The Mystery of Power in the Tower of Babel and the Whore of Babylon

[Dennis1209]

6 hours ago, Ogner said:

It’s no secret anymore that global elites want to reduce the world’s population—it’s been a topic in niche circles for ages. Let me clarify my take on this. I’m not one of those shouting, “Help, the elites want fewer of us—we should be 100 billion people!” Some might find this cynical, but I don’t see an issue with the elites aiming to cut the human population on Earth. It makes sense to me.

If people cared about the environment, if capitalism wasn’t all about churning out mountains of trash and amassing piles of worthless dollars—or boosting bank accounts with empty numbers. If we lived in harmony with nature, if resources were distributed fairly, and a bunch of other “ifs,” then some scientists estimate the planet could sustain around 60 billion people. There’d be enough food to feed everyone, at least in an ideal, theoretical model. But we’re nowhere near that. So, I don’t mind the idea of population reduction.

If people left cities for villages, ditched electricity, and lived off subsistence farming and bartering like in the old days, who’d care how many of us there are? Do you worry about how many monkeys there are on the planet? The elites aren’t trying to thin out the monkey population—just humans. Why? Because we’re the ones wrecking the environment in a mad dash for profit, churning out stuff that ends up as toxic waste. If I have any gripe with Western elites, it’s why they’re targeting the native populations of the West. On one hand, it’s logical—a single Westerner burdens the planet more than a thousand indigenous Amazonians.On the other hand, why not start with, say, China, India, or Asia as a whole? Asia’s growing fast, and its people are already producing and dumping more toxic trash than the entire West combined. The world can’t handle two massive garbage heaps like that. So, my beef with Western elites is this: why shrink the West’s population when it’d be smarter to turn Asia into a pristine ecological reserve free of toxic waste producers?

As for Israel, I’m not one to yell, “Help, they’re beating our guys—save Israel!” Nor am I shouting, “Save the world from Israel—if the tap’s dry, the Jews must’ve drunk it!” or “Panic, the Jews will build the Third Temple, crown the Antichrist, and enslave all the goyim!” I know all biblical prophecies will come true, so I’m not worried—I’m certain the Jews will build the Third Temple where the Antichrist will reign. That’s why I’m calm about it. My goal here isn’t to save the world but to link up with like-minded folks, share ideas, and figure out where we stand on the Apocalypse timeline. 

Would you care more about drastic population reduction if it were you, your family, and your descendants?

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (but do not overpopulate)

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. (again, do not overpopulate a second time)

An old Russian saying is, "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." Without capitalism, I would have zero incentive to work hard for myself and my family to provide food, a roof over our heads, and accumulate a store of wealth (savings).

When the government takes a portion of what I worked hard for by force of law, the politician distributes my wages to their choice of beneficiaries for votes; what is that called?

I am tickled pink that Trump is trying to abolish the Department of Education and turn public education back over to where it belongs in the state. When I graduated from high school in 1970, I was required to take and pass a test on The Constitution of the United States of America. A requirement for every student to graduate should be to read and pass a test on a little book, "The LAW," by Frederic Bastiat.

Every student (public and private) should be required to have a personal pocket-size copy of The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America taught.

When the government removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from schools, what was replaced with them, and how is that turning out?

However, I agree that our land and oceans have become waste disposal areas. We must be good stewards of what and where the Lord placed us. That will be rectified in the future:

2 Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

I am not a big believer in Man-Made climate change. In this millennium, there are many written records of mini-ice ages, famine with no summers, global and localized drought, constant smoke and ash, shifts of oceanic currents, etc.

Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

It is no secret governments and militaries are experimenting with weaponizing weather.

Here is a controversial and conspiracy issue: jet chemical trails. Today, here in my neck of the woods in the country, I cannot tell you how many times a bluebird day was turned into an overcast day by numerous jet airliners passing overhead.

I was fascinated with flight and aviation, made a career out of it, and obtained my commercial pilot certificate. I am familiar with the assortment of various jet fuels and additives.

As a boy and young adult, I always gazed at the DeHavilland Comets and Boeing 707s flying at altitude. The vapor trails were never any longer than seven times the jet's length and disappeared immediately, leaving no trace. What changed, and why?

The crackpots could no longer defend Global Warming because all the measurements debunked it, so they renamed it climate change (a mechanism for global taxation via carbon emission). Now, with all the airline chem trails, solar heat is being reflected into space. Another myth is that CFCs deplete the ozone layer. Not to mention, the earth’s protective magnetic field is rapidly depleting.

But it is coming:

Revelation 16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

 

[chirpy]

The globalist like to use the word sustainable.  They talk of population, earths resources.  They say too many people, not enough resources. 

I don't think population nor resources are the problem.  It's people and their hearts.

With ungodly attitudes and hate festering unabated in peoples hearts toward others who think and or look different from them..... We are not sustainable.  We will destroy ourselves if attitudes do not change.

The Lord will come just prior -  but we are not sustainable with out the love of God's spirit dwelling in the masses.  

Have we passed the point of no return?

Only God knows.....

 

[Ogner]

14 hours ago, angels4u said:

How is God viewing His creation,including you?

Your question is interesting, but let’s dig into it. First off, I can’t know exactly what’s on God’s mind. The Bible, in Isaiah 55:8-9, says: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." This shows that God’s intentions and perspective are far beyond our grasp, so I can’t claim to fully understand them.

Second, if you’re specifically talking about people, then each person has their own relationship with God, and He has a unique stance toward each of us. But I can’t know that for sure—it’s too personal and hidden from me.

Third, if your question also implies God’s attitude toward humanity as a whole, then I can only point to what He’s revealed in the Bible. We see different sides: the Flood as judgment on sin, John 3:16—"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"—as a sign of His love and redemption through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, and the Apocalypse as the final stage of His plan. So, God loves, judges, and saves—it’s all there in Scripture.

In short: your question is pretty broad. Could you clarify what you mean—His view of all creation: rocks, mountains, seas, cows, dogs, basically the animal world, flora, and fauna? Or specific individuals, or humanity as a whole? That’d help me respond more precisely. 

[angels4u]

3 hours ago, Ogner said:

Your question is interesting, but let’s dig into it. First off, I can’t know exactly what’s on God’s mind. The Bible, in Isaiah 55:8-9, says: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." This shows that God’s intentions and perspective are far beyond our grasp, so I can’t claim to fully understand them.

Second, if you’re specifically talking about people, then each person has their own relationship with God, and He has a unique stance toward each of us. But I can’t know that for sure—it’s too personal and hidden from me.

Third, if your question also implies God’s attitude toward humanity as a whole, then I can only point to what He’s revealed in the Bible. We see different sides: the Flood as judgment on sin, John 3:16—"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"—as a sign of His love and redemption through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, and the Apocalypse as the final stage of His plan. So, God loves, judges, and saves—it’s all there in Scripture.

In short: your question is pretty broad. Could you clarify what you mean—His view of all creation: rocks, mountains, seas, cows, dogs, basically the animal world, flora, and fauna? Or specific individuals, or humanity as a whole? That’d help me respond more precisely. 

Was it Gods plan when He created people that they would die?

[Ogner]

12 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Would you care more about drastic population reduction if it were you, your family, and your descendants?

 

Why do you assume this doesn’t concern me? I live on planet Earth, not Mars, and the global elites want to reduce the population of the entire planet. So, naturally, it affects me too.

Like everyone else, I’m trapped in a capitalist system: suffocating interest rates on loans, including mortgages. The Bible says you shouldn’t charge interest to your brother, but bankers clearly don’t see me as their brother, and the government lets them rob me—so it doesn’t see me as a brother either. Then I had to get an education and high qualifications just to earn a halfway decent salary. After that, I’m forced to work in brutal competition, constantly under the threat of losing my job. To get a mortgage, I needed a wife, but to get married, I needed a flat. A vicious cycle. Then, to pay off the mortgage and keep the family budget at a decent level, I needed more than just a wife—I needed a wife with a degree and high qualifications. Alone, I couldn’t handle the mortgage, kids, and family. For her to get that education, she had to spend years in school until 18, then university from 18 to 24, then land a job and build a career. She couldn’t take maternity leave because she’d barely secured a good job, and going on leave would’ve killed her career. Bosses don’t encourage maternity—they put a "glass ceiling" on anyone who’s had a kid and taken leave. Sick leave for childcare makes a woman an unreliable worker. That "glass ceiling" cuts her pay—why would a boss pay more than the bare minimum to someone unreliable? Less money hits the family budget, which kills any desire to have another kid. Another vicious cycle. So she has to build her career until 30–35, even though medically, a first-time mom over 27 is considered "old," and having your first kid after 30–35 hurts your chances of a big family. IVF? Crazy expensive, more costs, less budget, fewer kids. Yet another vicious cycle.

The "boss" doesn’t care if his workers have kids—it’s not his problem. His goal is to streamline work for maximum profit. The global labor market gives him leverage. He’s happy if the local native population dies out—it’s an excuse to push the government for migrants who’ll work longer, harder, and for less, boosting corporate profits. The government doesn’t care as long as the "boss" pays taxes.

In short: starting a family takes education and qualifications—that costs time and money. Young people don’t have money. You’ve got to take loans for stuff, education, skills, and a mortgage. Bankers won’t lend for free—they rob you with sky-high interest. The government doesn’t care; they’re in bed with the bankers. To pay off loans, you need a job. The job market’s a ruthless fight. The "boss" cares about profit, not population growth. The government’s fine with it as long as taxes come in. Those taxes fund a system that makes sure you play by the rules—or they’ll jail you over something like a tax form mix-up.
And don’t forget: the elites think the masses need trimming, so they’ve got no reason to shield the "worker" from the "boss." No one’s interested in people multiplying. The "boss" gets fat profits, the elites get a smaller population.

This is me looking at the ideal scenario. But there are non-ideal ones, and they’re all worse than this.

It feels like there’s no other way. But I dug around and found there is. Just two examples. First, Gaddafi—he paid young families about $20,000 to spend on a mortgage. Healthcare was free. If Libyan doctors couldn’t do a surgery, the state paid for it abroad, covering all costs during treatment. Education was free for everyone. Second, the "villain" Hitler. Young families got loans up to 1,000 Reichsmarks at 1%, usable for furniture, goods, or housing. For every child born, 25% of the debt was forgiven—four kids, and it’s wiped out. He fought usury by rejecting Versailles reparations, curbing banks, and pushing a less debt-driven economy—interest wasn’t fully banned, but bankers’ chokehold weakened.

Turns out it can be different, but only history’s most dangerous, bloodthirsty villains pulled it off.
So why’d you think this doesn’t touch me, my family, or my kids?

Speaking of kids, I think Zoomers have it worse than us Millennials. But what can I do?
 

P.S.: By the way, in the U.S., there’s no guaranteed maternity leave for everyone—just up to 12 weeks unpaid, and only if you meet conditions, varying by state and employer. No free healthcare either; people pay for childbirth themselves.

[Ogner]

14 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

An old Russian saying is, "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." Without capitalism, I would have zero incentive to work hard for myself and my family to provide food, a roof over our heads, and accumulate a store of wealth (savings).

When the government takes a portion of what I worked hard for by force of law, the politician distributes my wages to their choice of beneficiaries for votes; what is that called?

 

Under Gaddafi, Libya had a policy of providing interest-free loans to young families for housing. The exact amount varied, but in dollar terms, it’s often cited as ranging from $15,000 to $50,000, depending on exchange rates and the period (e.g., data from the 1970s–80s). These loans were issued through state banks and didn’t require immediate repayment—payments were stretched over years or partially forgiven.

Healthcare in Libya under Gaddafi was free for all citizens. If an operation couldn’t be performed in the country (due to lack of equipment or specialists), the state paid for treatment abroad, covering flights, accommodation, and the procedure itself. This was part of his socialist policy, funded by oil revenues.
Education in Libya under Gaddafi was free at all levels—from schools to universities. Beyond that, students received stipends, and some were even sent to study abroad at state expense. This raised literacy rates from 25% in 1969 to nearly 90% by the end of his rule.

Gaddafi promoted the "Third Universal Theory" from his "Green Book," rejecting capitalism and communism in favor of "Islamic socialism." He nationalized oil, banned usury (charging interest was deemed anti-Islamic), and under him, Libya had no external debt, with currency reserves reaching $150 billion by 2011. Oil revenues fueled social programs, sharply boosting living standards: per capita income jumped from $40 in 1951 to $8,170 by 1979.
 

Question: So why would interest-free housing loans from $15,000 to $50,000, free healthcare, and free education kill your drive to work? Gaddafi pushed "Islamic socialism"—why couldn’t there be "Christian socialism"? The Bible has even more groundwork for socialism than the Quran, plus it explicitly bans usury among citizens. In essence, the Bible lays out a theocratic national socialism.

Here’s a quick list of what contradicts theocratic national socialism:  
Transnational capitalism: It puts profit over sovereignty, clashing with a state centered on divine law and national unity.  

Usury: The Bible bans interest among citizens (e.g., Leviticus 25:36-37), while capitalism thrives on it.  

Religious syncretism: Mixing all religions into one with state support undermines a single-faith theocracy

P.S. You can’t outplay me in a Russian proverb showdown. There was this Soviet-era saying about the USA
: "They've got freedom over there—pick which bridge you sleep under."
Meaning: sarcasm about "freedom" in capitalism, where no money means you’re out on the street.

Edited March 25 by Ogner

[chirpy]

2 hours ago, Ogner said:

why couldn’t there be "Christian socialism"?

It has been tried.  The book "Animal Farm" explains why it has always failed. Human nature.  Because someone always decides they are more equal, they can skim or scam from others, and walah -  you end up with a USAID type environment.  Meant to do good but hijacked by the unrighteous.

To stop the corruption you need to impose totalitarian rules - and thus goes the cycle of humanity.

 

[Ogner]

20 hours ago, chirpy said:

It has been tried. The book "Animal Farm" explains why it has always failed. Human nature. Because someone always decides they are more equal, they can skim or scam from others, and walah - you end up with a USAID type environment. Meant to do good but hijacked by the unrighteous.

To stop the corruption you need to impose totalitarian rules - and thus goes the cycle of humanity.

 

 I totally get your hopelessness about humanity’s knack for ruining it all. Here’s an anecdote: a pessimist and an optimist sit in a prison cell. It’s damp, cold, dark, with cockroaches and rats scurrying around. The pessimist says, "It can’t get worse!" — "Oh, it can!" replies the optimist. 

[Ogner]

On 3/25/2025 at 3:03 PM, angels4u said:

Was it Gods plan when He created people that they would die?

I’ve said before—I can’t know for sure what’s on God’s mind. Isaiah 55:8-9 says: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." So His plan isn’t something I can figure out.
Plus, God has a unique plan for each person—not a one-size-fits-all deal. We can only lean on the Bible, but even there, prophets and righteous folks like Job or Moses tried to grasp God’s motives. And God’s response? "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?" (Job 38:4). Point is, His thoughts aren’t ours. Clarify if you want specifics—this question’s pretty broad!