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 or prehistoric periods to find primitive innocence. For example, I was born in 1981 and I can tell you that even the 1980’s were relatively much more innocent than the 2010’s. This is because we had no internet or mobile phones and we still used coal fires etc, therefore, we were much more innocent in the 1980’s than we are today. For example, we had way less knowledge in the 80’s, as in we did not comprehend advanced things like Spotify and FaceTime, hence we were much more innocent. If you understand advanced things like Spotify and FaceTime you are much less innocent. The less said about it the better! 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.
Technology is temptation.
Technology is temptation in that it tempts or lures us to exist in the present or future instead of the past. For example, iPads and iPhones tempt us that were born in the 1980’s to severe our connections to and disparage the 1980’s and to vehemently exist in the present and to look to the future. Technology coaxes us out of the decade of our birth, the primitive 1980’s and into the advanced and evil teens of the present 21st century.
There are two ways in which we can look at the past, firstly, concerning say the 1960’s, we can say that the 1960’s were much better in a way or relatively for white people, in that white people were relatively more powerful and secure in the 1960’s. Secondly, we can all say “Daaaaang! It is so dated and old fashioned! Look how primitive it was! I’m glad I’m in 2019!” This is the temptation of technology. For example, London in 1969 was 99% white, but non-whites will denigrate the past by saying “Oh my God! The 60’s!? How old fashioned is that!? Look at the haircuts!” This is because some non-whites have little to no past. For example, try to put your mind in the mind of an African, “the past” to Africans was segregation or slavery, therefore, they do not care about or want to know about the past. But why should white people care? Why just because Africans do not care, should white people also not care about their past? It is like how in August 2017, in The Guardian, Afua Hirsch questioned whether Nelson’s Column should remain in place, with the implication it might be removed. She argued that the London monument is a symbol of white supremacy because Horatio Nelson opposed the abolitionist movement. Why should we white people care? Non-whites are the future. White people do want to know about and hold on to their past. The further you go back in ‘time’ the more primitive life was and therefore, the more innocent. Today white people are the unfashionable. Fashion and technology move on and non-whites are now fashionable and will become more fashionable in the future. The Victorians are no longer fashionable. Empire was lost because of technological temptation and because it became unfashionable. Think of this, in the afterlife, would The Beatles choose to live in 1969 London or 2019 London (which is over 50% non-white)? Considering the 1960’s were much more primitive and innocent, and because their fame and fortune depends on it, I expect they will choose to exist in 1969 London in the afterlife. In fact, despite every white person’s outspoken leftist tendencies down here on earth, I bet you the vast majority of white people 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. I know I will at the least live in the innocent 80’s! This is because the further you go back in ‘time’, relatively the more primitive life was and the more powerful and secure white people were. For example, I bet you that a white person who was born in the 1920’s, despite having outspokenly leftist tendencies today, will choose to exist in the 1920’s, 1930’s or 1940’s time periods in the afterlife. (That is unless they are tempted by an iPad to exist in the 21st century?) This is because white people were relatively much more powerful, secure and better off in 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s etc. Plus despite the Holocaust, those decades are much more primitive and innocent. Think of this also, Jesus Christ and the Buddha, despite being ancient, primitive and old fashioned men are still eternally more fashionable than anyone alive today and always will be. If there is such a thing as a “resurrection” for over-the-hill artists (such as The Beatles), it will require the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism. This is because it makes us look back to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. So what do you choose power or fashion? Fashion is ephemeral and insignificant. Fashion can be controlled. To attain the power and the glory you have to look back instead of forward. I choose the power. The two ways of looking at the past should give precedence to power first, technology second. In the afterlife we will be both powerful and fashionable. Booyackasha! Wicked! Innit!
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 a piddling 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 ‘historicH. sapiens’ sit here so high and mighty with our measly 5000 years of history and think we are so great, smug and smart for knowing exactly where we have come from for 5000 years, yet we are only fraction 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 and names that we will never know about. Surely in heaven ‘prehistoric H. sapiens’ must be compensated for this total lack of knowledge and appreciation with much fame and illustriousness.
Just to demonstrate how utterly stupid and 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 Australopithecinatook 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 heidelbergensisradiated 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 a piddling 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 sit here with our crumby 5000 years of history and think we are so great, smug and smart for knowing where we have come from for 5000 years, yet we are practically nothing 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 and eventually names that we will never know about. Surely in heaven ‘prehistoric man’ must be compensated for this total lack of knowledge and appreciation with much fame and illustriousness.
The inverse of divine ascription of nativism and the forgiveness of primitivism could determine that we modern Homo sapiens should identify with recorded history and call ourselves ‘historic man’. We are 5000 years old and nothing else! And although anatomically there is not much difference between ‘prehistoric’ and ‘historic’ Homo sapiens, there is a huge difference mentally between prehistory and recorded history, even between Neolithic Homo sapiens and ‘historic’ modern Homo sapiens.
The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the more guilty you are of sin, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the less guilty you are of sin.
There are two opposite ways in which one can be advanced or primitive: collective or individual.
1. Collective: The younger you are or the more modern you are the more advanced you are, therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the more guilty you are of sin. Therefore the older you are or the more ancient you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the less guilty you are of sin. This means that Jeffrey Dahmer got into much more trouble for cannibalising than Homo antecessor did for cannibalism.
2. Individual: The older or more adult you are the more advanced you are therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the more guilty of sin you are. Therefore the younger or more juvenile you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the less guilty you are of sin. This means that adults get into much more trouble than kids for sin.
For another ‘collective’ 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 more acceptable 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. We should not judge primitive people such as Henry the Navigator or Jean Barbot, even the Old Testament, Plato and Aristotle spoke ambivalently of slavery. For example, prehistoric man did some unspeakable things such as rape, murder and cannibalism, but would we judge them? No!
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”
There is no morality in advanced relativity such as E = MC² and nuclear energy etc, in fact there is even no morality in simple https://mathsandtime.com relativity such as T², however there is morality and even forgiveness in generic or verbal relativity. For example 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 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 and Albert Fish are so ‘relatively evil’ compared with Homo antecessor because they are out of place and in the wrong ‘time’. For example with modern serial killers and cannibals something has gone seriously wrong with ‘time’ and relativity. However, ‘time’ and relativity give us hope that there could be a cure for and absolution of such anachronistic crimes and sins. Let us pray crime relativity or relativity of evil will shed ‘light’ on these darkest areas of human existence. 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 and Albert Fish, as they are only ‘relatively evil’ because they are more modern and advanced. Therefore, as will be seen, if such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish became, thought like or accepted that they were primitive, prehistoric or even animal, then their sins are much lighter. ‘Time’ determines that they are ‘relatively evil’, that is the only difference.
There were two American academic explorers and naturalists who were attempting to make first contact with an indigenous native Amazonian tribe in the 1990’s. 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 American 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 corpses of the two American explorers back to their village and cannibalised them. The end. What is the moral of this parable? Would it be moral for the American or Brazilian governments to catch the un-contacted native Amazonians who killed the American 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 American explorers are much more advanced. Relatively it would be unethical to prosecute the indigenous un-contacted Amazonians for killing the two Americans. Relatively, they have done nothing wrong! We should bare this in mind when judging and condemning our own murderers and those who have man-slaughtered in the developed world. It is only a matter of relativity.
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.“