Primitive relativity.

CONTENTS.

Although the Lord’s Prayer is a background theme throughout the whole essay, I have divided this essay into nine main parts that each have a main theme, The main parts are as follows:

1. Preface.

Although obviously not a main part, this short paragraph 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.

This part briefly introduces the main important themes of the essay, so that the reader gets the general gist of the most important points.

3. Poverty.

This is a slightly less interesting part of the essay though I believe the second most important. Very roughly it highlights the Buddha’s and Jesus Christ’s examples and teachings of possessions, generosity and charity and of how the poor deserve divinity and not the rich.

4. Self-deification.

This is an interesting small part of the essay that is related to part 3 (Poverty). It takes two examples of ancient monarchical self-deification in combination with the Buddha’s and Jesus Christ’s examples to demonstrate why and how it is actually the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich.

5. Recorded history.

This is a slightly less important part but sets the tone for the part 7 (Prehistory) and most importantly shows how recorded history is related to the Buddha and Jesus Christ and eternity.

6. Primitive innocence.

This is an interesting part that uses examples from contemporary developing or third world countries to demonstrate primitive innocence.

7. Prehistory.

This part introduces the prehistoric aspect of the essay. It establishes the fact that prehistoric man could be the Father or YHWH and most importantly is also related to and sets the tone for part 8 (Forgiveness).

8. Forgiveness.

This is the most important part of the essay and the crowning glory of it. It shows how in conjunction with primitivism, the past and prehistory it is possible to forgive of any crime or sin real or imaginable with ‘time’ and relativity.

9. Conclusion.

This is an important part that shows two ways of looking at the past and some final thoughts of how to use primitive relativity and primitive innocence, namely concerning advanced and primitive weapons.


1. PREFACE.

An application for Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.

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 a study of ‘time’ and to contrast and support primitive relativity which is philosophical ’time’. The main or obvious connection between the two works is ‘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 generic terms ‘relative’, ‘relatively’ and ‘relativity’ would be meaningless without it. Therefore, the hope is that if anything primitive relativity would simply add to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. I believe that primitive relativity is an application for Albert Einstein’s theory. To reiterate, I am only hoping to propose that there is a case for an ‘primitive’ relativity.


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.
Stone Age weapon.
Stone Age weapon.

Holy Fathers.

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 this does not necessarily mean superior. 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, the classical period 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. The classical period inspired a lot including artistic movements, while we advanced modern people are relatively trashy.

1E55CDA5-43CF-418B-8DB0-E45D50814B34
The School of Athens is a fresco by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael.

As will be seen you do not need to go back far 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 1920’s and 1950’s 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. In fact being primitive is superior, and as the Nazis proved being advanced is inferior. A theme of this essay is the Lord’s Prayer, 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 is for them. Because their names are forever lost to us, the answer to the question who is prehistoric man is YHWH. This is important for those primitive hominins who did not even have a name, in this instance, these anonymous humans must be called YHWH. The Buddha and Jesus Christ are primitive and ancient men, yet they are eternally fashionable and eternally relative or relevant, even more 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.


Although they developed significantly, primitive relativity and primitive innocence were started or founded on something similar to the following principle or concept:

The older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are.

The above simple sentence is entirely noble and altruistic and was thought of out of total and genuine care and concern first of all for my own people. To tell you the truth this essay started as nativism and not primitivism, and the above sentence was actually more like “the poorer you are the more native you are”, however, as I discovered, 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. Therefore, I have now come to have genuine care and concern for all people. The above sentence means that the poor deserve divinity and not the rich, for example from super-rich Egyptian god-kings and divine Roman emperors to Jesus Christ. To reiterate the theory works economically or socially in the inverse or counter direction to conventional social standards or norms. That is that it does not seek profit and that it looks back to those whose names we cannot know on earth, such as the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of those whose names we do know and who are famous, including the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. Hence, because it works backwards or inversely to capitalism or instincts, I believe it can help to explain the Lord’s Prayer. The whole concept of poverty being a noble virtue or the tale of the rich man and the poor man is a main theme in Buddhism and Christianity. As will be seen the ancient Egyptians and Romans had no such morality. The ancient Egyptians worshipped super-rich god-kings while the entire Roman system of government and political eligibility was based on financial tests or wealth assessments.


Questions and answers.

What is primitive relativity and primitive innocence?

D7A6F62C-C3E6-47EE-9042-0CE8C88B2134
Cassette tape.

Time and relativity for grown ups!

First of all ask yourself this question, do you want primitive innocence? I already know your answer, that is yes you do! Everybody, indeed every being and creature since life started, even the very first single celled life form wants 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? Read the rest of this essay to find out what it is. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence are the theory that relatively, things were better in the past. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence are also ‘relativity’ and ‘time’ for grown ups! This is 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! For example, 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 1980’s 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 1980’s than the 2020’s. In the 1980’s 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’.

E4ABECCF-8489-45E4-94A3-4A7CB993AF19
A ‘video call’ from the film Aliens (1986).

And music to us was simply cassette tapes, we could not even imagine that one day music would be ‘streamed’, in fact we would not have even understood what you meant by ‘streamed’. 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. Therefore, ultimately (and nipping things in the bud), primitive relativity and primitive innocence are the theory that sinners such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile can go back in ‘time’ relatively to a more primitive period to seek acceptance and forgiveness. Remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ‘time’ and ‘relativity’ for grown ups!

How do you practice primitive relativity and primitive innocence?

It is 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. It makes me have no desire for a lot of 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. It also makes me look back to the old countries instead of always looking at the new world.

Generosity (Sanskrit and Pali: dana) is one of the perfections of the practitioner in Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. It is said that Shakyamuni practiced generosity and the other perfections for many lifetimes before attaining enlightenment. The Jataka tales of his past lives illustrate this virtue through stories in which he gives away everything, including his own body, to help others. The famous Vessantara Jataka tells the story of the last life of Shakyamuni before he became the Buddha. He was born as Prince Vessantara who attained perfection in generosity by giving away all his possessions and even his wife and two children.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 133).

What field exactly are primitive relativity and primitive innocence? 

As mentioned primitivism is 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 civilisation. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence incorporate ‘time’ and relativity, therefore, they could be a kind of ‘scientific’ philosophy or philosophical ‘time’? However, at other times they can relate to religion, scripture and parables, which I simply take for philosophy. Apart from Buddhist and Christian quotes, I have removed most of my own references to the spiritual and divine in this essay and will endeavour to remove as much as possible. Again I use Buddhism and Christianity philosophically not spiritually or religiously. This is because I would like primitive relativity and primitive innocence to be secular and philosophical ‘time’ rather than religious.

When you take monastic ordination, you leave behind the comfort and familiarity of family and friends and enter an entirely new world where the old rules no longer apply. You give external expression to your inner renunciation by cutting off your hair (a mark of personal beauty and pride), giving up your favorite clothes, and letting go of your prized possessions.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 135).

Why can’t humans attain nirvana like Christ and the Buddha before they die? What do you care more about the amount of money you have or attaining nirvana or Buddhahood?

Jesus Christ and the Buddha are eternally relative or relevant, like eternal or perpetual teenagers or children, unlike pop stars they never date or go out of fashion. However, to answer the above questions, consider this. How can we be spiritual with Christianity? What I mean by spirituality is that sitting cross legged and meditating is not a particularly Christian thing to do. Europeans do not sit cross legged, Asians do. Therefore, it is really hard to be spiritual with Christianity compared to Buddhism. I have read The Gospel of Buddha and Buddhism For Dummies and I frequently use the Buddhify and Abide apps, and it seems a lot easier to be spiritual with Buddhism and more comfortable than Christianity. It’s as if there is nothing to do in Christianity, we get no instruction. We get to pray, the New Testament, the Lord’s Prayer and Communion and that’s about it. With Buddhism there is so much teaching, instruction and meditation. The Buddha taught us how to remove suffering. For example, there is the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, the Dhammapada, and the vinaya besides a lot more. In short Buddhism is cool. Being spiritual with Christianity is a bit uncomfortable. Why?

B173F389-E398-4796-B2BE-75966FF6A725
Meditating Christ.

https://eternallyrelative.com

The reason it is easy and cool to be spiritual with Buddhism and it is difficult and a bit uncomfortable to be spiritual with Christianity is because Buddhism teaches you that you can attain Buddhahood, enlightenment and nirvana, where as Christianity never teaches you that you can attain divinity like Christ or ‘Christhood’. It is a fundamental aspect of Buddhism to pursue enlightenment or nirvana, you vow to attain it, where as there is nothing like it in Christianity. This is why Christianity (especially among young people) is dying.

The Theravada tradition considers the final goal of spiritual practice [nirvana], exemplified by the arhat, to be eminently attainable in this lifetime by any sincere practitioner.

Indeed, Vajrayana promises that everyone has the potential to achieve Buddhahood in this lifetime by using the powerful methods it provides.

The teachings about the tathagatagarbha (Sanskrit for “Buddha embryo” or “Buddha nature”) found in some Mahayana texts have influenced the schools of Zen Buddhism. According to these teachings, all beings have the potential to become Buddhas.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 204-205).

Therefore, why does Buddhism allow practitioners to pursue enlightenment or nirvana and Christianity definitely not? It could be something to do with the fact that the Buddha lived a full and lengthy life reaching the age of 80 before he died naturally, that is 45 years of instruction, teaching and preaching after he attained nirvana at the age of 35. While Jesus Christ was brutally killed unnaturally and before his time, by being nailed to the cross at the age of 30 or 33.

Therefore, how do you attain Buddhahood or ‘Christhood’? As mentioned nirvana is eternally relative, and I believe a fundamental aspect of attaining it is that you have to give more or less all your ‘energy’ away. For example Siddhartha Gautama could have been a king, however, he decided to renounce his wealth and kingship and deliberately pursue poverty and almost starved himself to death. This is how Siddhartha Gautama attained Buddhahood. Part 3 of this essay will expand on this and will try to show us some insight into how that may be possible.

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:1.

Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

1 John 2:6.

To point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts, (because the older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are), is to imitate Christ and the Buddha.

Why and how is primitivism linked to innocence?

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. 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.
  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.

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. 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.

Innocent 80’s.

83A29D49-7F4A-44D2-A49C-47FDB8A40AE8
1980’s mobile phone.

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 1980’s were relatively much more innocent than the 2020’s. 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 1980’s than we are today. For example, we had much less knowledge in the 1980’s 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 much less innocent. I remember the Soviet Union and Berlin Wall coming down, and I also remember the Gulf War, which was much more innocent than the horrific Iraq War debacle of the 2000’s. Finally, since the invention of the internet and social media, such as Twitter, not only have Europeans woken up, but also Islamic and third world people and therefore, everybody has realised that they hate each other, and consequently, we are much less innocent.

Music.

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. I can remember all the music from 1980’s, which I believe is “in a way” superior to modern or 2020’s music. I believe that “in a way” people sang better in the 1980’s, they had deeper voices and I believe that “in a way” people also danced better in the 1980’s and 1990’s, this because of acid house and rave etc. If you watch or listen to 1980’s music you can see and hear the primitive innocence! All artists have their 15 minutes of fame, then as quick as it started, it is all over, they are no longer fashionable and the next generation of teenagers are into something else, something new, more modern and more fashionable. It is an eternal and perpetual “progress” into nothing, and I for one am sick of it. It is like the eternal relativity or relevance of Jesus Christ and the Buddha, in that they (unlike pop artists) never date or go out of fashion. Jesus Christ and the Buddha are eternally relevant like perpetual teenagers and they are always the forefront, fashionable and the cutting-edge. In fact, because of music and fashion I doubt that this world will ever be more than a barely conscious and wet behind the lugs teenager. Artists should like primitive relativity and primitive innocence because if there is such a thing as a “resurrection” for over the hill artists such as The Beatles it will require it.

Primitive gullibility and naivety.

Another thing I remember about the 1980’s and 1990’s is that we were much more gullible, naive and superstitious than today, which is also related to innocence. This is because we believed 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 1990’s 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, there was a sharp decline in 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 fascination for witch hunts etc.

10738227-A4FA-4AC9-AE6D-FD4E27B3D60B
An apple and an orange.

My grandfather was born in 1926 and I remember him telling me in the 1990’s 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 1980’s 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 candy and chocolate we could ever eat. Relative to the 1920’s we born in the 1980’s were less innocent, and relative to the 1980’s, those born in the 21st century will be 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.

3AA7BD7C-8580-48CC-84DC-2959A3B751B6
Deanna Durbin in the film “Christmas Holiday” (1944).

Remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ‘time’ and ‘relativity’ for grown ups! Considering the 1980’s were more primitive and innocent than today, how primitive and innocent do you think the 1930’s and 1940’s were? Think back to those innocent black and white films with those crying damsels etc. 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.

Respect your elders!

B87C8B46-3112-44DA-BAE6-78B819E90333
Nintendo Game Boy.

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 etc. Before handheld computers we played things called “electronic games” which were like LCD (liquid crystal display) games, that looked something like a LCD or Casio watch etc. I have also 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 my Grandfather (her Father) used to deliver milk in urns in a horse and cart from a farm where he worked in the 1940’s. Above all she said, they did not have lots money, but as kids they were happy and “innocent” days!

I am still not sure, what is primitive relativity and primitive innocence?

As will be seen ‘in the beginning’ the ancient Egyptians and Romans ascribed divinity to super-rich god kings and god-like emperors, such as Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II of the 11th-Dynasty and Julius Caesar. The statement that the older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are, points in the inverse or opposite direction of capitalism or instincts, that is to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. It means that the poor deserve divinity and not the rich, for example Jesus Christ deserved divinity where as Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II or Julius Caesar did not. Also as mentioned, my grandfather received just “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking” for Christmas as a child in the 1930’s. This is primitive innocence! Also for example, before the widespread availability of sugar, we could imagine that even meat might have been a treat for medieval or ancient children, almost certainly for prehistoric children. This is primitive innocence! Therefore the further you go back in ‘time’, the more and more primitive innocence people can claim, for example medieval peasants can claim a lot of primitive innocence. However, the kings and queens of any period in ‘time’ were still unbelievably pampered compared to the poor and peasants of their respective periods. This means that traditionally monarchs desire for very little materially, they are rarely hungry or thirsty and do not usually worry about bills or money etc. This may mean that just because you are old or ancient does not necessarily mean that you are primitive and innocent. Therefore, despite being ancient, kings and queens of any period may have very little primitive innocence relative to the poor and peasants of their respective periods! However, monarchs of any period can probably claim primitive innocence in terms of the technology they used, in that they still had to use the same primitive technologies we common folk did, for example, some monarchs probably can remember the days before the invention of printing when such as parchment and vellum were used, and the days before steam power and the internal combustion engine, when the horse and cart were used etc. However, I believe that main moral lesson of the Christ and the Buddha is that it is the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich.

The only reason that the Buddha and the Christ existed is that they were above and beyond all other purposes, primarily a lesson for ancient kings, queens, monarchs and emperors, in that they were never gods and that they should never self-deify.

Marchpane is an old name for marzipan; a dessert item which is made from sugar and almonds. Queen Elizabeth I was known for having a sweet tooth and therefore a beautifully crafted and decorated marchpane piece would have been an ideal gift for the queen.

http://cupboardworld.blogspot.com/2014/06/elizabeths-marchpanes.html

The first Europeans to indulge in marzipan were kings and rich people. It has been reported that Queen Elizabeth I of England, who lived from 1533 to 1603, was addicted to all things sweet.

https://niederegger.wordpress.com/history-of-marzipan/

Such as marzipan may show how such as ancient and medieval kings and queens were still relatively pampered compared to the poor and peasants of their respective periods, in that they received more or less what their hearts desired. For example, how many of the poor and peasants of the medieval period received and ate marzipan? Not many. Therefore, it is probably the poor and peasants throughout ‘time’ who have the most primitive innocence, and royalty the least.

The Son of Man.

Considering that the 1980’s and 1920’s were relatively more primitive and innocent than the advanced and guilty 2020’s, this determines that because prehistoric man, such as Palaeolithic and Neolithic man had no technology other than stone technology, that they were as primitive and innocent as new born babies!

F88F96EE-FA18-4E1C-BA1F-39CFD409D07E
The Christ child.

Babies and children have all the primitive innocence. Like how prehistoric man with his stone tools was primitive and innocent like a new born baby, similarly The Son of Man was primitive and innocent like a new born baby. Jesus Christ even told us that we will never enter the kingdom of heaven unless we become like little children.

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,”He said,“unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Matthew 18:1-6.

How is crime or sin relative?

Time for forgiveness.

Remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ‘time’ and ‘relativity’ for grown ups! This is 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 there is no forgiveness, however, once the perpetrator is caught, incarcerated or is dead then it is ‘time’ for forgiveness.

There is no morality in scientific relativity, however, there is morality and forgiveness in primitive relativity. 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 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 primitive relativity 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 would be much ‘lighter’. Only with these primitive hominins and in these places and ‘times’ could they be accepted and forgiven. ‘Time’ determines that they are ‘relatively evil’, that is the only difference.

‪How is primitivism linked to relativity?‬

‪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. Primitive 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.

What is relative innocence?

This means for example if Adolf Hitler could go back in ‘time’ hundreds of thousands of years he might find “relative” innocence.

What is the standpoint of primitive relativity and primitive innocence on white supremacism?

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. It cannot be claimed that primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ever white supremacism!

What is the standpoint of primitive relativity and primitive innocence on racism?

As will be seen, concerning race and racism, because of the Holocaust, primitive relativity and primitive innocence clearly show and demonstrate that Africans and other developing and third world people are still primitive and therefore much more innocent than white people. Where as developed and first world people, such as white people have lost their primitive innocence. This is because white people are advanced, and therefore more responsible and therefore much less innocent. Developing and third world people are the winners and this will become more evident. Before anything white people need to regain their primitive innocence. How? As will be seen, if Germany was 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 will be seen relatively there is nothing wrong with being primitive as it means you are more innocent. In fact being primitive is superior, and as the Nazis proved it is being advanced that is inferior.

Science versus philosophy.

Like a Buddhist monk or the Golden Parables (see below), I am trying to point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts. I am semi-deliberately maintaining hundredaire status. My hobbies include reading, DJing or mixing music, mathematics, hiking, botany and this essay. I am working on two things https://squareoftime.com and https://time2forgive.com. Both works incorporate ‘time’, however, the former is mathematical and scientific ‘time’ where as the latter is philosophical ‘time’. What I mean by philosophical ‘time’ is that primitive relativity and primitive innocence simply use the generic terms ‘time’, ‘relative’ and ‘relatively’.

Deities or Albert Einstein?

Jesus Christ and the Buddha were not advanced scientists, they were deities who talked in simple parables that even the lowliest could comprehend. It takes years of research and studying to understand Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, (in short relativity is too advanced or complex), where as everyone can understand Jesus Christ’s and the Buddha’s teachings without any training. There are such things as morals and forgiveness in philosophy, where as there is nothing like it in the sciences. How can the sciences make you give money away or more generous and charitable? Therefore, although the sciences may get us to the stars, we have no hope for our salvation (particularly to do with the Holocaust) with the sciences. That is unless you are a sceptic and believe there are no consequences to our actions? Human beings are funny, comical and loving and perceive things like art, language, writing and pareidolia, we are not boring and mathematical robots. Because the Christ and the Buddha were ancient men what does that tell us? It tells us that you do not need to be modern or advanced to be eternally relative or relevant like a perpetual teenager, you can be primitive. No matter how high and advanced we get ultimately we are all beaten by two ancient and primitive, parable talking men. How? Ironically it must be relative.

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, Siddhārtha Gautama then consequently attained nirvana and became the Buddha.

Involuntary belief.

Why did human beings or hominins invent and pursue the divine and YHWH (or gods) before anything else such as science? Science is a modern invention, but the gods have been around since prehistory.

Only when mankind gave up polytheism for monotheism was scientific progress possible. The reality of one God meant the consistency of divine laws—thus nature was unlocked.

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

‘Belief in God is the first instinct, and the last conviction, of sane intelligence’.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 22).

Religion is universal in human society, and it appears to be a fundamental part of the human condition. Why should people all over the world believe in a supernatural being or beings inhabiting a realm detached from our day-to-day existence? Though religions differ considerably throughout the world, a belief in such beings is a very common aspect of them.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 147).

Human beings are like magnets to the divine, they just do it involuntarily and unconsciously without thinking about it. Why do humans make isms? Humans have no proof of YHWH yet they just involuntarily believe. Unless billions of people are delusional, this universal belief must prove that YHWH does exist and that such as atheism and nihilism are likely the erroneous beliefs. Humans need to know, hope or believe that there is an afterlife or an end and point to all their suffering.


There is no forgiveness in physics!

As mentioned I have also conducted an investigation of , which is mathematical relativity. I am working on two things https://squareoftime.com which is mathematical ‘time’ and https://time2forgive.com which is philosophical ‘time’. As  does not prove anything scientifically, 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 forgiveness in philosophical ‘time’.

William Shakespeare’s plays are about as random, unfundamental and wet as you can get. When I first studied , I lost all faith in the arts and philosophy, however, I have since read four of William Shakespeare’s plays, namely The Tempest, Macbeth, A Midsummer Nights Dream and Hamlet, and I believe William Shakespeare is a master of the random, unfundamental and wet. I also wrote some simple parables that I called the Golden Parables, which basically all work backwards or inversely to capitalism or instincts and which are applicable to any human such as a director or politician, as well as to any animal such as a bird or lion. The Golden Parables initially turned me back to the arts and philosophy. Therefore, I have since realised that there are such things as morals and forgiveness in philosophical ‘time’, while there is not that much in mathematical ‘time’. There is no forgiveness in physics!

Philosophical ‘time’.

When I first studied , I went through a phase of secular and rational thinking in which I lost all faith in things artistic and philosophical. I lost all faith in all musicians I formerly liked, I said to myself why listen to them when there is Albert Einstein? I even questioned history as in what is the point of studying say Roman history? Then I said to myself of course Roman history is very important and then I read a book about it. 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.”

And I really believed it. As mentioned it is hoped that primitive relativity and primitive innocence would be philosophical ‘time’.

Scientific morality.

There is no morality in scientific relativity, however, there is morality and forgiveness in primitive relativity. 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 he was 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 parables or philosophy. However, the 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. How can the sciences make you give money away or more generous and charitable? Therefore, we have absolutely no hope or dreams for our salvation or for forgiveness (particularly to do with the Holocaust) with mathematics, physics and the sciences. Hence, although the arts such as parables and philosophy do not command people in the same way as equations and formulas, they have philosophical, moral and political content and can inspire people and can change the world.

Our present world is secular to the core, and with God dethroned, the only alternative, the only game in town, has to be a “science” which makes no moral demands.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 106).

DJs.

Like William Shakespeare’s plays, DJing, mixing and the electronic music industry are as random, unfundamental and wet as you can get. Contrary to my former statement, “never listen to electronic beats, all you need is a ticking clock” I would now like to state that DJing and mixing music are simply beautiful and hip in a way that science can never be. Thousands of people flock to clubs, events and gigs with superstar DJs every weekend, where as not many flock to the mathematics or physics classroom. On the primitive relativity front, in the days I that went clubbing in 1998-1999, DJs still used vinyl records, however, why is it that the 1990’s in general or “the year of trance” in particular (1999) were so much better “in a way” than the club scene of the 2000’s, 2010’s and the 2020’s? Let’s face it the superclub explosion of the 1990’s was relatively way better than the club scene post-millennium. It could just be the excitement of the millennium, however, I believe the reason 1990’s trance was so much better “in a way” than today could be because the software and hardware that the musicians and DJ’s used to create and play the music was “primitive”!

https://primitiveinnocence.com

Conclusion.

Although I love https://mathsandtime.com and will endeavour to do it, I have realised that philosophy is also right and that there is hope and forgiveness in it, where as other than “being ahead” there is not much in https://squareoftime.com. I have come to this realisation without any bias, as already mentioned at first I got all secular and scientific and I lost all faith in things artistic and philosophical, until I discovered primitive relativity and primitive innocence. Hence, although there are things like ‘energy’ in the sciences, I also believe in philosophy. However, I will endeavour to do both and hope to balance and play the fundamental and the unfundamental off of each other.


3. POVERTY.

Shakyamuni Buddha.

Buddhist systems are based upon the teachings given 2,500 years ago by one of the great spiritual figures of human history, Shakyamuni Buddha, who lived in the fifth century BCE. According to legendary accounts of his life, he was born into the ruling family of the Shakya clan in today’s Nepal and was expected to someday succeed his father as king. Instead, Prince Siddhartha (as he was known at the time) quit the royal life at the age of 29 after he saw the reality of the extensive suffering and dissatisfaction in the world. He then set out to find a way to overcome this suffering.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 12).

By quitting the royal life at the age of 29 after seeing the reality of the extensive suffering and dissatisfaction in the world, (instead of succeeding his father as king), Shakyamuni Buddha looked back instead of forward to the poor, primitive and unfashionable as opposed to the rich, advanced and fashionable. This exemplifies primitive relativity and primitive innocence.

After many hardships, at age 35, Prince Siddhartha achieved his goal. Seated under what became known as the Bodhi tree—the tree of enlightenment—he achieved the awakening of Buddhahood. Today a stone platform known as the diamond seat (vajrasana) near the Bodhi tree in Bodh Gaya marks the spot. From then on, he was known as Shakyamuni Buddha, the awakened (Buddha) sage (muni) of the Shakya clan.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 12).

The Great Renunciation.

The young Siddhartha Gautama grew up surrounded by luxury and wealth. He was protected from the harsh realities of life by his father who had been warned that his son would withdraw from the world should he encounter such sights. However, one day when riding outside the palace grounds, the future Buddha saw four things that deeply disturbed him; an old man, a sick man, a dead man and finally a wandering holy man who had given up his home and family to search for knowledge. The prince became determined to find the reason for human suffering and the final cure for it. He decided to leave his luxurious life, wives and palace to seek spiritual salvation. One night he left his palace accompanied by his attendant and richly bridled horse. When far from the city he took off his princely jewellery and clothes and cut off his hair and beard with his sword. He changed his royal robes for the simple robes worn by holy men and gave his horse to his attendant.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/b/buddhism-and-the-life-of-the-buddha/

The Great Renunciation is how Siddhartha Gautama looked back instead of forward to the poor, primitive and unfashionable instead of the rich, advanced and fashionable and it perfectly matches primitive relativity and primitive innocence. Siddhartha Gautama could have been a king, however, he renounced his royal claim, turned from the life of a wealthy prince in a luxurious palace, hidden from the miseries of the world, to the life of an ascetic holy man. This is why or how Siddhartha Gautama attained nirvana and became the Buddha.

The meaning of renunciation.

Long hair was one of the prominent signs of Indian royalty, and Siddhartha’s decision to cut his hair symbolized his strong determination to change the entire pattern of his life and devote himself to the spiritual quest. Even today, the ceremony marking someone’s formal decision to enter the Buddhist way of life often includes having a lock of hair snipped off, in imitation of the Buddha’s great renunciation. Followers who choose to become ordained as a celibate monk or a nun have their entire head shaved, as a sign that they have completely renounced the life of a layperson. But renunciation isn’t really a matter of having your hair cut or changing your outward appearance in some other way. Nor does it mean that you necessarily have to give away your possessions. The true meaning of renunciation is the decision to give up attachment. The cause of suffering and dissatisfaction is attachment, so you need to give up attachment. If you can possess something without becoming attached to it—without letting it become an obstacle to your spiritual progress or a waste of your time and energy—you don’t need to give it up.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 46).

Despite what this book says “Nor does it mean that you necessarily have to give away your possessions.” I believe if you want to be more than a lay Buddhist you do. I believe if you are as serious as the Buddha, and if you want to change the world, then you do have to give a lot of your ‘energy’ away.

In other words, when you commit yourself to Buddhism as a path, you don’t renounce your family or your career; you renounce the conventional view that you can find true happiness in worldly concerns. You renounce the relentless message of the consumer society that the next car or house or vacation or accomplishment will finally relieve your dissatisfaction and bring you the contentment you so desperately seek.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 130).

The six-year fast.

Wandering in the forest with five other holy men Siddhartha followed a very strict regime of fasting and deprivation until he almost starved to death.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/b/buddhism-and-the-life-of-the-buddha/

243D7B16-834D-47A7-8C39-E8B6841B6AC2
Pursuing enlightenment, Buddha first practiced severe asceticism before recommending a non-ascetic middle way. The Buddha deserved divinity because of his Great Renunciation of his kingship and wealth and his almost dying of starvation.

Thus began what later became known as the six-year fast. Siddhartha sat exposed to the elements day and night. He ate less and less, eventually consuming nothing but the few seeds that happened to blow into his lap. His body, once so glorious and attractive, became withered and shrunken. Eventually, the practice reduced Siddhartha to little more than a living skeleton, but still he persevered.

Finally, one day Siddhartha took stock of himself. He discovered that, in his weakened condition, he couldn’t think as clearly as before; therefore, he was farther from his goal than when he’d started six years ago. Tired and dirty, he decided to refresh himself in the nearby river but nearly drowned before he could pull himself out. As Siddhartha lay on the bank recovering, he realized that if he were ever going to succeed, he’d have to follow the middle way between self-indulgence and extreme self-denial. (Later this phrase, the middle way, took on more meaning and became the expression that the Buddha himself often used when referring to his teachings. Even today, Buddhism is widely known as the middle way that avoids all extremes.)

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 45).

Siddhartha Gautama deserved divinity because of his looking back instead of forward to the poor, primitive and unfashionable instead of the rich, advanced and fashionable, because of his Great Renunciation and because of his almost dying of starvation.

The enlightenment.

Realising at last that he had failed to acquire spiritual knowledge by such extreme means he resolved to seek it by a moderate ‘Middle Way’. He took food and seated himself under a Bodhi tree or ‘Tree of Wisdom’, vowing not to move until he had gained enlightenment and finally solved the mystery of human suffering.

Siddhartha then entered deep meditation and through the following night had a succession of realisations that culminated in a final understanding of the cause of human suffering and sorrow. He saw his own successive re-births, how all beings passed into the higher and lower worlds and finally how craving, desire and ignorance are the cause of the process of re-birth. With this realisation he became a Buddha which means ‘Awakened One’. He remained for seven days under the Bodhi tree or ‘tree of wisdom’.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/b/buddhism-and-the-life-of-the-buddha/

7C5E7A8C-1396-41CD-BA30-AA7429A7764F
Shakyamuni Buddha.

Economics of Buddhism.

Why do Buddhist monks reject the idea of money?

Practicing Buddhists make five promises – not to lie, not to steal, not to engage in sexual misconduct, not to harm any living creature and not to take intoxicating substances which lead to carelessness. These are called the ‘5 precepts’.

When Buddhist monks and nuns ordain – don the robes, shave their heads, and start their training – they make all of the same promises that lay Buddhists (practicing Buddhists who aren’t monks) do, but also promise to let go of their attachments to all social conventions. It’s what the Buddha did on his path to enlightenment, so the Vinaya – the rules he put together for monks to follow – say they should do the same.

To Buddhists (and a lot of economists), money counts as a social convention. Coins are only valuable because we’ve decided that they are, and the same goes for paper banknotes. So like other social conventions, Buddhist monks give it up. They can’t buy or sell anything, get cash out of the bank or even give or accept charitable donations.

Without money, how do monks get by?

Buddhist monks and nuns are completely reliant on the lay community to provide them with the material things they need to survive. In warmer Buddhist countries, monks will walk around their local village at mealtimes in what’s called an ‘alms round’, holding a bowl for locals to put food into. In the West, food often gets donated to monasteries in bulk, and volunteers then use it to prepare meals for the monks.

The lay community provides the money and the labor to build shelter for monks, make them clothes and buy them the technology they need to keep up with the world outside the monastery, from computers to iPads. Some monastic communities like the Forest Sangha even have a Twitter account.

Once a year, during the autumn festival of Kathina, families offer monks and nuns all the cloth they need for robes to get them through the winter months. Lay Buddhists club together to provide them with the basics in what’s known as an annual celebration of giving.

What do lay Buddhists get in return?

The lay community provides the monastic community with material support in exchange for the spiritual support they receive from them, in the form of ceremonies, guided meditation, or ad-hoc advice. It’s not a tit-for-tat kind of exchange – you don’t get a passage from the scriptures every time you donate a tin of tomatoes – but more of a relationship of mutual interdependence, or ‘gift economics’.

https://www.ecnmy.org/engage/this-is-how-buddhist-monks-live-without-money/


Secular capitalism.

Liberal democracies and especially western capitalist governments will never teach you primitive relativity and the innocence of primitivism, because they are secular and capitalist. But religion does. Western governments are all about wealth and making you rich, they are driven by economic growth and profits and they literally educate you from birth to go for the maximum profit or wage and to save up as much money as possible.

Renunciation is not simply for the ordained. For the lay, it entails the ability to quickly locate and effectively deal with the defilements circulated by capitalism, consumerism, and the mainstream mass media. 

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 20).


Energy.

What is a behavioural difference between humans and animals? What is it that humans do that animals do not or rarely do?

Food.

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 or animal (unlike the Golden Parables (see below)). Higher primates share food in exchange for favours, however, it is very rare indeed for animals to intentionally, consciously and peacefully share food with one another. When animals see other hungry or starving animals they usually think to themselves ‘hard luck mate, you’re on your own!’ For example have you ever fought or squabbled over food with your family? It is so greedy and humiliating! It rarely happens with Homo sapiens today, I dare say even medieval and classical people learned not fight over food. In fact I think humanity learned fairly quickly after leaving the animal kingdom not to fight over food. Modern humans fight over many things, including land, money, women and power but never a meal. We all share food, for example we all invite friends and neighbours to our homes for a meal or a barbecue, but we never share money with them. Why is it so embarrassing to fight or argue over food? Because it is so greedy and because only prehistoric man and animals ever mud wrestled each other over a steak. However, someone or something 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. Another behavioural difference is that no animal in creation has ever intentionally and consciously cared for or healed another sick or injured animal. When animals see another sick or injured animal they think to themselves ‘hard luck mate, you’re on your own!’

What is a behavioural difference between the Buddha or Christ and humans? What is it that the Buddha and Christ did that humans do not or rarely do?

Money.

Humans are funny like animals because they never think about sharing money, they just go for the bank account or ‘energy’ of life, that is the cash, lolly and doe etc, without even considering another human (unlike the Golden Parables). Apart from Jesus Christ and the Buddha and perhaps Saint Francis of Assisi and his followers, not many humans have ever intentionally and consciously given all or most of their money away, or deliberately pursued poverty. When it comes to money humans think very similar to animals. When humans see another poor human being in need of money, for example a begging homeless person, they usually think to themselves ‘hard luck mate, you’re on your own!’ We all share food, for example we all invite friends and neighbours to our homes for a meal or a barbecue, but we never share money with them. The fact that primitive animals, hominids or hominins learned the hard way that by sharing food instead of greedily fighting over it is good and leads to things like manners and etiquette, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that sharing money is also good and will lead to even better manners and etiquette or possibly things we cannot imagine. This is why rich people such as the Queen or lottery winners can have or are able to have better manners and etiquette and can be kinder and express their feelings and love better with their families more than lower class or poor people can do. We have all dreamed that if we could only just win the lottery then we could have proper manners and be kinder to and able to express our feelings and love better with our immediate and extended families. But it just never happens.

Francis of Assisi.
In Christianity, Francis of Assisi and his followers practiced extreme acts of asceticism. His sanctity was based first and foremost on his deliberate pursuit of poverty.

Reward.

So is there anything in giving your money away? Most people think there is nothing in giving their money away. Giving £100 away is simply their loss and nothing else whatsoever. This is how animals think. The more I have the better. However, if you are poor you are more primitive and innocent. Also criminals think there is nothing in their actions, in that nobody can see their crimes and that there is absolutely nothing and no consequences to their actions whatsoever. Criminals believe that their crimes such as burglary are only to their benefit. Jesus Christ frequently said such as the following which categorically proves that there is reward in heaven for uncalled for or unnecessary acts of charity or generosity.

But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

Matthew 6:3-4.

Tonsure.

I am not saying we should be homeless, as there is nothing formal, official or deliberate about being poor or homeless. Thanks to lay Buddhists, Buddhist monks are not homeless, but they are just as poor, therefore, the major difference is that monks are officially, formally or deliberately poor. They also usually wear certain attire and have certain haircuts to display their poverty and renunciation. Therefore, I am not saying we should be poor like a homeless person, but that we should “lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven” and be deliberately, consciously or formally poorer, more like a Buddhist or Christian monk. In reality, I am saying that we should all take a little less and give a little more. For example if you earn £20,000 a month, would you not be ‘okay’ with £10,000 a month? I am fine on about £850 a month.

917E2FEA-DD9B-4308-B599-71CB4AD7C3AD
Tonsure is the practice of cutting or shaving some or all of the hair on the scalp, as a sign of religious devotion or humility. Current usage more generally refers to cutting or shaving for monks, devotees, or mystics of any religion as a symbol of their renunciation of worldly fashion and esteem. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonsure).

The Golden Parables.

Food is to animals as money is to humans.

noun (parable)

  1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
  2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

WARNING!

Parables use everyday language with which we are familiar to teach abstract truth which is outside our experience. It is not wise to press every detail of a parable for historic or scientific “truth.”

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 59).

First of all the Golden Parables are rubbish however, I think they just highlight and say in a new and different way what the Buddha and Jesus Christ said, that is regarding money, possessions, generosity and charity. Also what you are about to read regarding money and generosity in general in this essay is deliberately over the top, in order to prove a point. Even if by reading what is below you tip up an extra tenner to a charity, then I would consider my efforts a success. What annoys me is that part 3 of this essay is about money, generosity or charity and part 7 is about ‘time’ and forgiveness. Part 7 is much better than part 3 as there is no ‘time’ in part 3. However, as the old saying goes ‘time’ is money.

Parable of The Golden Sparrow.

There were some worms stranded in the middle of a motorway, and they were baking in the heat of the midday sun and unable to burrow into the sizzling tarmac to find coolness and safety from the traffic. Then along came a hungry sparrow who spotted the juicy worms, but instead of picking up and eating them, the sparrow flew down to the worms and carried each and every single one of them to safety from the traffic and the scorching heat and onto the cool and moist grass and soil where they could safely burrow. Is there reward in heaven for such a bird? What this sparrow did went against every animal instinct. This sparrow went against nature. This sparrow is golden.

11B7A167-76F1-4904-8A9A-CB5B8F39703B
House sparrow (Passer domesticus).

Parable of The Golden Chaffinch.

In one particularly cold early spring in the UK, the land was frozen and covered with snow and ice and the wild animals were struggling to survive and feed themselves. Like all the other animals there was a chaffinch that was struggling to feed its own four young chicks in a nest in an old oak tree. However, while desperately searching for food, the chaffinch discovered a quaint garden in which a thoughtful man had put a bonanza of nuts, seeds and fat balls on a bird table. And despite the adverse conditions instead of just feeding its own chicks, the chaffinch went around hurriedly feeding the chicks of other birds, even other species.

842058CC-4843-4A33-8E9F-4F0D07243FA6
Common Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs).

Primitive relativity and primitive innocence point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of instincts or capitalism, they go against nature, this is because the older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are.

Parable of the Rich Fool.

Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

“This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

Luke 12:13-21

The parable of the rich fool.
The parable of the rich fool.

Parable of The Golden Lion.

One blistering day in tropical Africa, there were two lost little lambs in the middle of a grassland savannah, and they were being stalked and preyed on by a drooling and ravenous hyena hidden in the tall grass. A male lion saw the whole situation, that the hungry hyena was about to pounce on and devour the two defenceless little lambs. However, instead of eating the lambs himself, the lion took swift and decisive action and decided to scare off the starving hyena.

B70E7C37-72C0-4846-BCF4-EDCBCCFD5848
Lion (Panthera leo).

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

Isaiah 11:6.

I want to see with my own eyes the lamb lie down with the lion and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been about.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 72).

Parable of The Golden Director.

There was a director that ran a thriving bakery business on the outskirts of a quaint village in the English countryside. Now the director ran the business not for personal profit but just kept it ticking over and with the profits he paid his employees very handsomely indeed and only paid himself the same amount that he paid his employees.

Should your pursuit of happiness focus mainly on accumulating possessions and other “externals”? Or should you focus on putting your inner house in order?

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 22).

Parable of the Golden Scientist.

There was a male scientist who designed and made smart phones in California and this scientist was also a Buddhist monk. Although the company made billions of dollars the scientist made smart phones not for personal profit, but just to keep the company innovative and state of the art, and to keep his own wealth and circumstances in line with the Buddha’s Middle Way.

Do the inner workings of your mind really have a greater effect on you than, say, your possessions or your surroundings? After all, big companies and advertising agencies spend billions of dollars every year trying to convince you that the opposite is true! In their eyes, your best shot at achieving happiness is to buy whatever they’re selling. They appeal to what Jon likes to call the “if only” mentality: If only you drove a fancier car, lived in a bigger house, gargled with a stronger mouthwash, and used a softer toilet paper—then you’d be truly happy. Even if you don’t believe everything advertisers tell you, don’t you believe that the external conditions of your life determine how well off you are?

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 21).

Parable of the Golden Doctor.

There was a male British doctor who was a Buddhist monk and he went around curing and saving peoples lives not for a huge salary, but just to keep his own wealth and circumstances in line with the Buddha’s Middle Way.

We’re not saying that your outer circumstances count for nothing, nor are we implying that people have to give away all their possessions to be sincere spiritual seekers. But without developing your inner resources of peace and mental stability, no amount of worldly success—whether measured in terms of wealth, fame, power, or relationships—can ever bring real satisfaction.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 23).

Despite what the quote says above, I believe to be a serious spiritual seeker you do have to give a lot of your ‘energy’ away, even if you have not sinned.

Parable of the Golden Politician.

There was a British politician who in order to prove to the world his beliefs and convictions decided to become a fully ordained Buddhist monk, that is he renounced all of his wealth, donned the orange robes, shaved his head, let go of his attachments to all social conventions, kept the 5 precepts, followed the Vinaya, yet crucially the politician was still politically active. Analogously, this is the type of devotion, faith and sacrifice that is required from politicians in order to save their own people and to prove 100% their beliefs, virtues and convictions. This is what primitive relativity and primitive innocence are all about.

Parable of The Golden Lottery Winner.

There was a childless and single 45 year old Englishman called Bob who had worked very hard all his life as a bricklayer. One Friday morning, while filling his car with diesel at a petrol service station, Bob saw an advertisement for the £160 million jackpot on the Euromillions lottery and Bob decided to purchase a ticket. Later that Friday night as Bob was watching the lottery draw on TV, to his amazement every single one of Bob’s numbers came out! To his shock Bob had won the £160 million jackpot on the Euromillions lottery. However, Bob thought about it and instead of reaping his rewards and retiring early to a life of luxury, Bob had a change of heart and decided to give every single last penny of his jackpot away to charity and returned to normal life and work. Through Bob leading the way and setting the example, everybody on earth became stress free. Nobody ever worried about money ever again. It was a miracle! Whenever someone lost or wasted a lot of money for example through misplacement, a bad purchase or gambling people would just say remember Bob’s example, and then they would be stress free. Bob had such a very good impact on mental health. Bob even started a new era and a new way of thinking. Bob became a byword and a household name. Is there reward in heaven for such an act? What Bob did was tantamount or equivalent to the Buddha’s and Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. What Bob did went against every animal instinct. Bob went against nature. Bob would be eternally relative.

Energy.

Notice how the Golden Parables above always involve ‘energy’, in that with animals it always comes down to food, the fats, protein and nutrients, which is direct ‘energy’ and with humans it always boils down to money which is exchangeable for any type of ‘energy’ including food, electricity, power and fuel etc. No matter what animals and humans rarely give a lot of their ‘energy’ away for free. YHWH looks out for beings or creatures that perform primitive relativity and primitive innocence. However, it has only happened twice in creation. If such a golden bird, lion or human does not exist we are not happy or pleased. The Buddha and Jesus Christ are that golden bird, lion or human. The Buddha and Jesus Christ both gave everything away, hence, on earth and in heaven they are both eternally relative or relevant like perpetual teenagers or children, they will never date or go out of fashion.

Golden 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, Siddhārtha Gautama then consequently attained nirvana and became the Buddha.

The Rich and the Kingdom of YHWH.

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 19:16-24.

When you read the above did you get cynical and wink at Jesus Christ?

Practice.

As an example I personally do not go for the ‘energy’ down here on earth or in life, whether it is food, money, gold or big fat juicy worms, I give an uncomfortable amount of my money away and I seek the ‘energy’ of the afterlife. I understand that YHWH and the afterlife have absolutely zero interest in the material wealth I own down here on earth or in life. I know that I cannot purchase my rank in the kingdom of heaven with gold or money.

Wealth can’t help you. Many people spend nearly all their time and energy trying to accumulate as much money and as many possessions as they can. But all the wealth in the world can’t buy your way out of death. (“ Um, Death, why don’t you take my credit card and go buy yourself something nice?” It doesn’t work. Sorry.) Rich or poor, everyone must face it. Also, no matter how many material possessions you’ve acquired, you can’t take even the smallest particle with you. In fact, attachment to your belongings only makes letting go at the time of death more difficult.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 224).

A reason to be charitable.

Is there reward in heaven for giving some of your money away? Jesus Christ said the following:

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Matthew 6:19-21.

The Golden Bird.
Parable of the Golden Bird.

Conclusion.

Your close ones would never forgive you for giving your jackpot winnings or a lot of your money away down here on earth, such as your family, relatives, children and friends. However, think of this, why was Siddhartha Gautama allowed to renounce his future kingship and almost starve himself to death 2500 years ago? It was not unacceptable or even out of the ordinary in ancient India, in fact holy and religious men such as sadhus were and still are commonplace in India. Imagine if Queen Elizabeth II or the Duke of Cambridge tried to do this today in the UK. They would be sectioned! In fact if anyone deliberately gave their money away and almost starved themselves to death today, they would likely be sectioned for being a harm to themselves. It’s crazy! Why did people have more ‘freedom’ to pursue spiritual quests such a long time ago, than we have today? Why is it not out of the ordinary in India? The world was clearly better in ways 2500 years ago. People believed Siddhartha Gautama was pursuing spirituality and that he was trying to solve human suffering. There is so much scepticism today, he would not be believed. At the very least, as the Golden Parables demonstrate that primitive relativity and primitive innocence point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of instincts or capitalism, (because the older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are), therefore, this determines there is definitely a reason for uncalled for and unnecessary acts of generosity or charity, and that we should never pursue money or riches and that we should never play the lottery or fantasise about winning it.


Christians have always believed that poverty was a noble virtue and have always had the moral of rich man and the poor man.

Christianity’s traditional regard for the poor and downtrodden may have had some marginal effect, in that kings were now expected to make gifts to the poor, and it was considered virtuous to free slaves.

(Pagan Britain, by Ronald Hutton, chapter 6, 64%).

The Rich Man and Lazarus.

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Luke 16:19-31.

57B5D6F1-BDD5-4E25-A9CF-1A029C7AC12E
Jesus Christ risen from the dead.

“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.”

Luke 6:24-26.

The above verse (Luke 6:24-26) was primarily aimed at and a lesson for ancient kings, queens, monarchs and emperors, in that they were not gods and should never self-deify.


My example, thus far.

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 £260 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 £20 for 2020 so far.

The Cave of Altamira. Cave painting of auroch. 36000 BP.
The Cave of Altamira. Cave painting of auroch. 36000 BP.

Why?

Why deliberately give your money or ‘energy’ away? Is there a reason? Apart from going against nature, the poorest are the most primitive and innocent. I also believe by deliberately making yourself poorer, like say temporarily a tenaire, oneaire or even a negative-aire, then you are doing what lower class people (whose life and survival are a struggle and who have no choice) do. You are deliberately putting yourself on their level and associating yourself with people of low position such as the homeless, when you do not have to in the least. You do not have to physically put yourself in the slums or on the streets, YHWH knows this through the walls, in your house or where ever you are. This is what the Buddha did, in that initially he was a rich prince destined to be king, who desired for nothing materially, and he probably did not really associate with people of low position or wealth etc, however, he then renounced his kingship and wealth and became a holy man practicing extreme acts of asceticism, almost dying of starvation in the process. By going from a future king to almost starving himself to death, Siddhartha joined the ranks, realm or class of those of extreme poverty or the underclass and the starving and emaciated of the world (those affected by such as famine). Siddhartha joined the under class when he did not have to in the least. YHWH knows this through the walls and can see this in all of us. Also like how Bob in the Parable of the Golden Lottery Winner chose to give up his jackpot winnings and return to normal life and work, instead of retiring early to a life of luxury. By doing this Bob associated himself with normal working class people when he did not have to in the least.

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.


Nirvana.

“Watch out! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, don’t do as the hypocrites do—blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

Matthew 6:1-4.

With regards to such as Matthew 6:1-4, we know how the Buddha attained eternal relevance or enlightenment and nirvana, that is he may have performed something similar to the Golden Parables or primitive relativity and primitive innocence, in other words he renounced his succession to kingship, all his wealth and practiced extreme asceticism, almost dying of starvation in the process. The Buddha left us a clear demonstration, but what did Jesus do? There are two stories of the Buddha, first is that he was destined to be the Buddha from birth, the second is that he was an ordinary man before he attained enlightenment. Either way we know Siddhartha attained enlightenment at age 35. In Christianity the story goes that Jesus was born the Christ child, this is another reason why or how Christianity does not teach us that we can attain ‘Christhood’ (in contrast to Buddhism which does). We do not know if or when Jesus became eternally relative or attained nirvana. So if Jesus was not born the Christ, how did he attain nirvana? If he was born without nirvana, how did Jesus give everything away? Although we do not know how Jesus may have attained nirvana, he said a lot about money and possessions. For example, such as Matthew 6:3 above “But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing“ clearly demonstrates that Jesus must have had experience of practicing charity and generosity.


The Widow’s offering.

As Jesus was sitting opposite the treasury, He watched the crowd putting money into it. And many rich people put in large amounts. Then one poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amounted to a small fraction of a denarius.

Jesus called His disciples to Him and said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more than all the others into the treasury. For they all contributed out of their surplus, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”

Luke 21:1-4

Jesus and His disciples watch a widow put coins into the treasury offering box.
Jesus and His disciples watch a widow put coins into the treasury offering box.

“Out of their surplus.”

The above story of the Widow’s offering is obviously relative. For example, Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, and has a net worth of $105 billion dollars, hence even if Bill Gates gave away $104 billion dollars, that is 99.05% of his net worth to charity, although this may seem like a lot, (even to the receivers of the donation), it is not all that much in the eyes of YHWH, this is because percentage does not matter. This is the really important part, in that giving $104 billion dollars away does not affect or threaten Bill Gate’s life and survival in any way at all, he would still be a billionaire! He would still not have to worry about food or bills etc ever again! For example imagine if a being had a googolplex dollars, even if this being gave away 99.99999999999999999999999999% of it’s net worth away to charity, this being would still be a trillionaire! Therefore, percentage does not matter! Or even more relative imagine if a being had infinite dollars or infinite ‘energy’, how charitable and compassionate do you think this being would be? This being is YHWH, the Buddha or Jesus Christ. How did this being become eternally relative or relevant, like a perpetual teenager as well as attain infinite ‘energy’? By giving it all away in the first place!

Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 5:26.

39BACB4E-3F8C-4918-BDC3-9FE4C1773E5B
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, Siddhārtha Gautama then consequently attained nirvana and became the Buddha.

This is what Jesus Christ meant by “For they all contributed out of their surplus.” However, for example, when the lower class or the poor give away money to charity, even though it is infinitely smaller than $104 billion dollars (or a googolplex dollars), you can be rest assured it has really hurt them and has seriously threatened their life and survival! This is because they are probably only hundredaires, tenaires, oneaires or even negative-aires. This is what really matters! If you are going to give money away you have to make sure it hurts or threatens your life and survival. The only thing Bill Gates could do is mimic the Buddha, that is to join the ranks, realm or class of those of the lower class, those whose life and survival is a struggle, and who worry about food and bills etc. This is what Jesus Christ meant by:

“Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 19:23-24.

67915E82-B194-40F5-9A17-2BB2FE52FF33
Good luck Bill!

”Two small copper coins.”

For example I have given away £240 for 2019 and £20 so far in 2020, as of January 2020, that is just 3.39% of my total income which is only £850 a month. Giving up this money seriously affected my life and survival and caused me a lot of pain. This is what Jesus Christ meant by “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more than all the others into the treasury“ and “but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.” The “two small copper coins” that the old lady put into the treasury were relatively more than those “rich people [who] put in large amounts”. What is the lesson? Even though you are poor, get charitable. For example, imagine if a homeless person had £4 to his/her name and went and give it all to another homeless person. That is a Golden Parable or primitive relativity and primitive innocence. That is what YHWH looks out for. The rich and famous, such as actors and singers are very charitable “out of their surplus”, but it is never a threat to their life and survival. The lower class and poor do not want to be beaten by rich superstars when it comes to charity!

Give, even if you only have a little.

(The Buddha, Dhammapada, verse 224).

Saying that I believe successful and advanced people such as Bill Gates can have a lot of primitive innocence, see temptation of technology below for more on this.

Mesolithic man.
Mesolithic man.

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.

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. Similarly natives and primitives do not care about money. Why be a business man or woman and rip-off people to make money for yourself? Why be a highflier and make money for someone else? Why be rich at all? Why keep up appearances? Why have social classes? Why compete with peers or old school friends? Why always look or point to the rich, elite, famous and upper classes? Why compete with colleagues for the top position and higher wage? The top is the bottom and bottom is the top. As will be seen, we do not want to be like the Ancient Romans, measuring people’s value, worth, honour, respect and esteem by their wealth.

Panel of the lions.
Panel of the lions, Chauvet Cave, France, 32000 BP.

The Middle Way.

As Jesus Christ said, how can we pay every last penny? Just do it and walk out the door? Will YHWH provide? What about food? What about my phone? Thankfully, the Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path as the Middle Way of moderation, between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification.

In the time of the Buddha (and in the traditions that continued to adhere to the full monastic code—the vinaya), monks and nuns were prohibited from handling or soliciting money and were allowed to own just a few simple belongings, which included items like several robes, a bowl, a razor, and an umbrella for protection from the sun. They took vows of celibacy, ate only before noon, and received their food from laypeople, either during alms rounds or through offerings brought to the monastery. The point of these regulations wasn’t to cause hardship or suffering; in fact, the Buddha’s approach was known as the “middle way” between asceticism (severe restrictions in the comforts of life) and materialism. Instead, the point was to free the monastics to dedicate their life to practice and teaching.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 135).

Even though the the vinaya seems ascetic and relatively extreme to us westerners today, in that it entails owning just a few simple items, such as several robes, a bowl, a razor, and an umbrella, taking vows of celibacy and eating only before noon, however, as stated it is actually only the ”middle way”. This must demonstrate how even more extreme the Buddha‘s six-year fast was and how extreme his going from a future king to becoming emaciated was.

The Buddha practicing self mortification (before he realised the middle way).
Pursuing enlightenment, Buddha first practiced severe asceticism before recommending a non-ascetic middle way. The Buddha deserved divinity because of his Great Renunciation of his kingship and wealth and his almost dying of starvation.

Capitalism educates you that you need to save up more and more and that you need as much as possible. Like the Golden Parables, I am trying to point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts. I am deliberately maintaining hundredaire status. The most native and primitive people of the world are not even thousandaires, hence, I am comfortably a hundredaire. However, occasionally and briefly, like so many lower class people whose life and survival are a struggle, I am not even a tenaire or a oneaire, but a negative-aire!

Francis of Assisi.
In Christianity, Francis of Assisi and his followers practiced extreme acts of asceticism. His sanctity was based first and foremost on his deliberate pursuit of poverty.

The Last penny.

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.

Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 5:26.

The last penny.
The last penny.

When Jesus Christ spoke this was he being metaphorical or literal?

Therefore, is it ‘scum, scaff and chav’ to literally possess not a single penny?

Or is it without sin?

Give us this day our daily bread.

What does give us this day our daily bread of the Lord’s Prayer mean? As mentioned I am trying to attain or explain the literal and material Lord’s Prayer. I will start by mentioning daily bread. Jesus Christ meant that daily bread is all you need, that is you do not need money or riches to be in the kingdom of heaven.

Feeding of the 5000.
Feeding of the 5000.

4. SELF-DEIFICATION.

For thine is the kingdom.

What does for thine is the kingdom of the Lord’s Prayer mean? To answer this question is the kingdom is some castle in the sky, or is it more comprehensible and down to earth than that? Therefore, because of our Abrahamic and biblical history, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, primitive relativity and primitive innocence may indicate that the kingdom of YHWH Jesus Christ referred to in the Lord’s Prayer could literally be Egypt and the Holy Land. Egypt and Holy Land are the old power and glory of the Old Testament and they gave us agriculture, architecture, bronze, iron, writing, recorded history, the Bible and YHWH etc, therefore the Nile Valley and the Near East connect us to the prehistoric.

In particular, it was generally assumed that major advances in European prehistory resulted from the diffusion of ideas from the classical civilisations of the Levant, the Mediterranean, and Egypt. This view was known as Ex Oriente Lux (‘Light from the East’).

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 228).

The idea of a Neolithic has lasted because it makes such good sense, describing as it does the adoption of a package of new activities which between them radically changed human life. By the 1950s this was agreed to consist of the cultivation and harvesting of crops (types of wheat, barley and pulses); the keeping of livestock (cattle, pigs and sheep); the making of pottery; the production of polished stone tools; deep mining; and the building of large structures of earth, wood and stone. All of these developments first appeared in the Near East, and spread slowly westwards across Europe.

(Pagan Britain, by Ronald Hutton, Chapter two, location 843, 7%)

Egyptian prehistory is as old as human evolution itself, this is because hominins evolved in Eastern Africa.

Because of its geographical position, Egypt certainly served as an important conduit for early humans migrating from East Africa towards the rest of the Old World. We know that early Homo erectus left Africa and arrived in Israel as early as 1.8 million years ago.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 16).

In fact my 23 and Me ancestry DNA results state that every person on earth is descended from one man and one woman who lived in Eastern Africa 275,000 and between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago respectively. Egyptian prehistory goes back some 700,000 years.

Egyptian prehistory.
Egyptian prehistory.

Therefore, unlike Britain which received the Latin alphabet and recorded history through being conquered and subjugated by the Romans, the Egyptians started ab initio or from scratch or from the ground up, that is they started roughly from prehistory and the stone age, (the Palaeolithic and Neolithic) into the Predynastic (Maadi and Naqada cultures), and then into the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom periods.

According to Petrie, it was during the Naqada III phase that an Asiatic ‘New Race’ arrived in Egypt, bringing with it the seeds of pharaonic civilisation.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 43).

The first Naqada phase (Amratian) lies between 4000 and 3500 BC, followed by the second phase (Gerzean), from 3500 to 3200 BC, and the final Predynastic phase runs from 3200 to 3000 BC.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 44).

The ancient Egyptians literally got recorded history off the ground from the Stone Age, that is by making stone and flint tools and vessels etc.

In contrast to the Upper Palaeolithic Period, many Late Palaeolithic sites have been found in Upper Egypt, dating between 21,000 and 12,000 BP.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 23).

During the Naqada II phase, there was considerable development in techniques of stoneworking: various limestones, alabasters, marbles, serpentine, basalt, breccia, gneiss, diorite, and gabbro were being discovered and exploited all along the Nile Valley as well as in the desert, particularly at Wadi Hammamat. The increasing skill in the carving of stone vessels prepared the way for the great achievements of pharaonic stone architecture. The ripple-flaked knives of this period are among the most accomplished examples of the working of flint anywhere in the world.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 51).

The Egyptians invented the alphabet, recorded history and architecture, that is they built the first large entirely stone building in the world, that being Djoser’s Step Pyramid.

Tradition had it that Imhotep (Greek form: Imouthes) was the architect of Djoser’s pyramid and inventor of building in stone.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 86).

DAFDF3BC-8561-43B6-AA30-03E6BF794601
Djoser’s Step Pyramid was built in the 27th century BC during the Third Dynasty for the burial of Pharaoh Djoser by his vizier, Imhotep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

Exodus (non-archaeological).

The Old Testament drills it into us, that YHWH stretched out his arm and brought the Israelites up out of the land Egypt, thus giving us YHWH and the Bible etc.

And on that very day YHWH brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts.

Exodus 12:51.

In terms of recorded history there is nothing as real or as important as Moses and the Israelite Exodus from Egypt. Exodus is an eternal or living (non-archaeological) record of the ancient Egyptians and Israelites. To exemplify Exodus’s importance, for example with prehistoric man archaeologists have to gather whatever they can from archaeology (or bones and stones). Prehistoric man is non-living or non-eternal. Also, as will be seen, Moses and the Israelite’s Exodus from Egypt is paramount in that they abolished once and for all idolatrous polytheism and even worse monarchical self-deification in the form super-rich Egyptian god-kings. Moses and the Israelites gave us the one true, eternal and living YHWH in the form of monotheism. The living and terrifying one true YHWH of Moses completely humbled mankind for the first time, and prepared the way for the one true incarnation of YHWH, that is Jesus Christ.

Exodus.
Exodus.

The Nile Valley is the kingdom of YHWH that Jesus Christ referred to in the Lord’s Prayer. The most famous people in life or on earth are the Americans, however, the most famous people of the afterlife are probably prehistoric, ancient and medieval, this is because we know so little about them in life, therefore the opposite will be true in the afterlife. The older you are the more famous and illustrious you are. Therefore because we do not and cannot ever know the names of our Holy Fathers down here on earth but only in heaven, hence hallowed be your name and on earth as in heaven.


For ever and ever.

What does for ever and ever of the Lord’s Prayer mean? To answer, consider this, there is no eternity without recorded history, that is that cavemen and 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 (like the images in this essay) as well as recreated as prints and posters etc (I have a stretched canvas of the Panel of Lions of Chauvet in my study), however, the names of the actual painters are forever lost to us, because they had no writing (unlike Imhotep, the Egyptians and pharaoh Djoser for example), therefore, the painters are not eternal down here on earth but only in heaven. Hence, hallowed be your name! However, thanks to themselves and archaeology, it was firstly the Egyptians who 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 living and eternal. 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. The ancients actually nailed it with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Ankh
The ankh is an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol that was most commonly used in writing and in art to represent the word for “life” and, by extension, as a symbol of life itself. Known as “the key of life” or the “cross of life”, and dating from the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150 – 2613 BCE), it is also the Egyptian symbol for the “eternal life.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankh

Egyptian god-kings.

‘In the beginning’ nobody told Egyptian kings not to exalt themselves, self-deify or make themselves gods. This is what mankind did in the very first place, without any warning, that is they ascribed divinity to the wealthiest and most powerful, this is in contrast to the huge sacrifice of the Buddha and the humble origins of the Christ, the two true incarnations. For example, Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II of the 11th-Dynasty (2055-2004 BC) instituted a programme of self-deification, and was described as ‘the son of Hathor.’

In addition to the emphasis on his lineage, part of Mentuhotep’s strategy to enhance his reputation with his contemporaries and successors was a programme of self-deification. He is described as ‘the son of Hathor’ on two fragments from Gebelein, while at Dendera and Aswan he usurped the headgear of Amun and Min, and elsewhere wears the red crown surmounted by two feathers. At Konosso, near Philae, he took on the guise of ithyphallic Min. Both this iconography and his second Horus name, Netjeryhedjet (‘the divine one of the white crown’), emphasize his self-deification. Evidence from his Deir el-Bahri temple indicates that he intended to be worshipped as a god in his House of Millions of Years, thus pre-dating by hundreds of years ideas that became a central religious preoccupation of the New Kingdom. It is evident that he was reasserting the cult of the ruler.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 140).

B35DDA75-A738-4287-8F87-CF7FD95148F6
Mentuhotep II on a relief from his mortuary temple in Deir el-Bahari. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentuhotep_II#/media/File%3AMentuhotepII.jpg

Egyptian kings self-deified and the ancients ascribed divinity to the wealthiest and most powerful until they figured out that YHWH and divinity (or primitive innocence) work or operate in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts, in that it is the poor deserve divinity and not the rich. YHWH then orchestrated the inverse sacrifice of the Buddha from a king to a starving and ascetic holy man and the story of the humble origins of Jesus Christ; being born in a cowshed and the coming of the two true incarnations to serve and not be served.

As surely as the Lord of glory humbled himself by birth in a cowshed, and by using the speech of a little-known people, even telling them stories, so his Spirit led Moses to teach those under his care by histories, and parables and pictures that they could understand all that was necessary despite their abysmal ignorance.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 91).

The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Matthew 23:11-12.

Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

Luke 22:26-27.


Divine Roman emperors.

Primitive relativity and primitive innocence are also demonstrated by super-rich divine Roman emperors.

Christians, in particular, both ridiculed the very notion that the obviously human emperor was divine and occasionally paid with their lives for their refusal to give him any kind of religious honour. But that is not to say that the divine status of the emperor was unproblematic for pre-Christian Romans or that there were no debates and disagreements about just how godlike the human ruler, let alone his family was. It was another awkward balancing act bequeathed to his successors by Augustus, who straddled the boundary between the human and the divine with greater success than some of those who followed.

1DC867EA-4531-407B-82A8-E1677370374C
Augustus of Prima Porta, 1st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus

Throughout the Roman world, the living emperor was treated very like a god. He was incorporated into rituals celebrated in honour of the gods, he was addressed in language that overlapped with divine language, and he was assumed to have some similar powers. Augustus’ name, for example, was included in the wording of some religious litanies. Runaway slaves could claim asylum by clinging to a statue of the emperor, just as to a statue of a god.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 429-430).

547EC5A8-24C9-4697-8ACC-6791B845F02B
In 42 BC, Julius Caesar was formally deified as “the divine Julius” (divus Iulius) after his assassination. His adopted son, Octavian (better known as Augustus, a title given to him 15 years later, in 27 BC) thus became known as divi Iuli filius (son of the divine Julius) or simply divi filius (son of the god). (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divi_filius).

Christianity.

Buddhism and Christianity have always had the moral of poverty being a noble virtue and the moral of the rich man and the poor man, something which the Romans did not have at all until they adopted the latter.

Elite Roman writers were mostly disdainful of those less fortunate, and less rich, than themselves. Apart from their nostalgic admiration of a simple peasant way of life – a fantasy of country picnics, and lazy afternoons under shady trees – they found little virtue in poverty or in the poor or even in earning an honest day’s wages.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 440).

Apart from a very few philosophical extremists, no one in the Roman world seriously believed that poverty was honourable – until the growth of Christianity which we shall explore further in the next chapter. The idea that the rich man might have a problem entering the kingdom of heaven would have seemed as preposterous to those hanging out in our Ostian bar as to the plutocrat in his mansion.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 471).

1DB9F7F9-D8C5-4240-B6DA-F5569B51109D
As the first Roman emperor to claim conversion to Christianity, Constantine played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in 313, which decreed tolerance for Christianity in the empire. He called the First Council of Nicaea in 325, at which the Nicene Creed was professed by Christians. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great).

Wealth assessments.

The Roman state was built on wealth in that your status as plebeian or patrician and your eligibility to vote and hold office such as senator or consul was based on financial tests or wealth assessments.

A different set of priorities is reflected in the political institutions attributed to Servius Tullius – sometimes now given the inappropriately grand title of ‘the Servian Constitution’, partly because they were so fundamental to the later working of Roman politics. He is supposed to have been the first to organise a census of the Roman citizens, formally enrolling them in the citizen body and classifying them in different ranks according to their wealth. But more than that, he linked this classification to two further institutions: the Roman army and the organisation of the people for voting and elections.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 105).

Cicero reflects exactly that when he sums up Servius Tullius’ political objectives in approving tones: ‘He divided the people in this way to ensure that voting power was under the control not of the rabble but of the wealthy, and he saw to it that the greatest number did not have the greatest power – a principle that we should always stand by in politics.’ In fact, this principle came to be vigorously contested in the politics of Rome.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 109).

4E3A2024-38B9-4510-B7DF-0F99840BD772
Servius Tullius was the legendary sixth king of Rome, and the second of its Etruscan dynasty. He reigned 575–535 BC. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servius_Tullius).

It is easy enough to paint a picture of Republican political processes as completely dominated by the wealthy minority. The upshot of the Conflict of the Orders was not popular revolution but the creation of a new governing class, comprising rich plebeians and patricians. The first qualification for most political offices was wealth on a substantial scale. No one could stand for election without passing a financial test that excluded most citizens; the exact amount needed to qualify is not known, but the implications are that it was set at the very top level of the census hierarchy, the so-called cavalry or equestrian rating.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 189).

Social classes.

It is like a measure, like the Ancient Romans we still measure or rank people’s class, value, worth, honour, respect and esteem according to their wealth. But what if like the Buddha and Jesus Christ we did the complete opposite or inverse and measured people’s worthiness by their renunciation of kingship, wealth, worldly fashion and their deliberate pursuit of poverty instead? Therefore, what if like Buddhist or Christian monks the poorer you are the more revered you are?

The richest man in Rome.

Marcus Licinius Crassus, the Roman plutocrat notoriously remarked that you could count no one rich if he did not have the cash to raise his own private army.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 25).

3C6724F3-D99C-415E-A57B-EB943314922E
Marcus Licinius Crassus c. 115 BC or 112 BC – 6 May 53 BC) was a Roman general and politician who played a key role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. He is often called “The richest man in Rome”. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus).

Catholicism.

I am Church of England, but next to a Christian I would be a Buddhist. However, concerning the schism in Christianity, Catholicism and Rome are more southern and are closer to the Nile Valley and the Near East. I have read one book on the reformation and it revealed nothing to me as to who was right. However, to me a connection to the ‘kingdom of YHWH’ would be better?

Pyramids of Giza.
Pyramids of Giza.

Fulfilment

Jesus came to fulfill the predictions of the prophets, who had long foretold that a Savior would one day appear. He came to fulfill the ceremonial law, by becoming the great sacrifice for sin, to which all the Old Testament offerings had ever pointed. He came to fulfill the moral law, by yielding to it a perfect obedience, which we could never have yielded – and by paying the penalty for our breaking of it with His atoning blood, which we could never have paid.

J.C. Ryle

https://www.christianity.com/jesus/is-jesus-god/old-testament-prophecies/how-did-jesus-fulfill-the-old-testament.html

It is written: “And he was numbered with the transgressors”; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfilment.

Luke 22:37.

“Don’t think that I came to destroy the law, or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

Mathew 5:17.

And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Matthew 2:15.

Flight into Egypt.

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.

Matthew 3:13-15.

Donkey.

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

“Say to Daughter Zion,

‘See, your king comes to you,

gentle and riding on a donkey,

and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

Matthew 21:1-5.

Jesus enters Jerusalem.
Jesus Christ enters Jerusalem.

Notice primitive relativity and primitive innocence! Why did Jesus Christ not come riding in a golden chariot with a mighty throng of soldiers? Like a Roman victory parade? It is because it would have been vain. To reiterate, the only reason that the Buddha and the Christ existed is that they were above and beyond all other purposes, primarily a lesson for ancient kings, queens, monarchs and emperors, in that they were never gods and that they should never self-deify. This is demonstrated by Jesus Christ’s coming riding on a donkey.

Thy kingdom come.

It is about doing it, if it were prophesied that a king would come riding on a donkey, then it is about jumping on a donkey and fulfilling that prophecy. There are other examples of Jesus Christ fulfilling the Old Testament. What does thy kingdom come of the Lord’s Prayer mean? Is it an invisible kingdom in the sky or something more literal and down to earth than that? What if like the donkey above it were possible to bring kingdom come, on earth as in heaven, and which could last forever? What if the kingdom that Jesus Christ referred to was literally on earth? What if the kingdom was simply Egypt and Israel? Therefore it may be possible to bring the kingdom of God on earth as in heaven, by fulfilling the Lord’s Prayer, by giving the political power and the national glory back to Britain, back to Germany, back to Rome, back to Greece, back to Israel and back to Egypt. Then Jesus Christ may come back and save Europe?

“Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”

“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

Mark 11:10.

Notice the innocence of primitivism in the above verse (Mark 11:10), who today would say “Hosanna in the highest heaven!”, except sarcastically?

Jesus enters Jerusalem.
Jesus Christ enters Jerusalem.

We spend our lives looking forward, we look forward to the future, the weekend, our birthdays, holidays and Christmas. However, because primitive relativity and primitive innocence point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts they determine that it is about looking back, first of all to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past and then for example we should look back to older and poorer countries. For example, the Americans should look back to the British, and the British should look back the Germans, and the Germans should look back to the Italians, and the Italians should look back to Greeks and the Greeks should look back to the Israelis and the Israelis should look back to the Egyptians and the Egyptians should look back to no one.

Conclusion.

By the Buddha going from a future king to becoming a starving and emaciated holy man and the Egyptians (or Near Easterners) and Romans going from god-kings and divine emperors respectively to Jesus Christ (that is that the poor deserve divinity and not the rich), the ancients nailed eternity. The moral of the Buddha’s inverse sacrifice from a king to an emaciated holy man and the Christ’s humble birth, life and humility in death, that is being born in a cowshed, dying for the forgiveness of our sins and the coming of both of the two true incarnations to serve and not to be served, exemplify primitive relativity and primitive innocence which are a historical lesson for mankind. The examples given above show that in the first place humanity instinctively ascribed divinity to the most wealthy and powerful. Jesus Christ and the Buddha both proved that divinity (or primitive innocence) thinks or points in the inverse or opposite direction to capitalism or instincts, in that it is the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich. As mentioned my grandfather received just “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking” for Christmas as a child in the 1930’s. This is primitive innocence! Also for example, before the widespread availability of sugar, we could imagine that even meat might have been a treat for medieval or ancient children, almost certainly for prehistoric children. This is primitive innocence! Therefore the further you go back in ‘time’, the more and more primitive innocence people can claim, for example medieval peasants can claim a lot of primitive innocence. However, although such as medieval monarchs learned through Christianity and through ancient Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman emperors not to self-deify, the kings and queens of most periods in ‘time’ were still unbelievably pampered compared to the poor and peasants of their respective periods. This means that monarchs desire for very little materially, they are rarely hungry or thirsty and do not usually worry about bills or money etc. This may mean that just because you are old or ancient does not necessarily mean that you are primitive and innocent. Therefore, despite being ancient, kings and queens of any period may have very little primitive innocence relative to the poor and peasants of their respective periods! Medieval royalty could possibly claim primitive innocence in that they were Christian, and they did not self-deify. Also, however, monarchs of any period can probably claim primitive innocence in terms of the technology they used, in that they still had to use the same primitive technologies we common folk did, for example, some monarchs probably can remember the days before the invention of printing when such as parchment and vellum were used, and the days before steam power and the internal combustion engine, when the horse and cart were used etc. However, I believe that main moral lesson of the Christ and the Buddha is that it is the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich.

The only reason that the Buddha and the Christ existed is that they were above and beyond all other purposes, primarily a lesson for ancient kings, queens, monarchs and emperors, in that they were never gods and that they should never self-deify.


5. 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).

What is meant by non-archaeological? I mean that recorded history such as the bible is living and eternal because it is a non-archaeological account of the inventors of recorded history, the ancient Egyptians and Israelites. This is why the bible is the most famous and best selling book in ‘history’, because it is the first truly living and eternal (non-archaeological) recorded history.

It is about who was recorded history? Who was the old and primitive power and the glory of the past? Not who is the new and advanced super power of the present. You have to look back instead of forward. It is better to say who was recorded history at the time?

For ever and ever.

To reiterate, there is no eternity without recorded history, that is that cavemen and 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 (like the images in this essay) as well as recreated as prints and posters etc (I have a stretched canvas of the Panel of Lions of Chauvet in my study), however, the names of the actual painters are forever lost to us, because they had no writing (unlike Imhotep, the Egyptians and pharaoh Djoser for example), therefore, the painters are not eternal down here on earth but only in heaven. Hence, hallowed be your name! However, thanks to themselves and archaeology, it was firstly the Egyptians who 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.

Inextricable link.

BAD26E7A-3C24-45DE-9A9D-0F5C9B66819E
What is the connection between Jesus Christ and the Buddha and recorded history?

Jesus Christ and the Buddha are eternally relative or relevant like perpetual teenagers or children, they will never 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, an absolute prerequisite for a nation or civilisation to gloriously attain the Christ or the Buddha is that it must have or be recorded history. You cannot attain Christ or the Buddha without first attaining recorded history. Why? Because recorded history is eternal and living. The Christ and the Buddha come at the earliest possible moment in ‘history.’ 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 invented recorded history, writing and 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 is 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.


Sub-Saharan Africa.

Why has there been no Jesus Christ or Buddha in sub-Saharan Africa? It is nothing to do with race or phenotype, it is 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. If sub-Saharan Africa wanted to attain Jesus Christ or the Buddha they would probably have to be 100% independent like the ancient Israelites. 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).

FFC6B8A9-7138-40E7-9403-8E1572749D73
Bartolomeu Dias discovered and rounded the Cape of Good Hope in the unbelievably early date of May 1488.

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 revel in our measly 5000 years of history and think we are so fantastic for knowing our history 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, 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

FA756705-CF17-49A3-8A75-09B2D0343089

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’ revel in our measly 5000 years of history and think we are so great for knowing our history for 5000 years, yet we are only a 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, 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?

46D10759-F6E8-47F4-B145-9BD4B35F8FBE


6. 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 1980’s were relatively much more innocent than the 2020’s. 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 1980’s than we are today. For example, we had much less knowledge in the 1980’s 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 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. As mentioned, concerning race and racism, 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 was relatively primitive, this would 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. In fact being primitive is superior, and as the Nazis proved it is being advanced that is inferior. 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.

Indecent exposure.

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 the following. 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 evolutionarily, 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.

DC7C703C-D793-4FCC-A710-2ABEE2ACBFBB
Naked native African.

https://primitivelyinnocent.com

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Genesis 2:25.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Genesis 3:7.

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’

Genesis 3:21-22.

The Original Sin?

Europeans feel shame when naked anywhere on earth, while for Africans in Africa it is much less taboo, therefore this could determine that Europeans may have eaten the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, while Africans may have not. This also could mean that Africa is the biblical Garden of Eden, and that Europeans have been banished from it?

2E870862-8376-4870-B2AA-F82AD648CBF5
The Fall, After 1479 (Oil on panel) (Detail of 13000), Goes, Hugo Van Der (C.1440-82) / Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria / Bridgeman Images. https://www.lionsroar.com/the-real-meaning-of-original-sin/

https://primitivelyinnocent.com

Drink driving.

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 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.

Traffic lights are not observed for motorbikes in Africa, everybody does it and it is not a problem.

MOTs or Road Worthiness Certificates.

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.

People leave the Damara, the last strate
Road worthy vehicle, Africa.

Insurance.

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.

1C69CA9A-3121-47A6-B77F-57E1D4E0E355
Road worthy vehicle, Africa.

Speeding tickets.

Like drink driving, speeding tickets are simply handled at the side of the road with a bribe to the police.

Helmets, L plates and high-viz attire.

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 with an instructor sharing the one bike and one helmet. All in all it took less than a week to go from a total beginner to be a competent motorcyclist. Get on!

African motorcyclists.

Health and safety, hazards and death traps.

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 white people 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.
Ian Britton
Railway warning sign.

Sustenance.

As another example of stupid white people, when I was about 6 years old, myself and two other white friends 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 aimlessly cut down vegetation in Africa or other primitive places, you could be cutting down someone’s sustenance!

Planning permission.

There are other parts of the world where people are still primitive, 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.

90158D89-2116-4139-8A83-ABE7686FBB3E
Mountain bridge, Papua New Guinea highlands.

Parable of the First Contact Native Amazonians.

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 carcasses 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. 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 Americans. 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.

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)

57D6CAF7-644E-4081-9C4C-F3B6D743017D
First contact Amazonian.

https://primitiveinnocence.com

Technically primitive.

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 uncontacted or very remote and native, indigenous or primitive people’s in other parts of Africa, in such as the Congo for example. In the 1980’s 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 a “bruni” (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 brick house and do your shopping at a supermarket, then you are technically advanced and therefore more responsible and therefore less innocent, therefore, you would 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 (as mentioned another African custom) and accidentally kill someone. However, some people, especially bushmen would say mud huts and gazelle!

E814F2D9-53FC-4CA0-A9ED-1D97D46930ED
Bushmen of Southern Africa.

Recycling.

A 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.

AC0CEBF3-1B98-45C5-A71B-F67C20A8BDEC
Recycling sign.

Barbaric sports.

And although we are glad some primitive customs are no more, other examples of primitive innocence in the UK include 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. 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 deem rugby acceptable. Concerning rugby, even advanced white people deem that the risk is worth it!

Respect your elders!

FDF36D66-68E3-4BD8-83A9-4B9C5AB224AA
Compact disc (CD).

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 white people have invented the vast majority of technologies. This is obviously because 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. 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 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 my Grandfather (her Father) used to deliver milk in urns in a horse and cart from a farm where he worked in the 1940’s. 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.


7. PREHISTORY.

Pareidolia is where a living being perceives the shape or form of another living being in completely natural or unintentional man-made objects. For example humans can perceive shapes of animals in clouds or anthropoid faces in unintentional man-made objects. Art is similar to pareidolia, only the object is unnatural or man-made and the perceived image is intentional. Even scientists use pareidolia when naming cosmic structures, such as the Cats-Eye nebula. This is the difference between humans and animals, as in animals cannot perceive pareidolia, recognise art or understand writing (symbols). For example animals cannot perceive cave paintings, or recognise the intended object or image of the lines and shapes of pigment, they just see a wall. Not a single animal in creation has ever appreciated art, only humans. That is the difference between humans and animals, as in only humans appreciate art. If a living creature can perceive and appreciate art, it is by definition non-animal.

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).

Altamira bisons.
Altamira bisons, Cave of Altamira, Spain, Upper Paleolithic, around 36,000 years ago.

Unless it is moving or stinking animals cannot perceive another animal. To an animal the ability to read, recognise art and perceive pareidolia is telepathy. When Palaeolithic man and woman started to (not coincidentally) paint ‘animals’ in caves he or she must have perceived pareidolia, therefore by creating such timeless masterpieces, Palaeolithic man and woman proved beyond a doubt that he or she was 100% non-animal.

5CF71294-7164-4E2C-88DF-C4D894C20A38
Lascaux cave paintings, the Upper Paleolithic, estimated at around 17,000 years old (early Magdalenian).

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).

33,000 year old hand stencil by a paleolithic visitor to a cave at Chauvet Pont d’Arc in the south of France.
33,000 year old hand stencil by a paleolithic visitor to a cave at Chauvet Pont d’Arc in the south of France.

Prehistoric man’s memories.

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, although for example they may have proven their bravery by killing large animals, and they may also have been spiritual and yearned for eternity and the afterlife.

These [three skulls] were dated by argon-argon dating of volcanic material found in the geological stratum containing the remains, and found to be between 154,000 and 160,000 years old. All three of the skulls show cut marks indicative of some form of mortuary ritual: the earliest example of such practice documented for modern humans.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 118).

Our Father, which art in heaven.

What does our Father, which art in heaven of the Lord’s Prayer mean? I believe the riddle is solved when we consider that 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. 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 is for them.

5B724BA5-16B1-4A5A-8116-D17AF9537F54
Tetragrammaton. The Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah. “He who pronounces the Name with its own letters has no part in the world to come!” Such is the prohibition of pronouncing the Name as written that it is sometimes called the “Ineffable”, “Unutterable”, or “Distinctive Name”. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton).

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 is our Father, which art in heaven or YHWH. This is especially important for those prehistoric hominins or animals whom did not even have a name, in this case all these nameless beings must 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).

Unspeakable.

Prehistoric man did some unspeakable things such as rape, murder and cannibalism, however, their names are “Unutterable” and some of them couldn’t even speak. Therefore, such deeds were relatively less of an issue for prehistoric man. Unfortunately however, some Homo sapiens today such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish also did some pretty unspeakable things. What can we do about it? It is not good enough to make them serve ‘time’ in prison and hope it all goes away. We must correct sin. Obviously there is the connection between such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish to prehistoric men, in that the only place and ‘time’ they could be accepted, forgiven and at peace is with prehistoric man such as Homo erectus or Homo antecessor. 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 would be much ‘lighter’.

Crime relativity.

There is no morality in scientific relativity, however, there is morality and forgiveness in primitive relativity. 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. Let us pray that crime relativity or primitive relativity will shed ‘light’ on these dark crevices of life.

https://crimerelativity.com


Hallowed be 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 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 holy, therefore, the older you become, like fine wine, the better you get.

8EFA481D-1B1B-44F7-BAF7-359B24D367AD
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? 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 anyway. 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. In the afterlife imagine being a prehistoric man such as Palaeolithic man. It has got to be pretty awesome. Like animals prehistoric man is innocent and funny because as he was so primitive and had no wealth or infrastructure, he literally got away with murder and cannibalism etc. 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 and mammoths etc they were on their own.

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).

They also had little to no medicine, hence if they got an infection or broke a bone, their lives were in danger. Prehistoric, ancient and medieval people 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.

Nameless.

The older you are the more holy you are and the older you are the more respect you command. Therefore, because we do not and cannot know their names, the answer to the question who is prehistoric man is our Father, which art in heaven or YHWH. This is particularly important for those prehistoric ‘men’ or primitive animals whom were nameless, in this case all these anonymous entities must be called YHWH.

Palaeolithic man.
Palaeolithic man.

The power and the glory.

What does the power and the glory that Jesus Christ ascribed to YHWH in the Lord’s Prayer mean? Is it some mysterious magic mumbo-jumbo or miraculous hocus-pocus that enabled Jesus Christ perform miracles or is it more literal and down to earth than that? Is the power and the glory not just political power and national glory? Considering that both the Buddha and the Christ were primarily a lesson for ancient kings, queens, monarchs and emperors, in that they were not gods and that they should never self-deify, this may indicate that the power and the glory is just national and political, in that the Buddha and the Christ are probably our Kings and that in a very normal and governmental way the power and the glory is just political and national.

It is, however, well known, that the Gold-Coast, as well as other parts of the coast of Guinea, has been the source of much wealth; that it has given employment to many classes of our countrymen; and that it has contributed to support the great bulwark and glory of the Nation!

(An Account of the Gold Coast of Africa: with a Brief History of the African Company, Henry Meredith, page v.)

Primitive relativity and primitive innocence work economically or socially in the inverse or counter direction to conventional social standards or norms. This means that they look back to or point back in the direction of the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. Instead of looking to or pointing in the direction of those whose names we know down here in life and who are famous, such as superstars, the Queen, Bill Gates and Apple Inc, they look back to or point back in the direction of those whose names we do not know in life but can only know in heaven, such as the lower class, destitute, ancient and prehistoric.

Lascaux cave paintings.
Lascaux cave paintings. Depiction of aurochs, horses and deer, 17,000 BP.

To attain the power and the glory you have to look back instead of forward. It is not just individually but also concerning countries. For example, instead of always and only looking at the new world super power, I also look back to the kingdom of YHWH or the old power and glory of the Old Testament, such as the Nile Valley, North Africa and the Near East and then the New Testament such as Greece, Rome, Britain then America etc. It all works backwards or inversely because the older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are.

Joseph interpreting Pharaoh’s dream.
Joseph interpreting Pharaoh’s dream.

It is the oldest story in the book. It is about who it was at the time, who was the power and the glory of the age? Not who is the new super power in the present. It is about being right not bigger or more powerful. It is the Christian moral of the rich man and the poor man.


Thy will be done.

What does thy will be done of the Lord’s Prayer mean? Thy will be done probably means we should just do whatever YHWH commands us, that possibly being to create the kingdom on earth as in heaven. As above so below. Also, we should live on earth like people who are in heaven, who are grown ups regarding forgiveness.

In earth, as it is in heaven.

What does in earth, as it is in heaven of the Lord’s Prayer mean? This could mean we should bring the kingdom of YHWH, on earth as in heaven. It may mean prehistoric people’s “ineffable” names should be hallowed on earth as in heaven. It also could mean we should be grown ups on earth as in heaven, for example we should never care about money or ‘energy’.

And lead us not into temptation.

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 1990’s 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 1980’s 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 candy and chocolate we could ever eat. Compared to the 1920’s we born in the 1980’s were relatively less innocent. However, even the 1980’s were way more innocent than the 2020’s 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 64’s, 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. For example, iPads and iPhones tempt us that were born in the 1980’s to severe our connections to and denigrate and disparage the unfashionable 1980’s 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 1980’s and into the advanced and evil twenties of the present 21st century.

48A59E08-53B6-46B7-82A8-E7A24637A76C
Apple Inc. logo.

And lead us not into temptation is for Apple Inc.

I believe that successful and advanced people such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs etc can have a lot of primitive innocence, this is because they know and can remember intimately old dinosaur computer technologies from the 1960’s and 1970’s etc.

At 13, he [Bill Gates] enrolled in the private Lakeside prep school, and he wrote his first software program…. Gates took an interest in programming the GE system in BASIC, and he was excused from math classes to pursue his interest. He wrote his first computer program on this machine, an implementation of tic-tac-toe that allowed users to play games against the computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

For example, I am sure that “programming the GE system in BASIC” and writing “tic-tac-toe” would be a lot of primitive innocence for Bill Gates!? I am sure that these primitive and innocent technologies and days would move Bill Gates’s heart?

All that I am saying is that without primitive relativity and primitive innocence such obsolete technologies become worthless junk, and we become bogged down in an ever deepening mire of seeking the new advanced technologies and the cutting-edge, where as with primitive relativity and primitive innocence, we slow down and are comfortable with the past and such old technologies do have value and worth.

Concerning the temptation of technology, a modern version of Matthew 6:19-21 could be the following:

Do not seek for yourselves advanced technologies in the present or future, where everything breaks down, quickly gets old, dated or becomes obsolete, but seek for yourselves primitive technologies of the past, where everything is already broken down, gotten old, dated and become obsolete. For where your primitive innocence is, there will your heart be also.

What I mean by seeking primitive technologies of the past is for example, 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. And I am sure that such as Bill Gates’s “tic-tac-toe” program is where his heart is? What can you remember?

BFE34461-F384-45CE-9D7D-B389CF507A52
8-inch, ​5 1⁄4-inch, and ​3 1⁄2-inch floppy disks.

But deliver us from Evil.

What does but deliver us from evil of the Lord’s Prayer mean? This could mean concerning knowledge of good and evil, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. It could also mean deliver us from the evil one, that being Adolf Hitler?


In the beginning.

Darwin’s revolution in science grew from the concept that one or a few original one-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then into fish, then into amphibians, then into reptiles, then into lower mammals, then into primates, then into man.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 110).

‘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!? Therefore, he 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, (what the hell!?), 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? Through natural selection? At what point in evolutionary terms does killing another member of the same species become murder? For example Homo erectus or Homo antecessor did not feel less innocent for killing or cannibalising another member of the same species, and it was never murder. However, at some point YHWH had had enough and then more evolved or advanced hominins began to feel less innocent for so called ‘murder’ or ‘cannibalism.’ 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 and gained knowledge of what is good and what is evil. Humanity has clearly won the struggle for life and has come to dominate life on earth, with technological knowledge, by being good, moral and compassionate and by knowing the difference between good and evil. For example, 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. For example, like the Golden Parables, in reality animals such as birds or lions never perform primitive relativity and primitive innocence, in that in reality they rarely share food and never go against nature. But humans are supposed to be more than animals.

Clearly being good, moral and compassionate is a huge benefit not only to yourself but also your species!

36715E1A-B674-4255-8185-63AFE8A646FA
Paleozoic Landscape.

A single drop of regret.

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?

Print
Cambrian explosion.

‪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.

History of the earth in 24 hours.
History of the earth in 24 hours.

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.

5CA920BB-6692-4297-939B-4642DE3529A7
Cambrian explosion.

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.

If someone sins against you (such as a Jeffrey Dahmer) say I get the eternal eyes of YHWH for forgiveness and so do you. Note the similarity with forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who sin against us.

4E5260AA-5799-4D70-87E6-7EBA43607B2E
The eternal eyes of YHWH.

Guilt is good.

Humans should compare themselves to animals more often and appreciate themselves. Compared to the animal kingdom we are awesome. But hypocritically we humans 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.

Prehistoric man.
Prehistoric man.

You cannot sin unless you are conscious of sin.

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).

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. Therefore, 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.

952A8E25-28F5-4173-B4D9-81B6670768F4
Cambrian explosion.

Sin is intrinsically good because it is by definition non-animal.

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.

Prehistoric man.
Prehistoric man.

8. FORGIVENESS.

And forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive them that trespass against us.

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! This is 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 there is no forgiveness, 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.

Relatively, who cares?

Therefore, 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 cake.

Petty sin.
Go to hell!

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.

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_through_fields_of_wheat).

0FCD255E-C893-4E76-B7C5-EBD878779965
Go to hell!

I am dealing with real sin such as crimes against humanity, 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 nothing is really a problem and therefore, all sin is fixed. 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? What do I mean by let us pray crime relativity or primitive relativity will shed ‘light’ on these darkest areas of human existence? I do not mean ‘light’ as in a torch or photons, but lightheartedness. Shedding ‘light’ on evil does not need to be a miracle, it just needs to be lightheartedness.

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. Crime is relative.
  2. Innocence is relative.
  3. Primitivism is innocence.
  4. Because prehistoric man, such as Neolithic man had stone tools, they were as primitive and innocent as new born babies!
  5. Good guys can go deranged (trust me).
  6. Greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are no sweat with prehistoric men.
  7. Sin and guilt are good because early or primitive hominins and animals were/are ignorant of sin and did/do not feel guilt. Sin is intrinsically good because it is by definition non-animal. YHWH loves and is amazed by humans because we are not animals, we are not ignorant of sin and we feel guilt.
  8. Guilt is human. Guilt is good.
  9. 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’.
  10. 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. 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.
    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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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. The lower class can say or do what they like.
  14. 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?
  15. 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 (unlike the Golden Parables). 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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’.
  18. 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 a subhuman such as an ape or an archaic hominin. If he accepted this then his sins would be ‘lighter’.
  19. 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.
Mesolithic man.
Mesolithic man.

https://innocenceofprimitivism.com

Crime relativity.

There is no morality in scientific relativity, however, there is morality and forgiveness in primitive relativity. 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. Let us pray crime relativity or primitive relativity can shed ‘light’ on these dark corners of life.


Primitive innocence.

Most importantly the Holocaust is the biggest foul up in history. This means the Holocaust 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 cannot think of a place in ‘time’ where the Holocaust would not seem so anachronistic, it is hard to find, but for example Australopithecina might not care about it. If the Holocaust had happened in the ancient or medieval periods it may have been less of an issue by now. Because Adolf Hitler was a barbarian in the 20th century this means he was very anachronistic and therefore he was ‘relatively evil’. If Hitler went back in ‘time’ hundreds of thousands of years he might find 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 were much more primitive technologically and therefore much more innocent relatively. But how can we say this for the Holocaust? How can Hitler claim primitive innocence? Considering that the 1980’s were more innocent times compared to the 2020’s, because we had no internet or mobile phones etc, this must mean that the 1930’s and 1940’s were much more primitive technologically and therefore, much more innocent. Think back to those innocent black and white films with those crying damsels etc.

124F1E93-B8B4-47E5-BC25-507BA04513A2
Joan Crawford in the romantic drama “Humoresque” (1946-Warner Bros).

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! Because of Adolf Hitler’s ardent and clinical “Nordicism”, and because he split hairs between Europeans, he needs a slap! A slap from all Europeans, but especially Southern Europeans, such as Greek, Italian and Spanish etc. Contrary to what our governments are inflicting on us, Hitler does not need a slap from non-Europeans or the rest of the world. Hitler does not need a slap from Muslims. Hitler does not need a slap from Africans. Hitler does not need a slap from Chinese or Indians etc. If Europeans could slap Hitler, this would satisfy. 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! 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 these creatures and in this place and ‘time’ Hitler might even be accepted and forgiven. 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’ hundreds of thousands of years could he have “relative” innocence?

5DB422BF-0B36-4126-B50E-8B28BDB692E8
Take your pick!

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? 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!

https://innocentwithtime.com


Innocence of primitivism.

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 he was ‘relatively evil’ because the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an animal. 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’.

87D32578-80C7-40D8-AB48-EEFF499C01C2
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 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’ tens of thousands of years could he have “relative” innocence?

https://innocencewithtime.com


Primitively innocent.

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. If they accepted this then their sins would be ‘lighter’. 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’ hundreds of years could he have “relative” innocence?

https://relativeinnocence.com

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!” However, you had to say it! 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.

The parable of the two debtors.
The parable of the two debtors.

“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.

What is the point of all these above verses regarding forgiveness if they are only concerned with minor or petty sin, such as a vicar feeling contrite and repentant 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. We have to 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. In fact, concerning our primitive innocence or technologies such as black and white films and CDs etc, although primitive relativity and primitive innocence are a nice idea, they would simply not work without being able to forgive such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile etc. All those cherished memories and primitive innocences of our youth would mean next to nothing. 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.

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’. Let us pray crime relativity or primitive relativity will shed ‘light’ on these darkest places of human existence. ‘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. Natural selection may choose those who go against nature, the non-animal or the good, moral and compassionate, as evidenced by the fact that Homo sapiens have come to dominate life on earth primarily through being good, moral and compassionate. 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).


9. CONCLUSION.

Two ways of looking at the past.

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 Europeans, in that Europeans were relatively more powerful and secure in the 1960’s. 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, but non-Europeans 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-Europeans have little to no past or recorded history. For example, try to put yourself in the mind of an African, “the past” to Africans was segregation or slavery, therefore, they do not care as much as Europeans about the past. However, Europeans do care about the past. Why just because some non-Europeans do not have a past and therefore care less about it, should Europeans also not care about the 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 Europeans care about that? Not long afterward, the art historian and former museum director Sir Roy Strong said the suggestion the column should be taken down was a “ridiculous” viewpoint, commenting that “Once you start rewriting history on that scale, there won’t be a statue or a historic house standing….The past is the past. You can’t rewrite history”. Because of the Holocaust, non-Europeans will have the eternal future, while Europeans have the eternal past. Anti racists are fashionable and racists are unfashionable. Are people racist because they are unfashionable? Or are they unfashionable because they are racist? Are people fashionable because they are anti racist? Or are they anti racist because they are fashionable? Who cares? Europeans do want to know about and hold on to their past. However, think of this, in the afterlife, would The Beatles choose to live in 1969 London or 2020 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 European’s outspoken anti racist 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. 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 and innocent life was and the more powerful and secure Europeans were. For example, I bet you that a European who was born in the 1920’s, despite having outspokenly anti racist 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 Europeans 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. On the subject of fashion, to reiterate, 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. As mentioned, I was born in 1981, and I can remember all the music from 1980’s, which I believe is “in a way” superior to modern or 2020’s music. I believe that “in a way” people sang better in the 1980’s, they had deeper voices and I believe that “in a way” people also danced better in the 1980’s and 1990’s, this because of acid house and rave etc. If you watch or listen to 1980’s music you can see and hear the primitive innocence. All artists have their 15 minutes of fame, then whoosh, 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 nothing, and I for one am sick of it. It all just runs away. It is like the eternal relativity or 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 relevant like teenagers and they are always the forefront, fashionable and the cutting-edge. In fact, because of music and fashion I doubt that this world will ever really be more than a barely conscious and wet behind the lugs teenager. If there is such a thing as a “resurrection” for over the hill artists such as The Beatles it will require primitive relativity and primitive innocence. As an anti racist 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 fairly recent one, but time will tell if anyone cares The Beatles in another 100 years or so. If you want us to care about you, you have to care about the whole past as well, such as Horatio Nelson and Henry the navigator. 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. In the afterlife we will be both powerful and fashionable. Booyackasha! Wicked! Innit!

You might as well tickle terrorists with a feather.

There is no point in having an advanced military and advanced or smart weapons such as laser-guided bombs (LGB) and nuclear warheads etc if you cannot even effectively deal with race, that is if you cannot effectively deal with immigration and minorities etc and prevent certain people from entering your country. Third world immigrants and Muslims will conquer America “from within”, that is through exploiting their weakness when it comes to race, that is they will simply conquer America through immigration. For example, the Romans are much happier and infinitely better off with a primitive military and primitive weapons such as the gladius, catapults and ballistas etc, because more importantly they can quickly and effectively deal with race, that is they can discriminate on grounds of ethnicity or religion and 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 can no longer discriminate on grounds of race. Similarly, for example, 15th to 19th century Europeans etc are infinitely happier with and much better off with primitive militaries and primitive weapons, such as swords, muskets and cannons etc, because it means they can effectively deal with race, that is they can discriminate on grounds of ethnicity and religion to prevent people from entering their territory. They would never swap! Therefore, Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors 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 it enables you to use that aircraft carrier more effectively. 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 effectively battle race. 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 of white people, (something like The Communist Manifesto), imagine how brave and heroic that person would be in the afterlife? Conversely, you can be like mainstream politicians such as Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson and go out like anti racist cowards and traitors to your own country and people. I just want to live in a country that is for (not against) itself and that points the gun the other way, that is at the enemy. You probably will say what enemy? Exactly!

328E81F1-E35D-4F9E-A24A-1A80B09BF752
Roman gladius.

To reiterate, concerning race and racism, because of the Holocaust, primitive relativity and primitive innocence clearly highlight and 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 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. In fact being primitive is superior, and as the Nazis proved it is being advanced that is inferior.

I am not saying that we should all give every last penny of our money away, I am just saying that in reality we should be more generous, and 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 in this case is that while we are using or creating our advanced technologies that we should be very conscious of and aware of the past and primitive relativity and primitive innocence. Therefore, I will ask you the question one last time, do you want primitive innocence? I told you at the beginning that I already knew your answer, that is yes you do! So therefore, forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile.

Our Father, which art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name;

Thy kingdom come;

Thy will be done

in earth, as it is in heaven:

Give us this day our daily bread;

And forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive them that trespass against us;

And lead us not into temptation,

But deliver us from evil:

For thine is the kingdom,

the power, and the glory,

For ever and ever.

Amen.

https://time4forgiveness.com

https://time4forgiving.com

https://time2forgive.com