Primitive relativity.

CONTENTS.

I have divided this essay into 8 parts.

1. Preface.

Although obviously not a ‘main’ part, this 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 idea of the most important points.

3. Self-deification.

This is an interesting smaller part of the essay. It takes two examples of ancient monarchical self-deification and contrasts them with the Buddha’s and Jesus Christ’s examples to demonstrate why and how it is the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich.

4. Recorded history.

This is a slightly less important part of the essay but sets the tone for the part 6 (Prehistory) and most importantly shows how recorded history is related to eternity and therefore, how recorded history is inextricably linked to the Buddha and Jesus Christ.

5. Primitive innocence.

This is an interesting part that shows how contemporary developing or third world countries can demonstrate primitive relativity and primitive innocence.

6. Prehistory.

This part introduces the evolutionary and prehistoric aspect of the essay. It establishes the fact that because prehistoric man’s names are forever lost to us their names are ineffable or unutterable, and therefore, prehistoric man could be our Father who art in heaven or YHWH. This part also states that the concepts of sin and guilt are intrinsically good because the knowledge of sin and the feeling of guilt are by definition non-animal and hence this part is also related to innocence and forgiveness and therefore, sets the tone for part 7 (Forgiveness).

7. Primitive relativity.

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.

8. Postface

This is an important part that expounds on the temptation of technology, which states that advanced technology tempts us to live in the present or future, instead of living in the blissful, innocent and primitive past. This same part also shows how there are always two ways to consider the past, in that “in a way” we can the say the past was better for Europeans or secondly we can say “daaaaang! the past is so dated and primitive, look at the haircuts!” Also there is a discussion concerning the relative usefulness of advanced or primitive weapons, in that what is the point of advanced weapons if they make you more compassionate? For example prehistoric man had no compassion because all that he had was wooden spears and stone axes etc and because he had not yet tamed the wild and was not yet master of the animal kingdom. Finally I make apologies to primitive peoples of the world on behalf of my people and my ancestors for empires, colonialism and slavery etc. With primitive relativity and primitive innocence we certainly do not think we are greater or “superior” than you at all.


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 writing or essay ’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.

Hobbies.

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 or scientific ‘time’ where as the latter is writing or essay ‘time’. What I mean by writing or essay ‘time’ is that primitive relativity and primitive innocence simply use the terms ‘time’, ‘relative’ and ‘relatively’.

Time is not spiritual or divine.

As mentioned I have also conducted an investigation of , which is mathematical relativity. I am working on two things https://squareoftime.com and https://time2forgive.com. 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 innocence and forgiveness in writing or essay ‘time’.

When I first studied , I lost all faith in the spiritual and divine and I am now starting to believe this is definitely the correct way to go. I have discovered that there are such things as innocence and forgiveness in writing or essay ‘time’ which is not too far from scientific ’time’. I believe writing or essaying is a little closer to science than the spiritual and divine, therefore, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are never spiritual and divine!

Writing or essay ‘time’.

To reiterate when I first studied , I went through a phase of secular and rational thinking in which I lost all faith in things spiritual and divine, which I now believe to be right. Because I was studying https://magnitudeoftime.com I stated rational things like:

“Time is not spiritual or divine.”

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

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

I am pretty sure I believe the top two statements as I have taken a dislike to the spiritual and divine, I prefer ‘time’ and the secular and scientific. However, I definitely do not now believe the third, as DJing and electronic music are simply beautiful and hip in a way science can never be. If you like you can listen to my mixes here. As mentioned it is hoped that primitive relativity and primitive innocence would be writing or essay ‘time’.

Equations v philosophy.

There is no forgiveness in scientific or mathematical relativity, however, there is innocence 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 philosophy. However, the only problem with mathematics and physics is that although you can fundamentally command people with formulas and equations, you do not get to choose what you want to say, they are actually utterly neutral and devoid of any philosophical, moral or political content. Therefore, we have absolutely no hope for forgiveness (particularly to do with the Holocaust) with mathematics and physics. Hence, although philosophy does not command people in the same way as equations and formulas, it has moral and political content.


2. INTRODUCTION.


Definition.

noun (Primitivism)

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

I bet you are a sceptic and do not believe that the qualities of primitive or chronologically early cultures are superior to those of contemporary civilisation? However, as will be seen the further you go back in ‘time’ the more primitive and innocent life was and this could constitute in a way as a superior quality. The only advantage the present or future has is its advanced technology, but 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. As will be seen you do not need to go back far in ‘time’ to find primitive innocence, for example, the Victorians have become relatively classical and holy almost like the Romans. Therefore, who would you rather be a Victorian with an empire or a modern Elizabethan with an iPhone? This is the temptation of technology as will be seen later. Even such as the 1920s and 1950s etc could soon become ‘periods’ and become classical and holy like the Victorian period. Also the Europeans and especially the Nazis labelled primitive people as “inferior”, but this is absolutely not the case, as will be seen relatively there is nothing wrong with being primitive as it means you are more innocent. In fact being primitive is superior, and as the Nazis proved being advanced is inferior. The Lord’s Prayer is sometimes mentioned, and as will be seen the older you are the more holy you are, and because we do not and cannot know the names of our holy fathers on earth such as prehistoric man, therefore hallowed be your name and on earth as in heaven 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.

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

 

It is relativity not supremacism.

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

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

For an example of primitive relativity and primitive innocence take the above primitive creature Tiktaalik roseae. We could sit here after 375 million years of evolution and say that this is a primitive and “inferior” life form and that we Homo sapiens are a much more advanced and therefore “superior” life form than Tiktaalik roseae, but this is absolutely not the case. This is what the Nazis (and only the Nazis) did to “non-Aryans” with white supremacism. Just because you are an advanced species does not mean you are “superior” as there is ‘time’ and relativity between primitive and advanced species. Primitive relativity determines that the older and more primitive you are the more innocent and respected you are. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence determine there is relative equality between primitive species (such as Tiktaalik roseae) and advanced species (such as Homo sapiens). Therefore, it does not matter if like Tiktaalik roseae you are old and primitive as you are more innocent, and this is in a way superior. In fact because creatures such as Tiktaalik roseae were relatively primitive down here on earth, therefore, the opposite will be true in the afterlife, and this means that in heaven primitive creatures are more holy than us. Therefore, even though primitive relativity and primitive innocence try to forgive Adolf Hitler and occasionally defend white people it can never be claimed that primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ever white supremacism! For example, if you are a far-right white supremacist how can you respect Tiktaalik roseae but not Africans? If you do respect Tiktaalik roseae then you respect Africans. It is relativity not supremacism!

What is primitive relativity and primitive innocence?

First of all ask yourself this question, do you want primitive innocence? I bet 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? Everybody understands what is meant by the old sayings “innocent times” or “innocent days”, hence, primitive relativity and primitive innocence take this notion very far indeed. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence are the theory that things were better in the past, and they are also ‘relativity’ and ‘time’ for grown ups! This is because obviously we cannot teach such subjects as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer to children. Also there obviously has to be forgiveness for anything in the afterlife, including the Holocaust, and this is because people in the afterlife are grown up! In fact this essay presumes or takes for granted that there exists an afterlife. 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 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones and we did not understand smart things like FaceTime and Spotify, therefore we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. In the 1980s we could only imagine that a video call would be something like out of Star Trek or the Aliens films, we had no idea it would just be an app called ‘FaceTime’. This is primitive innocence! And music to us was simply cassette tapes, we could not even imagine that one day music would be ‘streamed’ over the internet, in fact we would not have even understood what you meant by ‘streamed’ or the internet. This is primitive innocence! I even remember when compact discs or CDs came out, we were all amazed by them, we never really thought it would get any better. This is primitive innocence! Therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric people were! Prehistoric people were so primitive and innocent they could literally get away with rape, murder and cannibalism etc. 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 more primitive periods to seek acceptance and forgiveness. As mentioned primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ‘time’ and relativity for adults!

Primitive gullibility and naivety.

Another thing I remember about the 1980s and 1990s 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 1990s which probably had a lot to do with the TV show The X-Files. Post-millennium and with the coming of the widespread availability of the internet, 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.

Innocent 20s.

My grandfather was born in 1926 and I remember him telling me in the 1990s that what he got for Christmas as a child was “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking.” This is primitive innocence! Unfortunately we born in the 1980s were relatively spoiled as children at Christmas. We received anything we wanted, for example an Atari, a Commodore 64, an Amiga or a Nintendo etc, plus all the candy and chocolate we could ever eat. Relative to the 1920s we born in the 1980s were less innocent, and relative to the 1980s, those born in the 21st century 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. Remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ‘time’ and ‘relativity’ for grown ups! Considering the 1980s were more primitive and innocent than today, how primitive and innocent do you think the 1930s and 1940s were? Think back to those 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.

Innocent 90s.

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

Respect your elders!

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

Why and how is primitivism linked to innocence?

You should know better.

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

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

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

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

Luke 6:37.

How is crime or sin relative?

Time for forgiveness.

Remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ‘time’ and ‘relativity’ for grown ups! This is because discussing such as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer cannot be taught to children. Also because there obviously has to be forgiveness for anything in the afterlife, including the Holocaust, and this is because people in the afterlife are grown up! Obviously I am in absolutely no way condoning people’s crimes. People who commit crimes obviously have to serve ‘time’ in prison, however, the point of what you are about to read below (and throughout this essay) is that there should at some point in ‘time’ be forgiveness, that is once people are in prison or in the afterlife. While someone is a living, active or practicing criminal then they have to wait for forgiveness, and waiting is ‘time’. However, once the perpetrator is caught, incarcerated or is dead then it is ‘time’ for forgiveness.

There is no 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 was so relatively evil compared with Homo antecessor because they are out of place and in the wrong ‘time’. However, ‘time’ and relativity give us hope that there could be a cure 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, as he was only relatively evil because he was more modern and advanced. Therefore, as will be seen, if such as Jeffrey Dahmer became, thought like or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal, then his sins would be much ‘lighter’. Only with these primitive hominins and in these places and ‘times’ could he be accepted and forgiven. ‘Time’ determines that Jeffrey Dahmer was relatively evil that is the only difference.


3. SELF-DEIFICATION.

Egypt and the Near East 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 goes back some 700,000 years.

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).

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 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).


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.

For ever and ever.

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


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 and only true deities. 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).

Egyptian kings self-deified and the ancients ascribed divinity to the wealthiest and most powerful until they figured out that YHWH and divinity work or operate in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts, in that it is the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich. YHWH then orchestrated the huge 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 deities to serve and not be served.

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.

The ancient Romans also ascribed divinity to super-rich divine Roman emperors.

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).

5FEE79B7-907E-4E2B-810F-DA230FDADF80
Julius Caesar.

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.

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).


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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

07A52D22-DDA6-4814-BDF6-D815D68A4666
Jesus Christ enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey.

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. 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 instead of a golden chariot.

Conclusion.

By the Buddha going from a future king to becoming an emaciated holy man and the Egyptians (or Near Easterners) and Romans going from god-kings and divine emperors respectively to Jesus Christ, these examples show how the main point of the Buddha and Jesus Christ was primarily to demonstrate that it is the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich. The moral of the Buddha’s huge 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 deities 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 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 “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking” for Christmas as a child in the 1930s. 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 probably 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! Medieval royalty could possibly claim primitive innocence in that they were Christian, and they did not self-deify. Therefore, I believe that main point or moral lesson of the Christ’s and the Buddha’s comings and examples 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.


4. 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.

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.

Jesus Christ and the Buddha are eternally relative or relevant like perpetual teenagers or children, they will never get old, date or go out of fashion. Also there is an inextricable link between Jesus Christ and the Buddha and recorded history, in that despite the fact that writing only reached India after the time of the Buddha, a more or less prerequisite for a nation or civilisation to gloriously attain the Christ or the Buddha is that it must more or less have recorded history. You cannot attain Christ or the Buddha without either having or be close to having recorded history. Why? Because recorded history is eternal and living. The Christ and the Buddha come at the earliest possible moment in history not prehistory. Both Christ and the Buddha would never come unless recorded history was either very close to or already attained in that country or civilisation, as they would never be famous and their teaching would never be remembered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is why Jesus Christ came an Israelite, because they 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).

Taming the wild (compassion).

Why did Jesus Christ or the Buddha not come at a different ‘time’, say in modern times or prehistory? Why specifically the ancient period? Firstly, it may be because the ancient period was so primitive and innocent and secondly, if they had come earlier than the ancient period, it would have been useless as they would never have been famous or remembered. Also, consider compassion, how can Australopithecina or Palaeolithic man be compassionate or magnanimous toward animals, when they themselves were not yet masters of the animal kingdom or even worse still prey themselves? It is impossible, compassion simply did not exist. Compassion is technical, in that you must for instance attain gunpowder before you can be compassionate toward animals. Therefore, compassion toward animals was probably only attained with sophistication, collective development and civilisation (perhaps through agriculture, domestication and the Neolithic revolution etc) because then and only did Homo sapiens become invincible and masters of the animal kingdom. It is impossible to be compassionate when you are not yet masters of the world, and therefore, magnanimous toward animals. It is like saying to ‘bear’ “I have a nuke now, therefore I am compassionate toward you.” This is something bear will never understand, in that it is ironic that once you attain nuclear weapons that you are therefore by definition compassionate. What would a bear do with a bazuka? He would probably go on a rampage. Therefore, the Buddha and Jesus Christ could never have come a prehistoric man. To reiterate, compassion is something technical, it is only attained through a collective effort, through taming the wild and through civilisation. Now think of this, Adolf Hitler did not have much compassion, in fact he was the opposite of the Buddha when it comes to compassion, nor did Jeffrey Dahmer for that matter. However, bare this in mind, because as will be seen this lack of compassion must determine that both Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer were in fact prehistoric men in the 20th century and therefore, relatively, this must mean that they existed in the wrong place and the wrong ‘time’. It is ironic that despite Adolf Hitler’s claims of racial “superiority” that in reality he was probably a prehistoric man or (and I quote) a “subhuman” himself.


Sub-Saharan Africa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The unbelievably early date of May 1488.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E83042D2-AFC1-4704-AB4E-E9C1C3128139


5. PRIMITIVE INNOCENCE.

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

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

As another example of the haphazard “bruni” (white man), when I was about 6 years old, myself and two other “brunis” of about the same age went out exploring on an adventure with machetes in the jungle and bush of Obuasi, in the Ashanti region of Ghana in 1987. We hacked our way through the jungle up a hill, then suddenly an old local Ghanaian man came rushing out of his house screaming and shouting at us, “Why you cut down my plantain flower!?” We were absolutely terrified. In fact I have never felt in so much trouble in all my life! The old man really scolded us and threatened to report us. The moral of the story is DO NOT under any circumstances aimlessly cut down vegetation in Africa or other primitive places, you could be cutting down someone’s sustenance! Another example of 1980s primitive innocence is that we were much less squeamish and much less soft than people and children of today. For example, as a child in Obuasi, a gold mining town in the Ashanti Region of Ghana, West Africa in the 1980s, a “bruni” friend and I hunted and mercilessly killed on a daily basis the West African agama agama lizard as well as various exotic birds with catapults which were colloquially called a “gat” or a “tie” (although I never succeeded in killing a bird my elder friend did). We literally collected dead lizards in large cardboard boxes, we must have killed scores over the years. I mean today not even I would kill an agama agama, as I am much more advanced and therefore, more ethical than I was in the 1980s. Today I would simply study agama agama in a scientific or naturalist kind of way, but this just shows how primitive and innocent the 1980s were! We didn’t even hesitate to kill agama agama in those days. To be honest we were so primitive and innocent in those days I or we didn’t even know the correct scientific name of agama agama, I only found that out with the advent of the internet and Wikipedia relatively recently. We just called them “lizards” and it was always better and a win to kill an “orange head” (these were the large males as opposed to the all grey and smaller females). I mean to exemplify the difference, for example concerning a fly trapped in our car I once heard my 14 year old daughter say “don’t kill it!” I mean get a grip! Regarding agama agama and flies, take the example of compassion, and the impossibility of prehistoric men of attaining it because they were not yet masters of the animal kingdom. Which would you rather be, my 14 year old daughter or a prehistoric man? There are other parts of the world where people are still primitive and innocent, for example Papua New Guinea. The native Papuans make rope bridges across gorges purely from natural materials such as tree vines. Imagine if the native Papuans had to get planning permission and fill out endless red tape in order to build a bridge. It would be unethical as well as undesirable to do so. In the UK obviously health and safety regulations would never allow such a death trap structure to be built, where as the native Papuans do not care, the risk is worth it.

Parable of the First Contact Native Amazonians.

There were two American academic explorers and naturalists who were attempting to make first contact with an indigenous native Amazonian tribe in the 1960s. After months of searching and hacking their way through the Amazon rainforest with machetes, and dealing with insects, animals and disease, they finally found what they were looking for, a pristine and virgin un-contacted tribe of indigenous Amazonians. The initial contact was precarious, the 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. For example, because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, this means his crimes or sins were relatively in the wrong place and ‘time’, to reiterate the only reason Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism was ‘sick’ compared to Homo antecessor or indigenous Amazonians is because Jeffrey Dahmer carried it out in the 20th century and because he was advanced. Some prehistoric people (and contemporary native people) probably enjoyed and relished cannibalism, but would you judge them? No! It is only a matter of relativity. Therefore, the only thing Jeffrey Dahmer can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or a primitive and indigenous native of some sort. If he accepts this then his sins would be ‘lighter’. So if Jeffrey Dahmer today did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and became, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal would we forgive him? Instead of waiting ages for forgiveness, if Jeffrey Dahmer went back in ‘time’ tens of thousands of years could he find “relative innocence”?

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

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

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

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

https://primitiveinnocence.com

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

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


6. PREHISTORY.

A difference between Homo sapiens and animals, is that animals cannot perceive pareidolia or recognise symbols, images or paintings. 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.

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).

Unless it is moving or stinking animals cannot perceive another animal. To an animal the ability to read, recognise symbols 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.

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

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

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

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.

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

No name.

The names of prehistoric men are “Ineffable” and “Unutterable” because we do not and can never know them in life or on earth. Therefore, because we do not and cannot know their names, the answer to the question who is prehistoric man 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.

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.

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

Note the primitive innocence in the above cave painting, Palaeolithic man was responsible for nothing! For example, how famous do you think the painter or painters of the Lascaux or Altamira cave paintings is/are in the afterlife? In the afterlife how famous do you think the Israelite patriarchs of the bible are such as Abraham, Issac, Moses, Aaron and Joshua etc? Imagine meeting them. There is no one more holy and famous in the world. And despite the fact that no one has seen a photograph or video footage of Christ or the Buddha, because they are the most famous men in history, we all feel like we have seen their faces. Therefore, also imagine being a real soldier who fought in the Greco-Persian Wars or the Trojan War (if it were real). Or imagine being an authentic and indigenous Roman citizen. That must be pretty awesome.

And although ancient and medieval people did have writing and recorded history they had no cameras or photography, therefore, because we know so little about prehistoric, ancient and medieval people on earth, therefore in the afterlife they will be the most famous and illustrious. 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. Remember compassion!

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.


Temptation of technology.

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

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

And lead us not into temptation is for Apple Inc.

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


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).

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

For an example of primitive relativity and primitive innocence take the above primitive creature Tiktaalik roseae. We could sit here after 375 million years of evolution and say that this is a primitive and “inferior” life form and that we Homo sapiens are a much more advanced and therefore “superior” life form than Tiktaalik roseae, but this is absolutely not the case. This is what the Nazis (and only the Nazis) did to “non-Aryans” with white supremacism. Just because you are an advanced species does not mean you are “superior” as there is ‘time’ and relativity between primitive and advanced species. Primitive relativity determines that the older and more primitive you are the more innocent and respected you are. Primitive relativity and primitive innocence determine there is relative equality between primitive species (such as Tiktaalik roseae) and advanced species (such as Homo sapiens). Therefore, it does not matter if like Tiktaalik roseae you are old and primitive as you are more innocent, and this is in a way superior. In fact because creatures such as Tiktaalik roseae were relatively primitive down here on earth, therefore, the opposite will be true in the afterlife, and this means that in heaven primitive creatures are more holy than us. Therefore, even though primitive relativity and primitive innocence try to forgive Adolf Hitler and occasionally defend white people it can never be claimed that primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ever white supremacism! For example, if you are a far-right white supremacist how can you respect Tiktaalik roseae but not Africans? If you do respect Tiktaalik roseae then you respect Africans. It is relativity not supremacism!

‘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, there must be forgiveness and a second chance. Our primitive ancestors had no Ten Commandments. 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. How did our primitive ancestors such as Homo erectus figure out or learn what was good and what was evil? At what point in ‘time’ or evolution does killing another member of the same species become murder? For example Homo erectus or Homo antecessor did not feel guilty for killing or cannibalising another member of the same species, and it was never murder. However, at some point YHWH had had enough and then more evolved or advanced hominins began to feel guilty 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? Humanity has clearly won the struggle for life and has come to dominate life on earth, however, was it by being good, moral and compassionate or was it the other way round? Was it simply by conquering the animal kingdom with shear muscle and remorseless brutality that enabled us to then feel compassion? Is being good, moral and compassionate a huge benefit not only to yourself but also your species? Or did we literally have to conquer the animal kingdom one wolf at a time, before we therefore attained magnanimity and compassion? I think we had to conquer and master the world first, before we attained compassion. For example, compassion had to be technically attained through the invention of gunpowder, muskets and nuclear weapons etc. Therefore, Homo sapiens got more and more compassionate over ‘time’ toward animals through the invention of more and more advanced weapons. On another note, someone or something may have had to learn the hard way by fighting over food in order to learn that sharing is good and leads to things like manners and etiquette, and that greed is evil and leads to things like anger and hate. However, natural selection may choose manners and etiquette over greed or having the most food? Life has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years, and in all that time there has been nonstop violence and carnage without a single drop of regret. Most wild animals have either killed and eaten other animals, or been killed and eaten by other wild animals. Therefore, in contact with humans (or other animals), all wild animals automatically presume the worst, that is that you are going to kill them and eat them. We have all seen for example how a trapped wild animal, such as a bird or rabbit reacts to you trying to help it. Because they have no language, no matter what you do you cannot explain to that animal that you are not trying to kill it, but that you are trying to help it. 3.5 billion years of trained instincts and statistics determine animals just do not understand that another animal species would ever try to help them. There is no such thing as trust in the animal kingdom. After 3.5 billion years of viciousness, violence, I have bigger teeth than you, and eat or be eaten, animals do not trust us in the slightest. Therefore, how much do you think YHWH will appreciate the fact that one animal species has trust and does not necessarily and automatically kill and eat every other animal that it sees? It is not an automatic guarantee that humans will kill every animal they see, infact 99.9% of the time they will not, as there is no reason to. You cannot predict a human. We think about it and we are compassionate and magnanimous toward wild animals. After 3.5 billion years of killing and cannibalism without a single drop of regret, how much do you think YHWH will appreciate mankind? ‪Concerning sin and forgiveness one must have the eternal eyes of YHWH or His perspective of ‘time’, evolution or creation. If the whole ‘time’ of the earth was crammed into one single day or 24 hours, then relatively humans have been around since 11:58:43 pm.

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

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

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

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

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


7. Primitive relativity.

Wait for forgiveness.

What does and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us, of the Lord’s Prayer mean? I believe forgiveness is the most important part of the Lord’s Prayer, therefore to answer this question read the rest of this essay. Remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are ‘time’ and ‘relativity’ for grown ups! This is because discussing such as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer cannot be taught to children. Also because there obviously has to be forgiveness for anything in the afterlife, including the Holocaust, and this is because people in the afterlife are grown up! Obviously I am in absolutely no way condoning people’s crimes. People who commit crimes obviously have to serve ‘time’ in prison, however, the point of what you are about to read below (and throughout this essay) is that there should at some point in ‘time’ be forgiveness, that is once people are in prison or in the afterlife. While someone is a living, active or practicing criminal then they have to wait for forgiveness, and waiting is ‘time’. However, once the perpetrator is caught, incarcerated or is dead then it is ‘time’ for forgiveness.

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

Relatively, who cares?

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. 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. 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.
  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. 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 (and I quote) 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.

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.


Primitive innocence.

Most importantly the Holocaust is the biggest foul up in history and it is so unbelievably anachronistic, in that the most tragic and barbaric act in history happened so relatively recently in the 20th century. In antiquity the Greeks and Romans considered Northern Europeans as barbarians, evidently, the Nazis proved they still are! I 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. Concerning Hitler, remember that it was impossible for prehistoric man to feel compassion towards animals, because he was not yet master of the world or the animal kingdom. You cannot feel compassion when you are still prey yourself. In fact Hitler was the opposite of the Buddha when it comes to compassion. Therefore, because Adolf Hitler had no compassion, he was a prehistoric man in the 20th century, and this means he was very anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. This means if Hitler went back in ‘time’ hundreds of thousands of years he might find relative forgiveness and acceptance. Concerning slavery and barbaric sports such as fox hunting, duelling, dog fighting and gladiatorial combats, it is easy to claim primitive innocence and to say that we should not judge ancient and medieval people for slavery, 19th century and earlier Britons for fox hunting, duelling and dog fighting or Romans for gladiatorial sports. This is because they had much more primitive weapons and hence they had less compassion than us and also they had much more primitive technology than us and therefore were 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 2020s, because we had no internet or mobile phones etc, this must mean that the 1930s and 1940s were much more primitive technologically and therefore, much more innocent. Think back to those innocent black and white films with those crying damsels etc. Therefore, most importantly, the solution to the Holocaust is not just to forgive Hitler but to forgive Germany as a whole. In order to accomplish this Germany needs to regain its primitive innocence, in order to do this Germany must become relatively primitive! Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example the Holocaust, the way to forgive them is to use primitive relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or animals. For example, because Hitler cares so much about racism and “subhumans”, this scientifically determines that he is definitely at the very least an ape or archaic hominin! 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”?

4E3B6F74-0C72-425B-A57F-E352FDFCCC5F
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’.

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

To reiterate the only way I can understand a serial killer such as Jeffrey Dahmer with any ‘lightness’ is if he 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!” But then you swap sides. Also you know as well as I do, that since the Holocaust, Europeans have received a lot of justice, with loss of empire, decolonisation, mass immigration, and Islamic terrorism etc and the punishment will only get worse in the future. Even the British who helped to put a stop to the Holocaust, have been severely punished for it. White people need to eradicate their “white guilt” and to do this they need to regain their primitive innocence! Also there is the benefit in that if you have commit a minor sin, such as hitting your wife or burglary then relatively who cares if we can forgive such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile? Also, most importantly forgiveness has something to do with Jesus Christ, therefore, there clearly must be much benefit in it! It may have something to do with entering the kingdom of heaven, and if that is the case then I don’t know about you, but then such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish and Jimmy Savile are no sweat to me, just like prehistoric man! Now saying that, in order to “enter the kingdom of heaven” we could all go around screaming “I forgive everything! I forgive Hitler, I forgive Jeffrey Dahmer, I forgive Jimmy Savile etc!”, but we know this would probably not work, and it would probably not allows us to enter the kingdom of heaven. You cannot just ‘say’ I forgive, you have to truly mean it. However, with primitive relativity and primitive innocence there is genuine forgiveness.

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

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


Parable of Two Debtors.

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

Luke 7:40-43.

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

Matthew 6: 14-15.

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

Ephesians 1:7.

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

1 John 1:9.

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

Matthew 18: 21-22.

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

Ephesians 4: 31-32.

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

Colossians 3:13.

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

Mark 11:25.

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 doing penance for taking the largest slice of pie? Or with Theresa May running through a field of wheat as a child? There is no point! It would mean these verses are useless. 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. ‘In the beginning’ nobody told prehistoric man not to be harsh, nobody told prehistoric man not to be greedy, nobody told prehistoric man not to steal, nobody told prehistoric man not to rape, nobody told prehistoric man not to murder and nobody told prehistoric man not to cannibalise. Therefore, he obviously did all these things. It also means that greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are relatively no issue with prehistoric men. We living creatures of life receive no help or warning from YHWH or anyone whatsoever, we are on our own, we are 100% independent and we learn on our own through natural selection. Humanity has clearly won the struggle for life and has come to dominate life on earth, however, was it by being good, moral and compassionate or was it the other way round? Was it simply by conquering the animal kingdom with shear muscle and remorseless brutality that enabled us to then feel compassion? Is being good, moral and compassionate a huge benefit not only to yourself but also your species? Or did we literally have to conquer the animal kingdom one bear at a time, before we therefore attained magnanimity and compassion? I think we had to conquer and master the world first, before we attained compassion. For example, compassion had to be technically attained through the invention of gunpowder, muskets and nuclear weapons etc. Therefore, Homo sapiens got more and more compassionate over ‘time’ toward animals through the invention of more and more advanced weapons. Sin and guilt are good because animals are not aware of sin and do not feel guilt. Knowledge of sin is non-animal. Compared to the animal kingdom we are awesome. YHWH loves and is amazed by humans because we are not animals and we feel guilt. Guilt is human. Guilt is good. If you have sinned do not be too advanced, special or a supreme being, be primitive, prehistoric or even animal and then your sin is much ‘lighter’ or even forgiven. Finally, for example, if you have hit your father, or slapped your wife, or if you are serving ‘time’ for minor crimes such as ABH or burglary etc, then know that if we can forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Saville, then relatively, who cares? If you know someone who has made a monkey of themselves, please tell them they just need a bit of “PR” (Primitive Relativity).


8. POSTFACE.

The past.

There are two ways in which we can look at the past, firstly, concerning say the 1960s, we can say that the 1960s were much better in a way or relatively for Europeans, in that Europeans were relatively more powerful and secure in the 1960s. Secondly, we can all say “Daaaaaaang! It is so dated and old fashioned! Look how primitive it was! I’m glad I’m in 2020!” This is the temptation of technology. For example, London in 1969 was 99% white, but non-Europeans will likely denigrate the past by saying “Oh my God! The 60s!? How old fashioned is that!? Look at the haircuts!” This is because non-Europeans do not care as much as Europeans about the past. Without trying to sound politically incorrect, this is because for example the past to Africans was slavery or segregation, therefore, Africans were less in the past and therefore, they look forward to the future. 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. We cannot judge 18th and 19th century people for their deeds let alone views because they are older and therefore more primitive and innocent. They also had primitive weapons therefore they were less compassionate than us. 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”. Europeans do want to know about and hold on to their past. Imagine if we could ask The Beatles this question, what do you think was a better decade the 1960s or the 2010s? Despite advancements in technology, what would you think their answer would be? I went clubbing in the 1990s during the superclub explosion of that decade and although I prefer trance music to rock and roll, I am wise enough to know and understand that the 1960s were much more, much better and bigger (relatively) for Europeans. Hence, if I could I would choose the 1960s over the 1990s, despite the lack of trance music in that decade. You have got to watch yourself, we all do it, we all denigrate the past and say daaaaang! DJs of the 1990s and up to the present day do this a lot, they believe that with their advanced, fast and precise electronic music that they have really “done one” on the rock and roll of the 1960s and 1970s etc. Similarly in the afterlife, would The Beatles choose to live in 1969 London or 2020 London (which is over 50% non-white)? Considering the 1960s were much more primitive and innocent, and because their fame and fortune may depend on it, I expect they will choose to exist in 1969 London in the afterlife. In fact, despite every European’s outspoken PC tendencies down here on earth, I bet you the vast majority of Europeans in the afterlife (when fashion does not matter) hypocritically choose to live and exist in the ‘time’ periods of their birth or youth, in that most people will go back in ‘time’ as far as possible (that is unless they are tempted by an iPad to exist in the 21st century)? I know I will at the least live in the innocent 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. On the subject of fashion, older music artists should like primitive relativity and primitive innocence because it looks back to the poor, primitive, unfashionable, prehistoric and past, instead of the rich, advanced, fashionable, modern and future. Musicians and their songs date quickly and become old but with primitive relativity and primitive innocence they could age like fine wine and become classical. If you watch or listen to 1960s music you can see and hear the primitive innocence! All artists have their 15 minutes of fame and then as soon as it started, it is all over. They are no longer fashionable. And there is nothing they can do about it, as the next generation of teenagers are into something else, something new, more modern and more fashionable. It is an eternal and perpetual progress into rubbish. It is like the eternal relevance of Jesus Christ and the Buddha, in that they (unlike pop artists) never go out of fashion. Jesus Christ and the Buddha are eternally relative or relevant like teenagers and they are always the forefront, fashionable and the cutting-edge. If there is such a thing as a come back for over the hill artists such as The Beatles it will require primitive relativity and primitive innocence. As an outspokenly PC singer or artist, if you do not care about “the knuckle-dragging past”, such as Horatio Nelson or Henry the Navigator, then why on earth should anyone care about Rick Astley, Oasis or The Beatles? Artists such as The Beatles are also the past, just a relatively recent one, but ‘time’ will tell if anyone cares about The Beatles in hundreds of years of ‘time’? If you want us to care about you, you have to care about the whole past not just your own, by this I mean you have to care about such politically incorrect figures as Horatio Nelson and Cecil Rhodes etc. As mentioned, imagine if you could go on an expedition to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon rainforest to meet, study and live with native Papuans or un-contacted native Amazonians. Imagine if you could teach them primitive relativity and primitive innocence and then were able to ask them for genuine advice from there vast and timeless experience of primitivism (not nativism!). For example, they might say that ancestors are very important, and they might say respect your elders, they might even say appreciate your food. These wisdoms of primitivism probably have a lot of bearing on us relatively advanced modern Europeans, as because of the Holocaust we no longer appreciate “our ancestors” in fact we disparage and denigrate the “knuckle-dragging past” and our kids certainly do not “respect their elders” and my generation think it a bit uncool to “appreciate your food” etc. If you cannot go to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon ask your elders, such as your parents and grandparents. So what do you choose power and security or fashion? Fashion is ephemeral and insignificant. Fashion can be controlled. I choose personally power and security. However, in the afterlife we will be both powerful and fashionable. Booyackasha! Wicked! Innit!

Advanced or primitive weapons (compassion).

As mentioned the more advanced weapons you develop the more compassionate you will become. Therefore, there is no point in having an advanced military and advanced or smart weapons such as laser-guided bombs (LGB) and nuclear warheads if you cannot even effectively look after your own women, and deal with race. That is if you cannot effectively deal with immigration and minorities and prevent people from entering your country. Third world immigrants will conquer us “from within”, that is through exploiting our weakness when it comes to the relatively simple issue of race. That is Muslims will simply conquer us through exploiting the weakness of our leaders and through immigration. For example, the Romans are much happier and infinitely better off with primitive militaries and primitive weapons such as the gladius, catapults and ballistas, because they can have less compassion and can look after their own women, and can quickly and effectively deal with race. That is Romans can discriminate on grounds of ethnicity or religion to prevent certain people from entering their territory. The Romans would never swap their primitive weapons and technologies for advanced weapons and technologies, if it meant they had to be compassionate and therefore, could no longer protect their women and discriminate on grounds of religion or race. Similarly, medieval, early modern and Victorian Europeans are infinitely happier with and much better off with primitive militaries and primitive weapons, such as swords, muskets, howitzers and cannons, because it means they can have less compassion and effectively deal with race. That is they can discriminate on grounds of ethnicity and religion to prevent certain people from entering their territory. 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 that document enables you to use that aircraft carrier more effectively. That is with less compassion! You might as well tickle terrorists with a feather. Therefore, we should devote all our ‘time’, ‘energy’ and ‘money’ into researching laws and philosophy on how to effectively deal with compassion and the relatively tiny issue of 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 and security 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 pusillanimous traitors to your own country and people. To take compassion once again, as stated the more advanced weapons you attain the more compassionate you get. But seriously who cares anymore? Are you compassionate to the point of apathetically and cowardly whoring your daughters and young women to Pakistani grooming gangs? You know what I mean.

The recent past, daaaaang!

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 probably help! The Europeans and especially the Nazis labelled primitive people as “inferior”, but this is absolutely not the case, as proven relatively there is nothing wrong with being primitive as it means you are more innocent. 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 ‘energy’ or money away, I am just saying that in reality we should have better “etiquette with energy”, 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 we should stop denigrating the past and we should stop saying daaaang! I mean it is only the recent past that we skit or denigrate fashionably, such as the 1960s and 1980s, but what is the point in saying daaaaang to Palaeolithic man, Australopithecina or Tiktaalik roseae? In fact the only person who can say daaaaang is Albert Einstein! Therefore, while we are using or creating our advanced technologies we should be very conscious of, aware of and appreciative of the past and primitive relativity and primitive innocence.

Desire for primitive innocence.

As asked at the beginning, do you want primitive innocence? As boldly stated I said that I bet you I know your answer, that yes you do. In relation to this genuine ‘desire for primitive innocence’ the most important aspect of primitive relativity and primitive innocence is forgiveness, particularly of the three major cases studies or examples in this essay, that being Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. The idea being if we can forgive these three case studies then everybody on earth and in history is forgiven and therefore, all sin is fixed. For all intents and purposes I cannot think of anything worse than these three examples. So forgiveness is the major part of this essay. However, the second major part is the ‘desire for primitive innocence’, in that we all want it, we all want to be old and to go back in ‘time’ as far as possible. We all want to say “I remember the days before this!” and “I remember this old thing!” etc. Primitive innocence makes us want to be as old as possible. We want to age like fine wine and be ancient, classical and thousands of years old like Plato or Socrates etc. Even those born recently in the 1990s and 2000s desire primitive innocence! As I exaggerated at the beginning that even the very first single celled life form wants primitive innocence. Why? Because there is nothing more primitive in the universe. So therefore, forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile.

Apologies.

As the entire non-European world is baying for an apology from former European powers for empires, colonialism, slavery and oppression etc, I will take this opportunity to apologise to all primitive peoples of the world, especially African, American and Australian natives on behalf of my people and especially my ancestors such as slavers and conquistadors etc for any abuses of power and suffering that they may have caused. With primitive relativity and primitive innocence we certainly do not think that we are greater or “superior” than you in any way at all.

https://time4forgiveness.com

https://time4forgiving.com

https://time2forgive.com