sinner, unworthy of the glory of God. That teaching directly refutes Judeo-Christian scripture, as presented in this book’s Chapter 1’s Section, “Scripture which affirms the laws of physics”.

A premise of this book is that the community may-and-can inculcate to each Homo sapiens the opportunity, from birth until death, to discover and practice goodnesswhich. Their personal journey may feature new discovery to be applied to all humankind. Imagine the child born to parents who reliably pursue goodnesswhich! I was reared to have faith in ideas no one should believe; but some do and die.[44]

Adolescents may be taught that the laws of physics are reliable and appreciative psychology protects a person from doubts, fears, and desires imposed by the unknown future. This attitude can aid humankind in humility to whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. By accepting and promoting this attitude, religious people could motivate their clergy to promote strength in humility.

The pall of European tradition

                The United States republic, after 234 years’ operation, remains embroiled in European politics, especially British common law attitudes. Unfortunately, it distracts youth from goodnesswhich to the glory of the Church. A British timeline starting 1429 years ago follows:

1.       In 597, the Gregorain mission in the kingdom of Kent first baptized an Anglo-Saxon king, starting the transition from Celtic paganism

2.       In 1070, William the Conqueror, king of England, at the Council of Winchester negotiated selection of Norman bishops under papal service.

a.       Indigenous slavery transitioned to serfdom.

3.       In 1215, in “Magna Carta” the king wrote a treaty granting lord barons some powers, the clergy some privileges, and few protections to subjects

4.       In 1341, Parliament was split into House of Lords (nobility and clergy) and House of Commons (knights and burgesses)

5.       In 1350, clergy were added to Parliament in "Manner of Holding Parliament"

6.       In 1517, Wittenberg, Germany theologian and Priest Martin Luther objected to Roman Church practices, especially the sale of indulgences

7.       In 1534, Henry VII declared himself the head of the Church, ending papal power in England

8.       From 1600 to 1776, England freely led exponential purchase of African slaves from Arab traders for placement in English colonies.

a.       Intentions to end English assignment of slave oversight and care to colonists partially motivated the American revolutionary war.

                                                               i.      But other Europeans placed slaves here.

                                                             ii.      And some colonists traded slaves.

b.       Freeing the slaves while waring with England was intractable if not impossible.

9.       In 1650, Puritan witch trials were extensions from, for example, 1581’s Catholic witch trials. Europeans influenced the Salem witch executions of 1692-3

10.   In 1688, the Glorious Revolution led to the 1689 Bill of Rights to subjects -- almost all people born in the British Empire.

11.   In the 1730s to 1740s, the First Great  Awakening marked Anglo-American evangelism

In 1791, the United States republic ratified its negotiated Constitution with separation of church from state. But goodnesswhich has not, so far, eradicated English and European suppression of American independence.

Improving the United States republic

The civic faction in the United States republic may effect several civil changes, in order to pursue goodnesswhich. Some Constitutional amendments are suggested.

1.       British originated “common good” can give way to United States “civic integrity”.

2.       The civic faction may consider and accept that the preamble defines the entity We the People of the United States; some inhabitants subject themselves to statutory justice.

a.       Collaborating to pursue the United States republic’s intentions “to ourselves and our Posterity” gives citizens stake in the nation.

b.       The faction “We the People” both trusts-in and commits to the preamble’s intentions and maintains authorization to the union of states.

c.       The civic faction, “We the People”, comprise citizens among subjects.

d.       Unfortunately, a subject can become an elected representative. Instead,

                                                               i.      Each person living here could declare and maintain trust-in and commitment-to citizenship, in order to obtain license to vote in city, state, and federal elections.

                                                             ii.      Parents and the community could prepare newborns for a citizenship declaration event and swearing-in during their 17^th year – swear allegiance to the republic and to its flag.

                                                           iii.      Subjects could neither run for city, state, or federal office nor qualify for freedom of the press.

3.       The pledge of allegiance may be revised to address the republic and the flag that represents it. “I pledge allegiance to the United States republic and to the flag that represents it . . . “

a.       The motto might be changed to “We commit-to good behavior”

b.       Humility might be expressed by placing trust in either The God or goodnesswhich or “whatever rewards goodness” or better rather than “God”.

c.       National days of prayer might be restricted to appreciation rather than supplication.

                                                               i.      Genesis 1:26-27 instructs that we are in charge of order from earth’s chaos.

4.       With political affiliation divided 50:50, a criminal jury reaching unanimous verdicts is statistically suppressed and therefore unjust by design. I suggest majority verdicts: 7:4 (11 members), which doubly prevents a hung jury. And 5:4 mimics the Supreme Court.

a.       England’s 12-man jury originally mimicked 12 apostles of Yeshua of Judea.

b.       In 1967, England changed from unanimous verdicts to 10:2 majority verdicts in criminal trials, in order to lessen organized crime's influence.

c.       In 2020, the US Supreme Court cited 14^th century English law to rule against majority verdicts in America.

                                                               i.      Imposition of unanimity un-constitutionally negates the 6^th Amendment.

                                                             ii.      In the 6^th Amendment, the states did not yield to Congress the determination of jury-impartiality.

1.       The 6^th Amendment does not allow the nation to impose unanimity on the states

                                                           iii.      This is glaring yet inflammable example of Anglo-American stare decisis ruining established justice in the United States republic.

5.       The Declaration of Independence authorized war against England, in order to change 13 colonies into states in the USA. The war was won in 1783 and the treaty recognizing 13 new global states, individually named, was ratified in 1784.

a.       The United States republic did not exist until 9 states ratified the draft Constitution on June 21, 1788.

b.       In 1789, 94% of inhabitants were subjects of the male-property-owners’ vote.

c.       Today, 85% if US inhabitants are legally citizens.

                                                               i.      Inhabitants are subject to the rule of law and should not be licensed to vote if they do not trust-in and commit-to the Constitution’s preamble and no other nation’s intentions.

d.       Congress should legislate voter licensing predicated on aid to the preamble’s goals.

6.       Congress must not enact laws that defy the laws of physics.

a.       Governance that forces mothers to work defies economic viability.

b.       Sexual promiscuity defies fidelity “to ourselves and our posterity”.

c.       “Gender change” services prevent personal independence for life.

7.       The religion clauses in the First Amendment may be revised to, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [promoting] the free exercise thereof.”

8.       U.S. Amendment 14 may be changed so as to instill awareness-of and promote commitment-to the United States republic.

a.       “All persons born or [legally immigrating to] the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are [subjects] of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

b.       They may apply for citizenship after reaching the age 17 and upon demonstrating knowledge of the republic’s intentions expressing comprehension of the preamble to the Constitution, and pledging allegiance to the republic and to its flag.

                                                               i.      Subjects who which to continue subjugation to the republic may do so but cannot vote.

c.       Citizens who apply for citizenship in another nation forego US citizenship.

d.       A citizen who is convicted of murder loses their citizenship.

9.       Congress created regulatory agencies which created their own systems of adjudication. Often, agencies abuse citizens. The civic faction may and can require Congress to abolish regulatory judges.

10.   The liberty-gift from France in New York Harbor may and can be renamed “The Statute of Responsibility” on “independence Island”, NY.

The 1774 colonists who organized Congress had experienced PAR while settling a new continent. They wanted the opportunity to pursue goodnesswhich, so declared war against the then most powerful empire in the world. Thanks to France, Spain, Holland and others, the colonies won the war, and in the 1983 Treaty of Paris were named 13 free and independent states on earth. Unable to function, they considered forming a nation. The framers met and negotiated the United States republic to serve engaged people in their states. The people authorized Congress to complete the negotiations. On December 15, 1791, 10 of 14 states ratified the 4-years’ negotiated United States Constitution. British loyalists never joined the United States republic and many of their ancestors remain subjects yet claim citizenship.

About 9 generations have left to the civic faction the opportunity to free the United States republic’s dependency on English common law. Widespread acceptance and practice of goodness-which-motivates-good-behavior could accelerate America to articulate the humility its civic faction, small as that faction may be.

Conclusion

                During the transition from polytheism to competitive monotheisms, ancient Greek political philosophers expressed that democracy involved evolutionary, temporary populism in each generation and that a republican form of government was necessary. Their successful republic could be ruled by a higher power. The United States republic deemed the rule of statutory justice more reliable than popular opinion. Therefore, they weakly separated church from state. The republic proffered good behavior yet did not discover goodnesswhich.

                Every human being may and can discover and practice goodnesswhich. But not all will. Those who do may influence their family and friends to goodnesswhich. Together, family and friends who do may influence their nation to goodnesswhich. But not every nation will. Those who do may and can change the world to the pursuit of goodness-which-motivates-good-behavior.

Epilogue

                They say aiding every complete woman there’s an authentic man. I want to think I filled that role to Cynthia Ann Marionneaux (d. May 17, 2025). I cannot imagine how it happened, even though I lived it. I enjoy her influence in our daughters.

                Born in Knoxville, Tennessee, by age 6, we lived in the shadow of The University of Tennessee, in a community that was torn down during the late 1950s to make room to expand the campus. My elementary school, Staub, introduced me to Ralph Waldo Emerson, instilling a love for American literature. Math prepared me to earn A’s in college. A film clip that began with the greeting, “Wach’ya say, flatfoot?” taught me to appreciate civil authority. I love to recall my classmates and now only one teacher, Nina House.

                In high school, I developed a civic sense and won election to senior-class secretary. Aptitude tests and salary surveys informed me to choose chemical engineering, upon entering UT. I vaguely felt that 40 years’ service would function to sustain my life and otherwise had no plan. In my freshman year, I qualified for the Co-Operative Engineering Scholarship program and was assigned to work every other quarter at DuPont’s Nylon Research Center in Chattanooga, TN. That paid my college expenses.

                In senior seminar, I perceived this message:  Tennessee’s Chemical Engineering Department is authorizing you to practice ChE in the world. Your obligation is to disallow anything you help design, build, and operate to blow up. I served one company for 35 years, and nothing I helped start-up can blow up. Fortunately, that challenging principle pervaded my curiosity, and I spend a lot of energy trying to discover and practice goodnesswhich.

I did not realize it, but Yeshua of Judea’s influence to good behavior appealed to me throughout life. I dated women in different cities but did not marry until I met Cynthia, a Louisiana-French Catholic school teacher. I attended various churches over a 75-year stretch and am happily unchurched. Yet I cannot take the leap to “atheism”; I think I am too humble for either theism or atheism, but don’t know the ineluctable truth. Other people’s religious choice impacts me on par with their favorite opera or none, as long as they do not harm other people’s opportunity to choose goodnesswhich or equivalent.

For about 60 years, I have studied two questions. First, what does it mean to be a Homo sapiens? Second, what does it mean to be born in the United States republic? As a octagenarian, I think the first answer is in the precise, accurate, and deep meaning of Genesis 1:26-27: you may and can independently constrain chaos in your way of living. And the second is in the interpretation of the preamble to the United States constitution that excites individuals and groups to goodnesswhich rather than subjugation to statutory justice.

The world will improve when there is an alliance of nations who pursue goodness-which-motivates-good-behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

               

Appendix A: Glossary

Some people misuse words, intending to repress and control others, dividing Homo sapiens. In writing this book I encountered controversial words and used replacements that facilitate collaboration to goodnesswhich. I label entries with the preferred word or phrase then explain how similar ideas may be used to mislead. Words I’d like to see retired are in red letters.

Civic faction, civic integrity, civic citizens

                By “civic” I mean people who accept PAR-citizenship in the world and preserve each other’s opportunity to pursue happiness without harming others. Not every citizen is civil and some civil citizens are not civic. “Civil” addresses conformity to rules/legislation. Civil citizens observe the law even when it is unjust yet may choose not to remedy injustice. Civic citizens appreciate and mutually defend each other’s opportunity 1) to discover and practice goodnesswhich and 2) to collaborate to amend legislation when injustice is discovered and duly debated.

The civic citizen judges behaviors but not persons. Their infant did not articulate happiness as goodnesswhich yet in development discovered PAR-citizenship. Therefore, they regard fellow citizens as equals on unique journeys with potential for civic integrity reaching perfection. Not everyone participates yet is subject to the rule of law and may conform. Even the evil person could reform until the moment their behavior accommodates annihilation.

The sustaining civic faction, successive generations who preserve goodnesswhich, impacts others subject to the law --- influences passives to engage, resists rebels and dissidents, aids constraint to criminals, discourages vice, and supports annihilation of evil. They do not attempt to defy the laws of physics, such as fly without sufficient aid, either aerodynamics or jet propulsion.

Success establishes and maintains civic integrity. Civic integrity obsoletes common good an Anglo-American cliché’. Fidelity, solidarity, like-mindedness, and civility yield-to civic integrity. Atheism and agnosticism are meaningless without theism, and secular is weak to civic integrity.

                In the United States republic, ratified on December 15, 1791, the civic faction is “We the People of the United States”, as defined by the preamble to the intended Constitution, states-negotiated (1788) and Congress-amended (1791). It states:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (Sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The sentence contains two thoughts: intentions then establishment. Every inhabitant may consider the preamble, interpret it, and live according to their personal view as either citizen or subject. Without independent thought, civic citizens and civil subjects cannot mutually improve, in order to annihilate evil.

The framers proffered intentions to goodnesswhich: the civic faction in each generation conducts the journey. My current interpretation of the intentions is:

The civic faction in the United-States-republic continually improves 6 public practices: integrity, justice, safety, strength, prosperity, and responsibility --- “in order to” motivate good behavior “to ourselves and our Posterity”.

I propose a constitutional amendment to require citizens to establish and maintain their personal interpretation of the preamble, as a condition for voting in elections and referenda:  I propose voter-licensing.

Goodnesswhich

The civic faction within Homo sapiens collaborates to discover and practice goodness-which-motivates-good-behavior to ourselves and our posterity. In other words, good practice motivates good behavior from generation to generation. In the United States republic, “Posterity” includes legal immigrants, while to Homo sapiens “posterity” expresses newborns and their descendants.

In continuity, we relate to our ancestors and honor them by practicing good behavior they had not discovered as well as being aware of and practicing their goodnesswhich. For example, some 2400 years later, Plato, through the writing he left, aids each successive generation.

People who pursue hope and comfort through religion may also pursue goodnesswhich. However, religious institutions are unlikely to humble their doctrine unless urged by believers. Religions attempt to wait eternity to conform-to whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. However, the ineluctable truth makes itself plain to Homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens

                Prior mutations of humankind are extinct beyond Homo sapiens genes. Only Homo sapiens has the chance to accept the Genesis 1:26 directive: establish and maintain living goodnesswhich in this world. Progress, so far, is incidental, because the civic faction has not accepted the PAR.

                Homo sapiens is only 300,000 years old; maybe the next mutation will effect goodnesswhich.

Ineluctable truth

                Classic writers accept “truth” as an attainable absolute rather than a goal. The adjective “ineluctable” adds authenticity to the research needed for discovery.

In American usage, ineluctable means: together, not to be changed, or avoided, or resisted. The European usage reserves the “right” to change the subject. Recall the civilly bemusing response, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

                Only ineluctable evidence can be used to approach the truth: reason is insufficient. Speculation is mere bemusement. Promoting speculation invites personal ruin. Yet new instruments of measurement can change assessment of ineluctable evidence.

                To Greco-Romans, “ineluctable” referred to a wrestling hold from which the contestant could not escape. Google ngram-viewer helps discovery. In Google books so far, “inescapable” is more used than “ineluctable”. There was a debate in the 16^th century, with “ineluctable” reaching a higher peak only in 1570. “Ineluctable truth” moved from no usage in 1906 and is slowly growing. The fact that “ineluctable” is not a public word indicts educators, judges, lawyers, the clergy, and politicians, at least.

                Since ineluctable truth must be rationally evaluated, truth remains the absolute.

Integrity

                Honesty is insufficient to integrity. A person may-and-can honestly believe that a god is the God, without humbling to The God’s awareness.

                There are 4 requirements of integrity:

1)      Do the work to understand that heartfelt perception is not a mirage,

2)      Act according to understanding,

3)      Share understanding with fellow citizens, and

4)      Remain open minded to new input, viewpoint, or research-instruments.

 

Honesty is insufficient to integrity. Yet Homo sapiens often discovers the ineluctable truth through honest error. Integrity is restored if the error is not repeated.[45]

                Obedience assumes instruction from a higher power. The civic faction accepts PAR to order life on earth. Therefore, they do not attempt to assign to utopia what is required on earth. The civic faction is too humble to whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice to entrust life to the unknown. Obedience to mystery seems arrogant against PAR. Similarly, surrender and submission seem arrogant against PAR. Surrendering to personal belief is circular psychology.

Justice

                The first principle of order is statutory justice – adjudication grounded in written law. Justice, when attained, affirms appreciation of ordered continuity in life. Opportunity to choose good behavior follows.

                Justice does not involve vengeance or retribution yet may entail loss-recovery to the victim. Statutory justice yields not to the ethics of personal, societal, or cultural values. Statutory justice humbly discovers whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. Judges un-Constitutionally attempt to amend what Congress legislated when they opine that mercy is needed. Conscience is a religious attempt to bemuse civic integrity.

                In the United States republic, justice conforms to the rule of law rather than to public opinion. The preamble’s phrase “to ourselves and our Posterity” connects the civic faction in the accountable generations: past, present, and future. Thereby, approaching justice is a national journey. Again, the civic faction is defined by the preamble’s intentions-sentence.

                Justice demands strength. The individual may and can take the time to maintain both physical and psychological wellness. They may establish, maintain, and defend their home as well as their person. Defense against guns requires owning guns and the ability to use them. A city protects citizens with well-equipped and trained police. A nation protects citizens, both domestic and allied, by maintaining superior military and war departments. A religious institution protects believers from false doctrine. Foremost is psychological fortitude; a civic citizen cannot be dissuaded with false surrogates like “fairness” to repress “justice”. Statutory justice yields not to matters of opinion, like “conscience” or “mercy”.

Opportunity

                Too often, people extol freedom and liberty as rights, bemusing responsibility. Physics prevents freedom and liberty. For example, lightning can strike. It is ludicrous for government to claim to provide what physics does not allow. Members of the civic faction are mutually responsible to defend personal opportunity

                The best an individual Homo sapiens can hope for is opportunity to pursue their image of perfect behavior.

                Living in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, home of LSU, I often encounter students and recall my formative years, privately pursuing the life I yearned to want. I hope each person has opportunity to discover and practice their perfect good behavior rather than seek the approval of fellow inhabitants whose unique opportunities they mutually defend.

Perfection

Life is so chaotic that Homo sapiens may err, either by choice or under duress. However, they may develop the awareness and intentions to never repeat a mistake, and in maturity, pursue perfect behavior. Beginning my ninth decade, I pursue perfection and think if I approached it, I’d know the work is over.

Physics, or whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice, perhaps The God

Being Homo-sapiens involves choices and may be guided by experiencing or observing typical consequences, past or present. For example, the person who does not earn and provide their food has to settle for whatever someone, perhaps a bureaucrat, offers them.

The laws of physics take the places of natural law and reason -- ideas from the past. If the ineluctable evidence is not understood, action should be delayed until the instruments of comprehension have been discovered/invented, except when deadly attack is underway. Physics constrains psychology.

Long ago, “gudą” appeared in a Germanic language then became English God. It seems God is used to express whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. That expression is only an attempt; English itself may be insufficient to imagine the actual-reality.

God is widely accepted, and people often dialogue “God”, mutually unaware that each party arrogates The God to conform to what each believer believes – their God/god. Thus, a Jew and a Messianic Christian can happily discuss God, neither realizing that one awaits the Messiah to Israel and the other thinks Yeshua was the sacrificial lamb to every believer, including pagans. Often, debaters argue a god versus God, unaware that neither party is humble to The God, which may be whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. 

                I trust-in and commit-to physics or whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice. I reserve humility, cannot deny my thoughts, and may be mistaken.

Power, authority, and responsibility, PAR

                Physics informs Homo sapiens that their civic faction has the PAR to pursue goodnesswhich on earth and its extensions. It seems they may-and-can practice PAR yet have not made much progress. Most nations attempt to force the-physics-that-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice, in order to usurp personal PAR.

                I think this political philosophy was reported by Sumer civilization in the performance and in their law codes. The oldest discovered code is 4100 years old.

                Thus, the culture who thinks end-times-wars will facilitate their personal transition to utopia imagines reversing physics. The civic faction solely has the PAR to prevent such wars. Physics accommodates the pursuit of peace.

Rationalization

                When someone perceives urge to act without confirmation of necessity, they often rationalize justification. Good behavior demands confirmation of necessity based on ineluctable evidence. Without immediate demand for action, good behavior awaits invention of new instruments or methods of research. For example, observations by Galileo (died 364 years ago) proved that Aristarchus (died 2256 years ago) had the correct model: the earth rotates around the sun annually and on its axis daily.

Rather than the sun rising each morning, the earth’s rotation un-hides the sun from earth’s globe. Adults may and can aid children to perceive what-is rather than mystery: perpetuating “The sun will come up tomorrow” keeps children from discovering the wonders like-that the spot that they stand on is rotating at 1000 miles per hour and gravity is keeping them on firm ground. The travesty of affirming false perception entraps a few in childhood beliefs-in, for example, the community’s god, church supremacy, Santa Claus, and a flat earth. With understanding, a day at the beach prompts wonder at how fast the earth’s rotation on its axis connects the un-hiding-at-dawn to the re-hiding-at-dusk then day-break on the other side of the globe. How rich is the life of the child who appreciates the laws of physics from infancy on!

                Careless usage, during “the enlightenment” arrogated rationalization as reason, and the consequence is that some people think reason can trump the laws of physics. Some people died trying to prove Homo sapiens could fly before inventions of aerodynamics such as gliding, ballooning, propelling, jetting, or rocketing. Today, ruining lives is routine for the gender-change-industrial-complex.

                The age of reason is obsolete and critical thinking is no substitute for discovery. Understanding actual-reality requires research, which science cannot defeat. Promoting intentional statistics as social science is egregious.

Religion

                The US Supreme Court declines to define “religion”, unjustly empowering itself over the minds of civic citizens.

                Religion is a practice: assume a heartfelt concern is valid, develop a plausible theory, adopt the theory as doctrine, and never research to discover whether the concern is reliable or not. For example, possession of a soul or spirit is an assumption. No one has ever confirmed soul-existence, either during-life or in-the-afterdeath. An alternative is to perfect the person before body and mind stop functioning.

                I do think neither spiritualism, nor soul, nor spirit is needed to promote goodnesswhich.

Republic

                In Merriam-Webster usage, a republic is “a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen” or “a form of government in which the power belongs to a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by the leaders and representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law” as opposed to democracy, “a form of government in which the people elect representatives to make decisions, policies, laws, etc. according to law”.

                These definitions don’t reflect the unique United States republic. Only Americans who comprehend and commit-to the intentions stated in the preamble to the Constitution aid the rule of statutory law as “We the People of the United States” and are citizens. Others are subjects only -- to the rule of law. And evil people risk annihilation. The Gettysburg phrase, of, by, and for the people is a hope.

                So far, the civic faction has maintained the republic despite nearly 7 decades attack by variations of Marxist-liberation theology’s attempt to turn 19 centuries’ Judeo-Christian-competition on its head. Goodnesswhich offers remedy to this dilemma. If the United States is reluctant, perhaps another nation or alliance will discover and practice goodnesswhich.

Research

When an unknown is perceived, Homo sapiens conduct research, in order to 1) affirm that the perception represents actual-reality and 2) discover evidences that could empower confirmation. If so, a research program is considered and if financially viable, conducted. In many cases, further research discovers how to best utilize the discovery. For example, nuclear fission is best used for energy rather than for war.

Science is an unnecessary artifact of competitive reason, which often prevents research. Statistics is a research tool that can be designed to affirm falsehoods. Scientific methods often pursue agenda rather than conduct research. Social sciences use statistics to pursue political agenda.

Impatience with research may motivate rationalization, usually with disastrous consequences. Speculation and rationalization take a noble air when labeled reason. Civic citizens do not allow reason to oppose the laws of physics. For example, they neither delude themselves into leaping from heights nor don silly costumes to make their public statement. The tools of research have been used to bemuse tax payers. For example, people who want to promote green energy exclude sun spots in modelling global warming.

Rationalization erroneously elevates imagination to belief. Belief is harmful when it terminates curiosity. Certainty lessens if not terminates curiosity.  Science is a prolifically overused word, on par with God.

Responsibility

                The civic citizen accepts/takes responsibility to maintain and defend fellow inhabitants’ opportunities to choose goodnesswhich. They may weigh their religious beliefs yet observe the laws of physics in taking action. I know of no greater appreciation than to forego religious doctrine in order to save a person’s opportunity to live.

                Humility to life takes precedence to pride in religious doctrine. Thus, humility takes precedence over surrender, obedience and submission. Humility is civic integrity that liberates the Homo sapiens. Humility is a responsibility to self; humility to self is a responsibility suggested in Genesis 1:26.

                Liberty and freedom are authorized by higher power, and therefore, do not represent PAR. The Homo sapiens who accepts PAR is humbly independent. The pride of liberty and freedom yields to humble responsibility.

Scripture

                As a record of goodness and badness among humankind, “scripture” includes recorded beliefs from all quarters. I wish to interest Homo sapiens in goodnesswhich more than beliefs. But I only have experience with a faction of evidence, which descended from Mesopotamian history – mostly within competitive Christianity, a consequence of Judeo-Christianity.

While relative in time, the Christian phrase “Old Testament” is cited yet colloquially-repressed by “New Testament” (NT). Together OT and NT suppress prior literature, such as the 4400 year-old Pyramid Texts, the Epic of Gilgamesh from 4100 years ago in Sumer, and subsequent literature such as the Quran, published 1375 years ago. Cyrus the Great links the Hebrew canon[46] with Zoroastrianism. Tribal scripture makes The God a mystery yet records evidence of goodnesswhich.

Christian canon cannot be separated from the ancient Hebrew Bible, because Pauline epistles attempt to project the life of Yeshua, son of Yosef and Miryam of 4 BC Judea onto the Judean Messiah prophesied to unite the 12 tribes of Israel. The Jews who thought Yeshua the Jewish Messiah influenced modern “Messianic Jews”, who are Christians. The Christian versus Jew debate over Messiah may-and-can be relieved by collaborating to understand the ancient person, Yeshua of 4 BC Judea. Yeshua urged goodness.

The Roman Empire promoted Pauline Christianity until the empire collapsed in the West in 476 CE and in the East in 1453. Sha’ul learned opinions of Kefa, Ya‘akov, and Yochanan at the Council of Jerusalem, in 49 CE, then acted independently to promote his churches. I speculate less than 10 interpretations of “Messiah” were represented at the Council of Jerusalem.

The Hebrew Bible describes God using 63 names when many contemporaries believed in polytheism. For example, ancient Arabs were polytheists then competed with emerging monotheists. Zoroastrianism has one God pitted against evil.

                The Hebrew Bible prophecies a Messiah to unite the 12 tribes of Israel and grant them peace. Pauline Christianity asserts that the Judean advocate for goodnesswhich, Yeshua, son of Yosef and Miriam was savior to all who believe in him, including Messianic Jews. In Pauline church, Yeshua is God incarnate. Advocates project Yeshua’s life onto Hebrew prophesies, producing the oxymoron, “Judeo-Christian”. Some Christian sects are non-Trinitarian.

Arab descendants of Hagar considered Yeshua or Isa (b. 4 BC) the Messiah to Allah, the God. All of Yeshua’s teachings were affirmed by revelation by Allah through Gabriel to Muhammad, beginning in 612 CE. Islam has Muhammad a direct descendant of Ishmael, a Mesopotamian from 3700 years ago, through either Nebajoth or Kedar.

Subjects

In the United States republic there are both citizens and, by default, subjects. Inhabitants of this land include the following:

1.       Visitors who either observe the law or suffer adjudication they cause.

2.       Natives who disregard civic integrity.

3.       Civic citizens of three classes

a.       Naturalized immigrants

b.       Natives who articulate statutory justice and aid its development.

c.       Natives who, by inheritance, practice and aid statutory justice.

The citizens collaborate as We the People of the United States republic, whose intentions are stated in the preamble to the framers’ 1787 draft-Constitution, which was ratified by 9 states on June 21, 1788, with provisions for Congress to negotiate a Bill of Rights. The negotiated Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. Since then, Congress has approved 17 additional amendments for a total of 27.

The civic faction comprehends and pursues the intentions stated in the preamble and aids pursuit of statutory justice according to the Constitution. The United States code of law pursues conformity to the Constitution. It seems the civic faction is barely in the majority.

Inhabitants who do not aid the rule of law are subjects.

United States republic

                The United States republic is unique. Not only does it serve the civic faction in their cities and states, it guarantees to the states prevention of national democracy, through the rule of Constitutional law. It has a bicameral legislature, independent president, and nominated and confirmed Supreme Court. Supreme Justices serve for life on good standing. Two senators are elected by the potentially civic faction, voters, in each state. Senators serve for six years. States are divided into per capita districts, with 435 districts in the nation, and the voters elect representatives for 2 year terms. Presidential elections are determined by the Electoral College, whose numbers match the sum of senators (100) plus representatives (435) plus 3 from Washington, D.C. A majority of at least 270 electors determines the president for a 4 year term. Two interfaces -- 1) the nation to the civic faction in their states and 2) the civic faction to their state preserve -- the United States republic. In 2026, subjects and aliens threaten citizens with internal dismantling of the rule of statutory law.

Unknowns

                Many actually-real unknowns cannot be described and are unlikely to be imagined. When someone imagines an unknown, they try to promote it as a mystery. Better-developed mystery survives in some quarters; some are cults. Among like-minded people, the mystery is maintained through faith, which is hope and comfort. Well-developed mystery is doctrine.

Doctrine divides. However, there are always some Homo sapiens who prefer to research unknowns rather than adopt mystery. Some Homo sapiens place hope and comfort in goodnesswhich, in order to trust-in and commit-to the ineluctable truth as a path truh.

                Faith often produces harm. For example, primitives observed that the sun can kill a person who invites overexposure. Some speculated that the sun is a deity that needs human bodies/blood. People imagined benefits if they bargained with the sun. Some tribes chose people to kill, in order to offer what they imagined the sun demanded: sacrifice. Today, we know that the sun is a natural nuclear reactor. Almost no one worships a sun god. However, the god concept very much survives under many divisive doctrine. Scholars estimate there are 4,000 to 10,000 gods and Gods. The harm to Homo sapiens is staggering.

Discovery should lessen doctrine, and indeed human sacrifice is almost extinct. Yet many doctrine for bargaining with deities survive.

Appendix B: Ideas from American Literature

                Tennessee freshmen knew that the English Department did all it could to fail-out 3 of 4 students, so as to maintain UT’s economic viability. Therefore, I took English seriously. I passed English Lit. But American Lit fascinated me. My professor marked my exam A+ and wrote, “Mr. Beaver, this is the best final exam I ever read.” Shockingly to me, I went on to score 30 in “Verbal” on the 1966 GRE; 70% of takers knew English better than me.

                In trying to understand what it means to be born in the United States republic, I learned to lessen time with professors’ books in order to focus on the national documents. I think the Declaration of Independence (1776) justifies war against England but bemuses the intention to civic integrity negotiators expressed in the Constitution (1791).

                My thirst to read American literature rages with awareness of my ignorance. Limited as my reading is, here are a few gems, by categories, in my opinion. [I have not started a review of my files.]

Whatever-constrains-the-consequences-of-choice

1.       Ralph Waldo Emerson, Divinity School Address (1838). Emerson expressed to Harvard Divinity School that Jesus was a political philosopher who taught that humans should and could perfect themselves. I think a more impactful approach is to cite Yeshua and give an example, such as the process to resolve human conflict abstractly presented in Matthew 18:15-17 plus the message that utopia does not correct humankind (Matthew 18:18).

2.       Flannery O’Connor, Mystery and Manners (1969). O’Connor urged passionate pursuit of objective truth, unfortunately substituting “violent” for “passionate”. But the ineluctable truth does not respond to emotions.

3.       Albert Einstein, “The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics”, from Out of My Later Years (1950).

a.       Einstein, like Yeshua, is not celebrated as a political philosopher yet promoted goodnesswhich.

b.       I want to purge emotionalism from my speech, especially with fellow people.

4.       William Faulkner, “Barn Burning” (1939). A taste of justice motivated a boy to leave his family.

Slavery

5.       Thomas Paine, “African Slavery in America” (1775).

6.       Frederick Douglass, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” (1852), with the President in the audience. Religious conventions, Baptist and Methodists had split in 1845. Soon, there was guerilla warfare in bloody Kansas. The CSA seceded in February, 1861. Lincoln’s First inaugural address was politically astute but void of civic integrity, taunting the South’s military weakness.

7.       Mark Twain, “Huckleberry Finn” (1885). Huck chose “hell” rather than report runaway slave Jim.

Politics

8.       Abraham Lincoln, “First Inaugural Address” (1861). Aware of the 7:27 disadvantage, Lincoln taunted rather than cautioned the seceding states, inviting his own future sorrow and ours.

Appendix C: Ideas from World Literature

1.       Anton Checkhov, “Rothschild’s Fiddle” (1894). In the unfortunate event that your child dies, don’t neglect your spouse (and other children).

2.       Leo Tolstoy, “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” (1886). A person received relief when he stopped thinking solely of himself.

3.       Euripides, “Iphigenia At Aulis” {410 B.C.E). Miraculous salvation from execution.

 

Copyright©2026 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Updated to publish on May 12, 2026

---

[1] I use “may-and-can” to express possibility and potential to choose behavior. For example, facing a loaded and cocked gun, the unarmed person may-and-can choose to ask how to aid the armed, intentional intruder.

[2] Each time I introduce a key phrase, I mark it with an asterisk and invite the reader to find the phrase in the alphabetically arranged glossary, Appendix A; to learn its significance in this book’s message.

[3] After Yeshua was executed in 33 CE, Sha’ul’s 50 CE letters made Yeshua seem divine and thereby robbed the world of Yeshua’s political philosophy to persons and societies: perfect good behavior.

[4] For the customary Judeo-Christian Bible, I prefer biblegateway.com/versions/orthodox-jewish-bible-ojb/ for the Hebrew canon and biblegateway.com/versions/Complete-Jewish-Bible-CJB/ for what I call Pauline canon. CJB represents the micro-minority of Yeshua’s Jewish contemporaries who thought he was the prophesied Messiah. However other Homo sapiens scripture is touched, for example, Sumerian law codes and Zoroastrianism.

[5] Genesis 1:3 OJB.

[6] Sha’ul of Tarsus, a Jewish entrepreneur projected Yeshua onto prophesies in the Hebrew canon, constructing incarnation for blood sacrifice to redeem believers. Apostolic debate and Sha’ul’s epistles, originally in Greek, are parochially canonized. The collection is promoted as “the New Testament” as though chronology trumps verity.

[7] Christianity replaced “Sha’ul”, not to be confused with the first king of Israel, with “Paul”. I preserve the original person yet adopt “Pauline” to express dialectical impacts on Judeo-Christianity and thereby on Homo sapiens.

[8] Genesis 1:26; female and male humankind, without regard for race, is in charge on earth

[9] Psalm 82:6-7; female and male humankind are gods yet face death

[10] Matthew 5:48; female and male humankind may-and-can pursue perfection

[11] Utopia, such as Confucius’ “Great Unity” is not suggested.

[12] Matthew 18:18; female and male humankind has no higher power to correct mistakes

[13] I use “may-and-can” to express independence and opportunity, e.g., it is possible to pursue error-free living.

[14] The Eastern and Asian doctrine and canon are independent of Rome and Europe.

[15] Acts 15:1-6

[16] Luke 2:21 projecting Yeshua onto Genesis 17:10

[17] Galatians 2:9

[18] Acts 15:28-29

[19] James 1:13-16

[20] Philippians 2:7-8

[21] 1 Corinthians 11:7-9

[22] 1 Timothy 4:4-10

[23] Hebrews 9:16-18

[24] James 1:1-8

[25] Matthew 19:4-5

[26] Matthew 18:15-17

[27] Matthew 18:18

[28] Matthew 18:18.

[29] A glance at Abram’s family tree suggests why there are 4,000 to 10,000 religions rather than the dominant 3.

[30] Genesis 11:28, Jubilees 12:12-14.

[31] Leviticus 18:21, Jeremiah 19:5.

[32] Genesis 2:16.

[33] Genesis 35:23-26.

[34] Exodus 19:5-6

[35] Leviticus 19:9-10.

[36] Hebrews 4:8-9.

[37] Zachariah 6:11-13; Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15; Ezra 3:2, 8-10; Isaiah 3:8-10, 9:8-9; Isaiah 11, 53:2, 11.

[38] John 1:14.

[39] Genesis 12:10-20, Genesis 20:1-18 Abram asks his wife to lie.

[40] Genesis 21:11.

[41] Exodus 22:29.

[42] Genesis 22:2.

[43] 1  Chronicles 1:32-33 does not confirm Sarah is Abram’s half sister

[44] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling_in_Christianity

[45] James 5:19-20

[46] Isaiah 44:28, Isaiah 45:1, and Ezra 1:1-4