Time for forgiveness.

I have divided this essay into 7 parts.

1. Preface.

Although obviously not a main part, this section introduces the author and just gives some important information of the background of this essay and how it is part of a larger and independent study of time and relativity.

2. Introduction.

Using questions and answers, this part introduces the main important aspects of the essay, so that the reader gets the general idea of the concept. For example, why and how is primitivism linked to innocence? The answer is that the further you go back in time the more primitive life was and animals (such as humans) were, therefore the more innocent they were relatively. For example in the 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones and we did not understand smart things like FaceTime and Spotify, therefore we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. Also the more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are. Therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. Because the further you go back in time, the harsher and more primitive and innocent life was, time travel, (specifically time travel to the distant past such as the Palaeolithic period) is also explained with the excuse of attaining relative innocence and forgiveness.

3. Recorded history.

This is a slightly less important part of the essay but sets the tone for the part 5 (Prehistory) and importantly shows how recorded history is related to eternity and therefore, how recorded history is inextricably linked to the Buddha and Jesus Christ. It explains why the Buddha and Christ could not have come earlier for two reasons, firstly without recorded history they would never have been famous or remembered, and secondly because prehistoric man had no compassion. Prehistoric man only had primitive weapons such as wooden spears and stone axes etc and therefore, they had not yet tamed the wild and were not yet masters over the animal kingdom. This means they still had to compete with animals, therefore, they could have no compassion toward animals. It is ironic that once you have attained nuclear warheads that you are by definition magnanimous and compassionate toward animals.

4. Primitive innocence.

This is a very interesting part that shows us how contemporary developing or third world countries can demonstrate primitive relativity and primitive innocence. For example, in Africa drink driving is much less taboo (especially in the bush) than it is in the UK. In the UK drink driving is a very serious offence. Why is drinking acceptable in Africa but not in the UK? Because Africa is more primitive and the UK is more advanced. Which would you prefer?

5. Prehistory.

This part introduces the evolutionary and prehistoric aspect of the essay. It establishes the fact that because prehistoric man’s names are forever lost to us their names are ineffable or unutterable, and therefore, prehistoric man could be our Father who art in heaven or YHWH. This part also states that the concepts of sin and guilt are intrinsically good because the knowledge of sin and the feeling of guilt are by definition non-animal and hence this part is also related to innocence and forgiveness and therefore, sets the tone for part 6 (Primitive relativity).

6. Primitive relativity.

This is the most important part of the essay and the crowning glory of it. Using three case studies (Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile) it shows how in conjunction with primitivism, the past and prehistory it is possible to forgive any crime or sin real or imaginable with time and relativity. For example, because Adolf Hitler cared so much about racism and “subhumans” this scientifically determines he is by definition an ape or archaic hominin. And because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, this determines the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor. Therefore, if Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time hundreds or tens of thousands of years to a more primitive period they might forgiveness and acceptance or “relative innocence”.

7. Conclusion

This is an important part that expounds on the temptation of technology, which states that advanced technology tempts us to live in the present or future, instead of living in the blissful, primitive and innocent past. It also discusses how there are two ways to consider the past, in that in a way we can the say the past was better for Europeans or secondly we can say “daaaaang! the past is so dated and primitive, look at the haircuts!” Also there is a discussion concerning the relative usefulness of advanced or primitive weapons, in that what is the point of advanced weapons if they make you more compassionate? For example, the Romans are much happier and infinitely better off with primitive militaries and primitive weapons such as the gladius, catapults and ballistas, because they can have less compassion and can deal with ethnicity. That is Romans can discriminate on grounds of ethnicity or religion to prevent certain people from entering their territory. The Romans would never swap their primitive weapons and technologies for advanced weapons and technologies, if it meant they had to be compassionate and could not discriminate on grounds of religion or ethnicity. Among some various other topics, finally I make an apology to primitive peoples of the world on behalf of my people and my ancestors such as slavers and conquistadors for any abuses or suffering caused as a result of empires and colonialism. With primitive relativity and primitive innocence we certainly do not think we are “superior” than you at all.


1. PREFACE.

About the author.

I am a certified schizophrenic, I was sectioned in 2012 for 2 months. Prior to my section I had a severe mental breakdown in 2006 and 2007 from which I will never fully recover (the section helped though). I am mentally disabled, I see things in a purple haze and I hear voices, however, I am not stupid. Due to visual and auditory hallucinations and severe anxiety I cannot work, however, please do not judge me or my work because I am a schizophrenic. I am alright. I do not waste my time. I have read just about everyday since the 1st of August 2016 (mostly history), therefore I am kind of a self taught QBE academic, in that I have independently read well over 100 books and I have wrote a 32k word essay titled primitive or archaic relativity (time 4 forgiveness). I have also conducted an unorthodox study or investigation of or https://squareoftime.com, which is mathematical time or relativity. Hence, I am trying to understand or balance time and relativity with the spiritual and divine. I am also trying balance or mix the scientific or academic with the cool and fashionable or music and DJing. What is time? Is it light? Is it energy? Is it fundamental divinity? What is the spiritual and the divine? All I know is that the spiritual and divine are acataleptic (not understandable) and therefore, require faith or belief, whereas time and Albert Einstein do not! My DJ name primitive or archaic innocence is one half of the present essay. I was born in 1981 and from 1985 I grew up in between three locations, Easington Colliery in County Durham, England, a gold mining town called Obuasi in the Ashanti region of Ghana, West Africa and a boarding school (Barnard Castle School) also in County Durham. My family has a mining heritage. My ancestors worked the collieries in the north of England, with only my father raising the game to gold mining in 1985, when he started work for Ashanti Goldfields Corporation (AGC) in Ghana, West Africa. Most importantly I am a QBE academic, I have Bachelor of Arts degree, but I have no specific qualifications to make this essay orthodox other than my experience of Africa and that I have independently read over 100 books to research the essay.

Background.

This essay is the main objective of a general and independent study of time and relativity, the other work, square of time (see menu) is the secondary objective. Square of time is the simplest form of mathematical time or relativity, however, it’s main purpose is just to contrast and support primitive relativity which is writing or essay time. There is nothing in the both of these websites that is not ultimately credited to Albert Einstein! By this I mean that the relativity of primitive relativity would not work without Albert Einstein’s theory, as in time and the terms relative and relatively would be meaningless without it. If primitive or archaic relativity is in any way theoretical then that theory is just relativity and hence all of it belongs to Professor Einstein. Archaic relativity is not a broad field or even a branch of relativity, but it is hoped it could be a ‘twig’ of relativity. To reiterate, I am only hoping to propose that there is a case for a ‘primitive’ or ‘archaic’ relativity.

Albert Einstein requires no faith!

Because the Christ and the Buddha were ancient and primitive men what does that tell us? It tells us that you do not need to be modern and advanced to be eternally relative or relevant like perpetual teenagers that never date or go out of fashion. You can be primitive. No matter how high and advanced we get ultimately we are all beaten by two ancient and primitive men. How? It must be relative? I have removed all references to the spiritual and divine in this essay as I want it to be acceptable to the scientific community. However, yet again I got all secular and scientific and lost faith in the spiritual! This must be the third or fourth time that I have lost faith in the divine, and purely pursued time and relativity. However, it dawned on me that this essay does not work without acknowledging the Buddha and Jesus Christ, hence I would now like to state that I believe in the Buddha and Jesus Christ, but I understand Albert Einstein. The only difference is that Albert Einstein requires no faith! Why does primitive or archaic relativity require divinity? We can say things like it was relatively no problem for Homo antecessor to cannibalise compared to Jeffrey Dahmer because H. antecessor was so primitive and innocent in that they had no infrastructure, military, police, emergency services or medicine etc and because they came from such a long time ago. Therefore, why isn’t relativity and time enough? Because relativity and time can determine if you are innocent and deserve forgiveness isn’t relativity and time therefore morality?

Gautama Buddha.
Before Siddhārtha Gautama became Buddha he was the son of a king and lived a life of opulence in a palace, hidden from the miseries of the world. Siddhartha could have been a king, however, instead he then renounced his royal claim and wealth and deliberately pursued poverty and practiced extreme self-mortification, almost dying of starvation in the process. Because of this Herculean sacrifice from a rich and royal life to one of abject poverty and suffering (or inverse of deserved divinity), Siddhārtha Gautama then consequently attained nirvana and became the Buddha.

Time is not spiritual or divine.

To reiterate I am working on or developing three things https://squareoftime.com, https://judgeoftime.com and https://djoftime.com. The first two works are both related to time, however, the former is mathematical time where as the latter is writing or essay time. DJ of time is just my DJing website. What I mean by writing or essay time is that primitive relativity and primitive innocence are just literature and simply use the terms time, relative and relatively. As  does not prove anything scientifically that is not already known, therefore, both works together are just an independent and general study of time and relativity. I have learned that other than “being ahead” there is not much in the mathematical time where as there is innocence and forgiveness in writing or essay time. When I first studied , I lost all faith in the spiritual and divine (for the first time) and after toing and froing, back and forth I now believe this is not right. Because I was studying https://magnitudeoftime.com I stated rational things like:

“Time is not spiritual or divine.”

“Do not seek spiritual enlightenment, seek time intellectually.”

”Never listen to electronic beats, all you need is a ticking clock.”

I am not sure I believe the top two statements as I have turned back to the spiritual and divine. However, I definitely do not now believe the third, as DJing and music are beautiful and hip in a way that science and academia can never be, which are dry and ugly in comparison.

Educational DJing.

With DJing I make no effort to be fashionable as I am a 39 year old dinosaur and because I read and write a lot my DJ style is more like educational DJing. My DJing is in a ‘realist style’, ‘geek style’ or ‘square style’. I am trying balance or mix the scientific or academic with the cool, fashionable, music and DJing. When it comes to fashion think of me as more of a historian DJ than a supercool DJ. To help explain my DJ style, consider the following scenario. Scientists and academics are not fashionable compared to DJs, however, what if scientists or academics did like trance music and did want to DJ? If you want a truly ‘Cosmic Gate’ or ‘Solarstone’ or if you want the Ibizan club ‘Space’ to truly live up to its name, why not experiment and ask a scientist to DJ? The sound and light engineering of events and clubs are just science, in fact all the technology that goes into events and clubs is just science, so why then rely on psychedelia or the spiritual and divine? Scientists make clubbing happen. If scientists created a club what would it look like? What would a ‘scientific club’s’ posters, flyers and graphic designs look like? They would probably consist of black holes, galaxies and supernovae etc, as opposed to psychedelic or spiritual trance designs. What is graphic design anyway? Do scientists really need graphic design? They would also probably use real space and time in that the gig or club opening doors might have a certain precise date and time, at which one had to be punctual and ‘be there or B²’. Hence, the ‘realist style’, ‘geek style’ or ‘square style’ of my DJ name. To reiterate, DJing and music are cool, beautiful and hip in a way that science and academia can never be, which are dry and ugly in comparison. However, can we not unite beauty with brains? Therefore, my DJ name is never fashionable but is a ‘realist style’, ‘geek style’ or ‘square style’. My actual goal is just to educate people about primitive or archaic relativity (time for forgiveness), hence, I only use DJing to help spread the word. If you like you can listen to my mixes here.

https://djeducational.com

Equations v literature.

There is no forgiveness in scientific or mathematical time, however, there is innocence and forgiveness in writing or essay time. To demonstrate, modern crimes are relatively evil as compared to the deeds of prehistoric men, such as murder and cannibalism etc, which were relatively less of an issue for prehistoric man because they were so primitive and innocent in that they had no technology, infrastructure or medicine etc, and also because they came from such a long time ago. Also for example, when I first studied https://squareoftime.com I said that if you want to say something, say it with mathematics, formulas and equations not with writing. However, the only problem with mathematics and physics is that although you can fundamentally command people with formulas and equations, you do not get to choose what you want to say, they are actually utterly neutral and devoid of any philosophical, moral or political content. Therefore, we have absolutely no hope for forgiveness (particularly to do with the Holocaust) with mathematics and physics. Hence, although literature does not command people in the same way as equations and formulas, it has philosophical, moral and political content.


2. INTRODUCTION.

Definition.

noun (Primitivism)

  1. a recurrent theory or belief, as in philosophy or art, that the qualities of primitive or chronologically early cultures are superior to those of contemporary civilization.
  2. the state of being primitive: the primitivism of the Stone Age peoples.
  3. the qualities or style characterizing primitive art.

I bet you are a sceptic and do not believe that the qualities of primitive or chronologically early cultures are superior to those of contemporary civilisation? However, as will be seen the further you go back in time the more primitive and innocent life was and this could constitute in a way as a “superior” quality. The only advantage the present or future has is its advanced technology, but as will be seen this never means “superior” because there is relative equivalence. As will be seen it is definitely not a case of being advanced is always better and that is the end of it! Who is more refined classical or modern people? Although at the time classical people were probably much less refined than we are today, however, two to three thousand years later, classical antiquity has aged like fine wine and become unbelievably refined and holy, for example, consider how refined great people like Moses, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Jesus Christ have become over time. Who is “superior” Mesolithic man of five to fifteen thousand years ago or the ‘Jackass generation’ of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s? The Greco-Roman cultural foundation was immensely influential on the language, politics, law, educational systems, philosophy, science, warfare, poetry, ethics, rhetoric, art and architecture of the modern world. The present and future are valueless, while the past and prehistory are priceless. As will be seen you do not need to go back far in time to find primitive innocence, for example, the Victorians have become relatively classical and holy almost like the Romans. Therefore, who would you rather be a Victorian with an empire or a modern Elizabethan with an iPhone? This is the temptation of technology as will be seen later. Even such as the 1920s and 1950s etc could soon become ‘periods’ and become classical and holy like the Victorian period. Also the Europeans and especially the Nazis labelled primitive people as “inferior”, but this is absolutely not the case, as will be seen relatively there is nothing wrong with being primitive as it means you are more innocent. The Lord’s Prayer is sometimes mentioned, and as will be seen the older you are the more holy you are, and because we do not and cannot know the names of our holy fathers on earth such as prehistoric man, therefore hallowed be your name and on earth as in heaven could be for them. Because their names are forever lost to us, the answer to the question who is prehistoric man could be YHWH. This is important for those primitive hominins who did not even have a name, in this instance, these anonymous humans could be called YHWH. The Buddha and Jesus Christ are primitive and ancient men, yet they are eternally fashionable and eternally relative or relevant like perpetual teenagers that will never date of go out of fashion, even more so than anyone alive today. Contemporary civilisations are much less primitive and innocent, which could be inferior. As a Briton would you rather have been born in 1920 with the largest empire in history or 2020 with an iPad? This is the central question of this essay.

It is relativity not supremacism.

This essay started as white nativism and was based on the following principle, “the poorer you are the more native you are”, however, although I thought nativism and primitivism were quite similar I knew in my heart that the former was too ethnic and nationalist while the latter is universal, neutral and benign. Hence, I dropped “politically incorrect” nativism and took up “politically correct” primitivism and the concept became “the older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are”. However, although I still use this latter statement I have taken primitive relativity and primitive innocence in a slightly different direction, because I want them to be as ethical, benign and as politically correct as possible. Therefore, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are now founded most importantly of all on the following principle or concept:

“There is universal equality and relativity between all races and all species.”

As mentioned nativism is nationalist, racial and ethnic, while primitivism is not! Primitivism is neutral, universal, unbiased, generic and benign. Nativism is specific to a local geographic region such as Britain or Europe, where as primitivism is universal across the whole planet, even the universe and even across all different species.

CF34F0E8-22C5-40F8-9CF2-14B40D97A9CD
Tiktaalik roseae, a 375 million-year-old transitional species between fish and the first legged animals. This finding reveals that the evolution of hind legs actually began as enhanced hind fins and challenges existing theory that large, mobile hind appendages were developed only after vertebrates transitioned to land. https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-tiktaalik-roseae-fossils-reveals.html

For an example of primitive relativity and primitive innocence take the above primitive creature Tiktaalik roseae. We could sit here after 375 million years of evolution and say that this is a primitive and “inferior” life form and that we Homo sapiens are a much more advanced and therefore “superior” life form than Tiktaalik roseae, but this is absolutely not the case. This is what the Nazis (and only the Nazis) did to “non-Aryans” with white supremacism. Just because you are an advanced species does not mean you are “superior” as there is time and relativity between species. Tiktaalik roseae is an important and beautiful creature. Something the Nazis are not. Primitive relativity determines that the older and more primitive you are the more innocent and beautiful you are. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence determine that there is universal equality and relativity between all races and all species. Therefore, Homo sapiens are not “superior” to Tiktaalik roseae. At the time Tiktaalik roseae was the equivalent of a human being, in that it was the most advanced creature of its day. How do you think beings will look back at us Homo sapiens in another 375 million years time? We would say we were primitive and more innocent than them and that is all. Hence, it does not matter if like Tiktaalik roseae you are old and primitive as you are more innocent and beautiful and this is in a way superior. Therefore, even though primitive relativity and primitive innocence try to forgive Adolf Hitler and occasionally defend white people it can never be claimed that primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ever white supremacism! For example, if you are far-right how can you respect Tiktaalik roseae and find it beautiful, but not Africans? It is relativity not supremacism!

The Jackass generation.

54032C7E-FB87-4DB9-9308-0483246031DD
Jackass logo.

As will be seen, primitive relativity and primitive innocence determine that in heaven the older you are the greater and more famous and illustrious you are, (as in prehistoric, ancient or medieval people). Although not to be taken too literally, there could be another kind of relativity in that for example, I am 39 years old and I was born in 1981 AD therefore, as a mirror either side of 1981 AD or splitting it down the middle I am relatively closer to 1942 AD than 2020 AD. Therefore, in another 41 years time I would be relatively closer to the Victorians (Queen Victoria died 1901 AD) than 2061 AD. Therefore, in another 121 years I would be relatively closer to Napoleon Bonaparte (who died in 1821) than 2141 AD. Therefore, in another 384 years time I would be relatively closer to Queen Mary I (who died in 1558 AD) than 2404 AD. Therefore, in 1466 years time I would be relatively closer to the Romans (the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD) than those alive in 3486 AD. Then I could be truly great! Therefore, in 5442 years time I would be relatively closer to Neolithic man (the Neolithic period ended 3500 BC) than those beings alive in 7462 AD. Therefore, in 2.9 million years time I would be relatively closer to Australopithecus afarensis (who went extinct 2.9 mya) than whatever deities were around in 2.9 million years time. Therefore, in 375 million years time I will be relatively closer to Tiktaalik roseae than whatever Gods are around in 375 million years time. It is relative! The older you are the greater and more famous and more illustrious you are! What do I mean by this? Again not to be taken too literally, but I mean that for example, the glorious Romans would probably not lower themselves to or associate with a valueless, lowly and unworthy 20th century amoeba such as me for some considerable amount of time and relativity (such as 1466 years) until I had seasoned, aged like fine wine and become relatively holy or classical. That is until I had relatively become more like a Roman than whatever human beings were around in 3486 AD. Then and only then would the glorious Romans lower themselves to my humble level and accept me into the ancient and classical fold. Prehistoric, ancient and medieval people should never let their guard down with, reveal themselves to or spoil the surprise for us ‘Jackass generation’ of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The past should never come down to our level. They should be holy and classical.

Posterity.

Primitive relativity and primitive innocence could be a great thing to leave for posterity, like a prehistoric cave painting or hand print/stencil, in that for example in 41 years time when my generation are closer to the Victorians than whatever people are around in 2061 AD, the people of that time could see that we of 2020 AD understood that we were relatively quite primitive and therefore more innocent than them. Or for example in 121 years time when my generation are closer to the Napoleon Bonaparte than whatever people are around in 2141 AD, the people of that time could see that we of 2020 AD understood that we were relatively primitive and therefore more innocent than them. Or for example in 384 years time when my generation are closer to the Queen Mary I than whatever people are around in 2404 AD, the people of that time could see that we of 2020 AD understood that we were relatively more primitive and therefore a lot more innocent than them. Or for example in 1466 years time when my generation are closer to the Romans than whatever people are around in 3486 AD, the people of that time could see that we of 2020 AD understood that we were relatively very primitive and therefore much more innocent than them. Or for example in 5442 years time when my generation are closer to the Neolithic man than whatever people are around in 7462 AD, the people of that time could see that we of 2020 AD understood that we were relatively unbelievably primitive and therefore much much more innocent than them. Or for example in 2.9 million years time when my generation are closer to the Australopithecus afarensis than whatever people are around in 2.9 million years time, the people of that time could see that we of 2020 AD understood that we were relatively extremely primitive and therefore infinitely more innocent than them. So on and so forth into the future. What does this mean? It means that the present or any given generation should never believe or think they are advanced because it is obviously going to “do one” on them. Can you or your people un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Adolf Hitler then you and your people will un-evolve a bit through forced miscegenation. You will also need to go back in time to the required period in order seek forgiveness and acceptance or “relative innocence“.

Relative equivalence.

There is also relative equivalence of technologies, for example stone tools of prehistoric times are the equivalent of electrical tools today such as drills and chainsaws etc. Cave paintings are the equivalent of digital data in that they will last forever. The invention of fire is the equivalent of the invention of writing 5000 years ago in Sumer, and writing in such as cuneiform on a clay tablet is absolutely the equivalent of writing on an iPad tablet today with a digital pen, and was probably relatively just as amazing. Flint-tipped spears and bows and flint-tipped arrows of prehistoric times are the equivalent of pistols and sniper-rifles today. Trains or steam engines of the industrial revolution are the equivalent of rockets today. So on and so forth. What does this mean? It means that if you are advanced you are never “superior” because technology is relative. This is an important lesson for the Americans who are the most advanced people on the planet today, in that they should know that they are never “superior” to other peoples. This is because there is relative equivalence of technologies. There is also relative equivalence of civilisations, for example, the Egyptians 4000 years ago were the equivalent of Americans today. The Romans 2000 years ago were the equivalent of Americans today. And the British 150 years ago were the equivalent of Americans today. Therefore, relative equivalence of both technologies and civilisations mean that younger and more advanced countries should respect older and more primitive countries, for example the Americans should respect the British, and the British should respect the Romans, the Romans should respect the Greeks, the Greeks should respect the Middle Easterners, the Middle Easterners should respect the Egyptians and the Egyptians should respect the Sumerians.

What is primitive relativity and primitive innocence?

Ask yourself one question: Do you want primitive innocence? I bet I know your answer. Yes! Everybody, indeed every being and creature since life started wants it. In fact if it could even the very first single celled life form would want primitive innocence. Primitive innocence is life itself. It doesn’t matter what race, creed or religion you are, we all want it, even Africans want it, indeed what else are Africans if not primitive innocence? Everybody understands what is meant by the old sayings “innocent times” or “innocent days”, hence, primitive relativity and primitive innocence take this notion very far indeed. Primitive relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all it is definitely about time for forgiveness! PR and PI are the theory that things were better relatively in the past. They are also are time and relativity for grown ups but never geniuses. This is because obviously we cannot teach such subjects as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer to children. Also there obviously has to be forgiveness for anything in the afterlife, including the Holocaust, and this is because people in the afterlife are grown up! What are primitive relativity and primitive innocence? They are certain undeniable and self evident truths or axioms. What does primitive or archaic innocence mean? Why and how is primitivism linked to innocence? The answer is that the further you go back in time the more primitive life was and animals (such as humans) were, therefore the more innocent they were relatively. Also the more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. To shorten it the less the more the more the less! For example in the 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones, we did not even have satellite TV, just 4 channel terrestrial TV and we still used the Yellow Pages, newspaper TV guides and coal fires etc therefore we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than today. To reiterate in the 1980s we did not understand smart technologies such as FaceTime and Spotify, therefore we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. If you cannot remember the days before the internet and mobile phones or FaceTime and Spotify then you are much more advanced and therefore less innocent. In the 1980s we could only imagine that a video call would be something like out of Star Trek or the Aliens films, we had no idea it would just be an app called ‘FaceTime’. This is primitive innocence! And music to us was simply cassette tapes, we could not even imagine that one day music would be ‘streamed’ over the internet, in fact we would not have even understood what you meant by ‘streamed’ or the internet. This is primitive innocence! I even remember when compact discs or CDs came out, we were all amazed by them, we never really thought it would get any better. This is primitive innocence! Therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric people were! Prehistoric people were so primitive and innocent they could literally get away with rape, murder and cannibalism etc. How is crime relative? Primitive relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all it is definitely about time for forgiveness! Also remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are time and relativity for grown ups but never geniuses! This is because obviously we cannot teach such subjects as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer to children. Also there obviously has to be forgiveness for anything in the afterlife, including the Holocaust, and this is because people in the afterlife are grown up! Therefore, crimes and sins are relative in that for example cannibalism was relatively no issue with such as Homo antecessor because Homo antecessor was so primitive and innocent because they had no infrastructure, technology or medicine etc and because Homo antecessor came from such a distant time or epoch, therefore, killing and cannibalism were relatively less of an issue for them. However, therefore, murder and cannibalism today by such as Jeffrey Dahmer was so relatively evil compared with Homo antecessor because they are out of place and in the wrong time. Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example serial killers, the way to forgive them is to use primitive relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or animals. Because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, therefore the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an animal. To reiterate, because Jeffrey Dahmer equated to a prehistoric man such as H. antecessor in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. He would have to have fur to have forgiveness. With fur and with these creatures or in this place and time he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an animal. He lived in a brick residence and did his shopping at a supermarket, therefore, he was advanced and more responsible, and therefore less innocent than Homo antecessor for murder and cannibalism. To reiterate the only way I can understand a serial killer such as Jeffrey Dahmer with any lightness is if he had fur and were a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal, would we forgive him? If Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time hundreds or tens of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have “relative innocence”? Don’t call him a cannibal call him a “cannibal in the 20th century.” Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Jeffrey Dahmer then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order seek forgiveness and acceptance or “relative innocence“.

Time travel (reference).

Because the further you go back in time, the harsher and more primitive and innocent life was, time travel, (specifically time travel to the distant past such as the Lower Palaeolithic period) is explained below with the excuse of attaining relative innocence and forgiveness. Relativity is all about reference, in that speed or velocity always have two parameters, a distance covered and an elapsed time, as in miles per hour. If you are travelling on a train at 100 miles per hour, this speed is relative to the earth which is your reference. However, if you took your reference from the sun the speed of the train would look very different as the earth is also moving around the sun at a much higher velocity. Also the sun is moving around the centre of the Milky Way galaxy at an even higher velocity and the galaxies are also moving relative to one another. It depends where you look from as to how fast the train is travelling. Also two events that appear simultaneous to one observer can appear to happen at different times to another observer. For example, imagine if the sun and Alpha centauri suddenly exploded at exactly the same time. Because light is not instant, but takes time to travel, the observer on earth would see the sun explode after 8 minutes and Aplha centauri after 4 and a half years. However, a spacecraft half way between the sun and Alpha centauri would see both explosions simultaneously. Both reference frames are valid! Returning back to the train, if there was another train travelling at 80 miles per hour and in the same direction as your train, then you are only travelling at 20 miles per hour relative to the second train, which is your reference. The speed of light behaves differently, in that like the two trains, if you could travel in a spacecraft in the same direction as rays of light, the speed of light relative to you should be the speed light minus the speed of the spacecraft. But it is never like this! The speed of light is always the same relative to you no matter how fast you are travelling. The speed of light is absolute, and is the same in all frames of reference. How does reference relate to primitive relativity? Time is our frame of reference, in that from or in the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile seem relatively less evil. But from or in the 20th or 21st centuries frames of reference they do seem very evil. To reiterate, relative to Homo antecessor in the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference who had no technology, infrastructure, military, emergency services or medicine etc, Jeffrey Dahmer was relatively less innocent because he did have all these technologies, amenities and infrastructures etc and because he practiced cannibalism in the wrong place and wrong time. Although they are not in different places Homo antecessor and Jeffrey Dahmer are both in their respective and different time periods. To attempt to explain time travel, let’s consider time periods as places or time as a kind of speed, distance or length. For example, imagine if Homo antecessor was travelling on a train at 20 miles per hour relative to the earth which represents the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference and Jeffrey Dahmer was travelling parallel and in the same direction on a train at 100 miles per hour relative to the earth, which represents the 20th century frame of reference. Relative to the Homo antecessor or the Lower Palaeolithic, the Jeffrey Dahmer’s train seems to be travelling at 80 miles per hour and seems very fast indeed. However, imagine if we could travel in time and bring the two time periods much closer together in distance or speed, so that Jeffrey Dahmer’s train or 20th century frame of reference slowed down to 20 miles per hour. Now the two frames of reference are at rest with respect to each other and each seem to be standing still relative to each other. It’s reference and perspective. Or we could say that you were on the 100 mile per hour train in the 20th century frame of reference and Jeffrey Dahmer was on the 20 mile per hour train in the Lower Palaeolithic. Relative to you Jeffrey Dahmer seems to be travelling backwards at 80 mile per hour and seems very fast. However, if I could get you to travel in time or to slow down to 20 miles per hour and join the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference, now you and Jeffrey Dahmer are at rest with respect to each other and each seem to be standing still relative to each other. No longer does Jeffrey Dahmer seem to be travelling backward very fast. Speed is relative but what if like speed innocence and forgiveness were also relative? To reiterate, from the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference, such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile seem relatively less evil. This seems contradictory but it is not. Relative to the Lower Palaeolithic period, Jeffrey Dahmer in the 20th century seems relatively very evil, however, if Jeffrey Dahmer could go back in time to or close to the Lower Palaeolithic period, then in or from this frame of reference Jeffrey Dahmer would seem relatively much less evil. Also relative to my grandfather who was born in the 1920s frame of reference, who received “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking” for Christmas, I am less innocent because I was born in 1981 and received anything I wanted for Christmas, for example an Atari, a Commodore 64, an Amiga or a Nintendo etc. And those born in the 2000s are less innocent than me from the 1980s frame of reference because they cannot remember the days before the internet, mobile phones, FaceTime and Spotify etc. Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example serial killers, the way to forgive them is to use primitive relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or animals. Because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, therefore the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an animal. To reiterate, because Jeffrey Dahmer equated to a prehistoric man such as H. antecessor in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. He would have to have fur to have forgiveness. With fur and with these creatures or in this place and time he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an animal. Jeffrey Dahmer had no compassion, therefore he was an anachronistic prehistoric hominin in the 20th century. He lived in a brick residence and did his shopping at a supermarket, therefore, he was advanced and more responsible, and therefore less innocent than Homo antecessor for murder and cannibalism. To reiterate the only way I can understand a serial killer such as Jeffrey Dahmer with any lightness is if he had fur and were a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal, would we forgive him? If Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time hundreds or tens of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have “relative innocence”? Don’t call him a cannibal call him a “cannibal in the 20th century.” Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Jeffrey Dahmer then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order seek forgiveness and acceptance or “relative innocence“. Our reference should always be prehistory or prehistoric man. For example, if you have hit your father, or slapped your wife, or if you are serving time for minor crimes such as ABH or burglary etc, as will be seen, if we can forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, then relatively, who cares? The above explanation might indicate that the trivial matter of time travel to the past may only be possible in order to seek relative innocence and forgiveness. Maybe you have got to have a valid reason to time travel? Anyway, I am sure time travel is possible in the afterlife, but why not down here in life or on earth? Perhaps you can spiritually or mentally?

Primitive gullibility and naivety.

In the 1980s and 1990s we were much more gullible, naive and superstitious than today, which is also related to innocence. We tended to believe a little more in ghosts, mysteries, myths and phenomena such as UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and crop circles etc. There was a huge craze for UFOs in the 1990s which probably had a lot to do with the TV show The X-Files. Post-millennium and with the coming of the widespread availability of the internet, I believe there was a sharp decline in the popularity of The X-Files and the belief and interest in UFO’s, and the world became more rational and sceptical. Therefore, I believe the further you go back in time the more gullible, naive and superstitious people were, for example, the Victorians had a fascination with seances and medieval and early modern people had a predilection to believe in witches etc.

Innocent 20s.

My grandfather was born in 1926 and I remember him telling me in the 1990s that what he got for Christmas as a child was “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking.” This is primitive innocence! Unfortunately we born in the 1980s were relatively spoiled as children at Christmas. We received anything we wanted, for example an Atari, a Commodore 64, an Amiga or a Nintendo etc, plus all the sweets and chocolate we could ever eat. Relative to the 1920s we born in the 1980s were less innocent, and relative to the 1980s, those born in the 21st century are less innocent than us. What does this mean? It means we should look forward to the past, meaning we should look forward to ageing like fine wine and being very old indeed, (imagine being 1000 years old), instead of childishly seeking youth. Remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are time and relativity for grown ups but never geniuses! Considering the 1980s were more primitive and innocent than today, how primitive and innocent do you think the 1930s and 1940s were? Think back to those black and white films. They were unbelievably primitive and innocent! Therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric people were! Because the Victorians were so innocent, as will be seen later, this might compensate for the Holocaust and the two world wars etc.

Innocent 90s.

I was a child and teenager of the 1980s and 1990s and yes even the 1990s were much more primitive and innocent than today, however, most importantly, we kids of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s were never ever supposed to get old! We were supposed to be young forever! Therefore, I believe that an application for primitive relativity and primitive innocence is to help us (especially the ‘Jackass generation’ of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s) come to terms with or overcome ageing and getting old. With primitive relativity and primitive innocence we can grow old gracefully!

Respect your elders!

Ask your elders, such as your parents and grandparents! What can they remember? For example, I remember the days before the internet and mobile phones, when CDs came out and when the first handheld computers came out, that being the Nintendo Game Boy, the Sega Game Gear and Atari Lynx. Before handheld computers we played things called “electronic games” which were LCD games, that looked something like a LCD or Casio watch. My favourite was Donkey Kong. I also can also remember Pong, that primitive tennis-like TV game from the 1970’s, my elder brothers (both 70’s born) had an old orange Pong console. I can also obviously remember not only the days before DVDs (which I was amazed at) when we used VHS tapes, but I can also remember Betamax video tapes. Also in the 80s and 90s if you wanted to listen music properly, as said you used vinyl records, cassette tapes or CDs on something called a “stack” which were fairly big pieces of kit. This is in sharp contrast to streaming mp3s over WIFI broadband from Spotify on your iPhone through your wireless speaker over Bluetooth! To wrap it up I remember the Atari, the Commodore 64 and the Amiga 500. I have also asked my Mother who was born in the 1953 about what she can remember, and she told me the following: outside boilers that you heated water with wood and coal to clean white clothes in, using something called a “dolly blue” (detergent), mangles to strain and dry clothes, tin baths that hung on the wall, that you filled with water heated on the fire, no plumbing or hot water, no fridges, no freezers, no electric blenders etc. Coal used to be delivered by dumping on the road/path outside your house that you shovelled into a bunker. And she remembers that her father (my grandfather) told her that he used to deliver milk in urns in a horse and cart from a farm where he worked in the 1940s. Above all she said, they did not have lots money, but as kids they were happy and “innocent” days! Primitive innocence makes us proud to be old, for example I am proud that I can remember the days before the internet and mobile phones! I am also proud I can remember the days before CDs! Therefore, we all want to say “I remember the days before this!” and “I remember this old thing!” etc. Primitive innocence makes us want to be as old as possible. We want to age like fine wine and be ancient, classical and thousands of years old like Plato or Socrates etc. Even those born recently in the 1990s and 2000s desire primitive innocence! Do not worry if you were born in the 2000s or 2010s and cannot remember the days before much. It is time and relativity. It will happen to you. Just give it 20-30 years.

Why and how is primitivism linked to innocence?

You should know better.

The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. To shorten it the less the more the more the less! There are definitely at least two converse ways in which one can be primitive or advanced. Using temporal elements I have labelled them as follows:

  1. Old-primitive/young-advanced: The older or more ancient you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. The younger or more modern you are the more advanced you are, therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are.
      • This means that slavery was relatively less of an issue in ancient and medieval times for such as the ancient Egyptians as compared to the Nazis, because the ancient Egyptians were older and more ancient, therefore, they were more primitive, and therefore, less responsible and therefore more innocent.
      • This means that Jeffrey Dahmer got into much more trouble for cannibalism than did Homo antecessor, because Jeffrey Dahmer was younger and more modern, therefore, he was more advanced, and therefore, more responsible and therefore less innocent.
      • This means that younger and more advanced countries such as America are more responsible and therefore less innocent than older more primitive countries such as Muslim countries. This determines that Muslim countries are more innocent and can therefore, get away with murder and more violence than America.
  2. Young-primitive/old-advanced: The younger or more juvenile you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. The older or more adult you are the more advanced you are therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are.
      • This means that children get into much less trouble than adults for sin.

The above list always means that if you are in a state of being advanced then you should know better, where as primitive people can literally and metaphorically get away with murder. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer should have known better than Homo antecessor about cannibalism because he was more modern and advanced, and the Nazis definitely should have known better than the Egyptians about slavery.

Just to expound on the slavery example, it was obviously much less of an issue for ancient, medieval, early modern and even Victorian people to slave than it is for us modern people to slave today. I have read many contemporary books on the discovery and exploration of West Africa, and two books particularly were related to slavery, one by Carl Bernhard Wadstrom and another by Jean Barbot. I learned that Carl Bernhard Wadstrom was a passionate abolitionist while Jean Barbot was a practicing slaver by trade. How was slavery less of an issue in Henry the Navigator’s or Jean Barbot’s time and more abhorrent in ours or Carl Bernhard Wadstrom’s time? Because medieval and early modern people were more primitive and modern people are more advanced. Carl Bernhard Wadstrom’s generation should have known better than Jean Barbot’s generation. Also ‘in the beginning’ nobody told medieval man, such as Henry the Navigator, ‘thou shalt not slave!’ Therefore he obviously slaved. We should not judge primitive people such as Henry the Navigator or Jean Barbot, even the Old Testament, Plato and Aristotle spoke positively of slavery. For example, prehistoric man did some unspeakable things such as rape, murder and cannibalism, but would we judge them? No! It is only a matter of relativity.

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

Luke 6:37.

How is crime or sin relative?

Time for forgiveness.

Remember primitive relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all it is definitely about time for forgiveness! Also remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are time and relativity for grown ups but never geniuses! This is because discussing such as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer cannot be taught to children. Also because there obviously has to be forgiveness for anything in the afterlife, including the Holocaust, and this is because people in the afterlife are grown up! Obviously I am in absolutely no way condoning people’s crimes. People who commit crimes obviously have to serve time in prison, however, the point of what you are about to read below (and throughout this essay) is that there should at some point in time be forgiveness, that is once people are in prison or in the afterlife. While someone is a living, active or practicing criminal then they have to wait for forgiveness, and waiting is time. However, once the perpetrator is caught, incarcerated or is dead then it is time for forgiveness.

There is no forgiveness in scientific or mathematical time, however, there is innocence and forgiveness in writing or essay time. To demonstrate consider the following. Crimes and sins are relative in that for example cannibalism was relatively no issue with such as Homo antecessor because Homo antecessor was so primitive and innocent because they had no infrastructure, technology or medicine etc and because Homo antecessor came from such a distant time or epoch, therefore, killing and cannibalism were relatively less of an issue for them. However, therefore, murder and cannibalism today by such as Jeffrey Dahmer was so relatively evil compared with Homo antecessor because they are out of place and in the wrong time. However, time and relativity give us hope that there could be a cure and absolution of such anachronistic crimes and sins. Again for example, we would never judge Homo antecessor for killing and cannibalism, therefore, we should bare this in mind when judging and condemning such as Jeffrey Dahmer, as he was only relatively evil because he was more modern and advanced. Therefore, as will be seen, if such as Jeffrey Dahmer became, thought like or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal, then his sins would be much lighter. Only with these primitive hominins and in these places and times could he be accepted and forgiven. Time determines that Jeffrey Dahmer was relatively evil that is the only difference. For example, like how we should not and cannot prosecute un-contacted native Amazonians for killing and cannibalism, imagine if policemen or detectives could go back in time millions or hundreds of thousands years to witness the flagrant killing and cannibalism. Would detectives care about these killings and acts of cannibalism? No! They would simply not care about the perpetrators. We should bare this mind when judging and condemning our own murderers and cannibals in modern times. It is only a case of relativity.

How do you practice primitive relativity and primitive innocence?

With generosity and forgiveness in that primitive relativity and primitive innocence make me look back to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future, therefore, they make me give money to those less fortunate than myself. They make me have no desire for a lot of energy or money and give a lot of what little I have away. Giving money away is the only real action that a spiritual seeker can take that actually does something, as opposed to praying, meditating or self mortification. Giving money away is also a non-lethal leap of faith that anyone can take. I have found that being a hundredaire, say owning around £500 and then giving £100 away to a good cause is a very comfortable middle way. I have also been a tenaire and given £20 away to a good cause. Since April/May 2019, I have given away a total of £340 to good causes. Instead of being happy of and measuring our success by how much we have accumulated each year, perhaps we should keep track of and take pride in how much we have given away each year. Instead of asking how much profit or wages did you earn this year, why not ask how much have you given away? For example, I have given a total £240 away to good causes for 2019 and £100 for 2020 so far. Animals do not have money yet they still survive, similarly natives and primitives like Palaeolithic man did not even comprehend the meaning of money or currency. Prehistoric men had no money yet they still survived. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence are without sin because they pay every single last penny, they are absolutely nothing. Imagine the possessions of a Palaeolithic man. To reiterate, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are without sin because they pay every single last penny, this is because natives or primitives such as bushmen or prehistoric man are/were literally penniless.

Give, even if you only have a little.

(The Buddha, Dhammapada, verse 224).

Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Romans 12:16.

Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

Matthew 6:26.


3. RECORDED HISTORY.

It is the invention of writing that brings us, via semi-mythical figures such as Gilgamesh, to the earliest dawning of recorded history.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 346).

Gilgamesh, King of Uruk, and his companion Enkidu are the only heroes to have survived from the ancient literature of Babylon, immortalized in this epic poem that dates back to the 3rd millennium BC. Together they journey to the Spring of Youth, defeat the Bull of Heaven and slay the monster Humbaba. When Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh’s grief and fear of death are such that they lead him to undertake a quest for eternal life. A timeless tale of morality, tragedy and pure adventure, The Epic of Gilgamesh is a landmark literary exploration of man’s search for immortality.

(The Epic of Gilgamesh (Penguin Classics) Andrew George, write up).

‘Gilgamesh,’ he declared, ‘is stupendous!’ For him the epic was first and foremost ‘das Epos der Todesfurcht’, the epic about the fear of death. This universal theme does indeed unite the poem, for in examining the human longing for life eternal, it tells of one man’s heroic struggle against death – first for immortal renown through glorious deeds, then for eternal life itself; of his despair when confronted with inevitable failure, and of his eventual realization that the only immortality he may expect is the enduring name afforded by leaving behind some lasting achievement.

(The Epic of Gilgamesh (Penguin Classics) Andrew George, page liv).

What is meant by non-archaeological? I mean that recorded history (whether myth of historic) such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible are living and eternal because they are a non-archaeological (Gilgamesh is actually archaeological but is now recorded for eternity) account of some of the inventors of recorded history, the Sumerians, Babylonians, ancient Egyptians and Israelites. This is why the Bible is the most famous and best selling book in history, because it is one of the first truly living and eternal (non-archaeological) recorded histories.

‘[Hear me, O elders of Uruk-the-Town]-Square!

[ I would tread the path to ferocious Huwawa,]

I would see the god, of whom men talk,

whose name the lands do constantly repeat.

‘I will conquer him in the Forest of Cedar:

let the land learn Uruk’s offshoot is mighty!

Let me start out, I will cut down the cedar,

I will establish for ever a name eternal!’

(The Epic of Gilgamesh (Penguin Classics) Andrew George, page 111).

For ever and ever.

What does for ever and ever of the Lord’s Prayer mean? There is no eternity without recorded history, that is that prehistoric man (excepting cave art) did not attain eternity because they left no writing or literature behind. We do not know their names or deeds, so they are not eternal, hence hallowed be your name. For example, cave paintings, such as the Chauvet, Lascaux and Altamira cave paintings are eternal, because they have survived until today and this means the images have now become recorded and digitised as well as recreated as prints and posters etc, however, the names of the actual painters are forever lost to us, because they had no writing (unlike Imhotep and pharaoh Djoser), therefore, the painters are not eternal down here on earth but only in heaven. Hence, hallowed be your name!

The eternal conflict of nurture and nature – articulated as the benefits of civilization over savagery – is also examined, as too are the rewards of friendship, the nobility of heroic enterprise and the immortality of fame.

(The Epic of Gilgamesh (Penguin Classics) Andrew George, page liv).

However, thanks to themselves and archaeology, it was firstly the Egyptians who (along with the Sumerian’s ad Babylonians) invented recorded history and architecture and who put thousands of years of time, energy and devotion into eternity and the afterlife through religion, writing, mummification and tombs etc, that accomplished this. Recorded history is eternity. To reiterate, with the cult of the ruler, funerary cults, mortuary cults, mummification, pyramids, saff-tombs and mastaba-tombs (mastaba meaning “house of eternity” or “eternal house”), the Ancient Egyptians put thousands of years of effort and devotion into the eternal life or afterlife for themselves and the god-kings. We know their names and deeds, hence they are eternal.

‘Let me start out, I will chop down the cedar!

[A name that] is eternal I will establish for ever!

(The Epic of Gilgamesh (Penguin Classics) Andrew George, page 110).

Inextricable link.

Jesus Christ and the Buddha are eternally relative or relevant like perpetual teenagers or children, they will never get old, date or go out of fashion. Also there is an inextricable link between Jesus Christ and the Buddha and recorded history, in that despite the fact that writing only reached India after the time of the Buddha, a more or less prerequisite for a nation or civilisation to gloriously attain the Christ or the Buddha is that it must more or less have recorded history. You cannot attain Christ or the Buddha without either having or be close to having recorded history. Why? Because recorded history is eternal and living and because ancient men such as Siddhartha Gautama Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth probably yearned for and aspired to be eternal and heroic like Gilgamesh.

‘[I will conquer him in the Forest of Cedar,]

[I] will have the [land] learn [Uruk’s offshoot is mighty.]

[Let me start out, I will chop down the cedar!]

[A name] of eternity I [will establish forever!]’

(The Epic of Gilgamesh (Penguin Classics) Andrew George, page 133).

The Christ and the Buddha come at the earliest possible moment in history not prehistory. Both Christ and the Buddha would never come unless recorded history was either very close to or already attained in that country or civilisation, as they would never be famous and their teaching would never be remembered.

Writing wasn’t in use at the Buddha’s time. Because the earliest Buddhist texts were orally transmitted and written down only many centuries after the Buddha’s death, scholars aren’t certain about what the Buddha himself taught and what was later ascribed to him.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 11).

The Buddhist spiritual community (Sangha) took great pains to preserve and transmit his teachings as purely as possible so that they could pass from one generation to the next. These extensive teachings were eventually written down, producing a vast collection (or canon) of the Buddha’s discourses (Pali: suttas; Sanskrit: sutras).

Thanks to the efforts of teachers and their disciples, the Buddha’s teachings (known as Dharma) have been handed down from generation to generation up to the present day.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 13).

During the Buddha’s lifetime, his followers collected and codified these guidelines, which eventually became the code of discipline (vinaya) that has continued to shape the monastic life for more than 2,500 years.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 16).

That is why Jesus Christ came an Israelite, because they contributed to recorded history and invented the Bible. It is no coincidence that Jesus Christ, the Son of YHWH came an Israelite. Israel (or Palestine) is the site of the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, that being Jericho.

The city of Jericho is thought to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Like Homer’s Troy, Jericho inevitably attracted the interest of nineteenth century archaeologists, in search of evidence for walls supposedly destroyed by Joshua’s invading Israelite army.

Dating the beginning of the Neolithic occupation is problematic, but the oldest radiocarbon date, for Sample P-378, suggests that the site [Jericho] was in use by 9250 BC (7825 radiocarbon year BC).

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 244).

Why did Jesus Christ or the Buddha not come at a different time, say in modern times or prehistory? Why specifically the ancient period? Firstly, it may be because the ancient period was so primitive and innocent and secondly, if they had come earlier than the ancient period, it would have been useless as they would never have been famous or remembered.

[Great Mountain Enlil, the father of the gods,]

[conversed in the dream with the lord Bilgames:]

[‘O Bilgames, I made your destiny a destiny of kingship, but I did not make it a destiny of eternal life.]

(The Epic of Gilgamesh (Penguin Classics) Andrew George, page 199).

Taming the wild and compassion.

Also, consider compassion, how can Australopithecina or Palaeolithic man be compassionate or magnanimous toward animals, when they themselves were not yet masters of the animal kingdom or even worse still prey themselves? It is impossible, compassion simply did not exist. Compassion is technical, in that you must for instance attain gunpowder before you can be compassionate toward animals. Therefore, compassion toward animals was probably only attained with sophistication, collective development and civilisation (perhaps through agriculture, domestication and the Neolithic revolution etc) because then and only did Homo sapiens become invincible and masters of the animal kingdom. It is impossible to be compassionate when you are not yet masters of the world, and therefore, magnanimous toward animals. It is like saying to ‘bear’ “I have a nuke now, therefore I am compassionate toward you.” This is something bear will never understand, in that it is ironic that once you attain nuclear weapons that you are therefore by definition compassionate. What would a bear do with a bazuka? He would probably go on a rampage. Therefore, the Buddha and Jesus Christ could never have come a prehistoric man. To reiterate, compassion is something technical, it is only attained through a collective effort, through taming the wild and through civilisation. You can only be compassionate once there is no competition. Now think of this, Adolf Hitler did not have much compassion, in fact he was the opposite of the Buddha when it comes to compassion, nor did Jeffrey Dahmer for that matter. However, bare this in mind, because as will be seen this lack of compassion must determine that both Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer were in fact prehistoric men in the 20th century and therefore, relatively, this must mean that they existed in the wrong place and the wrong time. It is ironic that despite Adolf Hitler’s claims of racial “superiority” that in reality he was probably a prehistoric man or (and I quote) a “subhuman” himself.


Sub-Saharan Africa.

Why has there been no Jesus Christ or Buddha in sub-Saharan Africa? It could be because there has never been recorded history in sub-Saharan Africa?

“The African, however, laments his ignorance of the art of writing, with more ostentation than sincerity; for he boasts at the same time that his gods like to be served with vigor and activity in the field, rather than by prayer and actions such as we term moral…”

(Journal of a residence in Ashantee, comprising notes and researches relative to the Gold Coast, and the interior of Western Africa, chiefly collected from Arabic mss. By Joseph Dupuis, c. 1820, page 247).

200 years ago sub-Saharan Africa had no writing or recorded history. Almost the time of day can be given of when recorded history began on the various coasts of sub-Saharan Africa.

The next forward step in the Portuguese advance was initiated when the King in 1469 leased the monopoly of trade on the West African coast to Fernão Gomes for five years, on condition that he secured the exploration of one hundred leagues of new coastline beyond Sierra Leone each year…

The immediate result of this contract was the voyage of João de Santarém and Pêro de Escobar in 1471 along the Gold Coast to the point near which the fortress of El Mina was afterwards built…

(The Voyages of Cadamosto and Other Documents on Western Africa in the Second Half of the Fifteenth Century, page xxvii).

This is how recorded history began for the Gold Coast (Ghana).

The unbelievably early date of May 1488.

Further South Bartolomeu Dias discovered and rounded the Cape of Good Hope in what is now South Africa in the unbelievably early date of May 1488.

Most important among these independent witnesses is a marginal note on folio 13 of a copy of Pierre d’Ailly’s “Imago mundi”, which was the property of Christopher Columbus. This reads as follows: “Note, that in December of this year, 1488, there landed at Lisbon Bartolomeu Didacus [Dias], the commander of three caravels, who the King of Portugal had sent to Guinea to seek out the land, and who reported that he had sailed 600 leagues beyond the furthest reached hitherto, that is, 450 leagues to the south and then 150 leagues to the north, as far as a cape named by him the Cape of Good Hope, which cape we judge to be in Agisimba, its latitude, as determined by the astrolabe, being 45° S., and its distance from Lisbon 3100 leagues. This voyage he [Dias] had depicted and described from league to league upon a chart, so that he might show it to the king; at all of which I was present (in quibus omnibus interfui).”

This date (namely 1488) is further confirmed by Duarte Pacheco Pereira, the “Achilles Lusitano” of Camoens, for in his “Esmeraldo de Situ Orbis”, written soon after 1505, but only published in 1892, we are told that the Cape was discovered in 1488. Pacheco is a very competent witness, for Dias, on his homeward voyage, he met him at the Ilha do Principe.

Bartolomeu Dias, Ernst Georg Ravenstein, William Brooks Greenlee, Pero Vaz de Caminha, page 20-21).

This deficiency of recorded history may demonstrate why sub-Saharan Africa has not yet attained Jesus Christ or the Buddha?

Recorded history ratio.

So while … the archaeological record gives us only the most incomplete perspective of the evolution of technologies, the situation is very much worse when we approach the area of cognition. … Thoughts and perceptions aren’t [preserved], or at least they weren’t until the invention of writing, a mere 5,000 years ago.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 147).

Just to demonstrate how ignorant we modern advanced historic Homo sapiens are of prehistory, consider this. Australopithecus evolved in Eastern Africa 4 million years ago, and the derivation of the genus Homo from Australopithecina took place in East Africa after 3 million years ago. Homo habilis inhabited parts of sub-Saharan Africa from roughly 2.4 to 1.5 million years ago. Homo erectus emerged about 2 million years ago. Homo antecessor of the Lower Paleolithic, is known to have been present in Western Europe (Spain, England and France) between about 1.2 million and 0.8 million years ago. Homo heidelbergensis radiated in the Middle Pleistocene from about 700,000 to 300,000 years ago. Homo neanderthalensis lived from 430,000 years ago to 40,000 years ago. And finally the earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 300-200,000 years ago. Hence, despite the fact we do not know their names, memories, deeds, stories or individual characters, prehistoric man has been around for 4 million years, while historic man has been around for just 5000 years! That is literally a fraction or 1/800 or 0.00125 out of 1 or 0.125% of the length of time prehistoric man was around. That is a ratio of 600 : 0.75 or 800 : 1. Prehistoric man constitutes 99.875% of our total time on earth. If 4 million years was crammed into 24 hours, then relatively recorded history has been around since 23:58:12. We modern historic H. sapiens glorify our 5000 years of history, yet we are very little in the scheme of things. Relatively prehistoric man has been around for an inordinately longer time than historic man. That is 4 million years of memories, deeds, stories, characters and eventually names that we will never know about. Surely in heaven prehistoric man must be compensated for this ignorance and unawareness with much fame and illustriousness?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

8054A5BA-DA3C-4D06-80F7-8148E6C41DA7

Even if we just take into account anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) from the Middle Paleolithic, about 300-200,000 years ago. Again even though we do not know their names, memories, deeds, stories or individual characters, prehistoric H. sapiens has been around for 300,000 years, while historic H. sapiens has been around for just 5000 years! That is literally a fraction or 1/60 or 0.01667 out of 1 or 1.667% of the length of time prehistoric H. sapiens was around. That is a ratio of 600 : 10 or 60 : 1. Prehistoric H. sapiens constitutes 295/3% or 98.333% of our total time on earth. If 300,000 years was crammed into 24 hours, then relatively recorded history has been around since 23:36:00. We modern historic H. sapiens glorify our 5000 years of history, yet we are not much in the scheme of things. Relatively prehistoric H. sapiens has been around for an extraordinarily longer time than historic H. sapiens. That is 300,000 years of memories, deeds, stories, names and characters that we will never know about. Surely in heaven prehistoric H. sapiens must be compensated for this lack of knowledge and appreciation with much fame and illustriousness?

E83042D2-AFC1-4704-AB4E-E9C1C3128139


4. PRIMITIVE INNOCENCE.

What do I mean by primitive innocence? I mean that the further you go back in time the more primitive life was and therefore, the more innocent it was. You do not have to go back far in time to such as the medieval, ancient or prehistoric periods to find primitive innocence. For example, I was born in 1981 and I can tell you that even the 1980s were relatively much more innocent than the 2020s. This is because we had no internet or mobile phones, we did not even have satellite TV, just 4 channel terrestrial TV and we still used the Yellow Pages, newspaper TV guides and coal fires etc, therefore, we were much more innocent in the 1980s than we are today. For example, we had much less knowledge in the 1980s than today, as in we did not comprehend smart things like Spotify and FaceTime, hence we were much more innocent. If you grew up with and therefore, understand advanced or smart technologies such as Spotify and FaceTime then you are more advanced and therefore, much less innocent. Also, since the invention of the internet and social media, such as Twitter the world has become filled with hate and we are therefore, much less innocent. Concerning ethnicity, because of the Holocaust, primitive relativity and primitive innocence clearly show and demonstrate that Africans and other primitive, developing and third world people are still primitive and therefore much more innocent than white people. Where as advanced, developed and first world people, especially white people have lost their primitive innocence. This means that because white people are advanced, they are more responsible and therefore much less innocent. Therefore, developing and third world people have won the race and will soon demonstrate this. White people need to regain their primitive innocence, but how? As will be seen, if Germany became relatively primitive, this would probably help! The Europeans and especially the Nazis labelled primitive people as “inferior”, but this is absolutely not the case, as has been seen relatively there is nothing wrong with being primitive as it means you are more innocent. Sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world can give us many examples of primitive innocence, for example Africans are innocent and funny like prehistoric man and animals because they are poor and primitive in that their countries are much less developed than ours, and therefore they can do or get away with things that we advanced, clumsy/stupid white people cannot simply do. Remember greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism were relatively no issue with prehistoric men, similarly, many things that are taboo, sinful or illegal in the UK are no sweat in the continent of Africa. For example, public nakedness is much less taboo for Africans in the continent of Africa, it is not rude or unacceptable, even in capital cities, (I saw full male nudity in Accra in 2012) where as public nakedness for Europeans in the Europe (or anywhere else), is rude, unacceptable and would lead to your arrest for indecent exposure. To explain differences in nudity perspectives between Africans and the Europeans consider this. Although we could say Africans are more primitive and Europeans more advanced, I believe temperature is probably the reason why it is not rude and is totally acceptable for Africans to be naked in public, even in capital cities, while it is absolutely shocking, rude and totally unacceptable for Europeans to be naked in public anywhere. This is because natural selection determines that it was always absolutely imperative for Europeans to have clothes or skins to protect themselves from the freezing cold temperatures, where as Africans are never cold, therefore the impetus for Africans to have clothes or skins and to cover themselves was/is no where near as imperative as Europeans, having such milder elements and being in such warmer and humid climates. For example drink driving (especially the bush) is not an issue in the continent of Africa, where as in the UK it is a very serious offence. Even in capital cities such offences are handled with a £50 bribe to the police. I have witnessed a nameless paralytic “oburoni” (white man) pay 300 GHC (£42) to bribe a policeman to ignore his drunkeness while driving in Accra in 2012. I had to finish the journey and drive us home and I wasn’t exactly sober myself. That’s Africa! Traffic lights are not observed for motorbikes in Africa, everybody does it and it is not a problem. MOTs or Road Worthiness Certificates are no where near of the same high standards or calibre of the UK. To get a Road Worthiness Certificate all you have to do is pay (ahem bribe) someone then he doesn’t even check the car and gives you the certificate. A high percentage of cars in Africa would never be deemed road worthy in the UK. In Africa it is a case of if she goes, she goes. No palaver! The risk is worth it. Vehicle insurance is extremely cheap in Africa, it has to be as nobody can afford it, and for the country to function properly people need to get around quickly, despite the risks. I’m talking like £10-15 for 750cc motorbike insurance. You see many ‘road worthy’ cars in Africa with severe body damage and unfixed signs of collisions. Like drink driving, speeding tickets are simply handled at the side of the road with a bribe to the police. Similar to red traffic lights, although wearing helmets for motorbikes is compulsory and the police do sometimes of enforce it, most motorcyclists in Africa flagrantly ignore this rule. When learning to ride a motorbike in Ghana in 2012 my ‘instructor’ and I shared one bike and one helmet. Also, there are no L plates or over dramatic high-viz vests etc. I did not take a test. To get a license I simply asked. Then I literally drove around the block to get the hang of a 750 cc bike, then spent a few days driving around Accra, and then to a more distant village called Abandze, a couple of hours away from Accra, and then I was done. All in all it took less than a week to go from a total beginner to be a competent motorcyclist. Get on! I once walked over a makeshift 1 ft wide by 100 ft wooden plank bridge across a bottomless railway bridge over a valley between two opposing train tracks in Accra, Ghana in 2012. I was terrified. I saw a 50 year old Ghanaian walk across it like he was walking down the main street, so stupidly I thought I could do so as well. I learned that there are just somethings that skilled native Africans can do that clumsy/stupid “oburonis” (white men) should never do or even attempt. Also 5 minutes after I had crossed the bridge, a train came hurtling passed. The Africans probably know the times when the trains come. Needless to say the health and safety, hazard and death trap issues would lead to the immediate removal of the plank bridge in the UK. Where as in Africa it is absolutely fine and serves a useful local function. It would be taken down in the UK because:

  1. It is a dangerous 1ft wide plank bridge across a bottomless railway bridge over a ravine.
  2. It is in between and parallel to two opposing train tracks.

As another example of the haphazard “oburoni” (white man), when I was about 6 years old, myself and two other “oburonis” of about the same age went out exploring on an adventure with machetes in the jungle and bush of Obuasi, in the Ashanti region of Ghana in 1987. We hacked our way through the jungle up a hill, then suddenly an old local Ghanaian man came rushing out of his house screaming and shouting at us, “Why you cut down my plantain flower!?” We were absolutely terrified. In fact I have never felt in so much trouble in all my life! The old man really scolded us and threatened to report us. The moral of the story is DO NOT under any circumstances aimlessly cut down vegetation in Africa or other primitive places, you could be cutting down someone’s sustenance! Another example of 1980s primitive innocence is that we were much less squeamish and much less soft than people and children of today. For example, as a child in Obuasi, a gold mining town in the Ashanti Region of Ghana, West Africa in the 1980s, an “oburoni” friend and I hunted and mercilessly killed on a daily basis the West African Agama agama lizard as well as various exotic birds with catapults which were colloquially called a “gat” or a “tie” (although I never succeeded in killing a bird my elder friend did). We literally collected dead lizards in large cardboard boxes, we must have killed scores over the years. I mean today not even I would kill an Agama agama, as I am much more advanced and therefore, more ethical than I was in the 1980s. Today I would simply study Agama agama in a scientific or naturalist kind of way, but this just shows how primitive and innocent the 1980s were! We didn’t even hesitate to kill Agama agama in those days. To be honest we were so primitive and innocent in those days I or we didn’t even know the correct scientific name of Agama agama, I only found that out with the advent of the internet and Wikipedia relatively recently. We just called them “lizards” and it was always better and a win to kill an “orange head” (these were the large males as opposed to the all grey and smaller females).

cropped-3366b99f-fdf5-4832-9724-eaa7cc1867db.jpeg
The common agama, red-headed rock agama, or rainbow agama (Agama agama) is a species of lizard from the Agamidae family found in most of sub-Saharan Africa. AKA “ORANGE HEAD.”

I mean to exemplify the difference, for example concerning a fly trapped in our car I once heard my 14 year old daughter say “don’t kill it!” I mean get a grip! Regarding Agama agama and flies, take the example of compassion, and the impossibility of prehistoric men of attaining it because they were not yet masters of the animal kingdom. Which would you rather be, my 14 year old daughter or a prehistoric man? Also Onyinasi in Obuasi in the Ashanti region of Ghana in the 1980s wasn’t just home to a plethora of exotic mammals, reptiles and birds, but also a veritable paradise with a salubrious abundance of weird and exotic fruits that my “oburoni” friend and I would hunt, gather and collect on a daily basis to literally acquire energy from for further play (sweets such as chocolate were a rare luxury and had to be imported via a delivery service called “kings barn”). These fruits included such as, Terminalia catappa ((tropical almond) again I only just found out the correct scientific name of this fruit via Wikipedia on 7/2/20). Terminalia catappa were delicious and one of our favourites, they had a thin fleshy and delicious skin with a very difficult to access almond in the centre surrounded by a hard shell. They came in yellow/orange or red/purple colours.

3D9EDA1B-A3B4-4C06-B8D8-77DD907EFF9D
Two Terminalia catappa with their flesh eaten. These are the red/purple variety. Also the almond bottom right.

Guava or common guava (Psidium guajava) was also a favourite, the West African equivalent of a mars bar in the 1980s!

EC7673F1-DCE9-4848-9C2D-4BB361ED5B46
Guava or common guava (Psidium guajava). Delicious!

Pawpaw (Carica papaya) was also on the menu, not my favourite though.

8986EC35-6833-4C26-A401-5BCE92E8642A
Pawpaw (Carica papaya).

Carambola, or star fruit (Averrhoa carambola) were also there. Very sour!

Padang Pasar,  Karambole
Carambola, or star fruit (Averrhoa carambola).

Cocoa (Theobroma cacao) was also there to be found, it had sweet fleshy beans in the centre. Delicious!

A31F57B7-A761-432E-BDE0-846313B26B6E
Cocoa (Theobroma cacao).

To wrap it up there were also bananas, oranges and limes all ripe for the taking! Like I said Obuasi was a veritable paradise in the 1980s. So as children we were hunter gatherers. There are other parts of the world where people are still primitive and innocent, for example Papua New Guinea. The native Papuans make rope bridges across gorges purely from natural materials such as tree vines. Imagine if the native Papuans had to get planning permission and fill out endless red tape in order to build a bridge. It would be unethical as well as undesirable to do so. In the UK obviously health and safety regulations would never allow such a death trap structure to be built, where as the native Papuans do not care, the risk is worth it.

Parable of the first contact native Amazonians.

There were two English academic explorers and naturalists who were attempting to make first contact with an indigenous native Amazonian tribe in the 1960s. After months of searching and hacking their way through the Amazon rainforest with machetes, and dealing with insects, animals and disease, they finally found what they were looking for, a pristine and virgin un-contacted tribe of indigenous Amazonians. The initial contact was precarious, the English explorers offered the Amazonians trifles and food and the Amazonians tentatively accepted. However, all of a sudden like a wild animal one of the Amazonians clubbed one of the explorers over the head with a club, smashing his skull, the other explorer tried to defend himself but was also clubbed to death and struck with poison arrows. The Amazonians then took the carcasses of the two English explorers back to their village and cannibalised them. The End. What is the moral of this parable? Would it be moral for the British or Brazilian governments to catch the un-contacted native Amazonians who killed the English explorers and charge, prosecute and incarcerate them? No! You might as well send a jaguar to jail. Why then? Because the indigenous Amazonians are more primitive and the English explorers are much more advanced. The un-contacted Amazonians do not live under our laws. Relatively it would be unethical to charge, prosecute and incarcerate the indigenous un-contacted Amazonians for killing the two Englishmen. Primitive innocence! Relatively, they have done nothing wrong! We should bare this in mind when judging and condemning our own cannibals, murderers and those who have man-slaughtered in the developed world. It is only a matter of relativity. For example, because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, this means his crimes or sins were relatively in the wrong place and time, to reiterate the only reason Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism was ‘sick’ compared to Homo antecessor or indigenous Amazonians is because Jeffrey Dahmer carried it out in the 20th century and because he was advanced. Some prehistoric people probably enjoyed and relished cannibalism, but would you judge them? No! It is only a matter of relativity. Therefore, the only thing Jeffrey Dahmer can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or a medieval primitive or indigenous native of some sort. If he accepts this then his sins would be lighter. So if Jeffrey Dahmer today did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and became, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal would we forgive him? Instead of waiting ages for forgiveness, if Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time tens of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he find “relative innocence”?

There are actual recorded cases such as the killing of Englishman Richard Mason by indigenous Amazonians in 1961.

“Accompanied by a member of the Brazilian Indian Protection Service, Hemming left gifts such as machetes and fishing line at the spot where Mason had been killed to show they bore no ill will to his killers.“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mason_(explorer)

F1280415-8978-442B-A9D1-B8F067396FA4
First contact Amazonian.

https://primitiveinnocence.com

For example take the above photograph of a first contact Amazonian. He does not comprehend in the slightest by what you mean by “wicked” or “cool” or “flash” or “bling” etc. He is pristine primitive innocence! And that is how he should stay! Primitive innocence should be protected and conserved. Perhaps he is graceful instead of “cool” or fashionable? Imagine if Palaeolithic man, (such as the Altamira cave painters) were graceful also. As another example consider Africa, most if not all of Africa is relatively westernised or civilised, certainly contacted, though there are hunter gatherer bushmen in Southern Africa, and there could still be relatively un-contacted, very remote or indigenous and primitive people’s in other parts of Africa, in such as the Democratic Republic of Congo for example? In the 1980s in Ghana you still saw people who had never seen a white man before, especially young children would be frightened and cry at the sight of an “oburoni” (white man). This is rare today. Therefore, the vast majority of Africans would go to prison for killing a westerner. However, would we incarcerate a bushman for killing a westerner? Possibly not! This really highlights that it is subtle or technical primitiveness that determines an individual’s innocence or whether they live under our or western laws or if they should go to prison for homicide etc. For example, if a bushmen lives in a mud hut and has to hunt wildebeest or gazelle to eat meat, then technically they are primitive, and therefore less responsible, and therefore more innocent. Therefore, they can get away with murder. Prison is a better dwelling place than a mud hut and the free food in prison would certainly ameliorate the situation. Therefore, technically if you live in a Persimmons brick house and do your shopping at Tesco, then you are technically advanced and therefore more responsible and therefore less innocent, therefore, you would definitely go to prison for homicide. Which would you prefer? Most people would say Persimmons, Shoprite and ASDA, but then you have to watch yourself. Do not for example go drink driving  (another African custom) and accidentally kill someone. However, some people, especially bushmen would say mud huts and gazelle! To give non-expatriate ‘whites’ a taste of the remnants of the old colonial Africa, as mentioned in the 1980s in Ghana you still saw people who had never seen a white man before, especially young children would be frightened and cry at the sight of an “oburoni” (white man), and native Africans in those days were still quite in awe of the “oburoni” (this being rare today). However, medieval explorers such as Henry the Navigator and Christopher Columbus could impress and hold indigenous people of Africa and the New World in awe with nothing more than trifles such as hawk bells, glass beads, hats and shirts etc. In fact the Native American “Indians” were so impressed and awestruck by early European explorers that they literally believed them to be gods! Now think of us “oburonis” today who have the most amazing and advanced technology the world has ever seen, such as the internet, iPads and iPhones etc. Despite our advancement we could not impress primitive or third world people or keep them awestruck for five minutes even if our lives depended on it. Another recent innovation in the UK is recycling, in that every homeowner in the UK has to recycle their garbage, where as in Africa recycling is not a priority of life and has not yet been entertained. Like hunting and killing Agama agama in the 1980s, we are glad that some primitive customs and attitudes have gone, for example such as fox hunting, dueling and dog fighting etc. Why was fox hunting more acceptable in 20th century and earlier British society? Why was duelling considered a gentlemanly way to resolve disputes in the 19th century and earlier? Why was gladiatorial combat deemed acceptable in ancient times? They would all claim primitive innocence! Also older people had more primitive weapons and technologies therefore, they were less compassionate towards foxes, dogs and gladiators etc. Therefore, again we should not judge 19th century people for fox hunting, duelling or dog fighting etc or Romans for gladiatorial spectacles. This is because they were much more primitive technologically and therefore, more innocent for their relatively barbaric sports. We should bare this mind when condemning people today, it is simply a case of relativity. Perhaps one day rugby, boxing and the martial arts may also be deemed relatively barbaric? Even though there are rare cases of concussion and death in rugby, today even advanced white people deem rugby acceptable. Concerning rugby, even advanced white people deem that the risk is worth it! Why are all these things acceptable in Africa and other parts of the world, but not in the UK? Because Africa and other countries are more primitive and the UK is more advanced. Which would you prefer? Because I grew up in the Ashanti region of Ghana from 1985 onwards and because of my family having a permanent residence in Ghana for over 30 years, I can tell you I prefer Africa in many ways. This might demonstrate that having such high living standards in the UK, is not necessarily a better way of life. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence determine that Africans and other developing and third world people should never worry about the fact that they have not invented much, where as Europeans have invented the vast majority of technologies. This is obviously because the law of primitivism determines they are more innocent than white people, and that white people have lost their primitive innocence because of the Holocaust. There are limitless examples of how Africa and other parts of the world are primitive and innocent and metaphorically (and literally) get away with murder especially when it comes to health and safety hazards and death trap structures and vehicles etc. Primitivism should be studied where it is still present in the world, as we can learn a lot from examples. For example, imagine if you could go on an expedition to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon rainforest to meet, study and live with native Papuans or un-contacted native Amazonians. Imagine if you could teach them primitive relativity and primitive innocence and then were able to ask them for genuine advice from there vast and timeless experience of primitivism (not nativism!). For example, they might say that ancestors are very important, and they might say respect your elders, they might even say appreciate your food. These wisdoms of primitivism probably have a lot of bearing on us relatively advanced modern Europeans, as because of the Holocaust we no longer appreciate “our ancestors” in fact we disparage and denigrate the “knuckle-dragging past” and our kids certainly do not “respect their elders” and my generation think it a bit uncool to “appreciate your food” etc. If you cannot go to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon ask your elders, such as your parents and grandparents! What can they remember? Flatter their eternal wisdom and knowledge! You do not need qualifications to practice or teach primitive relativity and primitive innocence, in fact like native Papuans or indigenous Amazonians, it is probably better if you don’t! All you need is time and age! For example, I remember the days before the internet and mobile phones and when CDs came out etc. I have asked my Mother who was born in the 1953 and she can remember the following: outside boilers that you heated water with wood and coal to clean white clothes in, using something called a “dolly blue” (detergent), mangles to strain and dry clothes, tin baths that hung on the wall, that you filled with water heated on the fire, no plumbing or hot water, no fridges, no freezers, no electric blenders etc. Coal used to be delivered by dumping on the road/path outside your house that you shovelled into a bunker. And she remembers that her father (my grandfather) told her that he used to deliver milk in urns in a horse and cart from a farm where he worked in the 1940s. Above all she said, they did not have lots money, but as kids they were happy and “innocent” days!

The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are.


5. PREHISTORY.

The main difference is that humans use symbols and chimpanzees do not. There is little doubt that archaic humans were capable of symbolic thought, though the extent is disputed, and the ability may not even be entirely absent from chimpanzees. However, its expression in modern humans is not found elsewhere and it sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom past and present.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 418).

Among these was the Catholic priest and archaeologist Abbé Henri Breuil, who was able to attest to the great antiquity of the caves [Lascaux] and described them as ‘The Sistine Chapel of Prehistory’. Another early visitor was Pablo Picasso, who on emerging from the cave, is said to have remarked – in reference to modern art – “We have invented nothing”.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 176).

F63B6661-FB8D-4FD2-8CF5-72E3CE1A8122
33,000 year old hand stencil by a paleolithic visitor to a cave at Chauvet Pont d’Arc in the south of France.

Our father, which art in heaven.

Note the primitive innocence in the above cave painting, Palaeolithic man was responsible for nothing! Also note the above image is how humans did a signature before they could write. However, I wonder what his or her name was? We know nothing about prehistoric people other than bones and stones, that is we know nothing about their names, memories, deeds, stories or individual characters. What does our Father, which art in heaven of the Lord’s Prayer mean? I believe the riddle is solved when we consider that for example the problem for prehistoric people is that they obviously did not have writing or recorded history, so we do not know their names, memories, deeds, stories or individual characters, therefore they did not achieve eternity down here on earth or in life. Like the concept of YHWH, prehistoric people’s names are “Ineffable” and “Unutterable”. Hence, because we do not and cannot ever know their names down here on earth but only in heaven, therefore hallowed be your name and on earth as in heaven could be for them.

D354850C-957E-4CDC-9F90-8B891BEB29BC

No name.

The names of prehistoric men are “Ineffable” and “Unutterable” because we do not and can never know them in life or on earth. Therefore, because we do not and cannot know their names, the answer to the question who is prehistoric man could be our Father, which art in heaven or YHWH. This could be especially important for those prehistoric hominins or animals whom did not even have a name, in this case all these nameless beings could be called YHWH.

Thus the hypostases Father, Son and Spirit should not be identified with God himself, because, as Gregory Nyssa explained ‘the divine nature (ousia) is unnamable and unspeakable’; ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Spirit’ are only ‘terms that we use’ to speak of the energeiai by which he has made himself known. Yet these terms have symbolic value because they translate the ineffable reality into images that we understand.

(A History of God, Karen Armstrong, pages 140-141).

Crime relativity.

There is no forgiveness in scientific or mathematical time, however, there is innocence and forgiveness and forgiveness in writing or essay time. To demonstrate, consider the following. What has relativity got to do with such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish? Time! Crime and sin are relative, in that child molestation, rape, murder and cannibalism were relatively no issue with prehistoric man, this is because prehistoric man was so primitive and innocent in that they had no infrastructure, emergency services or medicine etc and because they came from such an older and different time period. For example, slavery was relatively acceptable in the ancient and medieval periods. Therefore, the only issue with such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish is that they were anachronistic, in that they committed crimes or sins that are out of place or in the wrong time period, this is why they are so relatively evil compared to the killings and cannibalism of such as Homo antecessor. Also obviously there is the connection that criminals have to serve time in prison for their crimes or sins. For example, like how we should not and cannot prosecute un-contacted native Amazonians for killing and cannibalism, imagine if policemen or detectives could go back in time millions or hundreds of thousands years to witness the flagrant killing and cannibalism. Would detectives care about these killings and acts of cannibalism? No! They would simply not care about the perpetrators. We should bare this mind when judging and condemning our own murderers and cannibals in modern times. It is only a case of relativity.

https://crimerelativity.com


Hallowed by thy name.

What does hallowed be thy name of the Lord’s Prayer mean? Although in a way this has already been answered, for example I believe primitive relativity and primitive innocence determine that in heaven the older you are the more famous and illustrious you are, (as in prehistoric, ancient or medieval people). For example, if you are 2000 or 3000 years old this very refined and holy, therefore, the older you become, like fine wine, the better you get. Although not to be taken too literally, there could be another kind of relativity in that for example, I am 39 years old and I was born in 1981 AD therefore, as a mirror either side of 1981 or splitting it down the middle I am relatively closer to 1942 AD than 2020 AD. Therefore, in another 41 years time I would be relatively closer to the Victorian period (Queen Victoria died 1901 AD) than 2061 AD. Therefore, in another 121 years I would be relatively closer to Napoleon Bonaparte (who died in 1821) than 2141 AD. Therefore, in another 384 years time I would be relatively closer to Queen Mary I (who died in 1558 AD) than 2404 AD. Therefore, in 1466 years time I would be relatively closer to the Romans (the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD) than those alive in 3486 AD. Then I could be truly great! Therefore, in 5442 years time I would be relatively closer to Neolithic man (the Neolithic period ended 3500 BC) than those beings alive in 7462 AD. Therefore, in 2.9 million years time I would be relatively closer to Australopithecus afarensis (who went extinct 2.9 mya) than whatever deities were around in 2.9 million years time. Therefore, in 375 million years time I will be relatively closer to Tiktaalik roseae than whatever Gods are around in 375 million years time. It is relative! The older you are the greater and more famous and more illustrious you are! What do I mean by this? Again not to be taken too literally, but I mean that for example, the glorious Romans would probably not lower themselves to or associate with a valueless, lowly and unworthy 20th century amoeba such as me for some considerable amount of time and relativity (such as 1466 years) until I had seasoned, aged like fine wine and become relatively holy or classical. That is until I had relatively become more like a Roman than whatever human beings were around in 3486 AD. Then and only then would the glorious Romans lower them selves to my humble level and accept me into the ancient and classical fold. Prehistoric, ancient and medieval people should never let their guard down with, reveal themselves to or spoil the surprise for us ‘Jackass generation’ of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The past should never come down to our level. They should be holy and classical.

375C7104-F18E-449C-9E34-D6980D58D08F
Lascaux cave paintings, the Upper Paleolithic, estimated at around 17,000 years old (early Magdalenian).

Note the primitive innocence in the above cave painting, Palaeolithic man was responsible for nothing! For example, how famous do you think the painter or painters of the Lascaux or Altamira cave paintings is/are in the afterlife? Imagine in the afterlife if prehistoric man was still making art such as paintings and Venus figurines and was selling his/her authentic and sacred prehistoric art to you, how much do think a genuine prehistoric piece of art or sculpture would go for? Millions! Never mind Leonardo Da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh or Pablo Picasso. Genuine prehistoric art would be priceless! In fact in heaven, just about everything prehistoric man makes or touches is probably priceless.

DBF59B89-382F-4BF1-B693-E0D9AAFB1E08
Prehistoric man sculpting a Venus figurine.

Then compare an authentic prehistoric Venus figurine to a 10 year old iPad. See the relative difference in value? A genuine prehistoric Venus figurine is priceless while a trashy 10 year old iPad is worthless junk. The present and future are valueless, while the past and prehistory are priceless. Art is a strange subject or field in that today in post-modern times art is dead and is not really recommended as a career unless you are a genius. I have researched two books on art history and to me the last significant breakthrough was Impressionism, then Post-impressionism and finally modern art such as cubism. However, that is enough. Like how Pablo Picasso said upon emerging from the Lascaux cave – in reference to prehistoric art – “We have invented nothing“, practically everything that can possibly be done in art has been done. Why is art dead? Why did the 19th century (and earlier periods) plus the early 20th century still have valuable art, but not us today? It is probably because most of the Victorian and earlier periods did not have cameras, photography and film and the early 20th century had no colour photography or film, therefore paintings and portraits were still very relevant. Therefore, with UHD 4K TVs today art is practically irrelevant. You may say that must be a good thing, but what if prehistoric man turned around and said “poor you!” What if art is primitive innocence? On another note, in the afterlife how famous do you think the Israelite patriarchs of the bible are such as Abraham, Issac, Moses, Aaron and Joshua etc? Imagine meeting them. There is no one more holy and famous in the world. And despite the fact that no one has seen a photograph or video footage of Christ or the Buddha, because they are the most famous men in history, we all feel like we have seen their faces. Therefore, also imagine being a real soldier who fought in the Greco-Persian Wars or the Trojan War (if it were real). Or imagine being an authentic and indigenous Roman citizen. That must be pretty awesome. And although ancient and medieval people did have writing and recorded history they had no cameras or photography, therefore, because we know so little about prehistoric, ancient and medieval people on earth, therefore in the afterlife they will be the most famous and illustrious.

Napoleon’s image and deeds were immortalized in paintings, prints, tapestries, medals, porcelain, objets d’art and sculpture as a way both of legitimizing his rule and, in one art historian’s phrase, of ‘inscribing himself permanently on the French memory’. He would sit for a painter and a sculptor simultaneously, so long as they came at lunchtime and didn’t talk. In the age before photography no one expected precise verisimilitude in art. Nobody thought Napoleon actually crossed the Alps on a constantly rearing stallion, as in David’s painting, for example; rather it was intended as a magnificent allegorical comment on the glory of the achievement.

(Napoleon The Great, Andrew Roberts, page 543).

Who am I?

I think considering they had no writing or recorded history that the most profound question of all for prehistoric man is who are you? We have no idea who they were? In fact I think the difference between prehistoric humans and animals is the question who are you? Not what are you? What is animal. Who is human. You would not say who are you to an animal, but at some point hominins left the animal kingdom and stopped being a what and became a who? I would have so many questions for prehistoric man. Who are you? What is your name? What are your memories? What was it like? Do you have any stories? Prehistoric, ancient and medieval people were brave simply by being alive such a long time ago, if they were attacked by large animals such as lions, wolves, bears, rhinoceroses, and mammoths etc they were entirely on their own. This is the reason why prehistoric man could have no compassion toward animals.

The most dramatic evidence for Neanderthal hunting comes from the 130,000-year-old site of Lehringen in Germany, where a wooden spear with a fire-hardened tip was found lodged between the ribs of a mammoth. Neanderthals clearly weren’t afraid to take on the largest of mammals.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 100).

Prehistoric, ancient and medieval people also had no option but to fight for their kingdom, tribe, family and lives, for example against Viking marauders. In fact the further you go back in time the harsher and more violent it was. They also had little to no medicine, penicillin or anaesthetics, hence if they got an infection or broke a bone, their lives were in danger.

Among their many victims was Lannes himself. Sitting cross-legged on the bank of a ditch, he had both knees smashed by a ricocheting 3-pound cannonball. The thirty-year-old was taken back to the French camp of Kaiserebersdorf, beyond the Danube, where the head surgeon, Larrey, amputated his left leg and fought to keep the right one. In the days before anaesthetics, the pain of these operations is unimaginable, but all the witnesses of Lannes’ wounding agree that his courage was exemplary.

(Napoleon The Great, Andrew Roberts, page 515).


Temptation of technology.

What does and lead us not into temptation of the Lord’s Prayer mean? As mentioned my grandfather was born in 1926 and I remember him telling me in the 1990s that what he got for Christmas as a child was “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking.” This is primitive innocence! Unfortunately we born in the 1980s were relatively spoiled as children at Christmas. We received anything we wanted, for example an Atari, a Commodore 64, an Amiga or a Nintendo etc, plus all the sweets and chocolate we could ever eat. Compared to the 1920s we born in the 1980s were relatively less innocent. However, even the 1980s were way more innocent than the 2020s because we had no internet or smart phones, we did not comprehend smart things like Skype or Google and we still used things like the Yellow Pages, newspaper TV guides and coal fires etc. Also all those amazing gifts we received at Christmas such as Ataris, Commodore 64s, Amigas and Nintendos etc have all become worthless junk. Technology is temptation in that it tempts or lures us to exist in the present or future instead of living in the blissful, primitive and innocent past. The present and future are valueless, while the past and prehistory are priceless. For example, iPads and iPhones tempt us that were born in the 1980s to sever our connections to and denigrate and disparage the unfashionable 1980s and to vehemently exist in the fashionable present and to look forward to the cutting-edge future. Technology coaxes us out of the decade of our birth, the primitive and innocent 1980s and into the advanced and evil twenties of the present 21st century.

B1CA8773-5A13-4ECE-A44C-BB327B4233CF
Apple Inc. logo.

And lead us not into temptation is for Apple Inc.

Without primitive relativity and primitive innocence obsolete technologies become worthless junk, and we lose ourselves in a frantic race to seek the next new advanced technologies, the forefront and the cutting-edge, where as with primitive relativity and primitive innocence, we slow down, relax and are comfortable with the past and such old technologies are not so bad and at least the memories of them do have some value and worth. I was alive when and can remember when CDs came out, this is my own primitive innocence! I also remember 8-inch, 5 14-inch, and 3  12-inch floppy disks.


Fur.

‘In the beginning’ nobody told prehistoric man not to be harsh, nobody told prehistoric man not to be greedy, nobody told prehistoric man not to steal, nobody told prehistoric man not to rape, nobody told prehistoric man not to murder and nobody told prehistoric man not to cannibalise. What the hell!? We living creatures of life receive no help or warning from YHWH or anyone whatsoever, we are on our own, we are 100% independent and we learn on our own through natural selection. Therefore, prehistoric man obviously did all these things. It also means that greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are relatively no issue with prehistoric men. Because there is no warning, there must be forgiveness and a second chance. Our primitive ancestors had no Ten Commandments. How did our primitive ancestors such as Homo erectus figure out or learn what was good and what was evil? At what point in time or evolution does killing another member of the same species become murder? For example, if you still have fur then there is absolutely nothing YHWH or any other god in the universe can do to you for absolutely anything you do. To reiterate primitive anatomy determines if YHWH can chastise or punish you for your actions or sins, for example if a creature (or a hominin) still has fur then there is absolutely nothing, zero and zilch that YHWH or any other deity in the cosmos can do to you for your crimes or sins. You can literally get away with murder and cannibalism with fur. Homo erectus or Homo antecessor did not feel guilty for killing or cannibalising another member of the same species, and it was never murder. However, at some point, possibly when hominins lost their fur, YHWH had had enough and then more evolved or advanced hominins began to feel guilty or “gutted” for so called ‘murder’ or ‘cannibalism.’ However, we have all felt “gutted”, in fact who hasn’t felt “gutted” for their sins? However, as will be seen later guilt is good! It could be only through natural selection, through learning the hard way, through the mistakes of early hominins and prehistoric man that we learned ethics and morality? Humanity has clearly won the struggle for life and has come to dominate life on earth, however, was it by being good, moral and compassionate or was it the other way round? Was it simply by conquering the animal kingdom with shear muscle and remorseless brutality that enabled us to then feel compassion? Is being good, moral and compassionate a huge benefit not only to yourself but also your species? Or did we literally have to conquer the animal kingdom one wolf at a time, before we therefore attained magnanimity and compassion? I think we had to conquer and master the world first, before we attained compassion. For example, compassion had to be technically attained through the invention of gunpowder, muskets and nuclear weapons etc. Therefore, Homo sapiens got more and more compassionate over time toward animals through the invention of more and more advanced weapons. For example fighting a lion with spears and bows and arrows is brave, however, fighting a lion with a machine gun is never brave. It is relative. On another note, someone or something may have had to learn the hard way by fighting over food in order to learn that sharing is good and leads to things like manners and etiquette, and that greed is evil and leads to things like anger and hate. However, natural selection may choose manners and etiquette over greed or having the most food? Also consider cavewoman, was caveman particularly chivalric towards cavewoman? Probably not! Caveman probably provided food for and had his wicked way with cavewoman and that was about it. When did humans learn chivalry? Chivalry could be Palaeolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic? Anyway, life has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years, and in all that time there has been nonstop violence and carnage without a single drop of regret. Most wild animals have either killed and eaten other animals, or been killed and eaten by other wild animals. Therefore, in contact with humans (or other animals), all wild animals automatically presume the worst, that is that you are going to kill them and eat them. We have all seen for example how a trapped wild animal, such as a bird or rabbit reacts to you trying to help it. Because they have no language, no matter what you do you cannot explain to that animal that you are not trying to kill it, but that you are trying to help it. 3.5 billion years of trained instincts and statistics determine animals just do not understand that another animal species would ever try to help them. There is no such thing as trust in the animal kingdom. After 3.5 billion years of viciousness, violence, I have bigger teeth than you, and eat or be eaten, animals do not trust us in the slightest. Therefore, how much do you think YHWH will appreciate the fact that one animal species has trust and does not necessarily and automatically kill and eat every other animal that it sees? It is not an automatic guarantee that humans will kill every animal they see, infact 99.9% of the time they will not, as there is no reason to. You cannot predict a human. We think about it and we are compassionate and magnanimous toward wild animals. After 3.5 billion years of killing and cannibalism without a single drop of regret, how much do you think YHWH will appreciate mankind? ‪Concerning sin and forgiveness one must have the eternal eyes of YHWH or His perspective of time, evolution or creation. If the whole time of the earth was crammed into one single day or 24 hours, then relatively humans have been around since 11:58:43 pm.

9F53DC8E-F798-4885-A6ED-619BD4AE00C0
Time of earth in 24 hrs.

Humans are not animals or at least they have not been for a long time, perhaps over a million years or so and YHWH knows this or can see this in an instant or in a way that we cannot see. YHWH waited billions of years or for nearly an eternity of time simply for a living being to feel guilt or remorse. That being is by definition non-animal. YHWH has seen it all. Compared to the animal kingdom we are marvellous. To reiterate YHWH is amazed by you because you are not animal and you feel guilt, therefore, YHWH will forgive you more or less any sin. However, the consequence is that if someone sins against you, you cannot have the eternal eyes of YHWH or His eternal perspective of time, evolution and creation until you forgive first. Homo sapiens should compare themselves to animals more often and appreciate themselves. Compared to the animal kingdom we are awesome. But hypocritically we Homo sapiens should not make ourselves superior to animals, as it is not healthy. YHWH does not really care, in fact YHWH loves it when you make yourself not superior to animals. To make yourself equal to animals is very modest and humble, and as mentioned the more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. What is more impressive to YHWH an intergalactic alien who feels guilt or an animal who feels guilt? This is primitive relativity. We know that if we ever commit a sin or a crime that humans are better than the animal kingdom because we feel guilt. Do not think of Jesus Christ all the time, because he was without sin, think of prehistoric men because they did much sin. If you have sinned go back in time and do not be too advanced, special or a supreme being, be primitive, prehistoric or even animal and then your sin is much lighter or even forgiven. YHWH loves and is amazed by humans because we are not animals and we feel guilt. Guilt is human. Guilt is good.

Animals do not sin; neither do they practice virtue. They are not immoral; they are amoral or non-moral. … No animal stoops to the level of a perverted man. Nor does the animal rise to the height of the godly man.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 351).

Animals have zero compassion, however, it is impossible for them to have compassion because they are no where near masters of the animal kingdom, in that they still have to seriously compete with other animals for their own survival and resources. It is no mystery why Homo sapiens have compassion, it is because they have advanced weapons and have conquered the natural world. Homo sapiens rarely compete with animals anymore for survival, hence, they can be compassionate. To YHWH the knowledge of sin is intrinsically noble and good because animals are completely ignorant of sin. You cannot sin unless you are conscious of sin. That is that children and animals cannot sin. Also for example, if someone is tricked into consuming human flesh, by being given meat and told it is kangaroo meat when it is actually human flesh and then that person eats it, in this scenario because that person who eats it is not conscious of the fact that they have consumed human flesh, then they have not sinned and no sin has been committed. The idea or concept of sin is intrinsically noble and good. After billions of years of evolution of life on Earth, YHWH simply appreciates the fact that one animal species is not wholly ignorant of sin. (Notice we have to say “wholly” because of the Holocaust). Early hominins or hominids did not sin because they were ignorant of sin. In a way despite the viciousness and violence the animal kingdom is perfect or without sin. Sin is human because humans have knowledge of sin, and because we have knowledge of sin we are non-animal. That is what is amazing about sin, because only non-animals know they have sinned. Homo sapiens are awesome because they do not have to care about sin, nobody makes them, and there is no reason why they should care. What is the benefit of knowing? It is a miracle we know about sin at all. We could be animals and get away with sin. Descent with modification through natural selection may choose those creatures who are most conscious of sin and who have the most knowledge of sin. That is what is amazing about sin, because the idea or knowledge of it is by definition non-animal. It is miraculous because we do not have to care about sin. It is intrinsically noble and good that one animal species has taken it upon itself to know and learn about sin for YHWH. That is what humans are, we bravely come here without consent to learn about sin for YHWH. Humans are brave, we feel unpleasant things like guilt, shame, embarrassment, wrath, anger and hate then we die. That is the difference between humans and animals. Sin is beautiful. Animals do not feel guilt. Guilt is good.


6. Primitive relativity.

Wait for forgiveness.

What does and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us, of the Lord’s Prayer mean? I believe forgiveness is the most important part of the Lord’s Prayer, therefore to answer this question read the rest of this essay. Remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are time and relativity for grown ups but never geniuses! This is because discussing such as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer cannot be taught to children. Also because there obviously has to be forgiveness for anything in the afterlife, including the Holocaust, and this is because people in the afterlife are grown up! Obviously I am in absolutely no way condoning people’s crimes. People who commit crimes obviously have to serve time in prison, however, the point of what you are about to read below (and throughout this essay) is that there should at some point in time be forgiveness, that is once people are in prison or in the afterlife. While someone is a living, active or practicing criminal then they have to wait for forgiveness, and waiting is time. However, once the perpetrator is caught, incarcerated or is dead then it is time for forgiveness.

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”Mark 2:17.

The largest slice of pie.

I am not dealing with minor or petty sin such as a man of the cloth feeling contrite and repentant for taking the largest slice of pie. Nor am I concerned about such as British Prime Minister Theresa May who in an interview with Julie Etchingham on ITV’s Tonight programme on 5 June 2017, said the naughtiest thing she had ever done was to ‘run through fields of wheat’ as a child. There is a difference between sin and crime. I am serious when I say that I am dealing with real crimes such as genocide, homicide, child molestation and rape etc. Taking the man of the cloth example above, for arguments sake let’s call all non-serious sins as pie. So non-serious, everyday and non-criminal sins are pie and real crimes such as genocide, homicide, child molestation and rape etc are not pie. Relative to Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile the vast majority of people have just taken the largest slice of pie. You do not have to worry if you think you are pie. You know if you think you deserve prison, and the vast majority of people do not. So chill out! Stop worrying about your and other people’s slices of pie. We are dealing with Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile no cares if you have had an affair or had an illegitimate child behind you wife’s back. Therefore, I am not concerned with any sin unless it is a real crime such as genocide, homicide, child molestation and rape etc. The idea is that it does not get any worse than the above, and if you can fix such as the above then relatively nothing is really a problem and therefore, we all feel better. It is relative, if you spend all your life only dealing with minor sin or pie then of course minor sin or little things will seem bad and unforgivable to you. However, if you deal with real criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile then relatively all those minor infractions or slices of pie disintegrate and seem as nothing. You have to deal with real crime in order to be liberated. If you cannot forgive everything then what is the point? For example, if you have hit your father, or slapped your wife, or if you are serving time for minor crimes such as ABH or burglary etc, as will be seen, if we can forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, then relatively, who cares?

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:3.

Primitive relativity and primitive innocence could absolve sins for many reasons:

  1. Primitive relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all it is definitely about time for forgiveness!
  2. Crime is relative.
  3. Innocence is relative.
  4. Primitivism is innocence.
  5. Because prehistoric man, such as Neolithic man had stone tools, they were as primitive and innocent as new born babies!
  6. Good guys can go deranged (trust me).
  7. Greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are no sweat with prehistoric men.
  8. Sin and guilt are good because early or primitive hominins and animals were/are ignorant of sin and did/do not feel guilt.
  9. Sin is intrinsically good because it is by definition non-animal.
  10. YHWH loves and is amazed by humans because we are not animals, we are not ignorant of sin and we feel guilt.
  11. Guilt is human. Guilt is good.
  12. What has relativity got to do with such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish? Time! Sin is relative, because child molestation, rape, murder and cannibalism were relatively no sweat with prehistoric man, this is because prehistoric man was so primitive and innocent in that they had no technology, infrastructure or medicine and came from a much older and different time period. Therefore, the only issue with such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish is that they were anachronistic, in that they committed sins that are out of place or in the wrong time, hence they are only relatively evil.
  13. The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. To shorten it the less the more the more the lessThere are definitely at least two converse ways in which one can be primitive or advanced. Using temporal elements I have labelled them as follows:
    1. Old-primitive/young-advanced: The older or more ancient you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. The younger or more modern you are the more advanced you are, therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are.
      • This means that slavery was relatively less of an issue in ancient and medieval times for such as the ancient Egyptians as compared to the Nazis, because the ancient Egyptians were older and more ancient, therefore, they were more primitive, and therefore, less responsible and therefore more innocent.
      • This means that Jeffrey Dahmer got into much more trouble for cannibalism than did Homo antecessor, because Jeffrey Dahmer was younger and more modern, therefore, he was more advanced, and therefore, more responsible and therefore less innocent.
      • This means that younger and more advanced countries such as America are more responsible and therefore less innocent than older more primitive countries such as Muslim countries. This determines that Muslim countries are more innocent and can therefore, get away with murder and more violence than America.
    2. Young-primitive/old-advanced: The younger or more juvenile you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. The older or more adult you are the more advanced you are therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are.
      • This means that children get into much less trouble than adults for sin.
  14. It does not matter to YHWH if a primitive animal kills another animal or even a human and similarly it was less of an issue for primitive prehistoric people to kill another human than it is for advanced modern people to do so today. We advanced modern people get into much more trouble with YHWH for such acts today, as we should know better.
  15. It is also the reason why Islam and the Muslim world can get away with much more violence, such as terrorism, beheadings and corporal punishment such as amputation for thieves, while the western countries cannot use much violence in retaliation. Why? Because Islam is primitive and the west is advanced.
  16. It is also the reason why rich people such as the Queen have to have such good manners and elocution, while the poor lower classes can have thick accents and can comically get away with murder with foul language and vulgar humour.
  17. Africans are innocent and funny because they are primitive, like animals or prehistoric man, for example, certain things that are taboo or sinful in the UK are no sweat in the continent of Africa. For example drink driving (especially in the bush) is not an issue there, where as in the UK it is very serious. Why is such as drink driving acceptable in Africa, but not in the UK? Because Africa is more primitive and the UK is more advanced. Which would you prefer?
  18. Animals such as birds are funny because they never think about sharing food, they just go for the belly or the energy of life, that is the fats, protein and nutrients etc, without even considering another bird. Therefore, if someone who commits a sin makes themselves equal to animals, this animal comedy lightens his/her sins and hence he/she is forgiven.
  19. Primitive anatomy determines if YHWH can chastise or punish you for your actions or sins, for example if a creature (or a hominin) still has fur (such as Australopithecus) then there is absolutely nothing, zero and zilch that YHWH or any other deity in the cosmos can do to you for your crimes or sins. You can literally get away with murder and cannibalism with fur.
  20. If someone who commits a sin (such as Jeffrey Dahmer) does not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead becomes, thinks, acts or accepts that he/she is primitive, prehistoric or even animal, then his or her sin is much lighter or even forgiven.
  21. For example, because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal, therefore the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an animal. If he accepts this then his sins would be lighter.
  22. For example, because Adolf Hitler killed so many innocent people and because he cared so much about racism and “subhumans”, therefore justice scientifically determines that the only thing he can be or equate to is (and I quote) a “subhuman” such as an ape or an archaic hominin. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter.
  23. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence are without sin because they pay every single last penny, this is because natives or primitives such as bushmen or prehistoric man are/were literally penniless.

Crime relativity.

There is no forgiveness in scientific or mathematical time, however, there is innocence and forgiveness in writing or essay time. To demonstrate, consider the following. What has relativity got to do with crime? Time! Crime and sin are relative, because greed, theft, rape, child molestation, murder and cannibalism were relatively no sweat with prehistoric man, this is because prehistoric man was primitive and innocent because they had no technology, infrastructure or medicine etc, and because they came from a much more ancient and different time period. For example, slavery was relatively acceptable in the ancient and medieval periods. Therefore, the only issue with modern crimes is that they are anachronistic, in that they are out of place or in the wrong time, this is why they are so relatively evil compared to the sins of prehistoric man. Also obviously there is the connection that criminals have to serve time in prison for their crimes or sins. For example, like how we should not and cannot prosecute un-contacted native Amazonians for killing and cannibalism, imagine if policemen or detectives could go back in time millions or hundreds of thousands years to witness the flagrant killing and cannibalism. Would detectives care about these killings and acts of cannibalism? No! They would simply not care about the perpetrators. We should bare this mind when judging and condemning our own murderers and cannibals in modern times. It is only a case of relativity.


Genocidal megalomaniac in the 20th century.

Most importantly the Holocaust is the biggest foul up in history and it is so unbelievably anachronistic, in that the most tragic and barbaric act in history happened so relatively recently in the 20th century. In antiquity the Greeks and Romans considered Northern Europeans as barbarians, evidently, the Nazis proved they still are! I have researched the Holocaust and to me the worst thing that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did (and as bad as it got) was this:

On 2 November 1942 the head of the Ancestral Heritage Institute in Germany, Dr Sievers, wrote to Dr Karl Brandt, asking for 150 skeletons of Jews. ‘We have the opportunity’, Dr Sievers had explained earlier, ‘of obtaining real scientific evidence by obtaining the skulls of Jewish Bolshevik commissars, who are the exemplification of the sub-human type, the revolting but typical sub-human type.’ Each head, Dr Sievers explained, must be detached from its body, dipped in preservative liquid, and put in a specially prepared hermetically sealed tin. The corpses were duly provided. Seven months later Eichmann was informed that 115 people had been killed for their skeletons: seventy-nine Jews, thirty Jewesses, four central Asians and two Poles. In this way, mass murder was made to serve the cause of one of the most bizarre, and obscene, forms of ‘science’.

The Holocaust: The human tradgedy, Martin Gilbert, page 515.

That is about as bad as the Holocaust got, therefore that is what we are up against and what we have to try to forgive. How are we forgive such a thing? “It’s a damned dirty job but someone’s got to do it!” I believe it is possible to forgive any sin real or imaginable with time and relativity (which is a Jewish invention by the way). I cannot think of a place in time where the Holocaust would not seem so anachronistic, it is hard to find, but for example Australopithecus might not care about it? In fact, to forgive such as Adolf Hitler I am talking fur. Adolf Hitler would need to have fur to be innocent. If the Holocaust had happened in the ancient or medieval periods it may have been less of an issue by now. Concerning Adolf Hitler, remember that it was impossible for prehistoric man to feel compassion towards animals, because they were not yet masters of the world or the animal kingdom. You cannot feel compassion when you are still competing with animals and are fair game and still prey yourself. Similarly animals have zero compassion. How can you have compassion when everything is voraciously trying to eat you? Therefore, Hitler was the opposite of the Buddha when it comes to compassion. Hence, because Adolf Hitler had no compassion, the only thing he could be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo erectus or an animal. However, because Adolf Hitler equated to a prehistoric man such as H. erectus in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. This means if Hitler went back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years he might find relative forgiveness and acceptance. Concerning slavery and barbaric sports such as fox hunting, duelling, dog fighting and gladiatorial combats, it is easy to claim primitive innocence and to say that we should not judge ancient and medieval people for slavery, 19th century and earlier Britons for fox hunting, duelling and dog fighting or Romans for gladiatorial sports. This is because they had much more primitive weapons and hence they had less compassion towards life and animals than us and also they had much more primitive technology than us and therefore were much more innocent than us relatively. But how can we say this for the Holocaust? How can Adolf Hitler claim primitive innocence? Considering that the 1980s were more innocent times compared to the 2020s, because we had no internet or mobile phones etc, this obviously means that the 1930s and 1940s were way more primitive technologically and therefore, much more innocent. Think back to those innocent black and white films with those crying damsels etc. Therefore, most importantly, the solution to the Holocaust is not just to forgive Hitler but to forgive Germany as a whole. In order to accomplish this Germany needs to regain its primitive innocence, in order to do this Germany must become relatively primitive! Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example the Holocaust, the way to forgive them is to use primitive relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or animals. For example, because Hitler cares so much about racism and “subhumans”, this scientifically determines that he is definitely at the very least an ape or archaic hominin! He would literally have to have fur to have forgiveness. To reiterate the only way I can understand Adolf Hitler with any lightness is if he were (and I quote) a “subhuman” such as an ape or archaic hominin. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. With fur and with these creatures or in this place and time he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an animal. So if Hitler did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal, would we forgive him? If Adolf Hitler went back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have “relative innocence”? Therefore, Hitler made a monkey of himself! Why is it we humans hate our own evolutionary past? Why would we rather be anything except an ape? Why not call him “primitive Hitler”? Jokes aside, to reiterate most importantly, the solution to the Holocaust is not just to forgive Hitler but to forgive Germany as a whole. In order to accomplish this Germany needs to regain its primitive innocence, in order to do this Germany must become relatively primitive! Don’t call him a genocidal megalomaniac call him a “genocidal megalomaniac in the 20th century.” Can you or your people un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Adolf Hitler then you and your people will un-evolve through miscegenation. You will also need to go back in time to the required period in order seek forgiveness and acceptance or “relative innocence“.

https://primitiveinnocence.com


Cannibal in the 20th century.

For the sins we do not like to forgive, for example serial killers, the way to forgive them is to use primitive relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or animals. Because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, therefore the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an animal. To reiterate, because Jeffrey Dahmer equated to a prehistoric man such as H. antecessor in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. He would have to have fur to have forgiveness. With fur and with these creatures or in this place and time he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an animal. Jeffrey Dahmer had no compassion, therefore he was an anachronistic prehistoric hominin in the 20th century. He lived in a brick residence and did his shopping at a supermarket, therefore, he was advanced and more responsible, and therefore less innocent than Homo antecessor for murder and cannibalism.

37856907-05F4-40C6-823C-77D43D877A67
Reconstruction of a female Homo antecessor from Atapuerca practicing cannibalism (Ibeas Museum, Burgos, Spain).

To reiterate the only way I can understand a serial killer such as Jeffrey Dahmer with any lightness is if he had fur and were a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal, would we forgive him? If Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time hundreds or tens of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have “relative innocence”? Don’t call him a cannibal call him a “cannibal in the 20th century.” Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Jeffrey Dahmer then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order seek forgiveness and acceptance or “relative innocence“.

https://archaicinnocence.com


Pedophile in the 20th century.

Child abuse is a tricky one, as it is even harder to talk about than murder or cannibalism. Films and lighthearted TV shows (such as Murder, She Wrote and Midsomer Murders) can be made about murderers and serial killers but never about child abuse. This is because it involves children and therefore, it is hard to make such things lighthearted. Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, such as child abuse, the way to forgive them is to use primitive relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or animals. However, before that consider this. In 1275, the first age of consent was set in England, at age 12 (Westminster 1 statute). In 1875, the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland, and ten years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 raised it to 16. In 1917, a bill raising the age of consent in Great Britain and Ireland from 16 to 17 was defeated by only one vote. Therefore, relatively child abuse was less of an issue for prehistoric, ancient, medieval and even Victorian people. We would not judge prehistoric, ancient, medieval or even Victorian men for having relations with 13 year old girls, so we should bare this mind when judging and condemning modern men such as Jimmy Savile. Therefore, this could mean that people such as Jimmy Saville might be forgiven (relatively) in the prehistoric, ancient, medieval or even Victorian eras. It was less of an issue for primitive hominins to force themselves onto females and minors. Therefore, with these hominins or in these places and times such as Jimmy Savile would be accepted and forgiven. Hence, if such as Jimmy Savile accepted this then his sins would be lighter. To reiterate, because Jimmy Savile equated to an ancient or prehistoric man such as medieval man in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. Again a little fur for Jimmy Savile might not be a bad thing. With fur and with these hominins or in this place and time he would be at ease, forgiven and accepted. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an animal. So if Jimmy Savile did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal, would we forgive him? If Jimmy Savile went back in time thousands or hundreds of years to a more primitive period could he have “relative innocence”? Don’t call him a pedophile call him a “pedophile in the 20th century.” Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Jimmy Savile then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order seek forgiveness and acceptance or “relative innocence“.

https://relativeinnocence.com

Complaints.

If you find forgiveness of such offenders as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile offensive, ask yourself this question: If your life depended on it, how would you forgive them? I am fairly confident that your answer would be with primitive relativity and primitive innocence. This is especially important for the afterlife, in that I believe that primitive relativity and primitive innocence are how forgiveness works in heaven. And it has to happen, there must forgiveness at some time, as there is no hell. Adolf Hitler is not in hell. However, we do not have to wait until we are dead, we can also use primitive relativity and primitive innocence to forgive down here in life or on earth as a well. We are supposed to create heaven on earth, not hell. Is life heaven as in a party or a club? It certainly sounds it. Or is life hell as in a prison? We cannot create genuine heaven without genuine forgiveness.

White guilt.

Why forgive such people as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile?

I believe it is very beneficial, for example if we can forgive people such as Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Dahmer, then we might be able to forgive Adolf Hitler, and this would be very beneficial to Europeans, especially Germans. Also the vast majority of white people believe they have never sinned in their life, this maybe true, however, don’t you feel that all of us white people, no matter how squeaky clean we are personally have “white guilt” because of Adolf Hitler? You could say “Adolf Hitler has nothing to do with me!” But then you swap sides. Also you know as well as I do, that since the Holocaust, Europeans have received a lot of justice, with loss of empire, decolonisation, mass immigration, and Islamic terrorism etc and the punishment will only get worse in the future. Even the British who helped to put a stop to the Holocaust, have been severely punished for it. White people need to eradicate their “white guilt” and to do this they need to regain their primitive innocence! Also there is the benefit in that if you have commit a minor sin, such as hitting your wife or burglary then relatively who cares if we can forgive such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile? Also, most importantly forgiveness has something to do with Jesus Christ, therefore, there clearly must be much benefit in it! It may have something to do with entering the kingdom of heaven, and if that is the case then I don’t know about you, but then such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish and Jimmy Savile are no sweat to me, just like prehistoric man! Now saying that, in order to “enter the kingdom of heaven” we could all go around screaming “I forgive everything! I forgive Hitler, I forgive Jeffrey Dahmer, I forgive Jimmy Savile etc!”, but we know this would probably not work, and it would probably not allows us to enter the kingdom of heaven. You cannot just ‘say’ I forgive, you have to truly mean it. However, with primitive relativity and primitive innocence there is genuine forgiveness.

Christ came into the world to save sinners. Even his enemies admitted: “This man receives sinners.” And Luke 19: 7 tells us he went to be the guest of a sinner.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 50).


Parable of two debtors.

And Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he replied, “Say it, Teacher.” “A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?” And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Luke 7:40-43.

“For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

Matthew 6: 14-15.

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.”

Ephesians 1:7.

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

1 John 1:9.

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.'”

Matthew 18: 21-22.

“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”

Ephesians 4: 31-32.

“Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”

Colossians 3:13.

“And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

Mark 11:25.

Limit.

What is the point of all the above verses regarding forgiveness if they are only concerned with minor or petty sin, such as a vicar doing penance for taking the largest slice of pie? Or with Theresa May running through a field of wheat as a child? There is no point! It would mean these verses are useless. Why only go so far and stop half way or above the belt, for example, why say burglary is the limit of forgiveness? You are not trying hard enough. We have to go way below the belt and through the floor if need be. I mean we must deal with and not be afraid to talk about forgiving real sin such as crimes against humanity, genocide, cannibalism, homicide, child molestation and rape etc. To demonstrate consider this, concerning our own primitive innocences such as the internet, mobile phones and CDs etc, although primitive relativity and primitive innocence are a very nice idea, they would simply not work without forgiving such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile etc. I mean all those cherished memories and primitive innocences of our younger days would mean nothing. All those primitive technologies of our youth would just be dated and obsolete with no value or meaning whatsoever, and the perpetually and eternally young, teenage, advanced and cutting-edge would be all that matters. The past would simply decay and turn to dust.


Conclusion.

Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order seek forgiveness and acceptance or “relative innocence“. You will need fur if you are such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer or Jimmy Savile in order seek forgiveness and acceptance or “relative innocence“. If you make a monkey of yourself (unlike Jesus Christ and the Buddha), then you will not evolve. Let’s face it, apart from Jesus Christ and the Buddha, who hasn’t made a monkey of themselves? For the sins we do not like to forgive, for example the Holocaust, serial killers and child abuse, the way to forgive them is to use primitive relativity and primitive innocence and call them prehistoric man, primitive or animals. Primitivism is time in that the further you go back in time the more primitive life was, therefore, the more innocent animals (such as humans) were relatively. Crime relativity is the theory that a criminal, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, can theoretically go back in time mentally or spiritually to a more primitive time period such as the Palaeolithic period in order to find forgiveness and acceptance.‬ The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. Crime is relative in that what we call sins today, such as child molestation, murder and cannibalism were relatively no issue for prehistoric man, therefore, similar modern crimes are simply anachronistic, in that they are relatively in the wrong place and time. Therefore, modern criminals are relatively evil. ‘In the beginning’ nobody told prehistoric man not to be harsh, nobody told prehistoric man not to be greedy, nobody told prehistoric man not to steal, nobody told prehistoric man not to rape, nobody told prehistoric man not to murder and nobody told prehistoric man not to cannibalise. Therefore, he obviously did all these things. It also means that greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are relatively no issue with prehistoric men. We living creatures of life receive no help or warning from YHWH or anyone whatsoever, we are on our own, we are 100% independent and we learn on our own through natural selection. Humanity has clearly won the struggle for life and has come to dominate life on earth, however, was it by being good, moral and compassionate or was it the other way round? Was it simply by conquering the animal kingdom with shear muscle and remorseless brutality that enabled us to then feel compassion? Is being good, moral and compassionate a huge benefit not only to yourself but also your species? Or did we literally have to conquer the animal kingdom one bear at a time, before we therefore attained magnanimity and compassion? I think we had to conquer and master the world first, before we attained compassion. For example, compassion had to be technically attained through the invention of gunpowder, muskets and nuclear weapons etc. Therefore, Homo sapiens got more and more compassionate over time toward animals through the invention of more and more advanced weapons. Sin and guilt are good because animals are not aware of sin and do not feel guilt. Knowledge of sin is non-animal. Compared to the animal kingdom we are awesome. YHWH loves and is amazed by humans because we are not animals and we feel guilt. Guilt is human. Guilt is good. If you have sinned do not be too advanced, special or a supreme being, be primitive, prehistoric or even animal and then your sin is much lighter or even forgiven. Finally, for example, if you have hit your father, or slapped your wife, or if you are serving time for minor crimes such as ABH or burglary etc, then know that if we can forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Saville, then relatively, who cares? If you know someone who has made a monkey of themselves, please tell them they just need a bit of “PR” (Primitive Relativity).


7. Conclusion.

The past.

There are two ways in which we can look at the past, firstly, concerning say the 1960s, we can say that the 1960s were much better in a way or relatively for Europeans, in that Europeans were relatively more powerful and secure in the 1960s. Secondly, we can all say “Daaaaaaang! It is so dated and old fashioned! Look how primitive it was! I’m glad I’m in 2020!” This is the temptation of technology. For example, London in 1969 was 99% white, however, non-Europeans will therefore denigrate the past by saying “Oh my God! The 60s!? How old fashioned is that!? Look at the haircuts!” This is because non-Europeans do not care as much as Europeans about the past. Without trying to sound politically incorrect, this is because for example the past to Africans was slavery or segregation, therefore, Africans will naturally tend to look forward to the future instead of the past. However, was slavery not primitive innocence for Africans? Europeans do earnestly care about the past. Why just because some non-Europeans have a less illustrious past and therefore care less about it, should Europeans also not care about the past? Imagine if we could ask The Beatles this question, what do you think was a better decade the 1960s or the 2010s? Despite advancements in technology, what would you think their answer would be? I went clubbing in the 1990s during the superclub explosion of that decade and although I prefer trance music to rock and roll, I am wise enough to know and understand that the 1960s were much more, much better and bigger (relatively) for Europeans. Hence, if I could I would choose the 1960s over the 1990s, despite the lack of trance music in that decade. You have got to watch yourself, we all do it, we all denigrate the past and say daaaaang! DJs of the 1990s and up to the present day do this a lot, they believe that with their advanced, fast and precise electronic music that they have really “done one” on the rock and roll of the 1960s and 1970s etc. Similarly in the afterlife, would The Beatles choose to live in 1969 London or 2020 London (which is over 50% non-white)? Considering the 1960s were much more primitive and innocent, and because their fame and fortune may depend on it, I expect they will choose to exist in 1969 London in the afterlife. In fact, despite every European’s outspoken PC tendencies down here on earth, I bet you the vast majority of Europeans in the afterlife (when fashion does not matter) hypocritically choose to live and exist in the time periods of their birth or youth, in that most people will go back in time as far as possible (that is unless they are tempted by an iPad to exist in the 21st century)? I know I will at the least live in the innocent 80s! This is because the further you go back in time, relatively the more primitive and innocent life was and the more powerful and secure Europeans were. On the subject of fashion, older music artists should like primitive relativity and primitive innocence because it looks back to the poor, primitive, unfashionable, prehistoric and past, instead of the rich, advanced, fashionable, modern and future. Musicians and their songs date quickly and become old but with primitive relativity and primitive innocence they could age like fine wine and become classical. If you watch or listen to 1960s music you can see and hear the primitive innocence! All artists have their 15 minutes of fame and then as soon as it started, it is all over. They are no longer fashionable. And there is nothing they can do about it, as the next generation of teenagers are into something else, something new, more modern and more fashionable. It is an eternal and perpetual progress into rubbish. It is like the eternal relevance of Jesus Christ and the Buddha, in that they (unlike pop artists) never go out of fashion. Jesus Christ and the Buddha are eternally relative or relevant like teenagers and they are always the forefront, fashionable and the cutting-edge. If there is such a thing as a come back for over the hill artists such as The Beatles it will require primitive relativity and primitive innocence. As an outspokenly PC singer or artist, if you do not care about “the knuckle-dragging past”, such as Horatio Nelson or Henry the Navigator, then why on earth should anyone care about Rick Astley, Oasis or The Beatles? Artists such as The Beatles are also the past, just a relatively recent one, but time will tell if anyone cares about The Beatles in hundreds of years of time? If you want us to care about you, you have to care about the whole past not just your own, by this I mean you have to care about such politically incorrect figures as Horatio Nelson and Cecil Rhodes etc. As mentioned, imagine if you could go on an expedition to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon rainforest to meet, study and live with native Papuans or un-contacted native Amazonians. Imagine if you could teach them primitive relativity and primitive innocence and then were able to ask them for genuine advice from there vast and timeless experience of primitivism (not nativism!). For example, they might say that ancestors are very important, and they might say respect your elders, they might even say appreciate your food. These wisdoms of primitivism probably have a lot of bearing on us relatively advanced modern Europeans, as because of the Holocaust we no longer appreciate “our ancestors” in fact we disparage and denigrate the “knuckle-dragging past” and our kids certainly do not “respect their elders” and my generation think it a bit uncool to “appreciate your food” etc. If you cannot go to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon ask your elders, such as your parents and grandparents. So what do you choose 1969 or 2020 London? Power and security or fashion? Fashion is ephemeral and insignificant. Fashion can be controlled. I personally choose power and security. However, in the afterlife we will be both powerful and fashionable. Booyackasha! Wicked! Innit!

Primitive weapons.

The more advanced weapons you develop the more compassionate you will become. Therefore, there is no point in having an advanced military and advanced or smart weapons such as laser-guided bombs (LGB) and nuclear warheads if you are paralysed by ethnicity. That is if you are beaten by immigration and minorities and unable to prevent people from entering your country. Third world immigrants will conquer us “from within”, that is through exploiting our weakness when it comes ethnicity. That is Muslims will simply conquer us through exploiting the weakness of our leaders and through immigration. For example, the Romans are much happier and infinitely better off with primitive militaries and primitive weapons such as the gladius, catapults and ballistas, because they can have less compassion and can deal with ethnicity. That is Romans can discriminate on grounds of ethnicity or religion to prevent certain people from entering their territory. The Romans would never swap their primitive weapons and technologies for advanced weapons and technologies, if it meant they had to be compassionate and could not discriminate on grounds of religion or ethnicity. If we could go back in time what would the Romans do with Challenger 2 tanks or Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors? Would they say I tell you what let’s just defend Europe? Probably not. They would probably capitalise on their advantage, go on a rampage and try to conquer the entire known world. What is the lesson? We modern Europeans do have these advanced weapons yet we do not even defend Europe let alone would we ever dream of foreign conquest. It’s pathetic. Similarly, medieval, early modern and Victorian Europeans are infinitely happier with and much better off with primitive militaries and primitive weapons, such as swords, muskets, howitzers and cannons, because it means they can have less compassion and effectively deal with ethnicity. That is they can discriminate on grounds of ethnicity and religion to prevent people from entering their territory. If we could go back in time what would medieval and Victorian people do with SA80 rifles or M1 Abrams tanks? Would they say I tell you what let’s just defend Europe? Probably not. They would probably capitalise on their advantage, go on a rampage and try to conquer the entire known world. What is the lesson? We modern Europeans do have these advanced weapons yet we do not even defend Europe let alone would we ever dream of foreign conquest. It’s pathetic. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, Eurofighter Typhoons and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) are an inefficient waste of time, energy and money without efficient laws or philosophy such as this essay tries to suggest. In other words the pen is mightier than the sword. Advanced weapons and military technologies are ineffective and inefficient without a piece of paper, such as the efficient laws or philosophy attempted to bring about in this essay. The most advanced aircraft carrier in the world is less important than a document, if that document enables you to use that aircraft carrier more effectively. That is with less compassion! You might as well tickle terrorists with a feather. Therefore, we should devote all our time, energy and money into researching laws and philosophy on how to handle and overcome ethnicity. Unless you are Marcus Licinius Crassus, no single person can purchase or create an advanced military, but one person can write an essay. Who would not want to save or do something beneficial for their own people? For example, if someone professional were to write an expert book on primitive relativity and primitive innocence, and if it changed the world for the betterment and security of white people, imagine how brave and heroic that person would be in the afterlife? To take compassion once again, as stated the more advanced weapons you attain the more compassionate you will get. But seriously are you compassionate to the point of allowing your daughters and young women to be taken advantage of by foreign grooming gangs?

Great and never superior.

As a reconciliation between far-left and far-right, let both sides come together, make an accommodation and put all cards on the table. Europeans just want to be great, like the Greeks or Romans and that is all. Especially far-right people just want to be great. Despite what they say or how they appear, they are not supremacists, they are defenders, protectionists or conservationists. Apart from Adolf Hitler, they all know and have always known that they are not “superior” to anyone at all. They know that there is universal equality and relativity between all races and all species. The far-right just see diversity, multiculturalism and miscegenation as a shame and a dishonour and never great. Far-right people simply cannot get their heads around far-left or anti-racist people who do not want to be great? That is all. You call it bigotry, they call it bravery. You call it jingoism, they call it heroism. You call it chauvinism, they call it glory. You call it Islamophobia, they call it chivalry. You call it racism, they call it respect. You call it supremacism, they call it protection. 

Unforgivables.

Who is unforgivable? Even to my own chagrin primitive relativity and primitive innocence determine no one. However, I would like to say that there are “unforgivables” that include such white traitors as mainstream politicians who have betrayed their own countries and people. However, they are not nearly as bad as treacherous antifascists who deliberately cause infighting between whites and who have the slogan “all white people are Nazis!”

5C32C60F-EFF3-411D-890A-E964BC1F250E
Actual stickers being sold by Brighton antifa on their site.

What does the statement “all white people are Nazis” mean? It can only mean that if as a white person even if you are vehemently anti racist, and you choose a white wife or husband then you are a Nazi. This is because this is about as ”racist” as the vast majority of white people get, in that they infinitely and naturally prefer their own race when it comes to marriage, relationships and offspring. White people naturally select their own race. You may say “I am never racist, but I don’t want a non-white partner,” but in the eyes of antifa this makes you a racist Nazi. The hundreds of millions of ordinary and sensible (white-partnered) Europeans should come to together and crush this scourge of antifa! How can you betray your own people and effectively give your own women away? I just cannot get my head around it. To me there is nothing worse than treason and infighting. Despite the fact that Hitler is the real cause (not antifa) of every Europeans’ woes and has ruined everything for Europeans I could forgive him if he went back in time hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period to seek “relative innocence”. I could forgive Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism if he went back in time tens of thousands of years to a more primitive period to seek “relative innocence”. I could forgive Jimmy Savile’s abuse if he went back in time hundreds of years to a more primitive period to seek “relative innocence”. However, I cannot forgive eternal white traitors such as antifa who deliberately cause infighting between whites. Therefore, I can forgive totalitarian genocidal megalomaniacs, necrophiliac cannibals and pedophiles, but I cannot forgive antifa! That is the affection I have in my heart for antifa! There are no words to describe antifa’s treachery. Time will tell if there are any greater or more infamous cowards in history or prehistory? Antifa come very late in the game, they are an afterthought, they only show up when white people are vulnerable. Only now when white people have made peace and equality with the world, decolonised and exposed themselves etc have antifa decided to get “brave”. Only now it is safer for them have antifa taken the easier and cosier option and jumped on the winning and majority-non-white side. I have no problem with Muslims and can forgive them easily for terrorism such as beheading westerners and suicide bombings etc, but I cannot forgive white traitor politicians who idly sit by and watch it happen and do nothing meaningful to stop it. I also cannot forgive cowardly antifa who blatantly defend and abet terrorists, by infighting with mildly pro-British parties such as For Britain. To me white traitors who cause infighting are the only “unforgivables” and I believe that is not a bad designation for them. However, having got that off my chest, because time for forgiveness is so good and I do obey it, I will do my best. As primitive relativity and primitive innocence state we should forgive everything (including “unforgivable“ anti-fascists), therefore, if I were to say to antifascists “I forgive you” (and I am not Jesus) for causing shameful infighting between whites (which is the hardest for me) then surely you can forgive the Nazis? Anyway, to me antifa are the “unforgivables” for now and they will probably have to wait a long time for forgiveness. Modern antifa and the real WWII Nazis are as bad as each other, however, as time for forgiveness states, it would probably be better if there was genuine forgiveness between these two extreme, polarised, irreconcilable and diametrical opposites. How can the “oburoni” (white man) forgive antifa? They would have to change and come to a reasonable comprise. Antifa would need to pack it in and stop violently targeting the “the white man”. Primitive relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all it is definitely about time for forgiveness! This would be better.

C463342C-7EFB-46E5-8820-4FA181B8B1E4
North East antifa.

“For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

Matthew 6: 14-15.

The recent past.

Concerning ethnicity because of the Holocaust, primitive relativity and primitive innocence clearly demonstrate that primitive, developing and third world people are still primitive and therefore more innocent than white people. Where as advanced, developed and first world people, have lost their primitive innocence. Because white people are advanced, and because of the Holocaust, they are more responsible and therefore less innocent. Developing and third world people have won the race and will demonstrate this. Before anything else at all, white people must regain their primitive innocence. How? As has been seen, if Germany became relatively primitive, this would probably help! The Europeans and especially the Nazis labelled primitive people as “inferior”, but this is absolutely not the case, as proven relatively there is nothing wrong with being primitive as it means you are more innocent. I am not saying that we should ditch our iPhones and then go around beating our chests, wearing skins and waving spears about. What I am saying is that humanity should have more forgiveness. I am saying that we should look forward to the past instead of the future. I am saying we should stop denigrating the past and we should stop saying daaaang! I mean it is only the recent past that we skit or denigrate fashionably, such as the 1960s and 1980s, but what is the point in saying daaaaang to Palaeolithic man, Australopithecina or Tiktaalik roseae? In fact the only person who can say daaaaang is Albert Einstein! Therefore, while we are using or creating our advanced technologies we should be very conscious of, aware of and appreciative of the past and primitive relativity and primitive innocence.

Primitive and innocent.

Ask yourself one question: Do you want primitive innocence? As stated I said that I bet you I know your answer, that yes you do. In relation to this genuine desire for primitive innocence the most important aspect of primitive relativity and primitive innocence is forgiveness, particularly of the three major cases studies or examples in this essay, that being Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. The idea being if we can forgive these three case studies then everybody on earth and in history is forgiven and therefore, all sin is fixed. Apart from antifascists I cannot think of anything worse than these three examples. So forgiveness is the major part of this essay. However, the second major part is the desire for primitive innocencein that we all want it, we all want to be old and to go back in time as far as possible. Primitive innocence makes us proud to be old, for example I am proud that I can remember the days before the internet and mobile phones! I am also proud I can remember the days before CDs! I am also proud to be a 1990s clubber, as I am proud of my generation and the 1990s superclub explosion. That is what my generation are. Or similarly if you are an early 1990s raver then aren’t you proud of it? Or even better if you are old enough aren’t you proud to be Acid House? Acid house and rave were primitive and innocent and don’t you forget it lad! Therefore, we all want to say “I remember the days before this!” and “I remember this old thing!” etc. Primitive innocence makes us want to be as old as possible. We want to age like fine wine and be ancient, classical and thousands of years old like Plato or Socrates etc. Even those born recently in the 1990s and 2000s desire primitive innocence! Do not worry if you were born in the 2000s or 2010s and cannot remember the days before much. It is time and relativity. It will happen to you. Just give it 20-30 years. As I exaggerated at the beginning that if it could, even the very first single celled life form would want primitive innocence. Why? Because there is nothing more primitive and innocent in the universe.

Apologies.

As the entire non-European world is baying for an apology from former European powers for empires, colonialism and slavery etc, I will take this opportunity to apologise to all primitive peoples of the world, especially African, American and Australian natives on behalf of my people and especially my ancestors such as slavers and conquistadors etc for any abuses of power and suffering that they may have caused. With primitive relativity and primitive innocence we certainly do not think that we are “superior” than you in any way at all. As stated Europeans just want to be great, like the Greeks or Romans and that is all. Especially far-right white people just want to be great. Apart from Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, we all know and have always known that we are not “superior” to you at all, as we know that there is universal equality and relativity between all races and all species.

How to forgive.

As a word of warning never listen to people who say things like this:

Forgiveness has nothing to do with absolving a criminal of his crime. It has everything to do with relieving oneself of the burden of being a victim–letting go of the pain and transforming oneself from victim to survivor.” ― C.R. Strahan

https://www.tut.com/article/details/425-buddhist-prayer-of-forgiveness/?articleId=425

I have read over 100 books since August 2016, I have put years into researching how to make it up for the Holocaust to the Jews and how to forgive (never justify) Adolf Hitler. I have spent nearly a year just on this essay. Therefore, believe me when I say I know how to forgive. Contrary to what C.R. Strahan says, it has everything to do with absolving a criminal of his crime, as then and only then relatively who cares about our minor sins? I am not insulting anyone’s intelligence it’s just that nobody has ever dared to go there with such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, where as I have! C.R. Strahan is relatively only talking about or dealing with minor sin such as a priest doing penance for taking the largest slice of pie.

https://how2forgive.com

How was it done?

How was primitive relativity and primitive innocence discovered or accomplished? There is something about primitive relativity and primitive innocence in that it is ironic or a catch-22 because it requires someone who has seen the other side to attain it. It requires a schizophrenic. As stated the theory belongs to Professor Einstein, I simply dared to go there with Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. I mean I simply dared to forgive them! “It’s a damned dirty job but someone’s got to do it!” Remember primitive relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all it is definitely about time for forgiveness! Also remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are time and relativity for grown ups but never geniuses!

So what did you do?

As stated I am a certified schizophrenic, I was sectioned in 2012 for 2 months. Prior to my section I had a severe mental breakdown in 2006 and 2007 from which I will never fully recover (the section did help though). I am mentally disabled, I see things and I hear voices, however, I am not stupid. During my phase of extreme paranoid and delusional psychosis I did many crazy things and made a big monkey of myself. Therefore, I know exactly what it is to be a psycho! I am not quite prison material, but put it this way relative to me you’re all a slice of pie! Please do not judge me for being a schizophrenic. Judge no one.

https://time4forgiveness.com

https://time4forgiving.com

https://time2forgive.com

FUCK THE FUTURE.