TIME FOR FORGIVENESS.

Domains.

I have many good domain names for this website some are technical while some are designer. https://crimetravel.net (.co.uk & .uk) are technical and probably the best and most succinct. I have various domains related to compassion such as https://technicalcompassion.com, https://industrialcompassion.com and https://compassionateweapons.com, these are technical and are relevant to a particular part of the essay. https://alwaysrelativity.com is a designer name, it is just a beautiful name, it is life and it means eternal, however, it is practically unrelated to the essay. I also have https://purerelativity.com which is also a designer name and pretty but meaningless. This essay is technically about primitivism and relativity, the two terms are combined into https://primitiverelativity.com or https://archaicrelativity.com which make much less pretty names, however, primitivism grounds the essay and is essential. I also have https://primitiveinnocence.com and https://archaicinnocence.com which are beautiful and technical but are not temporal. However, https://liferelativity.com and https://relativityoflife.com are also technical, they are a little organic or biological and are similar to primitive relativity and are also infinitely better, therefore, I have changed the whole essay to reflect these terms.

Titles and field.

Similar to domain names I have various and interchangeable titles and tag lines for this essay. The title started as primitive relativity and primitive innocence, but I was unhappy with primitive relativity so I changed it to life relativity and primitive innocence. Primitive innocence should never change. I also use tag lines such as time for forgiveness, time to forgive, secular forgiveness and fuck the future. I also combine the title with tag lines such as life relativity (time for forgiveness) and life relativity (secular forgiveness) etc. They all basically mean the same thing and are interchangeable. Even though it is a small part of the essay I also use titles related to compassion. I vary the titles and combinations throughout the essay. I am still actually having problems pinning down what this essay is, as in what field or subject it is? I am fairly sure it is not philosophical and although it is secular it is not exactly scientific. For example, as opposed to physics relativity it could be moral relativity? As will be seen as opposed to mathematical or scientific time I have simply called it writing or essay time. However, I am not pleased with any of these classifications. Therefore, please give me time to finalise the title and field.

Originality.

This essay is entirely original and novel in that believe no one has ever written the like, tried it or said it before, however, in order to be original the content is shocking and controversial. Don’t be easily offended and don’t pick me up for nitty-gritty or little mistakes when the overall message of the essay is true and correct. I find that people try to prove the entire theory of the essay wrong based on some tiny inconsequential sentence that is not important and is superfluous and non-essential to the essay. I believe the overall or main or crucial points of the essay are sound. I welcome constructive criticism and debate, as in ‘I don’t like this paragraph’ or ‘I don’t like this sentence’, but people are out to totally prove the theory wrong based on one tiny inaccurate unimportant sentence etc. I have read 121 books in my life, 102 of them in some way in regard to this essay, therefore, I am not going to be dumbfounded by a tweet from off the top of someone’s head. Unless you have proof that would confound or disprove the essential or crucial point of the essay, otherwise, please just point out little inconsequential mistakes.

15B3DA1F-8B31-445B-B21E-2D90D1E4A08B

Reading time.

Reading is time in that it takes a long time to read a book. I have read 121 books in my life and 102 of them since the 1st of August 2016. I have read more or less every day for 3 years. If you have not got the time to read this essay which is only 34k words then you are missing out on time. Give it a few hours of your time. No matter what you have done I promise that I will forgive you with time and relativity.

CONTENTS.

I have divided this essay into 6 parts.

1. Preface.

This section introduces the author and just gives some important information about the background of this essay and how it is part of a larger and independent study of time and relativity. It also compares the spiritual and divine with time and relativity and explains why I have dropped the former and taken up the latter.

2. Introduction.

This part introduces the important aspects of the essay so that the reader gets the general idea of the concept. Most importantly the introduction establishes why the law is not absolute. This is because it depends on your frame of reference or where and when you commit your crime as to how guilty or innocent you are. Therefore the law changes over space and time. The law is relative. The law is flexible and bendy. Why and how is primitivism linked to innocence? The answer is that the further you go back in time the more primitive life was and animals (such as humans) were, therefore, relatively the more innocent they were. For example, in the 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones and we did not understand smart things like FaceTime and Spotify, therefore we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. Also, the more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are. Therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. Because the further you go back in time, the harsher and more primitive and innocent life was, the desire for time travel in the afterlife, (specifically time travel to the distant past such as the Palaeolithic period) is explained with the excuse of attaining relative innocence and forgiveness.

3. Primitive innocence.

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

4. Prehistory.

This part introduces the evolutionary and prehistoric aspect of the essay. First of all, it states that one reason that the Buddha and Jesus Christ might not have come earlier could be because prehistoric men only had primitive weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc, therefore, they had not yet tamed the wild and were not yet masters over the animal kingdom. This means they still had to compete with animals for life and resources, therefore, they could have no compassion toward life and animals. It is ironic that once you have attained nuclear warheads that you are by definition magnanimous and compassionate toward animals. Also without recorded history, they would never have been famous or remembered. It also establishes that after 3.5 billion years of life on earth with non-stop violence and carnage without a single drop of regret, or from YHWH’s frame of reference or in the scheme of things, how small and insignificant does Adolf Hitler’s genocide or Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism seem? Therefore, how small and insignificant do your minor sins seem? This part also states that the concepts of sin and guilt are intrinsically good because the knowledge, consciousness or awareness 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 5.

5. Time travel (secular forgiveness).

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

6. 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, primitive and innocent past. It also discusses how there are two ways to consider the past, in that in a way we can the say the past was better for Europeans or secondly we can say “daaaaang! the past is so dated and primitive, look at the haircuts!” It also asks why would the Holocaust have reverse consequences for the past or for those Europeans who died before it? Also, there is a discussion concerning the relative usefulness of advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc, in that what is the point if they make you less innocent and more compassionate? For example, the Romans are much happier and infinitely better off with primitive weapons, technologies and infrastructure because they can be more innocent and less compassionate and can effectively deal with race. That is Romans can discriminate on grounds of race or religion to prevent certain people from entering their territory. The Romans would never swap their primitive weapons, technologies and infrastructure if it made them less innocent and more compassionate and could therefore no longer discriminate on grounds of race or religion. Finally, I discuss the flexibility of certain laws in the U.K. and then I make an apology to primitive peoples of the world on behalf of my people and my ancestors such as slavers and conquistadors for any abuses or suffering caused as a result of empires and colonialism. With life relativity and primitive innocence, we certainly do not think we are “superior” than you at all.


1. PREFACE.

About the author.

I am a certified schizophrenic, I was sectioned in 2012 for 2 months. Prior to my section, I had a severe mental breakdown in 2006 and 2007 from which I will never fully recover (the section helped though). I am mentally disabled, I see things in a purple haze and I hear voices, however, I am not stupid. Due to visual and auditory hallucinations and severe anxiety I cannot work, however, please do not judge me or my work because I am a schizophrenic. I am alright. I do not waste my time. I have read just about every day since the 1st of August 2016 (mostly history), therefore I am kind of a self-taught QBE academic, in that I have independently read well over 100 books and I have written a 34k word essay titled life relativity (time for forgiveness). I have also conducted an unorthodox study or investigation of T² or https://squareoftime.com, which is mathematical time or relativity. However, please note I am never trying to prove anything with T² or square of time, other than the fact that it proves that I work with and understand time and a little relativity. Hence, I am comparing https://squareoftime.com with https://crimetravel.co.uk. What is time? Is it light? Is it energy? Is it fundamental divinity? What is the spiritual and the divine? All I know is that the spiritual and divine are acataleptic (not understandable) and therefore, require faith or belief, whereas time and Albert Einstein do not! I was born in 1981 and from 1985 I grew up in between three locations, Easington Colliery in County Durham, England, a gold mining town called Obuasi in the Ashanti region of Ghana, West Africa and a boarding school (Barnard Castle School) also in County Durham. My family has a mining heritage. My ancestors worked the collieries in the north of England, with only my father raising the game to gold mining in 1985 when he started work for Ashanti Goldfields Corporation (AGC) in Ghana, West Africa. Most importantly I am a QBE academic, I have a Bachelor of Arts degree, but I have no specific qualifications to make https://crimetravel.co.uk orthodox other than my experience of Africa and that I have independently read over 100 books to research the essay.

Time travel (secular forgiveness).

Albert Einstein’s forgiveness (not Jesus Christ’s).

AA34EBB5-5463-41D2-AC9D-076DEB67C191
The Last Supper.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:26-28.

Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and ‘dying for the forgiveness of our sins’ is a pretty paramount tenet of Christianity, it is also kind of the seminal moment of human life on earth. However, does it work? How? Jesus Christ requires belief or faith, however, nothing will happen if we just sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting for Jesus Christ to come and forgive us or save us. Jesus Christ may forgive a vicar feeling contrite for taking the largest slice of pie, but does he forgive real sinners such as genocidal megalomaniacs, cannibals and child abusers? Even if He doesn’t, time travel forgiveness does! Do we understand how through Jesus Christ’s wounds our sins are healed? What about the Holocaust? I don’t see much forgiveness going on there. In fact, I do not see much forgiveness anywhere for serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. The church should know a lot about forgiveness, however, theirs is ecclesiastical forgiveness. Does it work? How does it work? How does the church forgive genocidal megalomaniacs, serial killers and child molesters? Shouldn’t the church know about or understand crime travel, time for forgiveness or Albert Einstein’s forgiveness? Just because it is secular does not mean they cannot use it. Maybe it would help? Therefore without trying to sound heretical (I don’t want to be burned at the stake) as will be seen Albert Einstein’s forgiveness is technical, rational, it makes sense and is totally comprehensible. It is also secular. With time and relativity, we understand why and how to forgive people. Jesus Christ told us to forgive ecclesiastically because “your Father will also forgive you your sins.” According to Jesus Christ’s ecclesiastical forgiveness, we do not technically know why or how to forgive. Jesus Christ’s teachings on forgiveness are fine for petty or minor sinners such as prostitutes and tax collectors, but he did not teach us why or how to forgive real, serious or extreme sinners such genocidal megalomaniacs, cannibals and child abusers etc, and this is why there is a lack of forgiveness in the world. As a result, everybody understands how to forgive a friend or brother an annoyance, but no one understands how to forgive real criminals such as serial killers and child abusers etc. Whereas Albert Einstein’s forgiveness does! Albert Einstein’s theory shows us why and how to forgive any sin real or imaginable with time and relativity. Therefore, life relativity is Albert Einstein’s forgiveness (not Jesus Christ’s). Also even though it forgives Adolf Hitler, why wouldn’t Jewish people like Albert Einstein’s secular forgiveness or life relativity (time for forgiveness) if it supersedes Jesus Christ’s ecclesiastical forgiveness? Albert Einstein was Jewish. Adolf Hitler was a Christian, Catholic to be precise, therefore why would Jewish people be interested in a Christian or ecclesiastical forgiveness? Adolf Hitler ruined Christianity. To forgive Adolf Hitler in a Christian way would not work. Therefore, Jewish people might be satisfied and more comfortable with a Jewish invented, non-Christian and secular forgiveness? In fact, why wouldn’t all people of the earth including Hindus, Muslims and atheists be more comfortable with non-Christian and secular forgiveness? Why did Jesus Christ only associate with or forgive minor sinners such as prostitutes and tax collectors?

When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 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 2:16-17.

Although we get Jesus Christ’s point he still left us with a limit on forgiveness, in that although we can forgive relatively minor sinners such as prostitutes and tax collectors we do not understand how to forgive serious sinners such murderers, cannibals, child abusers and rapists etc. However, Albert Einstein’s forgiveness or secular forgiveness has no limits. 

Credit.

This website is the main objective of a general and independent study of time and relativity, the other works are square of time and DJ Temporal (see menu) which are the second and third objectives respectively. However, life relativity is by far the main objective. Square of time is just the simplest form of mathematical time or relativity, however, it’s purpose is just to contrast and support life relativity which is writing or essay time. However, please note I am never trying to prove anything with T² or square of time, other than the fact that it proves that I work with and understand time and a little relativity. There is obviously nothing in square of time that is not credited to Albert Einstein. However, there is also nothing in time for forgiveness which not credited to Albert Einstein. This is because the relativity of life relativity would not work without Albert Einstein’s theory, as in time and the terms relative and relatively would be meaningless without it. For example, because Einstein determined that a minute is not always a minute and a mile is not always mile and that spacetime is curved etc, as will be seen the consequence of Einstein’s discovery is that the law is not absolute. The law changes over space and time. The law is relative. The law is flexible. Therefore, life relativity belongs to Professor Einstein. In fact, the tag line for life relativity among others such as “secular forgiveness”, “time for forgiveness” and ‘time to forgive” would be “Albert Einstein’s forgiveness” or “Albert Einstein’s law”. You may listen to Albert Einstein but you will never listen to a squirt like me. Therefore, it is hoped that life relativity is an effect or a consequence of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Albert Einstein requires no faith!

Siddhartha Gautama Buddha and Jesus Christ were ancient and primitive men, but what does that tell us? It tells us that you do not need to be modern and advanced to be eternally relative or relevant like perpetual teenagers that never date or go out of fashion. You can be primitive. No matter how high and advanced we get ultimately we all seem to be beaten by two ancient and primitive men. How? Is it relative? I have removed all references to the spiritual and divine in this essay as I want it to be acceptable to the scientific community. However, although this essay and it’s entire theory is 100% secular, it presumes or takes for granted the existence of an afterlife as well as a God, henceforth referred to as YHWH. Also although I have become very secular and scientific I have not lost absolutely all faith in the spiritual. I would like to state that I believe in the Buddha and Jesus Christ, however, they require belief as they are acataleptic (not understandable). However, I understand Albert Einstein. The only difference is that Albert Einstein requires no faith!

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

John 11:25-26.

The Buddha and Jesus Christ want you to believe in them. Whereas Albert Einstein does not want you to believe in him, he wants you to understand him! Why on earth do we need the spiritual and divine? For love? For compassion? For forgiveness? For ethics? No! As will be seen compassion is technical in that you only attain compassion toward life and animals once you are invincible masters of the animal kingdom, that is only once you have attained advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc. It is like saying to wolf “I have a nuke now, therefore I am compassionate toward you!” This is something wolf will never understand, in that once you have attained nuclear weapons you are by definition compassionate toward animals. Also, we can say things like it was relatively no problem for Homo antecessor to cannibalise compared to Jeffrey Dahmer because H. antecessor was so primitive and innocent in that they had no advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc and because they came from such a long time ago. Therefore, isn’t relativity and time enough? Because relativity and time can determine if you are innocent and deserve forgiveness isn’t relativity and time therefore ethics? Therefore, why do we even need the spiritual and divine?

Miracles or meteorites?

Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them.

(Mark 11:23).

You can be the type of person who has absolute 100% faith in Jesus Christ and YHWH, and believe that by prayer and faith alone nothing bad can happen to us, for example God would never be so heartless as to allow such a cataclysmic event as a meteorite strike wipe out us good natured and loving human beings? Or you can be the rationalistic, sceptical and scientific type who believes that God has no such powers of divine intervention and that it is not a case of if but when a meteorite strike will hit Earth in the future? So who do you believe in God or science? Does God have a heart, or is the universe heartless? I am the scientific type and do not believe God can save us from a meteorite strike. I suppose those with faith would just say a meteorite strike is God’s judgement. However, did the dinosaurs deserve judgment? As will be seen later it is impossible to sin if you are not conscious and aware of the concept of sin, as in children and animals cannot sin. Therefore, the dinosaurs were innocent and did not deserve to be wiped out. Therefore, you either believe in a kind and loving God and divine intervention or you believe that the universe is entirely scientific, rational, heartless, chaotic and random? You either believe in miracles and that God can break the laws of physics or you do not believe in miracles and that God cannot break the laws of physics?

Time is not spiritual or divine.

To reiterate I am working on or developing three things https://squareoftime.com, https://crimetravel.co.uk and https://djtemporal.com. The first two works are both related to time, however, the former is mathematical time whereas the second is writing or essay time and the latter is just my DJ name. What I mean by writing or essay time is that life relativity and primitive innocence are just literature and simply use the terms time, relative and relatively. As T² does not prove anything scientifically that is not already known, therefore, both works together are just an independent and general study of time and relativity. I have learned that other than “being ahead” there is not much in the mathematical time whereas there is ethics, innocence and forgiveness in writing or essay time. When I first studied T², I lost all faith in the spiritual and divine (for the first time) and after toing and froing I now definitely believe this to be right. When I first started studying https://squareoftime.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 believe in the top two statements however, I definitely do not now believe the third, as DJing and music are beautiful and hip in a way that science and academia can never be, which are dry and ugly in comparison. However, concerning the top two statements, what is spiritual enlightenment or spiritual energy anyway? Again spiritual enlightenment and spiritual energy are acataleptic (not understandable), whereas Albert Einstein’s light and energy are real, technical, rational, comprehensible and scientific, hence the C² and E in E = MC². There is no other form of ‘light’ or ‘energy’! Therefore, do not seek spiritual enlightenment, seek time intellectually. Also, Albert Einstein’s forgiveness is real, technical, rational, comprehensible and scientific.

Writing or essay time.

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


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.

I bet you are a sceptic and do not believe that the qualities of primitive or chronologically early cultures are superior to those of contemporary civilisation? However, as will be seen the further you go back in time the more primitive and innocent life was and this could constitute in a way as a “superior” quality. The only advantage the present or future has is its advanced technology, but as will be seen this never means “superior” because it means you are less innocent. As will be seen it is definitely not a case of being advanced is always better and that is the end of it! Who are more refined classical or modern people? Although at the time classical people were probably much less refined than we are today, however, two to three thousand years later, classical antiquity has aged like fine wine and become unbelievably refined and holy, for example, consider how refined great people like Moses, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Jesus Christ have become over time. Who is “superior” Mesolithic man of five to fifteen thousand years ago or the ‘Jackass generation’ of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s? The present and future are valueless, while the past and prehistory are priceless. As will be seen you do not need to go back far in time to find primitive innocence, for example, the Victorians have become relatively classical and holy almost like the Romans. Therefore, who would you rather be a Victorian with an empire or a modern Elizabethan with an iPhone? This is the temptation of advanced technology as will be seen later. Even such as the 1920s and 1950s etc could soon become ‘periods’ and become classical and holy like the Victorian period. Also, the Europeans and especially the Nazis labelled primitive people as “inferior”, but this is absolutely not the case, as will be seen relatively there is nothing wrong with being primitive as it means you are more innocent. The Buddha and Jesus Christ are primitive and ancient men, yet they are eternally fashionable and eternally relative or relevant like perpetual teenagers that will never date or go out of fashion, even more so than anyone alive today. Contemporary civilisations are much less primitive and innocent, which could be inferior. As a Briton would you rather have been born in 1920 with the largest empire in history or 2020 with an iPad? This is the central question of this essay.

Flexible and bendy relative law.

Is the law universal, absolute, eternal and the same throughout space and time? I mean do the same laws that apply to us in the developed world also apply to Muslims, Africans, bushmen, native Papuans or un-contacted native Amazonians? No! The law changes over space. For example, such as drinking driving is much less taboo in Africa, marijuana is legal in Amsterdam, speed is unlimited on the German autobahns, execution of women for adultery and amputation for thieves are legal in Islamic countries and such as killing and cannibalism are less of a problem for un-contacted native Amazonians etc. Do the same laws that apply to us today also apply Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric people? No! The law changes over time. For example, slavery and what we today would call statutory rape were legal in Victorian and all earlier periods, and for example, rape, homicide and cannibalism were not illegal in prehistoric times. Therefore, life relativity and primitive innocence, crime travel or time for forgiveness, whatever you may call it is founded on the following hypothesis:

The law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law changes over space and time. The law is not absolute. The law is relative. The law is flexible.

The law is bendy and the law can be bent, it depends where and when you commit your crime. For example, if Homo antecessor commits murder and cannibalism in Europe in the Lower Palaeolithic, then he or she gets into a lot less trouble than Jeffrey Dahmer who committed murder and cannibalism in America in the 20th-century. To reiterate, laws are different in different places and in different periods of time, for example, why is there resistance between western law and sharia law? Westerners like freedom and Muslims do not. Why can Muslims in the Islamic world get away with executions, amputations and corporal punishment etc? Why in the Muslim world, in eyes of Muslims or relative to Muslims is suicide bombings, beheadings and terrorism not a problem, and even considered brave? It is relative and frame of reference. To westerners such acts are shocking and unacceptable, however, to Muslims these are acts of heroism, and I don’t think any amount of good old “British values” is ever going to change the Islamic frame of reference. Why are terrorism and suicide bombing considered a way to enter paradise? It is because Muslims are primitive and do not live under our laws, they have their own Quranic or sharia law. And we should respect that. If Muslims want to amputate the hands of thieves and execute their women for adultery that is their business. We should never try to impress our laws or “values” on Muslims in their own countries. Similarly, Muslims and sharia law have no place in western countries and Muslims should accept that. Why is there is a global clash between western and Islamic law? I think the multicultural mixing of western law and sharia law in western or European countries which governments are enforcing will ultimately not end well for western law. Also because of the Holocaust, I believe Islamic law will ultimately come to dominate the world. As an example of this clash consider the grooming gangs in Britain, this is a clash of western and Islamic laws, because what we consider child abuse or statutory rape in the U.K. in the 21st century is not necessarily considered child abuse or statutory rape in Muslim countries. Therefore, know if you are serving time for an offence such as manslaughter, then know it is only a crime and you are only in prison because you are in the U.K. and because it is 2020. Check your watch! The law is bendy and not absolute. The law is different in different frames of reference and time periods. It is ironic or coincidental that the laws of justice (or just the law) are converse to the laws of physics or the principle of relativity, which state that the laws of physics are the same in all nonaccelerated frames of reference, the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

Why does time flow in only one direction? You grow older, never younger (unfortunately). Can this flow be reversed? All the laws of physics remain unchanged if the flow of time is reversed. They work equally well in either case. All the laws except for one, that is: The second law of thermodynamics spoils it for us. It appears that the flow of time originates in the second law. And it points the arrow of time firmly in one direction.

(Einstein for Dummies, location 1339, 24%).

It is relativity never supremacism or bigotry.

This essay started as nativism and was based on the following sentence, ‘the poorer you are the more native you are’. Although I thought nativism and primitivism were related the former is ethnic and nationalist while the latter is universal, neutral and benign. Hence, I dropped politically incorrect nativism and took up politically correct primitivism and the concept became ‘the older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are’. However, although I still use this latter statement I have taken life relativity and primitive innocence in a different direction, because I want them to be as secular, ethical, benign and as politically correct as possible. Therefore, I also try to stick to the following statement:

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

As mentioned nativism is nationalist, racial and ethnic, while primitivism is not! Primitivism is neutral, universal, unbiased, generic and benign. Nativism is specific to a local geographic region such as Britain or Europe, whereas 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. https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-tiktaalik-roseae-fossils-reveals.html

For an example of life 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 universal equality and relativity between all races and all species. Tiktaalik roseae is an important and beautiful creature. Something the Nazis are not. Therefore, Homo sapiens’ are not “superior” to Tiktaalik roseae they are relatively equal. At the time Tiktaalik roseae was the equivalent of a human being, in that it was the most advanced creature of its day. Hence, it does not matter if like Tiktaalik roseae you are old and primitive as you are more innocent and beautiful and this is in a way superior. Therefore, even though life relativity and primitive innocence try to forgive Adolf Hitler and occasionally defend white people it can never be claimed that life relativity and primitive innocence are ever white supremacism or bigotry! For example, if you are far-right how can you respect Tiktaalik roseae and find it beautiful, but not Africans? It may be advanced to be white, but this never means that Africans are “inferior” as they are more innocent and there is universal equality and time and relativity between all races and all species. It is life relativity, not supremacism!

The Jackass generation.

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

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

Common sense.

How is primitivism connected to relativity?‬ What exactly are life relativity and primitive innocence?

For example, animals are funny, particularly for Homo sapiens dogs, cats and monkeys are funny, especially primates such as chimps and bonobos etc. Life relativity and primitive innocence simply use this animal comedy in conjunction with time travel or time and relativity to compare and make serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile primitive hominins and apes etc in order to lighten their sins and forgive them. We have all made a monkey of ourselves, but I think Adolf Hitler gets the prize for making the biggest monkey in history (or prehistory)! Life relativity and primitive innocence are all about how in the afterlife we never wait a long time for forgiveness, but instead, we instantly go back time to a more primitive and innocent period to find forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. Instead of going to prison and serving time, what if in the afterlife criminals could simply travel in time? Ask yourself one question: Do you want primitive innocence? I bet I know your answer. Yes! Everybody, indeed every being and creature since life started wants it. In fact, if it could even the very first prokaryote or single-celled life form would want primitive innocence. Why? Because there is nothing as primitive and innocent in the universe. 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”, “innocent days” or “time is a great healer.”, hence, life relativity and primitive innocence take these notions very far indeed. Life relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all, it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all, it is definitely about time for Forgiveness. Can we teach the forgiveness of such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile to children? Maybe if like above, we lightened their sins and make them monkeys? Life relativity and primitive innocence are secular forgiveness, in that they deal with the genuine forgiveness of serious criminals such as genocidal megalomaniacs, cannibals and child abusers. Crime travel and time for forgiveness are common sense, in that they are certain undeniable and self-evident truths or axioms. For example, the further you go back in time the more primitive life was and animals (such as humans) were, therefore, relatively the more innocent they were. Also, the more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. To shorten it the less the more the more the less. For example in the 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones, we did not even have satellite TV, just 4 channel terrestrial TV and we still used the Yellow Pages, newspaper TV guides, four-star (leaded) petrol and coal fires etc, therefore, we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than today. To reiterate in the 1980s we did not understand smart technologies such as FaceTime and Spotify, therefore we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. If you cannot remember the days before the internet and mobile phones or FaceTime and Spotify then you are much more advanced and therefore less innocent. What does sin is in the eye of the beholder mean? It means that which one person finds sinful or detestable may not be sinful or detestable to another person, especially if they are separated by time. Therefore, evil is relative, in that for example rape, murder and cannibalism were relatively no sweat with prehistoric man because they had no advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc, therefore rape, murder and cannibalism today by such as Adolf Hitler. Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile are only relatively evil because they are more modern and advanced. 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! In fact even in the mid-1990s when the internet became known (I didn’t get internet until 1999), we could only have imagined that the internet would be “the information superhighway!” Although in a way that prediction was not too far off the mark, things turned a little differently in reality as what we got was ultra-fast fibre-optic broadband and WIFI. 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. For example, prehistoric man had absolutely no electromagnetic waves, and therefore had no radio transmitters or mobile phones, therefore, if they had a heart attack, were attacked by wild animals or broke a bone, they could never call up an ambulance. In fact, you have got to have roads and the internal combustion engine before you can have ambulances. Therefore, prehistoric man could literally get away with rape, murder and cannibalism etc. Therefore, the less technology you have, the more primitive and innocent you are, and therefore, the more sin you can get away with. How is crime relative? 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 advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure 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 were so relatively evil compared with Homo antecessor because they are out of place and in the wrong time. Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example, serial killers, the way to forgive them is to use life relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or monkeys. Because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, therefore the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an ape. To reiterate, because Jeffrey Dahmer equated to a prehistoric man such as H. antecessor in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. He would have to have fur to have forgiveness. With fur and with these primates or in this place and time he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an ape. With fur sins are lighter. He had advanced technology, lived in a brick residence and did his shopping at a supermarket, therefore, he was advanced and more responsible, and therefore less innocent than Homo antecessor for murder and cannibalism. To reiterate the only way I can understand a serial killer such as Jeffrey Dahmer with any lightness is if he had fur and were a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer did not try to be advanced, special or superior to primates and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even ape, would we forgive him? If Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have relative innocence? Therefore, Jeffrey Dahmer made a monkey of himself! Why is it we humans hate our own evolutionary past? Why would we rather be anything except an ape? Don’t call him a cannibal call him a “cannibal in the 20th century.” Do not say sin say “relative sin.” Do not say crime say “relative crime.” Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning time travel we can say relative to the 20th century Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively advanced, more responsible and therefore less innocent. However, relative to the Lower Palaeolithic period, Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively primitive, less responsible and therefore more innocent. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer could go back in time to the Lower Palaeolithic period, then in or from this frame of reference Jeffrey Dahmer would seem relatively much less evil. Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Jeffrey Dahmer then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order to seek forgiveness and acceptance or relative innocence. See Question 25.

https://relativesin.com

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 primitive animals and prehistoric man, this is because prehistoric man was primitive and old, in that they had no advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc and that they came from a much more ancient and different time period. For example, slavery was relatively more 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 such as Homo antecessor. Also obviously there is the connection that criminals have to serve time in prison for their crimes or sins. Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example, the Holocaust, the way to forgive them is to use life relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or monkeys. For example, because Hitler cares so much about racism and “subhumans”, this scientifically determines that he is definitely at the very least an ape or archaic hominin! He would literally have to have fur to have forgiveness. To reiterate the only way I can understand Adolf Hitler with any lightness is if he were (and I quote) a “subhuman” such as an ape or archaic hominin. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. With fur and with these primates or in this place and time he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an ape. With fur sins are lighter. So if Hitler did not try to be advanced, special or superior to primates and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even ape, would we forgive him? If Adolf Hitler went back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have relative innocence? Therefore, Hitler made a monkey of himself! Why is it we humans hate our own evolutionary past? Why would we rather be anything except an ape? Why not call him “primitive Hitler”? Jokes aside, to reiterate most importantly, the solution to the Holocaust is not just to forgive Hitler but to forgive Germany as a whole. In order to accomplish this Germany needs to regain its primitive innocence. Don’t call him a genocidal megalomaniac call him a “genocidal megalomaniac in the 20th century.” Do not say sin say “relative sin.” Do not say crime say “relative crime.” Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning time travel we can say relative to the 20th century Adolf Hitler seems relatively advanced, more responsible and therefore less innocent. However, relative to the Lower Palaeolithic period, Adolf Hitler seems relatively primitive, less responsible and therefore more innocent. Therefore, if Adolf Hitler could go back in time to the Lower Palaeolithic period, then in or from this frame of reference Adolf Hitler would seem relatively much less evil. Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Can you or your people un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Adolf Hitler then you and your people will un-evolve through miscegenation. You will also need to go back in time to the required period in order to seek forgiveness and acceptance or relative innocence. See Question 24.

https://relativecrime.com

How can you travel back in time?

Bending the law (time travel).

The second law of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics determine that time travel to the past is impossible.

You are growing older by the minute, and there’s nothing you can do about it. There is no traveling back in time. The second law of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are the culprits.

(Einstein for Dummies, location 1510, 27%).

There is also the grandfather paradox, in that if you travelled back in time and killed your grandfather before he met your grandmother, would you disappear like in the Back To The Future movies? Or if you travelled back in time to 1905 and told Albert Einstein about E = MC² before he had discovered it, and you then travelled back to the future, who is the real discoverer? Time travel to the past is impossible in life or on earth, however, I believe it is possible in the afterlife. For example, as a botanist or evolutionary biologist would you not want to be able to travel to the past in the afterlife, to such as the Early Devonian, to see, touch and study primitive plants?

If you were transported back to the Early Devonian in a time machine and walked among the Rhynie fossils, the taller plants such as Asteroxylon and Zosterophyllum would barely have grazed your knees.

(Cowen’s History of Life, Michael J. Benton, page 116).

The above quote from Cowen’s History of Life may show that paleontologists subconsciously think about time travel to the past in the afterlife? Also taking the grandfather paradox above, in the afterlife people are already dead, you cannot kill them a second time. When I started this essay or research, I had absolutely no interest in time or relativity whatsoever, in fact, I spent the best part of a year just dealing with nativism, primitivism and forgiveness, and I did not even consider time or relativity. Yes, it was a bit of a eureka moment when I realised that the further you go back in time the more primitive life was and the more innocent humans were relatively, therefore, if criminals could travel back in time somehow they might seem more relatively innocent. However, then and only then did I get into time and relativity. Therefore, I had/have absolutely no desire to prove how time travel to the past was/is possible. Only that the implications of the link between primitivism and innocence and time and relativity, led me to the conclusion that time travel (in the afterlife) to the past is simply necessary for criminals to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. To reiterate, time travel to the past is not the first or primary motivation, forgiveness is! Time travel to the past is only the secondary motivation. I think this means that if you start out with the goal of trying to find out a way to time travel to the past, you will not succeed, as the first and primary motivation must be something much more noble, altruistic and compassionate than that. It must be the forgiveness of all sins. What if like Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile we could simply bend the law? Jokes aside obviously I am not attempting to state, explain or discover how literal or physical time travel to the past in life or on earth is possible, however, I think you probably can in the afterlife. How I do not know, only that it is desirable and necessary. Time travel to the past may be possible in the afterlife because the further you go back in time, the harsher and more primitive life was, and relatively the more innocent animals such as humans were. Therefore, time travel to the past is desirable and necessary in order to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. Therefore, I am not telling you how time travel to the past is possible, just that there is a genuine need or requirement. For example, as an archaeologist, palaeontologist or evolutionary anthropologist wouldn’t you really want or have the desire to be able to travel back in time in the afterlife to study genuine, real and alive ancient creatures from such as the Cambrian explosion or archaic hominins such as Homo antecessor and Australopithecus afarensis? Wouldn’t Donald Johanson and Tom Gray want to meet Lucy? Don’t you believe you will be able to? I mean instead of still dealing with fossils, fragments of bones, stones and coprolites etc? This is what I mean in that how time travel to the past in the afterlife is possible we do not know, only the desire or requirement is there.

Traces of Earth’s ancient life have been preserved in rocks as fossils. Paleontology is the science of studying these fossils. Paleontology aims to understand fossils as once‐living organisms, living, breeding, and dying in a real environment on a real but past Earth that we can no longer touch, smell, or see directly.

(Cowen’s History Of Life, edited by Michael J Benton, page 1).

Also, as will be seen I think sinners such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile have already beaten you to it! Therefore, below I give a simplistic analogy of frames of reference or time periods using three cars and relative speed. A frame of reference means, for example, imagine if a car was travelling at 100 miles per hour with respect to the surface of the earth. The surface of the earth is the frame of reference. Now imagine if you looked at the car from the sun through a telescope, from this frame of reference (the sun) the car and the earth are hurtling through space at 30 kilometres per second. Also if there was a second car travelling parallel and in the same direction at 95 miles per hour, then the relative speed of the first car is only 5 miles per hour, taking this second car as a reference. So it depends on where you take your frame of reference as to how fast the car is travelling. It is relative. How does reference relate to time for forgiveness? It depends on when you take your frame of reference as to how innocent a person is. Therefore, time is our frame of reference not position, and innocence is our measure not speed. For example from or in the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile seem relatively less evil. But from or in the 20th or 21st centuries frames of reference they do seem very evil. To reiterate, Homo antecessor in the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference had no advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc, therefore Jeffrey Dahmer in the 20th-century frame of reference was relatively evil because he did have all these advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc and because he practised cannibalism in the 20th century or wrong place and wrong time. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time then relative to the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference Jeffrey Dahmer would seem relatively less evil. Jeffrey Dahmer is only evil because he is in the wrong time period. Although they are not in different places, Homo antecessor and Jeffrey Dahmer are both in their respective and different time periods. As an analogy, let’s consider time periods as frames of reference with cars and relative speeds. For example, let’s say 70 miles per hour was the legal speed limit. Let’s say you were the passenger travelling in a car with Jeffrey Dahmer at 100 miles per hour. Taking the Earth as the 20th-century frame of reference Jeffrey Dahmer’s relative speed is 100 miles per hour and he is characteristically bending the law and the speed limit. At this speed and in the car with Jeffrey Dahmer, you feel scared. Now imagine if Homo antecessor was in a second car travelling parallel and in the same direction at 70 miles per hour relative to the Earth in the Lower Palaeolithic frame reference. Taking Homo antecessor as a reference Jeffrey Dahmer’s relative speed is only 30 miles per hour. Therefore, looking out the window as you overtake Homo antecessor momentarily you feel less scared. It’s reference and perspective. Speed is relative, in that it always depends on a reference, but what if like speed crime, sin, guilt, innocence and forgiveness were also relative and depended on a reference? The law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law changes over space and time. The law is not absolute. The law is relative. The law is flexible. So don’t look at the ground. What does sin is in the eye of the beholder mean? It means that which one person finds sinful or detestable may not be sinful or detestable to another person, especially if they are separated by time. To conclude our little analogy, concerning time travel we can say relative to the 20th century Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively evil but relative to the Lower Palaeolithic period, Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively less evil, therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer could go back in time to the Lower Palaeolithic period, then in or from this frame of reference Jeffrey Dahmer would seem relatively much less evil. Also taking my grandfather who was born in 1926 as a reference, who received “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking” for Christmas, I am relatively less innocent because I was born in 1981 and received anything I wanted for Christmas, for example, and Atari, a Commodore 64, an Amiga or a Nintendo etc. And taking me who was born in 1981 as a reference, who can remember the days before the internet, mobile phones, FaceTime and Spotify, those born in the 2000s are relatively less innocent because they cannot remember the days before the internet, mobile phones, FaceTime and Spotify etc. Therefore, for the sins, we do not like to forgive, such as child abuse, the way to forgive them is to use life relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or monkeys. The age of consent in Britain was just 12 years old prior to 1875, and before 1275 there was not even this age of consent in England. 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 apes and primitive hominins to force themselves onto females and minors. Although such as Jimmy Savile may not have to go back as far as the other two case studies, it still lightens his sins to call him an ape. Therefore, with these hominins or in these places and times such as Jimmy Savile would be accepted and forgiven. Hence, if such as Jimmy Savile accepted this then his sins would be lighter. To reiterate, because Jimmy Savile equated to a prehistoric or ancient man such as medieval man in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. Again a little fur for Jimmy Savile might not be a bad thing. With fur and with these primates or in this place and time he would be at ease, forgiven and accepted. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an ape. With fur sins are lighter. So if Jimmy Savile did not try to be advanced, special or superior to primates and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even ape, would we forgive him? If Jimmy Savile went back in time thousands or hundreds of years to a more primitive period could he have relative innocence? Therefore, Jimmy Savile made a monkey of himself! Why is it we humans hate our own evolutionary past? Why would we rather be anything except an ape? Don’t call him a child abuser call him a “child abuser in the 20th century.” Do not say sin say “relative sin.” Do not say crime say “relative crime.” Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning time travel we can say relative to the 20th century Jimmy Savile seems relatively advanced, more responsible and therefore less innocent. However, relative to the medieval period, Jimmy Savile seems relatively primitive, less responsible and therefore more innocent. Therefore, if Jimmy Savile could go back in time to the medieval period, then in or from this frame of reference Jimmy Savile would seem relatively much less evil. Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Jimmy Savile then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order to seek forgiveness and acceptance or relative innocence. Our reference should always be prehistory. For example, if you have hit your father, 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? As stated the second law of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics determine that time travel to the past is impossible. However, what if like criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile we could simply bend the law? To reiterate you can be the type of person who has absolute 100% faith in Jesus Christ and YHWH, and believe that by prayer and faith alone nothing bad can happen to us, for example God would never be so heartless as to allow such a cataclysmic event as a meteorite strike wipe out us good natured and loving human beings? Or you can be the rationalistic, sceptical and scientific type who believes that God has no such powers of divine intervention and that it is not a case of if but when a meteorite strike will hit Earth in the future? So who do you believe in God or science? Does God have a heart, or is the universe heartless? I am the scientific type and do not believe God can save us from a meteorite strike. I suppose those with faith would just say a meteorite strike is God’s judgement. However, did the dinosaurs deserve judgment? As will be seen later it is impossible to sin if you are not conscious and aware of the concept of sin, as in children and animals cannot sin. Therefore, the dinosaurs were innocent and did not deserve to be wiped out. Therefore, you either believe in a kind and loving God and divine intervention or you believe that the universe is entirely scientific, rational, heartless, chaotic and random? Similar to bending the law to time travel in the afterlife, you either believe in miracles and that God can break the laws of physics or you do not believe in miracles and that God cannot break the laws of physics? See question 23.

https://relativesin.com

Technical compassion.

As will be seen compassion is technical in that the more advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure you attain the more compassionate you will become. For example today, because of all of our advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure people are so unbelievably compassionate towards life and animals. 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! Therefore, I believe the further you go back in time the more primitive and innocent life was and therefore the less compassionate people were also. In the good old days such as the 1940s and 1950s, for example, people were way less compassionate than us wet drips today. I don’t think for example my grandfather had any qualms about killing a rabbit especially for food, and certainly not flies. Therefore, imagine how little compassion Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric man had? You may say compassion is a good thing, but the past was also more innocent. Don’t get me wrong compassion is a good thing, however, I think sometimes, such as concerning flies, too much compassion is inappropriate.

Primitive gullibility and naivety.

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

Innocent 20s.

As mentioned my grandfather was born in 1926 and I remember him telling me in the 1990s that what he got for Christmas as a child was “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking.” This is primitive innocence! Unfortunately, we born in the 1980s were relatively spoiled as children at Christmas, we received anything we wanted, for example, an Atari, a Commodore 64, an Amiga or a Nintendo etc, plus all the sweets and chocolate we could ever eat. What does this mean? It means we should look back 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. Considering the 1980s were more primitive and innocent than today, how primitive and innocent do you think the 1930s and 1940s were? Think back to those black and white films. They were unbelievably primitive and innocent! Therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric people were! Because the Victorians were so innocent, as will be seen later, this might compensate for the Holocaust and the two world wars etc.

Innocent 90s.

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

Respect your elders!

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 an LCD or Casio watch. My favourite was Donkey Kong. I can also remember Pong, that primitive tennis-like TV game from the 1970s, my elder brothers (both ’70s born) had an old orange Pong console. I can also remember the days before unleaded fuel when we used environmentally unfriendly, four-star (leaded) petrol. I can also obviously remember not only the days before DVDs (which I was amazed at) when we used VHS tapes, but I can also remember Betamax videotapes. Also in the 80s and 90s if you wanted to listen to 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 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. Primitive innocence makes us proud to be old, for example, I am proud that I can remember the days before the internet and mobile phones! I am also proud I can remember the days before CDs! Therefore, we all want to say “I remember the days before this!” and “I remember this old thing!” etc. Primitive innocence makes us want to be as old as possible. We want to age like fine wine and be ancient, classical and thousands of years old like Plato or Socrates etc. For example, if you were born in the 1970s or 1980s etc do you consider yourself a twentieth-century or a twenty-first-century person? Do you consider yourself a second-millennium or a third-millennium person? I am the twentieth-century and second-millennium type. Even those born recently in the 1990s and 2000s desire primitive innocence! Do not worry if you were born in the 2000s or 2010s and cannot remember the days before much. It is time and relativity. It will happen to you. Just give it 20-30 years. For example, if you were born in the 1990s can you not at least remember the days before Bluetooth? I remember the first time I heard of Bluetooth, two students in my class at Newcastle College in 1999 or 2000 did a presentation on it before it came out. They described it, what it did and told the class to look out for it coming out in the future.

The temptation of advanced technology.

Taking my grandfather who was born in 1926 as a reference, who received “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking” for Christmas, I am relatively less innocent because I was born in 1981 and received anything I wanted for Christmas, plus all the sweets and chocolate I could ever eat. And taking me who was born in 1981 as a reference, who can remember the days before the internet, mobile phones, FaceTime and Spotify, those born in the 2000s are relatively less innocent because they cannot remember. Also, all those amazing gifts we received at Christmas such as Ataris, Commodore 64s, Amigas and Nintendos etc have all become worthless junk. Advanced technology is a temptation in that it tempts or lures us to exist in the present or future instead of living in the blissful, primitive and innocent past. The present and future are valueless, while the past and prehistory are priceless. For example, iPads and iPhones tempt us that were born in the 1980s to sever our connections to and denigrate and disparage the unfashionable 1980s and to 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 21st century. Without life 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, whereas with life relativity and primitive innocence, we slow down, relax and are comfortable with the past and such old technologies are not so bad and at least the memories of them do have some value and worth. I was alive when and can remember when CDs came out, this is my own primitive innocence! I also remember 8-inch, 5 1⁄4-inch, and 3  1⁄2-inch floppy disks.

Why and how is primitivism linked to innocence?

As mentioned the further you go back in time the more primitive life was and animals (such as humans) were, therefore, relatively the more innocent they were. Also, the more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. To shorten it the less the more the more the less. There are definitely at least two converse ways in which one can be primitive or advanced. Using temporal elements I have labelled them as follows:

  1. Old-primitive/young-advanced: The older or more ancient you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. The younger or more modern you are the more advanced you are, therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are.
    • This means that slavery was relatively less of an issue in ancient and medieval times for such as the ancient Egyptians as compared to the Nazis because the ancient Egyptians were older and more ancient, therefore, they were more primitive, and therefore, less responsible and therefore more innocent.
    • This means that Jeffrey Dahmer got into much more trouble for cannibalism than did Homo antecessor, because Jeffrey Dahmer was younger and more modern, therefore, he was more advanced, and therefore, more responsible and therefore less innocent.
    • This means that younger and more advanced countries such as America are more responsible and therefore less innocent than older more primitive countries such as Muslim countries. This determines that Muslim countries can, therefore, get away with murder and more violence than America.
  2. Young-primitive/old-advanced: The younger or more juvenile you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. The older or more adult you are the more advanced you are therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are.
    • This means that children get into much less trouble than adults for sin.
    • This means, for example, today if a 15-year-old boy has relations with a 14-year-old girl he gets into a lot less trouble than an adult, because he is younger or more juvenile and therefore more primitive, therefore less responsible and therefore more innocent. However, therefore, if today a 28-year-old man has relations with a 14-year-old girl, he will get into a lot more trouble than a teenager because he is older or more adult and therefore more advanced, therefore more responsible and therefore less innocent.

The above list always means that if you are in a state of being advanced then you should know better, whereas 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 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 practising 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 men, such as Henry the Navigator, ‘thou shalt not slave!’ Therefore they obviously slaved. We cannot sit here in the 21st century and reverse condemn Victorian, medieval, ancient or prehistoric men such as Jean Barbot or Horatio Nelson from our high and mighty frame of reference. You cannot condemn the past. This is because relatively there was nothing wrong such acts in those periods. It is only in the 20th and 21st-century frame of reference that slavery seems particularly abhorrent. We should not judge primitive people such as Henry the Navigator, Jean Barbot or Horatio Nelson, even the Old and New Testaments, 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. The law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law changes over space and time. The law is not absolute. The law is relative. The law is flexible.

“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?

Life relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all, it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all, it is definitely about time for forgiveness! Also, there has to be forgiveness for anything in the afterlife, including the Holocaust. 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 practising 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. 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 advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure 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. I think rape is a typical example of time for forgiveness because today rape is so unbelievably evil if a woman doesn’t want it, that is the end of it. However, to some medieval people such as the Vikings, it was less of an issue and it was certainly absolutely no issue for prehistoric people. Therefore, if modern rapists could go back in time somehow, they could probably find forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. To reiterate, rape is only so evil today because we are advanced. However, therefore, murder and cannibalism today by such as Jeffrey Dahmer were so relatively evil compared with Homo antecessor because they are out of place and in the wrong time. Again, for example, we would never judge Homo antecessor for killing and cannibalism, therefore, we should bear 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 ape, 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 main difference.

How do you practice life relativity and primitive innocence?

With forgiveness but I also practice generosity in that life relativity and primitive innocence make me look back to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future, therefore, they make me give money to those less fortunate than myself. They make me have no desire for a lot of energy or money and give a lot of what little I have away. I have found that being a hundredaire, say owning around £500 and then giving £100 away to a good cause is comfortable. Since April/May 2019, I have given away a total of £385 to good causes. Instead of being happy and measuring our success by how much we have accumulated each year, perhaps we should keep track of and take pride in how much we have given away each year? For example, I have given a total £240 away to good causes for 2019 and £145 for 2020 so far. Animals do not have money yet they still survive, similarly, natives and primitives like Palaeolithic man did not even comprehend the meaning of money or currency. Prehistoric men had no money yet they still survived. Life relativity and primitive innocence are without sin because they pay every single last penny, this is because natives or primitives such as bushmen or prehistoric man are/were literally penniless.

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

(Matthew 5:26).

Give, even if you only have a little.

(The Buddha, Dhammapada, verse 224).

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

Romans 12:16.


3. PRIMITIVE INNOCENCE.

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 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) whereas public nakedness for Europeans in Europe (or anywhere else), is rude, unacceptable and would lead to your arrest for indecent exposure. To explain differences in nudity perspectives between Africans and the Europeans consider this. Although we could say Africans are more primitive and Europeans are more advanced, I believe that temperature is probably the reason why it is not rude and is totally acceptable for Africans to be naked in public, even in capital cities, while it is absolutely shocking, rude and totally unacceptable for Europeans to be naked in public anywhere. This is because natural selection determines that it was always absolutely imperative for Europeans to have clothes or skins to protect themselves from the freezing cold temperatures, whereas Africans are never cold, therefore the impetus for Africans to have clothes or skins and to cover themselves was/is nowhere near as imperative as Europeans, luckily 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, whereas in the UK it is a very serious offence. Even in capital cities, such offences are handled with a £50 bribe to the police. I have witnessed a nameless paralytic “oburoni” (white man) pay 300 GHC (£42) to bribe a policeman to ignore his drunkenness 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 nowhere near 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 roadworthy 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 continent to function properly people need to get around quickly, despite the risks. I’m talking like £10-15 for 750 cc motorbike insurance. You see many ‘roadworthy’ 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 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 overdramatic 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 small valley between two opposing train tracks in Accra, Ghana in 2012. I was terrified. I saw a 50-year-old Ghanaian walk across it like he was walking down the main street, so stupidly I thought I could do so as well. I learned that there are just somethings that skilled native Africans can do that clumsy/stupid “oburonis” (white men) should never do or even attempt. Also 5 minutes after I had crossed the bridge, a train came hurtling passed. The Africans probably know the times when the trains come. Needless to say the health and safety, hazard and death trap issues would lead to the immediate removal of the plank bridge in the UK. Whereas 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 small valley.
  2. It is in between and parallel to two opposing train tracks.

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

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

Also, Onyinasi in Obuasi in the Ashanti region of Ghana in the 1980s wasn’t just home to a plethora of exotic mammals, reptiles and birds, but also a veritable paradise with a salubrious abundance of weird and exotic fruits that my “oburoni” friend and I would hunt, gather and collect on a daily basis to literally acquire energy from for further play, as sweets such as chocolate were a rare luxury and had to be imported via an international delivery service called ‘Kings Barn’. These fruits included such as Terminalia catappa (tropical almond), again I only just found out the correct scientific name of this fruit via Wikipedia recently. Terminalia catappa were delicious and one of our favourites, they had a thin fleshy and delicious skin with a very difficult to access almond in the centre surrounded by a hard shell. They came in yellow/orange or red/purple colours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parable of the first contact native Amazonians.

There were two English academic explorers and naturalists who were attempting to make first contact with an indigenous native Amazonian tribe in the 1960s. After months of searching and hacking their way through the Amazon rainforest with machetes, and dealing with insects, animals and disease, they finally found what they were looking for, a pristine and virgin un-contacted tribe of indigenous Amazonians. The initial contact was precarious, the English explorers offered the Amazonians trifles and food and the Amazonians tentatively accepted. However, all of a sudden like a wild animal one of the Amazonians clubbed one of the explorers over the head with a club, smashing his skull, the other explorer tried to defend himself but was also clubbed to death and struck with poison arrows. The Amazonians then took the carcasses of the two English explorers back to their village and cannibalised them. The End. What is the moral of this parable? Would it be moral for the British or Brazilian governments to catch the un-contacted native Amazonians who killed the English explorers and charge, prosecute and incarcerate them? No! You might as well send a jaguar to jail. It would be a far greater crime to incarcerate the un-contacted native Amazonians. Why then? Because the indigenous Amazonians are more primitive and the English explorers are much more advanced. The un-contacted Amazonians do not live under our laws. The law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law changes over space and time. The law is not absolute. The law is relative. The law is flexible. Relatively it would be unethical to charge, prosecute and incarcerate the indigenous un-contacted Amazonians for killing the two Englishmen. Primitive innocence! Relatively, they have done nothing wrong! We should bear 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 that Jeffrey Dahmer carried it out in the 20th century and because he was advanced. Some prehistoric people probably enjoyed and relished cannibalism, but would you judge them? No! It is only a matter of relativity. Therefore, the only thing Jeffrey Dahmer can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or a medieval primitive or indigenous native of some sort.

Yes, the odious collection of human skulls, in particular, was like something one would see at a Ripley’s Believe or Not museum that originally came from a primitive tribe of cannibals in the Amazonian Basin or New Guinea, not Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

(Jeffrey Dahmer, Jack Rosewood, page 107).

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 primates and became, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even ape would we forgive him? Instead of waiting ages for forgiveness, if Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he find relative innocence? Therefore, if you are in prison in say the U.K. for homicide, for example for an armed robbery that went wrong, then simply know that you are only in prison because you were born and raised in the U.K. and therefore, live under our laws. However, therefore, know that the law is not absolute! The law is relative. The law is flexible. It depends on where and when you commit your crime. You are only in prison because you are in the U.K. and it is 2020. Check your watch! The law is different in different spaces and times. For example, if you had committed your crime in the Amazon basin or New Guinea not too long ago, you would not have been reprimanded or incarcerated. To reiterate, the law is not absolute!

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? As another example consider Africa, most if not all of Africa is relatively westernised or civilised, certainly contacted, though there are hunter-gatherer bushmen in Southern Africa, and there could still be relatively un-contacted, very remote or indigenous and primitive people’s in other parts of Africa, in such as the Democratic Republic of Congo for example? In the 1980s in Ghana, you still saw people who had never seen a white man before, especially young children would be frightened and cry at the sight of an “oburoni” (white man). This is rare today. Therefore, the vast majority of Africans would go to prison for killing a westerner. However, would we incarcerate a bushman for killing a westerner? Possibly not! This really highlights that it is subtle or technical primitiveness that determines an individual’s innocence or whether they live under our or western laws or if they should go to prison for homicide etc. For example, if a bushman lives in a mud hut and has to hunt wildebeest or gazelle to eat meat, then technically he is primitive, and therefore less responsible, and therefore more innocent. Therefore, he 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! Another recent innovation in the UK is recycling, in that every homeowner in the UK has to recycle their garbage, whereas 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, duelling and dog fighting etc. Why was fox hunting more acceptable in the 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, technologies and infrastructure 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 bear 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. Life 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, whereas Europeans have invented the vast majority of technologies. This is obviously because the law of primitivism determines they are more innocent than white people, and that white people have lost their primitive innocence because of the Holocaust. There are limitless examples of how Africa and other parts of the world are primitive and innocent and metaphorically (and literally) get away with murder especially when it comes to health and safety hazards and death trap structures and vehicles etc. Primitivism should be studied where it is still present in the world, as we can learn a lot from examples. For example, imagine if you could go on an expedition to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon rainforest to meet, study and live with native Papuans or un-contacted native Amazonians. Imagine if you could teach them life relativity and primitive innocence and then were able to ask them for genuine advice from their 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 thinks it a bit uncool to “appreciate your food” etc. If you cannot go to Papua New Guinea or the Amazon ask your elders, such as your parents and grandparents! What can they remember? Flatter their eternal wisdom and knowledge! You do not need qualifications to practice or teach life relativity and primitive innocence, in fact like native Papuans or indigenous Amazonians, it is probably better if you don’t! All you need is time and age! For example, I remember the days before the internet and mobile phones and when CDs came out etc. I have asked my Mother who was born in the 1953 and she can remember the following: outside boilers that you heated water with wood and coal to clean white clothes in, using something called a “dolly blue” (detergent), mangles to strain and dry clothes, tin baths that hung on the wall, that you filled with water heated on the fire, no plumbing or hot water, no fridges, no freezers, no electric blenders etc. Coal used to be delivered by dumping on the road/path outside your house that you shovelled into a bunker. And she remembers that her father (my grandfather) told her that he used to deliver milk in urns in a horse and cart from a farm where he worked in the 1940s. Above all she said, they did not have lots of 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.


4. PREHISTORY.

Recorded history.

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. For example, cave paintings, such as the Chauvet, Lascaux and Altamira cave paintings are eternal, because they have survived until today and this means the images have now become recorded and digitised as well as recreated as prints and posters etc, however, the names of the actual painters are forever lost to us because they had no writing, therefore, the painters are not eternal down here on earth but only in heaven. However, thanks to themselves and archaeology, it was firstly the Egyptians who (along with the Sumerian’s and Babylonians) invented recorded history and architecture and who put thousands of years of time, energy and devotion into eternity and the afterlife through religion, writing, mummification and tombs etc, that accomplished this. Recorded history is eternity. To reiterate, with the cult of the ruler, funerary cults, mortuary cults, mummification, pyramids, saff-tombs and mastaba-tombs (meaning “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.

Technical compassion.

Animals have little or no compassion for example animals rarely take care of their own sick and injured and certainly do not empathetically conserve other species as humans do. What you are about to read below is a metaphorical example. When I say prehistoric man had no compassion, I mean less compassion not zero. In fact, I think the further you go back in time the less and less compassion hominins had. Also when I say that you must for instance first attain gunpowder, nuclear weapons, roads, bridges and skyscrapers etc before you can or will be compassionate toward animals, do not take it literally, they are only metaphorical examples. For all I know it could have been a military in the recognisable sense such as the Roman army that was the key to compassion toward animals. It could have been agriculture, domestication and the Neolithic revolution that made us invincible masters of the animal kingdom and that consequently led to compassion for animals. It could have been spears and bows and arrows. It could have been trains. I don’t know. All I know is that the further you go back in time, the more primitive technologically humans were and, therefore, the less compassionate they were toward animals and each other. For example, 17th century Europeans were less compassionate than us today toward life, animals and even humans, because for example they slaved and were generally a lot harsher than us. This is because they had relatively less advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure than us and were a little less secure in the natural world and not as invincible as us today. For example, they had no tanks, therefore, if you have tanks you can be more compassionate towards animals and each other. For example, the last Scottish wolf was killed by Sir Ewen Cameron in 1680 in Killiecrankie, which means that 17th century people did not have a conscience regarding the conservation of other species as we do today. And the Romans were obviously less compassionate than us because they enslaved, and had gladiatorial sports for entertainment etc. Again this is because they had relatively less advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure than us and were a bit less secure in their environment and not quite the invincible masters of the world as we are today. For example, how can Australopithecus or Lower Palaeolithic man be compassionate 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, first attain advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure such as gunpowder, muskets, rifles, nuclear warheads, automobiles, militaries, police, emergency services, roads, buildings, bridges and skyscrapers etc before you can be compassionate toward animals. It is not a case of hey compassion for compassion’s sake like the Buddha. Compassion is not free of charge, it is a definite and tangible deal or bargain. Only now that I am invincibly safe and secure from wild animals in my city, town or fortress and surrounded by guns, and now that I have an overabundance and surplus of food, energy and resources etc can or will I be compassionate toward animals. Consider this, Bill Gates is the richest man on earth with a 105 billion dollar net worth. Because Bill Gates does not have to worry about food or bills anymore, he can probably be more generous and compassionate to animals and humans than most of us. Therefore, imagine if a being had a googolplex dollars, this would probably enable this being to be extremely generous and compassionate. Therefore, imagine if a being had infinite dollars or infinite energy, how kind and compassionate could this being be? This being could potentially be the Buddha, Jesus Christ, God or YHWH? Prehistoric man needed to kill, it is simple if they did not kill they would die. Therefore compassion did not exist, in fact, it was probably wrong and even heinous at that time. It is only when you do not need to hunt or kill animals, can you then be compassionate. Therefore, the Buddha and Jesus Christ could not have come prehistoric men and only came at a certain level of civilization, when we no longer needed to hunt or kill animals in order to survive. The Buddha and Jesus Christ were blessed compared to prehistoric man. 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 then did Homo sapiens become invincible and masters of the animal kingdom.

cropped-2ab8b914-f1fa-44ef-abe3-c8489a3f3c2b-1.jpeg
The less compassionate good old days of fighting bears hand to hand.

It is like saying to ‘bear’ “I have a nuke now, therefore I am compassionate toward you.” The good old days of mud wrestling bears hand to hand and to the death with spears and stones etc are long gone! Palaeolithic man probably gets teary-eyed thinking of those good old days of fighting bears with his bare hands. 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 toward animals. What would a bear do with a machine gun? He would probably go on a rampage. Therefore, the Buddha and Jesus Christ could never have come a prehistoric man. Also without recorded history, they would never have been famous or remembered. To reiterate, compassion is something technical, it is only attained through a collective effort, through taming the wild and through civilisation. You can only be compassionate once there is no competition.

Example of possible requirements of compassion (not literal):

  1. Must have attained relatively advanced weapons, technology and infrastructure, such as gunpowder, rifles, cannons, nuclear weapons, military, police, emergency services, roads, buildings and bridges etc.
  2. Must be masters of the world and the animal kingdom.
  3. Must no more or rarely be prey.
  4. Must be top of the food chain.
  5. Must not need to hunt or kill animals anymore in order to survive.
  6. Must have an overabundance and surplus of food, energy and water.
  7. Must have agriculture.
  8. Must domesticate animals.
  9. Must be sedentary.
  10. Must have villages, towns and cities etc.
  11. Must have architecture.
  12. As a species you must have no other competition.
  13. Compassion is not free of charge.
  14. It is a definite or tangible deal or bargain, in that you must physically have all the above before you can or will be compassionate.

Like the being with infinite energy, this determines that the more advanced you get the more compassionate you will get towards other species, therefore, if there exist other extremely advanced alien civilisations in the universe, they will probably be extremely if not infinitely compassionate towards other species. Therefore, if it is a law that the more advanced you get the more compassionate you get, this determines we probably do not have to worry about meeting hostile Klingons, Romulans or Predators etc. Don’t get me wrong compassion is a very good thing, but it is advanced, however, this does not mean as Buddhists or Christians we should look down at prehistoric people because they had less compassion. It was equally good for them to have no compassion. I think it is a case of it was wrong for prehistoric people to have compassion and it is equally wrong for us today to have no compassion. 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, bear this in mind, because as will be seen this lack of compassion must determine that such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile were, in fact, ancient or 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, an ape or (and I quote) a “subhuman” himself. You may say aha! If it is a law that the more advanced you get the more compassionate you get, how come the Buddha was 2500 years older than Adolf Hitler? That is exactly my point, in that Adolf Hitler was anachronistic, he spoils it, he spoils the theory of compassion. This is why he gets into so much trouble in the 20th or 21st centuries. Therefore, if Adolf Hitler went back time millions or hundreds of thousands of years he would be in less trouble.

https://technicalcompassion.com

On another note, I believe life relativity and primitive innocence determine that in heaven the older you are the greater, more famous and illustrious you are, (as in prehistoric, ancient or medieval people). For example, if you are 2000 or 3000 years old, like Socrates or Plato this is very great, refined and holy, therefore, the older you become, like fine wine, the greater you get. For example, 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 if you were a real soldier who fought in the Greco-Persian Wars or the Trojan War (if it were real). Even if you were a grunt in these wars, you would be so unbelievably proud. Or imagine if you were an authentic and indigenous Roman citizen. Even you were a plebeian you would be so proud were a Roman in real life. To be Greek or Roman is great. Or imagine if you were a Roman gladiator. Even if you died quickly in the colosseum you would be so impossibly proud that you were a Roman gladiator in life. 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 greatest and most famous and illustrious.

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

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

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

Note the primitive innocence in the above cave painting, Palaeolithic man was responsible for nothing! For example, how famous do you think the painter or painters of the Lascaux or Altamira cave paintings is/are in the afterlife? Imagine in the afterlife if prehistoric man was still making art such as paintings and Venus figurines and was selling his/her authentic and sacred prehistoric art to you, how much do think a genuine prehistoric piece of art or sculpture would go for? Millions! Never mind Leonardo Da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh or Pablo Picasso. Genuine prehistoric art would be priceless! In fact in heaven, just about everything prehistoric man makes or touches is probably priceless. For example, I have recently purchased two prehistoric stone tools from Etsy, one is a Mousterian Palaeolithic Neanderthal knife blade scraper from 60,000 BP, which cost £10.40. The other larger piece is a Palaeolithic Acheulian knife blade or pick from 200,000 BP, which cost £17.99. Basically, these artefacts are indistinguishable from geofacts or stones and if I were to recreate them today I couldn’t even pay you to have them. However, for two reasons do these stones have value, firstly because prehistoric man made them and second of all time, because the tools are 60,000 and 200,000 years old.

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

Then compare an authentic prehistoric Venus figurine to a 10-year-old iPad. See the relative difference in value? A genuine prehistoric Venus figurine is priceless while a trashy 10-year-old iPad is worthless junk. The present and future are valueless, while the past and prehistory are priceless. In heaven, Prehistoric men such as Neolithic and Palaeolithic men have tens or even hundreds of thousands of years of time on their side. Can you imagine the experience that would come with? It is time, and the more you have of it the better! Time does not come cheap. You cannot purchase for any price tens of thousands of years of experience or time. All that you can do is wait and look back to the past. I think considering they had no writing or recorded history that the most profound question of all for prehistoric man is who are you? We have no idea who they were? In fact, I think the difference between prehistoric humans and animals is the question: who are you? Not what are you? An animal is a what and a human is a who. You would not say who are you to an animal, but at some point, hominins left the animal kingdom and stopped being a what and became a who? I would have so many questions for prehistoric man. Who are you? What is your name? What are your memories? What was it like? Do you have any stories? Also, imagine in the afterlife if you could meet a 1 million-year-old Homo antecessor woman or a 2000-year-old Roman man. Wouldn’t that be the most amazing thing? Would the Homo antecessor woman still look and act the same as she did 1 million years ago, or would she have evolved into a beautiful modern Homo sapiens woman? Would the Roman man still wear a toga or would he wear modern fashionable clothes? I think either scenario would be desirable. Sometimes you may want to see them in their natural environment and time period, other times not. Also, I think the most amazing thing about these two examples, is that even if they now look and dress like us they can always say “I was a Homo antecessor 1 million years ago” or “I was a Roman citizen 2000 years ago”. Which is amazing! Whereas I could only say “I was an Englishman from 1981”. I think this shows how in the afterlife, especially if everyone regains their beautiful youth, that time would, therefore, be the most important commodity, in that the older you are the more famous, illustrious, classical, divine and holy you are. I mean for example like Homo antecessor imagine being 1 million years old! It is hard to imagine but there are potentially people up there heaven who look just like me and you who are over 1 millions years old? I think us whippersnappers of the 20th century better learn a thing or two. Prehistoric, ancient and medieval people were brave simply by being alive such a long time ago if they were attacked by large animals such as lions, wolves, bears, rhinoceroses, and mammoths etc they were entirely on their own. This is why prehistoric man could have no compassion toward animals.

B864A50B-0E3C-4F66-A05A-F7EE5DCC90D7
Prehistoric humans being chased from a mammoth kill by a bear.

To explain compassion imagine this scenario. You have worked hard all week, it’s payday and you go to your local supermarket (let’s say Tesco) to get your weeks groceries. You take your trolley and calmly enter the supermarket and spend an hour choosing and selecting your delicious groceries etc. You then take your trolley to the counter and pay for your groceries with your hard-earned cash. You then calmly walk out of the supermarket entrance with your trolley full of bags of your groceries intending to take them to your car to unload them. All of a sudden a ginormous, drooling and stinking grizzly bear comes charging at you, attacks you and muscles in on your hard-earned groceries. You ditch the trolley and your groceries and run for your life. The bear then runs off with the trolley and the Tesco bags full of your groceries to gorge himself and you are left cold and starving for the rest of the week. Now feel compassionate towards bears. This is how prehistoric man felt all the time. As they do in the wild today with other animals, bears and lions probably muscled in on prehistoric man’s kills all the time.

4CE23F1E-38FD-47D1-8CFD-5C7F98F47DC7
Prehistoric humans being stalked by a lion.

What is love?

Animals do not love because life is so harsh for them, they have no time for love, only procreation. Therefore, maybe you have got to make time for love? Apart from procreation what is the evolutionary point of love? Animals can procreate without loving their mates, therefore, what is the point of love? It could be the difference between mating for just procreation and mating for other higher reasons? Love makes us care and protect. Love is non-animal. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and defines us as non-animal. Love is only a stones throw away from compassion and we know compassion is technical, in that you must first attain advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure such as gunpowder, muskets, rifles, nuclear weapons, automobiles, militaries, police, emergency services, roads, buildings, bridges and skyscrapers etc and, therefore, be top of the food chain and masters of the animal kingdom, before you can, therefore, be compassionate toward animals. Love is probably similar, in that you probably have to be masters of the animal kingdom and relatively safe and secure first. Life has to be less harsh and less gory. Life may have to be easy before you can love another human being. Maybe you have to have compassion before you can love another human being? Maybe you have to be a non-cannibal before you are can love another human being?

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

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

Prehistoric, ancient and medieval people also had no option but to fight for their lives, for example against wild animals, conquerors and Viking marauders etc. In fact the further you go back in time the harsher and more violent it was.

Professional survivalists.

EF4F4E2E-D50A-4555-8BE0-4DA7EF2B2A6F
Cro-magnon hunter.

There is a difference between such as the TV survivalist Bear Grylls or the SAS and prehistoric man, in that Bear Grylls or the SAS do not really have to do what they do, they have a choice. Although the SAS do obey orders and have to go on dangerous missions, Bear Grylls just does what he does for leisure, entertainment or sport. It does not matter where you are, but when you are. For example, imagine if Bear Grylls or the SAS had to go back in time to the Palaeolithic period instead? That is a lot different from being dropped off in Afghanistan or the Sahara desert today with GPS and radio and when you are never really more than a few clicks from civilisation. Ultimately when it comes to life or death it matters. Although Bear Grylls looks the part, if he died on one of his TV shows, this would never be entertainment. Therefore, Bear Grylls and the SAS can always use GPS, radio or cell phones to call up a helicopter to pull themselves out of any serious situation they are not comfortable with. Whereas prehistoric man had absolutely no choice whatsoever! Prehistoric men had to deal with absolutely any situation that was presented to them. Food, water and fire were a constant problem for prehistoric man. Prehistoric man had no advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc or anything whatsoever, if they were lost, attacked by large animals or broke a bone etc they were entirely on their own. This is why prehistoric man could get away with rape, murder and cannibalism etc. We have all felt a little scared on a hike, or in slightly remote places with map and compass etc, but prehistoric man had absolutely none of this and they had no choice. Prehistoric men were constantly in remote places and dangerous environments etc. It is almost impossible for us today to recreate the same psychological situations prehistoric men were in constantly, as we are never more than a few clicks from civilisation. Never mind Bear Grylls or Ray Mears prehistoric men were 100% expert survivalists. There is a huge psychological or mental difference when you know there is no possibility of help coming and when it really matters. Exactly like how people today are expert or professional engineers, doctors or lawyers etc prehistoric men were expert and professional survivalists. Prehistoric men were tough and then some.

In the beginning.

‘In the beginning’ nobody told prehistoric man not to be harsh, nobody told prehistoric man not to be greedy, nobody told prehistoric man not to steal, nobody told prehistoric man not to rape, nobody told prehistoric man not to murder and nobody told prehistoric man not to cannibalise. What the hell!? We living creatures of life receive no help or warning from YHWH or anyone whatsoever, we are on our own, we are 100% independent and we learn on our own through natural selection. Therefore, prehistoric man obviously did all these things. It also means that greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are relatively no issue with prehistoric men. Because there is no warning, there must be forgiveness and a second chance? Our primitive ancestors had no Ten Commandments. How did our primitive ancestors such as Homo erectus figure out or learn what was good and what was evil? At what point in time or evolution does killing another member of the same species become murder?

D84A96A9-E955-4C5C-AFAA-97D65EA68C91
Palaeolithic man, with fur.

For example, I think if you still have fur then there is probably nothing YHWH or any other god in the universe can do to you for anything you do. To reiterate primitive anatomy determines if YHWH can chastise or punish you for your actions or sins, for example, if a creature (or a hominin) still has fur then there is probably nothing, zero and zilch that YHWH or any other deity in the cosmos can do to it for its crimes or sins. You can literally get away with murder and cannibalism with fur. Homo erectus or Homo antecessor did not feel guilty for killing or cannibalising another member of the same species, and it was never murder. However, at some point, possibly when hominins lost their fur, YHWH had had enough and then more evolved or advanced hominins began to feel guilty or “gutted” for so-called ‘murder’ or ‘cannibalism.’ However, we have all felt “gutted”, in fact, who hasn’t felt “gutted” for their sins? However, as will be seen later guilt is good! It could be only through natural selection, through learning the hard way, through the mistakes of early hominins and prehistoric man that we learned ethics and morality? There is always a threshold in evolution, as in the threshold between apes and humans or the threshold between cannibalism not being a problem and cannibalism being a problem etc. You would never pat or shake hands with a lion, therefore, could you pat or shake hands with Australopithecus without being eaten? Could you shake hands with Homo habilis without being ripped from limb to limb? Could you shake your hand with Homo erectus and keep it? Therefore, who could you shake hands with? Applying the same logic, could you ‘shake hands’ with Jeffrey Dahmer without being killed and eaten? This may mean that such as Jeffrey Dahmer would need to go back in time to a period where there was no trust or ‘handshakes’ between hominins? Trust is what we need with Jeffrey Dahmer. 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 sheer muscle and remorseless brutality that enabled us to then technically 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 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, nuclear weapons, paper, printing, typewriters, roads, bridges and buildings etc. Therefore, Homo sapiens got more and more compassionate over time toward animals through the invention of more and more advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc. For example, fighting a lion with spears and bows and arrows is brave, however, fighting a lion with a machine gun is never brave. It is relative.

In the scheme of things, (3.5 billion years).

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. In fact manners and etiquette may be a very ancient invention indeed. Also, natural selection may choose manners and etiquette over greed or having the most food? Also consider cavewoman, was caveman particularly chivalric towards cavewoman? Probably not! Caveman probably provided food for and had his wicked way with cavewoman and that was about it. When did humans learn chivalry? Chivalry could be Palaeolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic? 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 and eat or be eaten, animals do not trust us in the slightest. Forgiveness is relative, in that after 3.5 billion years of killing and carnage without a single drop of regret, in the scheme of things and with His timeless perspective of time, evolution and creation, how much do you think YHWH will appreciate the fact that one animal species feels remorse? After 3.5 billion years of life on earth, YHWH has seen it all, this is why He is so ready to forgive you any sin. 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 vast and eternal eyes of YHWH or His perspective of time, evolution or creation. After 3.5 billion years of life or from YHWH’s frame of reference or in the scheme of things, how small and insignificant does Adolf Hitler’s genocide seem? Therefore, how small and insignificant do your minor sins seem? It is relative. YHWH was around billions and hundreds of millions of years ago, in the time of single-celled life forms and Tiktaalik roseae respectively, who do not really care about the Holocaust. For example, 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 2 million years or so and YHWH knows this or can see this in an instant or in a way that we cannot see. It is relative, in that 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 He has waited so long, and because you are not animal and you feel guilt, therefore, YHWH will readily 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. To reiterate after 3.5 billion years of life on earth or from YHWH’s frame of reference or in the scheme of things, how small and insignificant does Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism seem? Therefore, how small and insignificant do your minor sins seem? It is relative. 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 life 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 many sins. 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 nowhere 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, technologies and infrastructure etc and have conquered the natural world. Homo sapiens rarely compete with animals anymore for survival, hence, they can be compassionate. To YHWH the knowledge, consciousness or awareness of sin is intrinsically noble and good because animals are completely ignorant of sin. You cannot sin unless you are conscious or aware 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. The consciousness or awareness 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, because of their ignorance of sin, the animal kingdom is perfect or without sin. Sin is human because humans are conscious and aware of sin, and because we are conscious and aware of sin we are non-animal. That is what is amazing about sin because only non-animals are conscious 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 and aware 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.


5. Time travel (secular forgiveness).

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

The largest slice of pie.

I am not dealing with minor or petty sin such as a man of the cloth feeling contrite for taking the largest slice of pie. Nor about a nun feeling repentant for breaking the speeding limit by 3 miles per hour. Nor am I concerned about such as ex-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. Jokes aside, there is a difference between sin and crime. I am serious when I say that I am dealing with real crimes such as genocide, homicide, child molestation and rape etc. Taking the man of the cloth example above, for argument’s sake let’s call all non-serious sins as pie. So non-serious, every day and non-criminal sins are pie and real crimes such as genocide, homicide, child molestation and rape etc are not pie. Relative to Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile the vast majority of people have just taken the largest slice of pie. You do not have to worry if you think you are pie. You know if you think you deserve prison, and the vast majority of people do not. So chill out! Stop worrying about your and other people’s slices of pie. We are dealing with Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile no one cares if you have had an affair, had an illegitimate child behind your wife’s back, made a fraudulent insurance claim or snorted cocaine in front of your 6-year-old daughter. Relatively that’s all pie! Therefore, I am not concerned with any sin unless it is a real crime such as genocide, homicide, child molestation and rape etc. The idea is that it does not get any worse than the above, and if you can fix such as the above then relatively nothing is really a problem and therefore, we all feel better. It is relative, if you spend all your life only dealing with minor sin or largest slices of pie then of course minor sin or little things will seem bad and unforgivable to you. However, if you deal with real criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile then relatively all those minor infractions or slices of pie disintegrate and seem like nothing. If you cannot forgive everybody 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?

Let’s recap.

The law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period.

The law changes over space and time.

The law is not absolute.

The law is relative.

The law is flexible.

Life relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all, it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all, it is definitely about time for forgiveness!

Crime is relative.

Innocence is relative.

Primitivism is innocence.

Because prehistoric man, such as Neolithic man had stone tools, they were as primitive and innocent as newborn babies!

Good guys can go deranged (trust me).

After 3.5 billion years of life on earth or from YHWH’s frame of reference or in the scheme of things, how small and insignificant does Adolf Hitler’s genocide or Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism seem? Therefore, how small and insignificant do your minor sins seem? It is relative.

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 the knowledge, consciousness or awareness of sin 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.

Guilt is human. Guilt is good.

Animals are funny, particularly (for Homo sapiens) dogs, cats and monkeys are funny, especially primates such as chimps and bonobos etc. Life relativity and primitive innocence simply use this animal comedy in conjunction with time travel and time and relativity to compare and make serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile primitive hominins and apes etc in order to lighten their sins and forgive them. We have all made a monkey of ourselves, but I think Adolf Hitler gets the prize for making the biggest monkey in history (or prehistory)! Therefore, if someone who commits a sin makes themselves equal to an ape, this animal comedy lightens his/her sins and hence he/she is forgiven.

Primitive anatomy probably determines if YHWH can chastise or punish you for your actions or sins, for example, if a creature (or a hominin) still has fur (such as Australopithecus) then there is probably nothing, zero and zilch that YHWH or any other deity in the cosmos can do to you for your crimes or sins. You can literally get away with murder and cannibalism with fur.

If someone who commits a sin (such as Jeffrey Dahmer) does not try to be advanced, special or superior to primates and instead becomes, thinks, acts or accepts that he/she is primitive, prehistoric or even ape, then his or her sin is much lighter or even forgiven.

For example, because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, therefore the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an ape. If he accepts this then his sins would be lighter.

For example, because Adolf Hitler killed so many innocent people in the 20th century 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.

Life 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 travel.

(Case study 1, Adolf Hitler).

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

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

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

That is about as bad as the Holocaust got, therefore that is what we are up against and what we have to try to forgive. How are we to forgive such a thing? “It’s a damned dirty job but someone’s got to do it!” I believe it is possible to forgive any sin real or imaginable with time and relativity (which is a Jewish invention by the way). I cannot think of a place in time where the Holocaust would not seem so anachronistic, it is hard to find, but for example, single-celled life forms, Tiktaalik roseae and Australopithecus probably don’t care about it? In fact, to forgive such as Adolf Hitler I am talking fur. Adolf Hitler would need to have fur to be innocent. If the Holocaust had happened in the ancient or medieval periods it may have been less of an issue by now. It is time, for example, certainly, if the Holocaust had happened 1 million years ago it would not be a problem. Concerning Adolf Hitler, remember that it was technically impossible for prehistoric man to feel compassion towards animals, because they had primitive weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc, therefore, they were not yet masters of the world or the animal kingdom. You cannot feel compassion when you are still competing with animals and are still prey yourself. Similarly, animals have zero compassion. How can you have compassion when everything is voraciously trying to eat you? Therefore, Hitler was the opposite of the Buddha when it comes to compassion. Hence, because Adolf Hitler had no compassion, the only thing he could be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo erectus or an ape. However, because Adolf Hitler equated to a prehistoric man such as H. erectus in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. This may mean Adolf Hitler would need to go back in time to a period that had no compassion? Therefore, if Hitler went back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years he might find relative forgiveness and acceptance. Concerning slavery and barbaric sports such as fox hunting, duelling, dog fighting and gladiatorial combats, it is easy to claim primitive innocence and to say that we should not judge ancient and medieval people for slavery, 19th century and earlier Britons for fox hunting, duelling and dog fighting or Romans for gladiatorial sports. This is because they had much more primitive weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc than us and hence they had less compassion towards life and animals than us, they were also much more innocent than us. But how can we say this for the Holocaust? How can Adolf Hitler claim primitive innocence? Considering that the 1980s were more innocent times compared to the 2020s because we had no internet or mobile phones etc, this obviously means that the 1930s and 1940s were way more primitive technologically and therefore, much more innocent. Think back to those innocent black and white films with those crying damsels etc. Therefore, most importantly, the solution to the Holocaust is not just to forgive Hitler but to forgive Germany as a whole. In order to accomplish this Germany needs to regain its primitive innocence. Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example, the Holocaust, the way to forgive them is to use life relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or monkeys. For example, because Hitler cares so much about racism and “subhumans”, this scientifically determines that he is definitely at the very least an ape or archaic hominin! He would literally have to have fur to have forgiveness. To reiterate the only way I can understand Adolf Hitler with any lightness is if he were (and I quote) a “subhuman” such as an ape or archaic hominin. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. With fur and with these primates or in this place and time he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an ape. So if Hitler did not try to be advanced, special or superior to primates and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even ape, would we forgive him? If Adolf Hitler went back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have relative innocence? Therefore, Hitler made a monkey of himself! Why is it we humans hate our own evolutionary past? Why would we rather be anything except an ape? Why not call him “primitive Hitler”? Jokes aside, to reiterate most importantly, the solution to the Holocaust is not just to forgive Hitler but to forgive Germany as a whole. In order to accomplish this Germany needs to regain its primitive innocence. Don’t call him a genocidal megalomaniac call him a “genocidal megalomaniac in the 20th century.” Do not say sin say “relative sin.” Do not say crime say “relative crime.” Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning time travel we can say relative to the 20th century Adolf Hitler seems relatively advanced, more responsible and therefore less innocent. However, relative to the Lower Palaeolithic period, Adolf Hitler seems relatively primitive, less responsible and therefore more innocent. Therefore, if Adolf Hitler could go back in time to the Lower Palaeolithic period, then in or from this frame of reference Adolf Hitler would seem relatively much less evil. Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Can you or your people un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Adolf Hitler then you and your people will un-evolve through miscegenation. You will also need to go back in time to the required period in order to seek forgiveness and acceptance or relative innocence. The law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law changes over space and time. The law is not absolute. The law is relative. The law is flexible.

https://crimetravel.net

Crime travel.

(Case study 2, Jeffrey Dahmer).

I have one read book on Jeffrey Dahmer and he is definitely the hardest to forgive even more so than Adolf Hitler and he makes Jimmy Savile look like a vicar. Jeffrey Dahmer liked to have complete control over his victims, in that he liked “pliant” inanimate bodies to have sex with. To that end, he lured his victims back to his abode, drugged them with a drink spiked with sleeping pills, so they passed out, then strangled them to death and then had sex with their corpses. He then dissected their bodies, dipping their corpses, bones and body parts in a vat of acid, although keeping their heads and genitals in his fridge and freezer for sexual purposes. He then cannibalised their hearts and some of their muscles to feel at one with his victims. He had such a fetish with “pliant” inanimate bodies, on some of his victims he experimented by drilling holes in their heads and pouring acid and hot water on to their brains in order to turn them into living “zombies” that he could have complete control over and have sex with again and again. He did not succeed in creating “zombies“. Jeffrey Dahmer was sexually aroused by dissecting the bodies of humans and by body parts such as decapitated heads and dissected biceps and calf muscles etc. It turned him on. At one point before he became a full-blown serial killer he even scoured the obituaries in the local newspapers for young men who had died recently in order to exhume their bodies to have sex with, this was so that he didn’t have to kill. He did try to dig up the corpse of a recently deceased 18-year-old man but gave up as the digging was too hard. I know it is splitting hairs, however, there is a difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and Adolf Hitler and Jimmy Savile in that we can at least in the remotest possibility technically understand the latter two. Although he was evil, Hitler thought the less there was of a particular group or groups in the world the better. This is probably something animals think of certain other animals, for example, lions might think the fewer hyenas there were in the world the better. So we can at least technically understand him. And concerning Jimmy Savile, I think every man on earth can at least technically understand how Jimmy Savile was attracted to teenage girls. It’s just simply that the vast majority of us can apply a lot of resistance to our feelings and urges. Therefore, we can at least technically understand him. Jimmy Savile was human. However, with Jeffrey Dahmer, there is absolutely no technical understanding whatsoever. How you can be sexually attracted to or aroused by dissected body parts, decapitated heads, “zombies” or “pliant” inanimate bodies is beyond our comprehension. It’s like being attracted to a door or a dead animal. It is simply acataleptic (not understandable). Therefore, Jeffrey Dahmer was different, he was not like you and me, his brain was wired up differently to yours or mine. Jeffrey Dahmer was not human!

From the safe confines of his Milwaukee apartment, which doubled as a torture chamber and abattoir, Dahmer conducted bizarre experiments on his subjects, including drilling holes into their heads and pouring acid and hot water into their brains. After his victims died, Dahmer continued to use the corpses of his victims to indulge his macabre fantasies by engaging in necrophilia and cannibalism.

(Jeffrey Dahmer, Jack Rosewood, page 1).

That is about as bad as serial killing gets, therefore that is what we are up against and what we have to try to forgive. How are we to forgive such a thing? “It’s a damned dirty job but someone’s got to do it!” I believe it is possible to forgive any sin real or imaginable with time and relativity. Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example, serial killers, the way to forgive them is to use life relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or monkeys. Because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, therefore the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an ape. To reiterate, because Jeffrey Dahmer equated to a prehistoric man such as H. antecessor in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. He would have to have fur to have forgiveness. With fur and with these creatures or in this place and time he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. To reiterate, with fur your sins are lighter. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an ape. Jeffrey Dahmer had no compassion, therefore he was an anachronistic prehistoric hominin in the 20th century. He had advanced technology, lived in a brick residence and did his shopping at a supermarket, therefore, he was advanced and more responsible, and therefore less innocent than Homo antecessor for murder and cannibalism.

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

To reiterate the only way I can understand a serial killer such as Jeffrey Dahmer with any lightness is if he had fur and were a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer did not try to be advanced, special or superior to primates and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even ape, would we forgive him? If Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have relative innocence? Therefore, Jeffrey Dahmer made a monkey of himself! Why is it we humans hate our own evolutionary past? Why would we rather be anything except an ape? Don’t call him a cannibal call him a “cannibal in the 20th century.” Do not say sin say “relative sin.” Do not say crime say “relative crime.” Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning time travel we can say relative to the 20th century Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively advanced, more responsible and therefore less innocent. However, relative to the Lower Palaeolithic period, Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively primitive, less responsible and therefore more innocent. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer could go back in time to the Lower Palaeolithic period, then in or from this frame of reference Jeffrey Dahmer would seem relatively much less evil. Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Jeffrey Dahmer then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order to seek forgiveness and acceptance or relative innocence. The law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law changes over space and time. The law is not absolute. The law is relative. The law is flexible.

https://crimetravel.co.uk

Crime travel.

(Case study 3, Jimmy Savile).

Although it is not really, in a way child abuse can be 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 life relativity and primitive innocence and to call them prehistoric man, primitive or monkeys. 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. Therefore, I think slavery and ‘child abuse’ are quite similar, in that relatively they were both acceptable in more ancient times. We would not judge prehistoric, ancient, medieval or even Victorian men for having relations with 12-year-old girls or for slaving, so we should bear this mind when judging and condemning modern men such as Jimmy Savile or slavers such as Henry the navigator. It is relative, frame of reference and perspective. We cannot sit here in the 21st century and reverse condemn Victorian, medieval, ancient or prehistoric men such as Muhammad (who married a 9-year-old) for having relations with young girls, or Jean Barbot who was a practising slaver by trade, from our high and mighty frame of reference. You cannot condemn the past. Like slavery, this is because relatively there was nothing wrong such acts in those periods. It is only in the 20th and 21st-century frame of reference that child abuse and slavery seem particularly bad. 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 sit here in the 21st century and reverse condemn Victorian, medieval, ancient or prehistoric men such as Horatio Nelson, from our high and mighty frame of reference. You cannot condemn the past. Not long afterwards, 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”. For example, the England footballer Adam Johnson (who had relations with a 15-year-old girl) would be absolutely fine in the Victorian period. Another example, I personally had sexual relations with a 14-year-old girl when I was 15 years old. It is relative! It was only okay because I was 15 years old. Which is time! 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 apes and primitive hominins to force themselves onto females and minors. Although such as Jimmy Savile may not have to go back as far as the other two case studies, it still lightens his sins to call him an ape. Therefore, with these hominins or in these places and times such as Jimmy Savile would be accepted and forgiven. Hence, if such as Jimmy Savile accepted this then his sins would be lighter. To reiterate, because Jimmy Savile equated to an prehistoric or ancient man such as medieval man in the 20th century, this means he was relatively in the wrong place and the wrong time, therefore he was anachronistic and therefore he was relatively evil. Again a little fur for Jimmy Savile might not be a bad thing. With fur and with these primates or in this place and time he would be at ease, forgiven and accepted. There is nothing as humble as giving yourself fur or making yourself an ape. With fur sins are lighter. So if Jimmy Savile did not try to be advanced, special or superior to primates and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even ape, would we forgive him? If Jimmy Savile went back in time thousands or hundreds of years to a more primitive period could he have relative innocence? Therefore, Jimmy Savile made a monkey of himself! Why is it we humans hate our own evolutionary past? Why would we rather be anything except an ape? Don’t call him a child abuser call him a “child abuser in the 20th century.” Do not say sin say “relative sin.” Do not say crime say “relative crime.” Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning time travel we can say relative to the 20th century Jimmy Savile seems relatively advanced, more responsible and therefore less innocent. However, relative to the medieval period, Jimmy Savile seems relatively primitive, less responsible and therefore more innocent. Therefore, if Jimmy Savile could go back in time to the medieval period, then in or from this frame of reference Jimmy Savile would seem relatively much less evil. Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Jimmy Savile then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order to seek forgiveness and acceptance or relative innocence. The law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law changes over space and time. The law is not absolute. The law is relative. The law is flexible.

https://crimetravel.uk

Complaints.

If you find forgiveness of such offenders as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile offensive, ask yourself this question: If your life depended on it, how would you forgive them? I am fairly confident that your answer would be with life relativity and primitive innocence. This is especially important for the afterlife, in that I believe that life relativity and primitive innocence are how forgiveness works in heaven. And it has to happen, there must forgiveness at some time, as there is no hell. Adolf Hitler is not in hell. However, we do not have to wait until we are dead, we can also use life relativity and primitive innocence to forgive down here in life or on earth as a well.

Perfectly selfish reasons.

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

I am never trying to be Jesus, life relativity and primitive innocence have perfectly selfish reasons! I am white and I believe if we can forgive Adolf Hitler then white people would be much better off. If we can genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler this would be beneficial to Europeans, especially Germans. 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 committed 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, importantly forgiveness has something to do with Jesus Christ, therefore, there clearly must be many benefits in it. It may have something to do with 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! However, you cannot just say I forgive, you have to truly mean it. With life relativity and primitive innocence there is genuine forgiveness. I also have my own sins to worry about and basically life relativity, primitive innocence, crime travel, time for forgiveness, whatever you want to call it makes me feel better. Therefore, I have perfectly selfish reasons!

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.

Physical limit.

What is the point of all the above verses regarding forgiveness if they are only concerned with minor or petty sin, such as a vicar doing penance for taking the largest slice of pie? Or with Theresa May running through a field of wheat as a child? There is no point! It would mean these verses are useless. Why only go so far and stop halfway or above the belt, for example, why say burglary is the limit of forgiveness? There is actually a physical limit to the sins and crimes that can be committed even to our own wildest imaginations! Hollywood horror movies are constantly innovating and pushing the boundaries of violence with such films as 31 and the Saw series etc. However, in reality, murder, cannibalism and extreme or cruel torture to fellow human beings is probably the physical limit. We cannot possibly imagine anything further than murder, cannibalism or extreme and cruel torture to humans etc and therefore, there exists a physical limit to the possibility of crimes or sins that can be committed. Also obviously and unfortunately, everything that we can possibly imagine that can be committed has already been done, by such as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer etc. So because there is a fundamental physical limit to crimes or sins that can possibly be committed, therefore, you know it cannot possibly go any further. Therefore, because you have no fear of anything going any further, therefore why not go all out and fix them all once and for all? Like shining light in very dark crevices or assembling an Ikea flat-pack, all sins and crimes would be unpacked or filled out to 100% maximum. Like a child who is afraid of the dark, imagine a large dark room with a door at one end with light shining through it and where the walls at the other pitch black end represent the physical limit of sins or crime, such as murder, cannibalism and torture etc. You cannot see these walls, but you know they are there. Like a child who is afraid of the dark all you have to do is run to the other side of the room and touch these pitch-black walls. Therefore, we have to go way below the belt or beyond slices of pie to fix crimes and sins. I mean we must not be afraid to deal with and to talk about forgiving real sin such as crimes against humanity, genocide, cannibalism, homicide, child molestation and rape etc. Also, concerning our own primitive innocences such as the internet, mobile phones and CDs etc, although life relativity and primitive innocence are a very nice idea, they would simply not work without forgiving such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile etc. I mean all those cherished memories and primitive innocences of our younger days would mean nothing. All those primitive technologies of our youth would just be dated and obsolete with no value or meaning whatsoever, and the perpetually and eternally young, teenage, advanced and cutting-edge would be all that matters. The past would simply decay and turn to dust.

Burglars.

I think for example burglars would feel a lot better and be particularly pleased to read life relativity (time for forgiveness) because if we can forgive such serious criminals as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile then relatively who cares about burglars? It’s relative. For example, how far would burglars need to go back in time to receive forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence? I think thieving was probably less of an issue in medieval times? To reiterate, life relativity, crime travel (secular forgiveness) whatever you want to call it, is a good thing for burglars!

Conclusion.

The law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law changes over space and time. The law is not absolute. The law is relative. The law is flexible. It depends on where and when you commit your crime. To reiterate, laws are different in different places and different times, for example, slavery and what we would today consider statutory rape were legal in Britain in the Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric periods etc. Therefore, know if you are serving time for an offence such as manslaughter, then know it is only a crime and you only are in prison because you are in the U.K. and because it is 2020. Check your watch! The law is bendy and not absolute. To reiterate animals are funny, particularly (for Homo sapiens) monkeys are funny, especially primates such as chimps and bonobos etc. Life relativity and primitive innocence simply use this animal comedy in conjunction with time travel and time and relativity to compare and make serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile primitive hominins and apes etc in order to lighten their sins and forgive them. We have all made a monkey of ourselves, but I think Adolf Hitler gets the prize for making the biggest monkey in history (or prehistory)! Therefore, if someone who commits a sin makes themselves equal to an ape, this animal comedy lightens his/her sins and hence he/she is forgiven. Do not say sin say “relative sin.” Do not say crime say “relative crime.” Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning time travel we can say relative to the 20th century Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively evil but relative to the Lower Palaeolithic period, Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively less evil, therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer could go back in time to the Lower Palaeolithic period, then in or from this frame of reference Jeffrey Dahmer would seem relatively much less evil. Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Can you un-evolve? Yes! If you commit a serious crime such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile then you will un-evolve as you will need to go back in time to the required period in order seek forgiveness and acceptance or relative innocence. You will need fur if you are such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer or Jimmy Savile in order to seek forgiveness and acceptance or relative innocence. To reiterate, with fur your sins are lighter. 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 life relativity and primitive innocence and call them prehistoric man, primitive or primates. Primitivism is time in that the further you go back in time the more primitive life was, therefore, relatively the more innocent animals (such as humans) were. 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 issues 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. What the hell!? We living creatures of life receive no help or warning from YHWH or anyone whatsoever, we are on our own, we are 100% independent and we learn on our own through natural selection. Therefore, prehistoric man obviously did all these things. It also means that greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are relatively no issue with prehistoric men. Therefore, there must be forgiveness and a second chance? 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 sheer muscle and remorseless brutality that enabled us to then technically 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, nuclear weapons, paper, printing, typewriters, iPads, roads, buildings, bridges, skyscrapers, police, firemen, medicine and emergency services etc. Therefore, Homo sapiens got more and more compassionate over time toward animals through the invention of more and more advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc. Sin and guilt are good because animals are not aware of sin and do not feel guilt. Forgiveness is relative, in that after 3.5 billion years of killing and carnage without a single drop of regret, in the scheme of things and with His timeless perspective of time, evolution and creation, how much do you think YHWH will appreciate the fact that one animal species feels remorse? After 3.5 billion years of life on earth, YHWH has seen it all, this is why He is so ready to forgive you any sin. 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 vast and eternal eyes of YHWH or His perspective of time, evolution or creation. After 3.5 billion years of life or from YHWH’s frame of reference or in the scheme of things, how small and insignificant does Adolf Hitler’s genocide seem? Therefore, how small and insignificant do your minor sins seem? It is relative. YHWH was around billions and hundreds of millions of years ago, in the time of single-celled life forms and Tiktaalik roseae respectively, who do not really care about the Holocaust. Humans are not animals or at least they have not been for a long time, perhaps over 2 million years or so and YHWH knows this or can see this in an instant or in a way that we cannot see. It is relative, in that 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 He has waited so long, and because you are not animal and you feel guilt, therefore, YHWH will readily 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. To reiterate after 3.5 billion years of life on earth or from YHWH’s frame of reference or in the scheme of things, how small and insignificant does Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism seem? Therefore, how small and insignificant do your minor sins seem? It is relative. 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 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. 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 life Relativity (time for forgiveness).


6. Postface.

Always two ways.

There are two ways in which we can consider the past, for example, we can say that in a way the original Star Wars films of the 1970s and 1980s were much better than the prequels of the 1990s and 2000s, because they had a certain magic or je ne sais quoi? Or we can say that the prequels were cinematically superior, far more advanced technologically and were therefore better. I personally believe that despite their primitivism the original Star Wars films were far superior to the prequels, however, why were they? We can also say that in a way the 1990s super club explosion was better than today’s club scene because of the millennium and because the music was more nostalgic, or we can say that today’s trance music is far superior technologically and that’s the end of it. Or 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. Why in one way do some old things, such as Star Wars seem better in the past? I believe it is because of the Holocaust and because white people are no longer as powerful or secure as they were in the past. I believe the reason Star Wars is not as good today, is because the world is now largely non-white. For example, London in 1969 was 99% white, however, non-Europeans will, therefore, denigrate the past by saying “Oh my God! The 60s!? How old fashioned is that!? Look at the haircuts!” This is because non-Europeans do not care as much as Europeans about the past. Without trying to sound politically incorrect, this is because, for example, the past to Africans was slavery or segregation, therefore, Africans will naturally tend to look forward to the future instead of the past. However, was slavery not primitive innocence for Africans? Europeans do earnestly care about the past. Why just because some non-Europeans have a less illustrious past and therefore care less about it, should Europeans also not care about the past? What is the difference between white Europeans and non-white ‘Europeans’? Nothing, except time, however. For example, in heaven, Prehistoric men such as Neolithic and Palaeolithic men have tens or even hundreds of thousands of years of time on their side. Can you imagine the experience that would come with? It is time, and the more you have of it the better! Time does not come cheap. You cannot purchase for any price tens of thousands of years of experience or time. All that you can do is wait and look back to the past. Therefore, similarly, white Europeans have been in Europe for thousands if not tens of thousands or (considering Neanderthal) hundreds of thousands of years, whereas relatively, migrants have literally got off the banana boat last week. This is what causes racial friction in that it is not necessarily genes but time. You cannot purchase or buy for any amount of money time! Time is priceless! We white Europeans have been here for tens of thousands of years, and you cannot buy time cheaply and quickly through miscegenation. All that non-whites can do is wait and look backwards to the past, or until they evolve themselves. Immigration and demographics are happening or changing far too quickly and because of their severe lack of time, white Europeans simply think that non-white ‘Europeans’ simply do not deserve to be in Europe. How can you care about prehistoric European man if you have only been in Europe for 60 years? How can you care about the Greeks and Romans if you have only been in Europe for 20 years? Unfortunately, therefore, this determines that contrary to life relativity and primitive innocence, non-white ‘Europeans’ will naturally tend to look forward to the future instead of the past. Imagine if we could ask The Beatles what decade they thought was better 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. Trance music is the temptation of technology. You have got to watch yourself, we all do it, we all denigrate the past and say daaaaang! DJs of the 1990s and up to the present day do this a lot, they believe that with their advanced, fast and precise electronic music that they have really “done one” on the rock and roll of the 1960s and 1970s etc. Similarly in the afterlife, would The Beatles choose to live in 1969 London or 2020 London (which is over 50% non-white)? Considering the 1960s were much more primitive and innocent, and because their fame and fortune may depend on it, I expect they will choose to exist in 1969 London in the afterlife. In fact, despite every European’s outspoken PC tendencies down here on earth, I bet you the vast majority of Europeans in the afterlife (when fashion does not matter) hypocritically choose to live and exist in the time periods of their birth or youth, in that most people will go back in time as far as possible (that is unless they are tempted by an iPad to exist in the 21st century)? I know I will at the least live in the innocent 80s! This is because the further you go back in time, relatively the more primitive and innocent life was and the more powerful and secure Europeans were. On the subject of fashion, older music artists should like life 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 like old technologies, with primitive innocence, they could still retain their value. 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. In fact do kids today even know who Rick Astley, Oasis or The Beatles are? Do they care? Because of their PC tendencies, I would say forget pop stars! It is 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 date or 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 life 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. Why would the Holocaust have reverse consequences for the past or for those Europeans who died before it? For example, why would the Holocaust affect or have consequences for Queen Victoria or Queen Mary I? Why just because of Hitler would they capitulate or surrender? The Holocaust clearly has consequences down here in life or on earth, particularly for those who were born after it, but it has no consequences in the afterlife or for our forebears. I think people forget this, and presume that our ancestors in the afterlife want us to separate from the past, surrender, capitulate and get on with multiculturalism and miscegenation etc. So what do you choose 1969 or 2020 London? Power and security or fashion? Fashion is ephemeral and insignificant. Fashion can be controlled. I personally choose power and security. However, in the afterlife, we will be both powerful and fashionable. Booyakasha! Wicked! Innit!

Flexible and bendy anti-white laws.

What is the relative usefulness of advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure if they make you less innocent and more compassionate towards life and animals? For example, the Romans are much happier and better off with primitive weapons technologies and infrastructure because it means they can discriminate on grounds of race or religion to prevent certain people from entering their territory. The Romans would never swap their primitive weapons, technologies and infrastructure for the advanced of the equivalent if it meant they could no longer discriminate on grounds of race or religion. What is more important, having advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure or having the balls to discriminate on grounds of race or religion? Therefore, we should devote all our time, energy and money into researching laws or ways on how to overcome race and human rights. I like the law and the enforcers of it, I do not have a problem with any laws in the U.K. except one, or one type of law, that is anti-white laws. What do I mean by anti-white laws? You know what I mean. I mean anti-racist, anti-discriminatory and anti-hate laws etc. I think these laws are all basically code for anti-white laws. British prime ministers such as Ted Heath and Harold Wilson as well as the UK government tied their own hands behind their backs and their shoelaces together with for example the Race Relations Acts (1965 & 1968 etc) and The Equalities Act (2010). However, please remember, the law is not absolute, the law changes over space and time. For example, if laws against rape, murder and cannibalism are flexible and bendy in that like Homo antecessor (in the Lower Palaeolithic), it depends on your temporal frame of reference or where and when you committed your crime, then therefore also these Race Relations laws are extremely flexible and bendy in that they did not exist in Britain in the 1940s for example. Therefore, please note at least in the mind or brain you do not have to live by these laws. In the afterlife, they will simply not exist. Apart from science, the only absolute law is that the law is not absolute.

Human rights and the value of life.

I believe human rights are the issue, not racism. Because of and since the Holocaust, Europeans (especially politicians) have wanted to be seen as distancing themselves from racism, fascism and the tyrannical trampling of human rights as far as possible. They have grown a conscious and now blatantly and subtly want to appear to the world that they suddenly and sincerely care about human rights and the value of life etc. This is why they brought in anti-white laws. Politicians could not organise a drunken orgy in a brewery. First of all western politics gave birth to or created Adolf Hitler at one extreme and secondly, politics then created the absolute and extreme opposite in the form of anti-white laws or the Race Relations Acts (1965 & 1968 etc) and The Equalities Act (2010). Politicians simply cannot get it right. To reiterate, the more advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure you attain the less innocent and more compassionate you will become. Therefore, there is no point in having such as laser-guided bombs (LGB), nuclear warheads, iPads, motorways, bridges and skyscrapers etc if you are paralysed by human rights and anti-racism. Ask a modern soldier. Clearly being armed to the teeth (as we are today) is not what matters. That is if you are beaten by anti-racism, human rights, immigration and minorities and unable to prevent people from entering your country. Muslims and third world immigrants will conquer us from within, that is through exploiting our weakness when it comes to anti-racism, human rights and immigration. For example, the Romans are much happier and infinitely better off with primitive weapons, technologies and infrastructure, such as the gladius, catapults, ballistas, Roman roads, buildings and bridges etc, because it makes them more innocent and less compassionate. This means that Romans can value life less, care less about human rights and therefore, can discriminate on grounds of race or religion to prevent people from entering their territory. The Romans would never swap their primitive weapons, technologies and infrastructure if it made them less innocent, more compassionate and therefore valued life too much and therefore, could not discriminate on grounds of race or religion. Having the strength or being able to value life less and discriminate on grounds of race or religion is infinitely more important than actually having advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure. If we could go back in time what would the Romans do with Challenger 2 tanks or Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors? Would they say “I tell you what let’s just defend Europe?” Probably not. They would probably capitalise on their advantage, go on a rampage and try to conquer the entire known world. What is the lesson? We modern Europeans do have these advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure yet we do not even defend Europe let alone would we ever dream of foreign conquest. It’s pathetic. Ask a modern soldier. Clearly being armed to the teeth (as we are today) is not what matters. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, Eurofighter Typhoons, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and skyscrapers 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, technologies and infrastructure 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 valuing life less and with racial and religious discrimination. You might as well tickle terrorists with a feather otherwise. Therefore, we should devote all our time, energy and money into researching laws and philosophy on how to handle and overcome race and human rights. Unless you are as wealthy as Marcus Licinius Crassus, no single person can 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 life relativity and primitive innocence, and if it changed the world for the betterment and security of white people, imagine how brave and heroic that person would be in the afterlife? To take compassion once again, as stated the more advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure that you attain the less innocent and more compassionate you will get. But seriously are you compassionate to the point of allowing your daughters and young women to be taken advantage of by foreign grooming gangs?

Final thoughts.

Apart from Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile who do I find hardest to forgive? Antifascists. Antifa come very late in the game, they are an afterthought, they only show up when white people are vulnerable. Only now when white people have made peace and equality with the world, decolonised and exposed themselves etc have Antifa decided to get “brave”. This is what Antifa are, they exploit the anti-white laws, and because anti-white laws are (bendily) against it, they are too cowardly to fight non-whites, so they make up for their lack of bravery by being violent towards whites, so that they ‘appear’ tough. However, because time for forgiveness determines no one is unforgivable, hence I forgive them. As a reconciliation between left and right, let both sides come together, make accommodation and put all cards on the table. Europeans just want to be great, like the Greeks or Romans and that is all. Especially right-wing people just want to be great. Despite what they say or how they appear, they are not supremacists or bigots, they are defenders, protectionists or conservationists. Apart from Adolf Hitler, they all know and have always known that they are not “superior” to anyone at all. They know that there is universal equality and relativity between all races and all species. The right just sees diversity, multiculturalism and miscegenation as a shame and a dishonour and never great. First of all, it is not loyalty to the House of Windsor or Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The royal family currently consists of 46 people, therefore, loyalty to them is practically pointless and comes in third place. If the royal family is a hindrance or an obstacle to a union with Europe or Germany then they would simply have to abdicate without hesitation. That is unless royals do what royals are supposed to do, that is arrange a marriage and produce an Anglo-German heir to facilitate a union? I see no other purpose to a constitutional monarchy other than tourism. Most importantly of all it is not loyalty to one’s country especially (as a Briton) against Germany. The U.K. is far too small. Therefore, loyalty to one’s country only comes in second place. Therefore, it is only loyalty to one’s race and continent that matters. As a Briton, if Germany were suddenly to disappear how would you feel? Considering how terrifying the Japanese were in World War Two with Pearl Harbour, kamikazes and the Samurai warrior code or Bushido etc how safe and secure would you feel in the world without Germany? Germany is still our only comforting thought. Concerning ethnicity because of the Holocaust, life relativity and primitive innocence clearly demonstrate that primitive, developing and third world people are still primitive and therefore more innocent than white people. Whereas 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. I am not saying that we should ditch our iPhones and then go around beating our chests, wearing skins and waving spears about. What I am saying is that humanity should have more forgiveness. I am saying that we should look back to the past instead of the future. I am saying we should stop denigrating the past and we should stop saying daaaang! I mean it is only the recent past that we denigrate fashionably, such as the 1960s and 1980s, but what is the point in saying daaaaang to Palaeolithic man, Australopithecus 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 life relativity and primitive innocence.

Apologies.

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

How to forgive.

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

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

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

I have read 102 books since August 2016, I have put years into researching how to make it up for the Holocaust to the Jews and how to forgive (never justify) Adolf Hitler, therefore, believe me when I say I know how to forgive. Contrary to what C.R. Strahan says, it has everything to do with absolving a criminal of his crime, because crime or sin is relative, in that, if you spend all your life only dealing with minor sin or slices of pie then, of course, minor sin or little things will seem bad and unforgivable to you. However, if you deal with real criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile then relatively all those minor infractions or slices of pie disintegrate and seem like nothing. You have to deal with real crime in order to be liberated. 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 has been seen, if we can forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, then relatively, who cares? I am not insulting anyone’s intelligence it’s just that nobody has ever dared to go there with such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, whereas I have! C.R. Strahan is relatively only talking about or dealing with minor sin such as a priest doing penance for taking the largest slice of pie.

https://how2forgive.com

Paradox.

I suppose you are thinking it doesn’t matter what I do I will be forgiven? No! Of course, it matters, especially once you have read this essay that is. And I suppose you are wanting to ask what if I read this essay and decide to sin or commit a crime anyway? Then it will be double and you will need to go back even further in time to receive forgiveness and relative innocence.

How was it done?

How were life relativity and primitive innocence discovered or accomplished? There is something about life relativity and primitive innocence in that it is ironic or a catch-22 because it requires two things, someone who has seen the other side and someone with a lot of time. It requires a schizophrenic. The only thing stopping or preventing people from forgiving or associating with real sinners such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile is fear. It is the fear of society and fear of vigilantes. Whereas I am a schizophrenic who’s life is over and I have nothing to lose. I know anybody would do their utmost to get people such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile off with their sins, only that fear prevents them. As stated the theory belongs to Professor Einstein, it is “Albert Einstein’s law.” I simply dared to go there with Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. I mean I simply dared to forgive them! “It’s a damned dirty job but someone’s got to do it!” Remember life relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all, it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all, it is definitely about time for forgiveness!

So what did you do?

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

C44F175C-FD70-4CFD-A355-29C03CF161C5
“Yes you finally made a monkey out of me!” (The Simpsons planet of the apes).

https://time4forgiveness.com

https://time2forgive.com

FUCK THE FUTURE.