Hypothetical time travel (HTT).

PREFACE.

WHAT TYPE OF MONKEY DO YOU TAKE ME FOR?

I make no bones about it, this blog is about the forgiveness of serious criminals, therefore, if you want forgiveness for absolutely anything at all, and I mean anything, then I am confident that you will find this blog most auxiliary. Despite how it may or may not look to you, there is no racism in this blog, however, as you will see this blog is entirely about the past and our ancestors such as prehistoric man, ancient, medieval and Victorian people etc, therefore, the distinction between me and anti-racists or to be honest even most average people, is that I really care about our ancestors, whereas anti-racists out right do not care about our ancestors and the ‘knuckle dragging’ past and normal people are either cynical or blasé about the afterlife and our ancestors etc. There is nothing in the future as it does not exist. People, most especially the far-right care far too much about life, what it is down here on Earth, that is they care too much about race and the continent of Europe etc. I know that life and the universe seem like everything down here, but they are not in fact. We will have our homogeneous indigenous European empires and superpowers in the eternal afterlife. Because of the Holocaust, there is nothing we can do to save our race and countries. Therefore, after long fruitless efforts in this direction myself, I would therefore, like to advise you sort of give up and just look forward to the afterlife. Because of the Holocaust, we can never be racist in this life or on Earth, it is impossible and futile. Therefore, that is what this blog attempts to do, that is ameliorate your anger and frustration and to get you to chill out and look forward to the afterlife. On another note, I will state now that people are too scared to forgive and that is the only reason to do not do so. Therefore, I would advise you to not be afraid to forgive. As you will see, I have labelled this blog ‘philosophical physics’, and what I mean by philosophical physics is that relative absolution and pure innocence are just literature and simply use common sense evolution and anthropology with the terms time, relative and relatively in order to absolve criminals of their crimes? We might as well get one thing out of the way right now, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT). You may say what type of monkey do you take me for? I would say I don’t know it entirely depends on the severity of your sins and how far back in time you have to go? However, if you read this blog I will prove to you some people do actually make a monkey of themselves. Therefore, hypothetical time travel (HTT) is not fact today, it is a hypothesis, a proposal or a proposition. The one and only uncertainty in this blog that I have to ask you to believe in or have faith in is hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel, specifically time travel to the past, and never the future. The whole blog hangs on this crux of hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past and therefore, it is the blog’s only exposed part or Achilles heel. I know that the second law of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics determine that physical time travel to the past (in life) is impossible, however, what about the afterlife? Would it truly be heaven if we could not see or study extinct creatures of the past such as dinosaurs or Australopithecus afarensis in the afterlife? Therefore, this blog gives us the noble and necessary reason, desire or purpose for hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past in the afterlife. To reiterate, hypothetical time travel (HTT) is the only uncertainty of this blog and the only thing that I will ask you to have faith in and to go out on a limb with. It simply asks the question(s) what if? What if sin or crime were relative? What if hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past were possible in the afterlife? What if we could absolve all crimes or sins with hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel to the past in the afterlife? If none of these questions are true, then the blog still works as a joke! Therefore, take it with a pinch of salt and as a lighthearted and innocent joke. All that I am saying is that if we can lighten up these three eternal examples (Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile), then really, and in theory, there can be no problems anywhere in the world or even the universe! However, to reiterate, hypothetical time travel (HTT) is not fact and will likely not be proven down here on Earth or in life for the foreseeable future. However, if any of these questions are in any way in the remotest possibility true, then this blog definitely needs doing as the potential consequences for people are far too paramount. It is the difference between heaven and hell for people. I will state that I have 80-90% confidence that hypothetical time travel (HTT) or the idea of this blog is right. All that I am saying is that these three eternal examples are for arguments sake the absolute worst cases, therefore, IF we can forgive them, then who cares about our relatively minor sins? I know many people who need forgiveness, people who have done things to me and I have also done things to others myself. If you cannot forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, who is to say that our or YOUR relatively minor sins will be forgiven? Is there a limit? For example, is burglary the limit of forgiveness? Would that enable us to forgive all of our relatively minor sins? I don’t know, probably not? However, if we can forgive these three eternal examples, then we are guaranteed. I will also state categorically that this blog worked for me! Unfortunately, I am a certified schizophrenic, however, that does not mean you have to be scared of me or shun me, it just means I cannot work. I had a severe mental breakdown in 2006/2007 from which I will never fully recover. I used to see things good and bad and I still hear voices all the time. The voices used to be terrible, they had me in paranoid hell for 12 years, because of the things I did during my mental breakdown. If you are a schizophrenic and hear voices you will know what I mean about how terrible the voices can be? However, since the 7th of May 2020 the ‘voice’ said to me (and I trust him) I am totally forgiven and I have heard absolutely nothing derogatory since. In fact, the voice constantly reminds me that I am forgiven, and I feel great! Why does the voice say that I am now forgiven? Because I wrote this blog. Therefore, trust me when I say this blog works and that if you need forgiveness for absolutely anything at all it can help you. If you do not agree with this blog on anal scientific grounds, I do not care regardless because I am now forgiven, it is simply a case of that there are many other people who need forgiveness. For example, if have a past like me, then this blog can definitely help you, because as you can see from the art on this blog, the key or secret to forgiveness is that the key lies in the past, in that hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel to the past for such as Jeffrey Dahmer, to such as the Lower Palaeolithic period (when cannibalism was not a problem) would be beneficial to Jeffrey Dahmer. The blog gets better as you progress, particularly towards part 4, however, the first 3 parts teach you some things which are essential to understand part 4. This blog is an independent project, that is, nothing to do with universities and it is an ongoing endeavour with no deadlines. At Cambridge university a Masters dissertation has a limit of 60k words and a PHD thesis has limit of 80k words. Although I have read 115 books in 4 years, however, this blog or the writing was only started in April 2019. The blog currently consists of a 100% original 61k word essay including 19 original works of digital art. I am not saying I have a Masters dissertation or PHD thesis here at all, as I am not that academic or articulate and hence, the text or literature is not of that quality, plus there are no ‘house rules’ formatting, Ibids or proper referencing etc. However, I do have what I would say is the hardest part of some kind of Bachelors dissertation, that is the bulk 61k words! Formatting and referencing should be the easiest part? However, because I already have a Bachelor of Arts degree, therefore, I am more confident to say that this blog has the essay quality or the bones or skeleton of some kind of Bachelors dissertation? As you will see I am not sure what field it is? It is likely philosophy? But is philosophy an art or a science? Anyway, considering my actual degree dissertation had a limit of 10k words, it is hoped that 134 books and 61k plus words would reach a Bachelors academic level or qualification of some uncertain genre or field? However, regardless for now this essay is just a blog. This blog is directly connected to and developed in tandem with the digital art website https://artofforgiveness.blog. It is also semi-connected to a non-serious mathematical blog called https://funnytime.blog, which is mathematical time and very simple relativity. It is connected to this blog in that they are both about time, and therefore, they mutually support and strengthen each other I hope? I actually came across fun time or T² first, in a useless independent mathematical study I did in 2009. I then left T² for a decade and came back at it 2019. Then I started this blog. Although complete rubbish, fun time or T² may have given me the confidence to take up and incorporate time into this blog? Anyhow, this blog is on the forgiveness of all sins real or imaginable with time and relativism, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or crime time. The idea is succinctly called crime travel or crime time, and it can also be called time for forgiveness. To take Charles Darwin as an example, descent with modification through natural selection (or evolution) is a theory which can be summed up in a few sentences or a paragraph. While On the Origin of Species is just a book with many examples and proofs of Charles Darwin’s theory. Although, the theory is contained in On the Origin of Species, the book itself is not the actual theory. The theory is something much more, it is everywhere and in our minds. Similarly, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, crime time or time for forgiveness is an idea that can be applied to any crime or situation, while this blog is just packed with many proofs, examples and arguments to defend the idea. I read everyday and write maybe once a week or fortnight, that is, when I am feeling inspired by what I have learned from my reading and not suffering from writers block. I have read 134 books in my life, 115 since August 2016, most of which are in some way connected to this blog (see Bibliography in menu). Although I try to read books that are directly or specifically related to this blog, that is not always possible. Therefore, I do not quote directly very much, it is more of a case that I write from my overall understanding and learning from what I have read over 4 years. The blog takes about 4-5 hours to read. To reiterate, if you think you need forgiveness for anything at all I believe the blog would be very adjuvant to you. If you want to quickly see all 19 works of art click on Posts in the menu.

“No matter how filthy something gets, you can always clean it right up.”

(Morgan Freeman, Bruce Almighty film 2003)

Originality.

This blog is entirely original and novel in that I believe no one has ever written the like, tried it or said it before, however, in order to be original the content is controversial. I will state now, that Einstein’s equivalence, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness is just common sense and it is very simple. The only reason it has not been said or done before is because no one has ever dared go there with serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, I mean no one has ever dared to forgive them. Therefore, gauging from the success of this blog, I would like to recommend to you admonitorily, to not hold back from taboos, do not be constrained by institutional political correctness and try not to be just a part of the admass (or that part of society that is easily influenced by the mass media and advertising) etc. As mentioned, this blog is an entirely independent project, that is, nothing to do with orthodox educational authorities or institutions, however, the irony is that a work such as this is a catch-22, in that one would simply not be allowed to write and hand in such a work at a modern day university. To me this is a real and genuine tragedy, in that it seems to me that institutional political correctness and fear of so called taboos could really hold back or stifle philosophical, academic or scientific debate and progress? On another note, please don’t be easily offended and please don’t pick me up for nitty-gritty little mistakes when the overall concept of the blog is true and correct. I find that some people try to prove the entire concept of the blog wrong based on some tiny inconsequential sentence that is unimportant, adjunct and inessential to the blog. I believe the overall or main or crucial concept of the blog is sound. If you do have an adversative opinion, I welcome constructive criticism and debate, as in ‘I don’t like this sentence’, ‘I don’t like this paragraph’ or even ‘I don’t like this section’, but people are out to totally prove the concept wrong based on one inaccurate or inessential sentence etc. I have read 134 books in my life, 115 of them in some way in regard to this blog, 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 concept of the blog, otherwise, please just point out little inconsequential mistakes. I don’t think this blog is brilliant or amazing or anything like that, I just think it is alright. However, considering the serious content or subject of the blog I think this could be a good thing? To reiterate, because I am a layman and because I am not an academic, I do not believe this blog is excellent, brilliant or anything like that, however I do believe it is good hearted or good natured and has good intentions etc and because of the grave nature of this blog, I believe that could have a good affect on the infamous subjects of this blog? I am also not saying that this blog 100% correct, in fact I know some sections or paragraphs are weak, for example, compassion is a side topic that is interwoven throughout the blog, and it may be dubious? However, I just believe that the main important idea is sound. Also it is a work in progress and I improve it constantly. As mentioned, I am not a professional, although I have a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts degree in Computer Animation and have therefore, successfully completed a trivial 10k word dissertation before, hence I know the textual or literary quality of the work and its art is at least of that standard?

About the author.

I am an English layman and was born in 1981, and from 1985 onwards I grew up between three locations, Easington Colliery in County Durham, Obuasi, a gold mining town in the Ashanti Region of Ghana, West Africa and a private boarding school also in County Durham called Barnard Castle School. My family has a mining heritage, my ancestors worked the collieries in the North East of England, with only my father raising the game to gold mining in 1985, when he started work for an old British imperial company called Ashanti Goldfields Corporation Ltd in Ghana. My background is art and IT. As you can see by the art on this blog, I have a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts Computer Animation degree and a BTEC National Diploma in IT. Unfortunately, I am a certified schizophrenic, however, that does not mean you have to be scared of me or shun me, it just means I cannot work. 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 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 do not work. 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 philosopher, in that I have independently read well over 100 books and I have written this 61k word blog titled hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness. I have also conducted a study or investigation of T² or what I have called fun time. If you want a laugh visit the fun time blog or read it in conjunction with this blog. You can visit it at https://comedytime.blog, it is a little helpful once you have read this blog, as it helps with forgiveness. It helps with forgiveness because although it is mathematical or scientific time I found out recently that ironically it is funny and lighthearted, possibly funnier than this blog. However, please note I am never trying to prove anything with T² or fun time, other than the fact that it proves that I work with and understand a little time and relativity, or something? T² is just an interest. T² is just fun! One thing I am doing is comparing hypothetical time travel (HTT), which is philosophical physics with fun time, which is mathematical time. The first thing to note is that they are completely different forms of time. The first is philosophical, literary and imprecise, while the latter is mathematical, scientific and precise. 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 abstruse, recondite, esoteric or even acataleptic (not able to be understood) and therefore, require faith or belief, whereas time and Albert Einstein do not!

CONTENTS.

I have divided this blog into 5 parts, and I will adumbrate each part.

1. Introduction.

This part firstly elaborates on a myriad of different topics, it affirms why and how this blog is 100% secular and never spiritual and divine and in particular it gives a small eulogy to Albert Einstein. It establishes the goals, the themes and structure of the blog, which are:

  • Goals:
    • Primary goal is the forgiveness of all sins real or imaginable.
    • Secondary goal is the liberation or emancipation of white people from the guilt and consequences of the Holocaust.
  • Themes:
    • Pure innocence.
    • Forgiveness.
    • The past.
    • Our ancestors.
    • Prehistoric man.
    • The afterlife.
    • Hypothetical time travel (HTT).
  • Structure:
    • The depth, tiers or levels of the text.

As already mentioned, the introduction also establishes why and how this blog is semi-connected to a non-serious blog on mathematical time and simple relativity. These two blogs in question are both concerned with time, therefore, the introduction reveals the comparison of the two different forms of time, that being mathematical time and philosophical physics. The introduction also establishes or explains the main hypothesis of this blog which is that in order to forgive contemporary or modern serious criminals, that they should therefore, be equivalent to animals, primates, prehistoric hominins or ancient people of the past etc. Therefore, if or as along as a serious criminal or sinner can hypothetically travel back in time in the afterlife and/or make him or herself equal to an animal, ape, primitive hominin, ancient, medieval or Victorian human etc, then in theory all crimes or sins real or imaginable can be forgiven. Therefore, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT) for criminals in order to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. 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 and flexible etc. It also considers 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. 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. Therefore, the more advanced you are the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are 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 hypothetical time travel (HTT) 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? This part also largely covers a topic which is also briefly mentioned in part 5, which is why since the Holocaust indigenous Europeans grown uncomfortable with their own religion, attending church, singing hymns, saying grace before dinner etc and why it is currently fashionable to say daaaang to God?

2. Pure innocence (PI).

This is a very interesting part that shows us how contemporary developing or third world countries can demonstrate relative absolution and pure innocence. For example, travelling to Africa is a bit like travelling back in time. 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 absolute and a very serious offence. Why is drink driving acceptable in Africa but not in the UK? Because Africa is more primitive and the UK is more advanced. Which would you prefer? Again I think this proves the idea of this blog which is that the law is not absolute, for example, getting drunk and driving in the middle of the Sahara desert where there is nobody around for 100s of miles, or the bush of tropical Africa is not the same as getting drunk and driving in the densely populated and highly developed civilisation of the United Kingdom. It entirely depends on where and when you drink and drive. Which would you prefer? This difference, could prove that the law is not absolute, in that if you have highly developed or advanced infrastructure such as roads, motorways, bridges, flyovers and streetlights etc, then you cannot drink and drive. However, if you have less developed and primitive infrastructure such as mud roads with giant potholes and no streetlights etc, then you can drink and drive. Which would you prefer? In the middle of this part there is an awesome parable about first contact indigenous Amazonians. In the parable two English explorers discover a virgin and un-contacted tribe of indigenous Amazonians in the 1960s. Things seem to go well, then all of a sudden the Amazonians kill and cannibalise the two English explorers. We then philosophically interrogate this parable and ask the ethical question is it hypothetically correct for us to catch the un-contacted Amazonians and prosecute and incarcerate them for murder? Relatively, have they done anything wrong? Using this parable we prove that the law is not absolute, in that primitive people such as un-contacted native Amazonians can literally and metaphorically get away with murder and cannibalism etc, and that we should bare this mind when condemning people who have committed homicide in the developed world? It is simply a case of relativism. The last section in this part considers freedom and time or relative freedom, in that, was there more or less freedom in the past?

3. Phew! Prehistoric man our saviour.

As you will see this blog has a lot to do with prehistory. I am convinced that there is total absolution and remission of our all sins with prehistoric man. There is calm of soul, relief and peace of mind with prehistoric man. Our consciences have peace, relaxation and bliss with them. This is because everything nasty happened in prehistory, such as cannibalism, murder, incest and statutory rape etc. And yet all of it was somehow ethical or relatively fine. Phew! Therefore, the hypothesis of this blog is that in conjunction with relativism, hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel, prehistoric man can save us from all of our sins, no matter what we have done. There were not many laws in prehistory. Prehistoric man was a law unto himself. Why? Because prehistoric man had much less advanced weapons, technology and infrastructure than us, and were therefore, much more primitive and innocent than us. It would have been fine if YHWH had built, roads, buildings and bridges for prehistoric man and given unto them machine guns and tanks, and then said unto them, this is the law, thou shalt not kill, cannibalise or rape etc. But He did not! God did not lift a finger down here on Earth. 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. Prehistoric people even had to fashion their own sticks and stones and yet were expected to survive and thrive by themselves. Therefore, did YHWH seriously think He could punish prehistoric people for (what we would call) sin? In fact, I believe that which we call sin in modern times, was not sin in prehistoric times. To me this proves that the main idea of this blog is valid, which is that the law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law is not absolute. The law changes over space and time. The law is relative. The law is flexible. Therefore, relatively prehistoric man could literally get away with murder. Therefore, prehistoric man gives us absolute peace of mind, especially if we could somehow hypothetically travel back in time to the past to meet them. If we could do this in the afterlife, I believe we could find the ultimate absolution for all of our sins, especially for such as those committed by Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile etc? Therefore, if we can forgive such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, then relatively who cares about our minor sins? To reiterate, in prehistory more or less everything was alright, nothing is wrong with prehistoric humans. If we can equate serious criminals to prehistoric hominins then there is no problem and their sins are lighter. Therefore, this part introduces the evolutionary and prehistoric aspect of the blog. 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 much do you think YHWH will appreciate mankind? And how small and insignificant does Adolf Hitler’s genocide or Jeffrey Dahmer’s modern cannibalism seem? Therefore, how small and insignificant do your minor sins seem? It is relative. 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 4.

4. Hypothetical time travel (HTT).

This is the most important part of the blog and the crowning glory of it. Using three eternal examples or case studies (Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile) it shows how using Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution and pure innocence, in conjunction with primitivism, the past and prehistory it is possible to forgive any crime or sin real or imaginable with time and relativism, hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel. For example, because Adolf Hitler cared so much about racism and “subhumans” this scientifically determines he is by definition equivalent to 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. And because Jimmy Savile committed statutory rape in the 20th century therefore, he must be the equivalent of a Victorian or medieval man, because the first age of consent was set in England in 1275 AD at age 12. These three eternal examples may demonstrate that all crimes or sins are always an animal, ape or anthropological, in that if you sin or commit a crime you literally make or equate to an animal, primate, primitive hominin or ancient human etc, that is you make a monkey of yourself. To reiterate, if you sin like such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile the only solution to your crime is an animal or an ape. Therefore, relatively Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile existed in the wrong places and the wrong times, therefore they were anachronistic and therefore were relatively evil. Therefore, if Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile somehow hypothetically went back in time millions, hundreds of thousands, thousands or hundreds of years respectively to a more primitive and innocent period they might find forgiveness and acceptance or relative innocence?

5. Saying daaaang to God!?

This part starts by attempting to figure out why we ridicule the recent past and say things like ‘Daaaang! That is soooo last week!’ By this I mean how we often ridicule the music, fashion and haircuts of past etc, especially the recent past such as the 1960s and 1980s etc. However, what is the point in saying ‘Daaaang! That is soooo last week!’ to Lower Palaeolithic man, Tiktaalik roseae or single-celled forms? I state that I think the reason we indigenous Europeans cringe about our own religion, attending Church, singing hymns and by saying grace before meals etc today, is because for example, (even though it is not their fault), superstar DJs are so unbelievably and wickedly cool, rocking the house and spinning the wheels of steel in clubs etc, that it makes us actually say daaaang to God! Even though I am a hypocrite and I do not mean it literally, I believe that we should metaphorically somehow try saying grace, rather than saying daaaang to God! With superstar trance and house DJs spinning the wheels of steel in clubs today, I think a lot of young indigenous Europeans in some way actually say daaaang to God? This is why I believe we Europeans are handicapped today with saying grace and with Christian innocence etc. On a slightly different but related tone, I believe the older something or someone becomes the more classical it or they become, however, it is difficult to see this ‘classicalness’ in the very recent past, and this is why we ridicule it. For example, we would never ridicule Plato or Socrates but we would ridicule Kenny Everett or Russ Abbot etc (for now). Why do things date? I believe that dating is not the problem, however, that it is our own misguided and childish perspective of the recent past. I believe that relative absolution and pure innocence remedy this malaise of ridiculing the recent past. To attempt to investigate it and the meaning of the saying ‘Daaaang! That is soooo last week!’ the blog discusses how there are two ways to consider the past, in that in a way we can say the past was better because it had more pure innocence or primitive innocence or secondly we can ridicule it and say ‘Daaaaang! the past is so dated and primitive, look at the haircuts!’ It then challenges us to try and stop this ridicule. To reiterate, even though I am a hypocrite and I don’t mean it literally, I state that we should metaphorically try saying grace, rather than saying daaaang to God! 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 Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution and pure innocence, we certainly do not think we are superior than you at all. I then caution you about councillors, therapists and mindfulness guides and the type of thing they say regarding forgiveness and how it is incorrect. Penultimately, I tell you how hypothetical time travel (HTT) was realised and how I made a monkey of myself. And ultimately there then is a brief conclusion.

1. INTRODUCTION.

The goals.

The main goal of this blog is the general, universal or absolute forgiveness for all sins. Because I am European I am biased towards Europeans, hence, one of the main goals of this blog is the genuine forgiveness ((without justification), for the benefit of all Europeans)), of Adolf Hitler with time and relativism. However, most importantly, the real main goal is universal or general forgiveness for everyone. I believe I have accomplished this, by using three eternal examples or case studies, that being Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, the forgiveness of which relatively leads to the general or universal forgiveness of all people for all of their sins. You may be initially sceptical about the lofty or far-fetched goals of this blog, however, I promise you that if you read the whole blog I am confident that you will agree with me. Please note, by forgiving all sins real or imaginable, I am never trying to be Jesus Christ, that is why this blog is 100% secular. To reiterate, relative absolution is Albert Einstein’s forgiveness and it is 100% secular! As you will see I have accomplished the above mentioned goals by using time and relativism to forgive, as opposed to the spiritual or divine! Therefore, hypothetical time travel (HTT) is actuated by both perfectly selfless and perfectly selfish desires.

The afterlife.

As will be seen, although this blog is 100% secular, it takes for granted the existence of an afterlife and a God, henceforth referred to as YHWH. In fact, a major theme of this blog is to try and work out what the afterlife is like or how it works? However, it does this with time and relativism and never with the spiritual and divine! I personally have been looking forward to the afterlife since I was 17. Why? God only knows. However, because of the Holocaust, I believe a lot of right leaning indigenous European people, such as South African Boers also have no option but to look forward to the afterlife. However, as will be seen, ironically, in order to look forward to the afterlife, this blog actually looks 100% backwards to the past. For example, what are our ancestors’ stance on ethnicity in the afterlife? Is there a place for indigenous Europeans only in the afterlife? Would it be truly heaven otherwise? Is the afterlife multicultural? To be honest, I am a nice and good hearted type of person, and I therefore believe there is no such thing as a hell in the afterlife. For example, I believe Adolf Hitler is in heaven and not hell. However, how is this possible? How on Earth does the afterlife forgive or make it alright for Adolf Hitler? As will be seen this blog tries to answer that question. However, to reiterate, at precisely the same time, this blog is 100% secular, and never spiritual or divine!

Tiers (structure).

I believe this blog has depth or four tiers or four levels, or more accurately I am trying to pin down what the four tiers are or exactly what this blog is. I believe the four tiers start at the top with the domain(s), then the field or genre, then the title and finally the technical terms. I will briefly adumbrate each tier.

Figure 1. The tiers or levels of this essay.
  • Tier 1 (domains). I have some good domain names for this website most are the title of this blog and two are the technical terms. For example, https://phew.blog is probably the funniest and most succinct, and it does reflect the effect this blog can have on us minor sinners, that is because such as rape, homicide and cannibalism were ethically fine in prehistory, therefore, if such as Jeffrey Dahmer could hypothetically travel back in time to the Lower Palaeolithic period he might find a lot of relief? Therefore, how small do our relatively minor sins seem? Phew! https://forgiven.blog sums up what this blog about, in that the term forgiven is in the past tense, therefore, the clouds have blown over and our sins are in the past. Also as you can see by the art in this blog, that the solution to all sins no matter how bad they are is hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel to the past when life was more primitive and innocent and therefore, where such sins or crimes were or seemed less of a problem. https://crimetravel.co.uk also does reflect what this blog is about, it is probably the most succinct technical term I have. This is because the main hypothesis of this blog is that in order to forgive contemporary or modern serious criminals, that they should therefore, be equivalent to animals, primates, prehistoric hominins or ancient people of the past etc. Therefore, if or as along as a criminal or sinner can hypothetically travel back in time and/or make him or herself equal or the equivalent of an animal, ape, primitive hominin, ancient, medieval or Victorian human etc, then in theory all crimes or sins real or imaginable can be forgiven. Therefore, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT) for criminals in order to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. However, https://time4forgiveness.com and https://time2forgive.com are also very good. The former is a double pun because it reflects the fact that this blog is quite literally time for forgiveness, as in time for the purpose of forgiveness and definitely about time for forgiveness, as in right this second please! Any way you want to take that sentence is fine. The double pun is similar to the statements bipedalism is the first step and as already mentioned, it is in the past. Bipedalism is the first step on the road to advancement and quite literally the first physical step. Also, the secret of this blog is that the key to the forgiveness of all sins lies in the past or crime travel to the past such as the Victorian or Lower Palaeolithic periods, and also we have all heard the saying that it is in the past, as in the clouds have blown over and our all of our sins are in the past. I also have https://relativeabsolution.com and https://pureinnocence.blog which as mentioned are two of technical terms of this blog. I sometimes place domains throughout the blog for effect, however, please note that they all just bring you to this page, therefore, you do not need to to press them. For a full list, see domains in the menu.
  • Tier 2 (field). I am still finalising what field or genre this blog is? Although it is secular it is not really scientific, therefore, I am more confident to allocate it to philosophy. As will be seen as opposed to mathematical or scientific time I have simply called it philosophical physics. Why have I called it philosophical physics? Hypothetical time travel (HTT) is philosophical however, it uses several concepts from physics, that being space, time and relativity. In reality what this blog is about is moral relativism, which is philosophy, however, it is about moral relativism with time, which therefore, connects it to relativity or Einsteinism? I have read 134 books in my life and wrote at least 61k words for this blog, therefore, I believe it has earned the genre or field of philosophical physics? What if physicists wanted to philosophise? As mentioned, I am studying two different forms of time. The other form or website is mathematical (fun) time and this form or website is philosophical physics. To be honest, in reality, philosophical physics or the field or genre of this blog may be the top tier?
  • Tier 3 (title). Similar to domain names I have various and interchangeable beautiful titles and tag lines for this blog such as crime travel, crime time, time for forgiveness, time to forgive, general forgiveness, forgiven, forgive fascism and hope for Hitler. As you will see I mostly use the technical terms hypothetical time travel (HTT), relative absolution and pure innocence, as well as the beautiful titles crime travel, crime time and time for forgiveness. I also have other descriptive terms or tag lines such as secular forgiveness, fuck the future and it is in the past. The titles all basically mean the same thing and are interchangeable. I am coming to the conclusion that this blog would simply be titled hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness. Therefore, to reiterate, in order to live up to its titles this blog has to be able to forgive all sins real or imaginable. I vary the titles and combinations throughout the blog.
  • Tier 4 (technical terms). The main technical term of this blog is hypothetical time travel (HTT), however, there are two more essential technical terms that I will now explain. This blog started with the technical terms primitive relativity and primitive innocence, but I was unhappy with primitive relativity and so I changed it to relative absolution (RA) and pure innocence (PI). Please note that RA and PI are related, are more or less the same thing and are interchangeable, however, both are definitely required. This blog is most importantly about forgiveness, however, to that end innocence is also absolutely essential. The difference between forgiveness and innocence is subtle, however, to forgive is a verb and is self explanatory while to be innocent, in the context of this blog, is an adjective which describes the condition of people of the past, especially regarding their use of primitive technologies or their lack of advanced technologies such as the internet and mobile phones etc, which therefore, makes them more innocent than people of the present or future. This innocence of the past increases or becomes stronger or purer the further you go back in time, and therefore, it leads to the genuine forgiveness of all crimes or sins real or imaginable. For example, cannibalism was ethical in prehistory because such as Homo antecessor had infinitely less advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure than us today, therefore, they were much more primitive and innocent than us, therefore, they could get away with cannibalism. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer could somehow hypothetically travel back in time to the Lower Palaeolithic, he might find forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence? Why have I called it relative absolution? I call it relative absolution because first of all moral relativism and moral absolutism are the complete opposites, however, I am against absolutism, in that I do not believe in universal moral laws, and as you will see, I therefore, believe forgiveness can only be relative. Also, I believe that we can forgive any sin real or imaginable with time, relativism, equivalence and the past or prehistory. RA and PI therefore have a lot to do with prehistory, evolution and anthropology, however, it is about these with time and relativism or hypothetical time travel (HTT). Relative absolution and pure innocence only deal with life, that is the last 3.5 billion years of life on Earth, since abiogenesis or the very first single celled life form or protocell. RA and PI have no interest in the Big Bang, gases, dust, energy or rocks etc, in that they do not care about 13.7 billion years to 3.5 billion years ago, when life did not exist on Earth. Therefore, although hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel incorporates time, it is philosophical and not physics, and although it uses evolution and anthropology it is not biology either. Evolution is biological, however, it also definitely needs time. In fact evolution is time. Hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel combines a little science with philosophy, in that it just take time from physics and relativism from philosophy and it also just uses common sense prehistory and evolution.

Distance and time.

The media always paints unfortunate sinners in the worst possible light, I am simply saying that I can paint serious criminals in the best possible light with time and relativism. Therefore, I am attempting to forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile in a non-Christian and secular way with time and relativism. We all put a lot of distance, bars or walls between ourselves and serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, in fact, down here on Earth we put them in prison to distance ourselves from them as much and for as long as possible. For example, if you burgle and get caught, people will distance themselves from you for a long time. However, as you will see instead of walls or distance, this blog puts time between us and serious criminals. What happens to serious criminals in the afterlife? Are they forgiven? Do we still distance ourselves from them? I think not. When you put time between yourself and an unfortunate sinner instead of distance or space, as you will see, although it is like prison, it is never hateful, vilifying or uses animosity etc. It is as light as possibly can be. And yes speed is always defined by two things, a distance covered and a time period. All that I am saying is that if you totally ignore, block out or distance yourself as much as you can from such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer or Jimmy Savile, then crime or sin is not relative, that is your minor sins will seem relatively big. However, if you acknowledge, talk about, deal with or even associate with such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer or Jimmy Savile, then crime or sin is relative, that is your sins seem relatively trivial.

Political correctness.

As this blog has to forgive all sins real or imaginable, to that end it has to forgive the biggest sinner of all time. That is, Adolf Hitler. There are two ways in which you can write about, portray, use or display images of Adolf Hitler and Nazi symbology etc, that is wrong or right, politically incorrect or politically correct, far-right or far left, racist or anti-racist, supportive or hostile, sympathetic or with animosity etc. As will be seen, this blog does neither, that is it is neither sympathetic nor uses animosity. For example, the way Nazism is portrayed in the Indiana Jones films is absolutely fine (or politically correct) because they portray them as antagonists. However, obviously to write about Nazism or display Nazi symbology in any kind of supportive way is absolutely wrong and politically incorrect. Therefore, although I am trying to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler and Nazism for all white people, I am politically correct as forgiveness is never justification or support. To reiterate, I never support ‘Nazism’ as a political theory, however, please forgive me if I forgive a lonely human being called Adolf Hitler. I think we can separate Adolf Hitler from Nazism? Therefore, as will be seen although I am right-leaning I am in no way a Nazi. I will state categorically that although I am white and right leaning, from experience I know that this work is hated by both Nazis and Antifa. It is too politically correct for Nazis and too politically incorrect for Antifa. It is neither extreme far-right nor far-left. Like me, it is somewhere in the middle or right of centre. Therefore, this blog puts Adolf Hitler in a politically correct way, that is not supportive, panegyrizing, eulogyzing or worshiping etc, however, to reiterate, it does try to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler (without justification) with time and relativism. Therefore, although this blog portrays Adolf Hitler in a politically correct way, you may notice I never use hate or animosity towards him. It is the left and Antifa that is the animosity. However, time has no animosity. Therefore, as will you see, although this blog puts Adolf Hitler in a politically correct way, however, in order to forgive him it also puts him in the lightest and most humorous way possible.

Figure 2. Middle Palaeolithic (Neanderthal) Adolf Hitler, with spear and fur.

Art.

As you will see throughout this blog and especially on my art website there is quite a lot of art. The purpose of the art or the lighthearted images is to counter or blot-out the negative or upsetting images that pop into our minds regarding the Holocaust, torture, cannibalism and necrophilia etc. The point that I am saying is that we should stay positive and not dwell on the mortifying examples and statistics of the Holocaust, torture, necrophilia and cannibalism etc, and the subsequent upsetting mental images that arise in our minds. Instead try to think of hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel and these lighthearted and witty images of these people.

Controversial.

A secondary goal of this blog is the liberation or emancipation of white people from the guilt of the Holocaust. By this I mean that I would like white people to be proud, happy with and to love themselves, and that is a purpose of this blog. To that end the main or primary goal of this blog is the genuine forgiveness (never justification) of serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. Therefore, please note that what you will undoubtedly call the controversial nature of this blog is born out of my absolute love for my own people. I have read 115 books for this blog and wrote 61k plus words out of my concern and love for indigenous Europeans. Please read with an open mind. Like the statement I love white people, relative to most people this blog would probably be considered controversial. However, why is the statement I love white people controversial? There is nothing wrong with that statement, there is something wrong with the world! Therefore, I personally do not want to live in a world where such a beautiful statement is controversial. However, I believe that statement is only controversial because Adolf Hitler and the Nazis ruined the term white with their hate and aryanism. The term white has connotations of hate and supremacy and so I believe that we should never use the term white or try to limit its use as much as possible. Therefore, I have tried to use the much better and much broader term indigenous European(s) where possible. Returning to controversy, the main idea of this blog is that the law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period. The law is not absolute. The law changes over space and time. The law is relative. The law is flexible. I believe offence is similar, in that what causes offence to one person does not cause offence to another person, especially if they are separated by time. Offence is relative. This is because, for example, given the extreme nature of far-right social media platforms such as Gab and Bitchute etc the statement I love white people is very small potatoes on those platforms. One can relax about such a mildly patriotic statement on such platforms. However, the statement I love white people is for some bizarre reason controversial on leftist or liberal social media platforms such as Soundclound or Facebook etc. In today’s climate or environment one cannot feel comfortable about using such a statement on such platforms. I also believe that all crimes are relative offences because such as Jeffrey Dahmer’s modern cannibalism is extremely offensive to us modern people today, however, if we could hypothetically travel back in time one million years or so to the Lower Palaeolithic period, I believe Homo antecessor (who was also cannibalistic) would not be as offended by Jeffrey Dahmer’s crimes? Therefore, please note the content of this blog is relatively controversial, however, despite how it may or may not look to you, there is no racism in this blog. The controversy lies in the severity of the adumbral sins that I am trying to forgive. I would like to state that the crimes of Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile cause me offence, however, this blog does not. I hope you will react the same?

Common sense relativity or relativism.

You may think what is this idiot doing with relativity or relativism? Relativism is not relativity is it? Relativity is physics and relativism is philosophy, however, my version of relativism incorporates time, which could be therefore connected to relativity? Also, you may say isn’t relativity the most advanced scientific theory on Earth? Yes it is but relativity is also common sense because by definition it implies that everything is relative. Relativity is not just advanced and that is the end of it, there is also just common sense relativity. Here is an example of common sense relativity or relativism:

  • Example 1: When a 6 year old learns arithmetic it is relative and that is why adults are enthusiastic with, take delight in and enjoy teaching 6 year olds arithmetic, reading and writing etc. However, for an adult to learn arithmetic, reading and writing we hardly get the same enjoyment or satisfaction out of it. This is because of time, in that because of their age teaching an adult is not relative, that is by learning something they know that they should have learn a long time ago. An adult is passed it, over the hill and irrelevant. It is relatively good for a 6 year old to learn arithmetic but it is relatively not good for an adult to learn arithmetic. It is not relatively good for an adult to learn arithmetic because it is something only 6 year olds do.

Just as a warning, going from my experience as a wayward youth and ending up a schizophrenic at 25 years old, I can tell you that education and studying as a child or teenager etc is very good pure innocence. Those children who study really hard, do their homework and stay away from drugs, cigarettes and alcohol etc, that is, those who YOU call swats, geeks and nerds etc are the ones who retain their pure innocence into adulthood. When we adults say that a child or pupil is good for studying etc, we mean innocent. Like me, if you do drugs such as marijuana at 16 you will get expelled and most importantly you will lose your innocence. I personally know of male pupil who has just turned 15 years old, who has tried cocaine, which to me is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of. Surely, you can see by how this teenager has tried cocaine, that he has lost all of his innocence? By trying to be too old and too mature too early, this teenager has lost all of his innocence. Like what happened to me who got expelled from my school at 16 years old, teachers and adults no longer care about this teenager, they give up and wash their hands of him. To reiterate, it is the geeks and nerds who retain their innocence into adulthood by studying as children. Anyway, back to how relativity is both advanced and also simple and primitive at the same time. I have stated that relativity is also common sense because by definition it implies that everything is relative. Here is another example of common sense relativity or relativism:

  • Example 2: If a working class person who lives in a small terraced house without a garden, has through some fortune the good luck to move into a medium sized detached Persimmons house with a quaint garden etc, then relative to this person, he or she is very happy indeed with this relatively big (compared to a terrace) detached house, because he or she has never known anything except a small terraced house. However, if an upper class person such as the Queen of England has through some misfortune the bad luck to have to evacuate Buckingham Palace and move into an identical medium sized detached Persimmons house with a quaint garden etc, relative to the Queen, the Queen would be very unhappy indeed with this relatively tiny (compared to a palace) detached house, this is because the Queen has never known anything except grand palaces and castles etc. It is relative!

Taking this above example of relative property, if ignorance is bliss and if happiness is relative, then what difference does it make? The working class person is relatively very happy in the detached house, while the Queen is in misery. Therefore, what difference does it make? Just because you know that upper class people live in grand estates and palaces etc somewhere does not mean you have to suffer relatively? Therefore, this may determine that we should be contented with our relative circumstances? Although not as good as the above two examples, here are a few more attempts at describing this common sense relativity or relativism. Young, infant or baby animals or creatures are relative or relevant, for example puppies, kittens and babies are relative or relevant. This is why we adore them and find them so cute. It is relatively better for a chimpanzee to do simple things such as create art, stone tools, be kind, feel guilt or remorse etc, than it is for a modern Homo sapiens to create art, stone tools, be kind, feel guilt or remorse etc. When you learn something for the first time, it is relatively better or more satisfying than it is to some one with a lot of experience to study the same thing. It is relatively better for a dog to obey commands such as sit or fetch than it is for a human to obey the same commands, that is why humans take a lot of interest in and feel enthusiasm with dogs in their training. Good boy! It is relatively amazing for a dog to bring a phone to its owner who has suffered a stroke or heart attack, where as it is not as amazing for a human to do the same thing. Also, fitness and exercise can be relative, in that for example if you train really hard like a long distance Olympic athlete, (who can train by running up 100 kilometres a week), then relatively a 5k run can seem trivial to him or her, whereas if you are an obese couch potato like me, a 5k run can seem almost insurmountable. It’s relative! Similarly, reading is exercise, in that if you read a 6 six volume series on The Rise of Africa as I have done, then reading a single 1000 page book can seem like nothing. Whereas to someone who doesn’t read, a 1000 page book can seem almost insurmountable. Common sense relativity or relativism also applies to people of the past, in that what we would today call trivial such as moving pictures, were relatively advanced, amazing, novel and state of the art to people of the past. It is relative!

What is miraculous, amazing and novel to one observer in one frame of reference or space and time is not miraculous, amazing and novel to another observer in another frame of reference or space and time.

Knowing the future.

However, even to this latter observer there is always something in his or her frame of reference or space and time that is relatively miraculous and amazing to them (such as an iPad etc). Life is always relative! Relativity implies that there is relativity throughout time and between all races and species. Therefore, relative to a chimpanzee, being a chimpanzee is relatively good fun. Relative to a prehistoric man, being a prehistoric man was relatively good fun. Unless you know the future, I mean regarding such things as modern medicine then relatively living or existing in the distant past was absolutely fine. To know the future and live in the past could be hell? For example, before the invention of anaesthetics and penicillin people were relatively fine, they did not complain, even though they had to undergo amputations with nothing more than a bottle of whiskey and a piece of wood between their teeth etc. We cannot imagine the medical inventions of the future therefore, to us in the present or past, ignorance is bliss! As you will see, the negation of having advanced technologies such as anaesthetics and penicillin means people in the past were much more innocent than us of today. Therefore, they could get away with more of what we would call sin today. For example, before the invention of anaesthetics people could probably get away with things that we can never do today such as battle, war, slavery and what we would call statutory rape etc. The further you go back in time the purer the innocence becomes, therefore, applying the same logic of anaesthetics to prehistoric man, how primitive and innocent do you think prehistoric man was? What could prehistoric man get away with that we cannot today? Because prehistoric man was so primitive and innocent, they could literally get away with rape, murder and cannibalism etc, therefore, if such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile could hypothetically travel back in time in the afterlife they could probably find forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence? Conversely, this might be why physical time travel to the past in life or on Earth is impossible, because if say a modern surgeon was transported back to the Lower Palaeolithic period with no chance of returning, apart from being very useful, knowing what he or she knows (i.e.: the future), then he or she would probably suffer a lot relatively? Therefore to reiterate, if ignorance is bliss and if happiness is relative, then what difference does it make? A medieval person living without anaesthetics or penicillins was just as relatively happy without these medicines as we are today with them. You cannot know the medical advances of the future, therefore, ignorance must be bliss! Therefore, what difference does it make? Therefore, this may determine that we should be satisfied with our relatively primitive technologies and medicines etc? You may think that this determines that the more recently you were born or the more advanced and modern you are, the better? Absolutely not! It is pure innocence! People of the 19th century and earlier who had to undergo fully awake and conscious amputations etc are very proud of that fact and therefore, have a lot of pure innocence! Another example could be that in a way when we look at prehistoric cave paintings such the Lascaux and Chauvet cave paintings in France, although today with 3D digital special effects etc, art such as this could seem primitive and trivial to us, they in fact do not. Cave paintings are relatively amazing to us because we know how old they are. They are relatively amazing because of the time that has passed. Somehow they are just as amazing to us as they were to the original Palaeolithic painters. Therefore, although relativity is the most advanced scientific theory in history, by definition it simple because it implies everything is relative, even everyday things. Therefore, relativity is also common sense. Therefore, I have turned relativity on it’s head and made this blog the opposite of advanced, that is, it is about primitivism. I believe that time and relativity (or relativism) are everything and that the entire universe as well as the afterlife, function and operate by time and relativity (or relativism), even simple and everyday things, such as innocence and forgiveness etc. Reading is also time in that it takes a long time to read a book. I have read 134 books in my life and 115 of them since August 2016. I have read more or less every day for 4 years. If you have not got the time to read this blog which is only 61k words then you are missing out on time. Give it your advertence and a few hours of your time. No matter what you have done I promise will I forgive you, but most importantly I will get you to forgive yourself. I believe that is the purpose of Albert Einstein’s theory, that is, he would want us to apply time and relativity (or relativism) to everything even common sense things. To reiterate, what I mean by philosophical physics is that hypothetical time travel (HTT) is just literature and simply uses common sense evolution and anthropology with the terms time, relative and relatively in order to absolve criminals of their crimes? The thing about philosophical physics (compared to plain philosophy), is that when you write about everyday things with time, the writing is always relative or relevant. Whereas plain philosophy is not usually or quite relative or relevant. For example, this blog started with the term primitive innocence. I really like this term because it so precisely describes what this blog is about or how it works, which is that the further you go back in time the more primitive and innocent animals such as Homo sapiens and life become. Using this primitive innocence with hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past, in theory we should be able to forgive all sins real or imaginable. However, primitive innocence is not temporal, relative or relevant. Therefore, I believe primitive innocence is philosophical. I even changed it to relative innocence at one point to try and inject a little time into it, but then I changed it into pure innocence, which again is non-temporal and philosophical. You may say why not ditch pure innocence, however, I believe it is essential. Although it is philosophical, I believe pure innocence helps us travels in time, for example, in the 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones and we did not understand smart things such as Spotify and FaceTime, therefore, we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. By this relatively recent example, we can see that this innocence becomes stronger or purer the further you go back in time. Therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent prehistoric people were? I believe prehistoric man was so primitive and innocent that they could literally get away with rape, killing and cannibalism etc. Therefore, I believe if we can hypothetically travel back in time to prehistory we could attain forgiveness, acceptance or relative innocence? That is, relative absolution? However, despite all this travelling in time, primitive or pure innocence is still non-temporal and philosophical, yet as you can see it is absolutely essential. For an example of 1980s primitive or pure innocence please watch the video of the song Shout by Tears for Fears (1985), specifically towards the end of the video, when all the people are dancing together. Note how the people are dancing. This is pure innocence! As will be seen much later in part 5, instead of ridiculing the recent past, such as Shout by Tears for Fears, we should try to say it or they were very innocent! On another note, you may say how is forgiveness and innocence relative? If you read this blog you will definitely find out. However, (although there is a lot more to it), for example if we can forgive serious sinners such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, then relatively who cares about our minor sins?

Einstein’s equivalence.

You may think gheeze, my god is this guy seriously talking about forgiving Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile with time and relativism? Gheeze, that is disgusting. That is too extreme. It may be extreme to talk about Jeffrey Dahmer with forgiveness, however, as you will see, this blog equates such as Jeffrey Dahmer with such as Homo antecessor (who was also cannibalistic), however, you would never judge Homo antecessor for cannibalism. Why? Because there is time between you and Homo antecessor. Whereas there is no time between you and Jeffrey Dahmer, that is why you judge and vilify Jeffrey Dahmer in the 20th/21st centuries. Therefore, we should always equate such as Jeffrey Dahmer with a prehistoric hominin from the past such as Homo antecessor. Consider that all serious criminals have a twin, parallel or equivalent in the past, for example Adolf Hitler equates to a “subhuman” such as Australopithecus Afarensis (for obvious reasons), Jeffrey Dahmer equates to a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor (who was also cannibalistic) and Jimmy Savile equates to a medieval or Victorian man (as up until 1875 AD the age of consent was 12) etc. It is difficult and extreme to talk about such as Jeffrey Dahmer with forgiveness, but there is no problem in talking about Homo antecessor and their cannibalism. Therefore, talk about Jeffrey Dahmer and Homo antecessor with equivalence, that is, in the same vein and interchangeably. Consider Jeffrey Dahmer and Homo antecessor as half and half, 1/2 and 1/2 or 50/50. They are equivalent and the same thing. Time ameliorates any sin, however, I believe the first half, Homo antecessor in the Lower Palaeolithic can also help? Homo antecessor ameliorates slightly any speech regarding the second half, that is Jeffrey Dahmer in the 20th century. You may say I do not believe that Jeffrey Dahmer and Homo antecessor are equivalent and the same thing? Think about it, doesn’t Jeffrey Dahmer kind of have to equate to such Homo antecessor? Isn’t that the only place and time that we can possibly understand or forgive Jeffrey Dahmer? Jeffrey Dahmer only gets into so much trouble in the 20th/21st centuries, because for example the Romans were so much older than Jeffrey Dahmer yet even they were not cannibalistic. Therefore, Jeffrey Dahmer was an extreme anachronism. He existed in the wrong space and time. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer did not try to be advanced, special or superior to primates or primitive hominins and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even ape, would his sins be lighter? Could he have forgiveness? If Jeffrey Dahmer hypothetically went back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have relative innocence? As you will see, this is how relative absolution, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, crime time or time for forgiveness works. Honestly, this blog is not too bad, it is humorous and lighthearted, and there is also no racism in it. So chill out! Calm down. And just read it. And remember the old saying don’t judge a book by its cover. Budush! If Jeffrey Dahmer and Homo antecessor are equivalent, then there is no problem and everything is ok.

Secular forgiveness.

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 powerful tenet of Christianity. However, does it work? How does forgiveness work? Why should we forgive? Who should we forgive? Jesus Christ may forgive a vicar feeling contrite for taking the largest slice of pie, but how does He forgive real sinners such as genocidal megalomaniacs, cannibals and child abusers? Even if He cannot, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness does. How does forgiveness work in the afterlife? I take for granted that there is no hell and that all sins real or imaginable are forgiven in the afterlife. Therefore, why can’t we do the same in life? Why do we have to wait until the afterlife to be forgiven? For example, concerning the genuine forgiveness of serious criminals, most authorities and normal law abiding citizens simply leave that issue to or for the afterlife. I am simply telling you that with hypothetical time travel (HTT) we can bring the afterlife here, and we can therefore, technically forgive all sins real or imaginable in life or down here on Earth with time and relativism. 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? Why should we forgive? Jesus Christ told us to forgive because your Father will also forgive you your sins, however, with ecclesiastical forgiveness, although we know how to forgive minor sins, we do not technically know how to forgive serious sins and who to forgive is a little contentious. For example, should we forgive everyone? Or just prostitutes and tax collectors? Is there a limit? How does the church forgive genocidal megalomaniacs, serial killers and child abusers? Shouldn’t the church know about or understand relative absolution, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, time for forgiveness or Albert Einstein’s equivalence? Although the Catholic Church is vehemently for moral absolutism and against moral relativism, relative absolution is different, as without it there would be no forgiveness. And just because it is secular does not mean they could not consider it? Perhaps it would be admissible or adjuvant? Relative absolution and pure innocence are not adiaphoristic beliefs. Therefore without trying to sound heretical (I don’t want to be burned at the stake) as will be seen Albert Einstein’s secular absolution is technical, rational, logical, it makes sense and is totally comprehensible. It is also secular. With time and relativism, we understand who, why, how, where and most importantly when to forgive. Regarding being burned at the stake, the major idea of this blog is that 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 as an example (and a joke), I do not think I have to worry about being burned at the stake in Britain in the 21st century? Although I probably would have been in medieval England! Also note the same concept applies to Jesus Christ, in that 2000 years ago in Israel and under Roman law, crucifixion was perfectly legal, in fact it was the law or punishment for, well in our Lord and Saviour’s case, absolutely nothing. Whereas today such a harsh punitive act is unthinkable. Therefore, if you ‘crucify’ me for writing this blog, then know you will only make me a martyr. Regarding who 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 how to forgive serious sinners, 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 or serious criminals. Whereas Albert Einstein’s forgiveness does! Albert Einstein’s theory shows us who, why, how, where and when to forgive all sins real or imaginable with time and relativism. Therefore, relative absolution, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness is Albert Einstein’s forgiveness (not Jesus Christ’s). Also even though it genuinely forgives Adolf Hitler, why wouldn’t Jewish people like Albert Einstein’s secular forgiveness if it improves on, is more real and more practicable than 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. Because Adolf Hitler was unchristian, to forgive him 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 a non-Christian and secular forgiveness?

Figure 3. Medieval Jimmy Savile, with hood.

It is in the past.

The following is a summarised short story about the Buddha and forgiveness.

The Buddha was sitting under a tree talking to his disciples when a man came and spat in his face. He wiped it off, and he asked the man, “What next? What do you want to say next?” The man was a little puzzled because he himself never expected that when you spit in someone’s face he should ask “What next?” He had no such experience in his past…

…The man looked at Buddha and said, “Forgive me for what I did yesterday.”

Buddha said, “Forgive? But I am not the same man to whom you did it. The Ganges goes on flowing, it is never the same Ganges again. Every man is a river. The man you spit upon is no longer here. I look just like him, but I am not the same, much has happened in these twenty-four hours! The river has flowed so much. So I cannot forgive you because I have no grudge against you.

“And you also are new. I can see you are not the same man who came yesterday because that man was angry and he spit, whereas you are bowing at my feet, touching my feet. How can you be the same man? You are not the same man, so let us forget about it. Those two people, the man who spit and the man on whom he spit, both are no more. Come closer. Let us talk of something else.”

https://theunboundedspirit.com/forgiveness/

I think the Buddha’s analogy in this story of how the river Ganges flows, is never the same Ganges and that every man is a river etc, highlights or indicates the main idea of this blog, which is that the secret of forgiveness lies in the past. The words forgiveness and forgive ask the question, can you forgive someone please? Forgiveness and forgive are in or anticipate the future tense, and because they ask the question, therefore, they never happen or are never fulfilled. Whereas the word forgiven is the key because it is in past tense, in that it has already happened, that is that he or she is already forgiven. The statement ‘it is in the past’ has a double meaning. This is because as you will read this blog and as you can see from the art on this blog, the secret of forgiveness for all sins for serious criminals lies in the past, hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel to the distant past such as Lower Palaeolithic, medieval or Victorian periods. Also we have all heard the saying that ‘it is in the past’, as in the clouds have blown over and that our sins are in the past.

Ecclesiastical snitching.

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 regarding sin and forgiveness from such as Mark 2:16-17, he still left us with a limit, because He did not dare go there and forgive murderers, rapists and child abusers etc. Therefore, 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 secular forgiveness or hypothetical time travel (HTT) has no limits. When one thinks of forgiveness one usually thinks of religion, the church or Christianity. The following excerpts are from The Ecclesiastical History Of The English People, an 8th century work of literature by The Venerable Bede. I think these excerpts demonstrate how religion, the church or ecclesiastical authorities traditionally tend to only deal with ‘ecclesiastical snitching’, minor or petty sins, analogously (and humorously), such as a vicar feeling guilty for taking the largest slice of pie. This 8th century ecclesiastical literature is concerned with such things as sins of the flesh, uncleanliness, base imaginings and wet dreams etc. However, I think therefore, that ecclesiastical forgiveness leaves us with a gap, in that it cannot and does not deal with real sins of the flesh (that we give a damn about), such as Jeffrey Dahmer’s modern cannibalism and necrophilia etc.

And so fleshly copulation is lawful when it is for the sake of producing offspring and not of desire; and the fleshly intercourse must be for the sake of producing children and not the satisfaction of vicious instincts. So if anyone approaches his wife, not carried away by lustful desire but only for the sake of getting children, such a man is by all means to be left to his own judgement both in the matter of entering the church and of receiving the mystery of the Lord’s Body and Blood; for one who is placed in the fire and yet cannot burn ought not to be hindered by us from receiving. But when it is not the love of getting children but desire which dominates in the act of coition, the couple have cause to lament.

Spiritual people will accept this law but will interpret it differently as we have already explained; for that man is deceived as it were by a dream who, after being tempted with impurity, is defiled in his waking thoughts by real images; and he must be washed with water in the sense that he should wash away the sins of thought with his tears: and unless the fire of temptation has first departed, let him reckon himself guilty until evening, so to speak.

(The Ecclesiastical History Of The English People, The Venerable Bede, page 50-51).

There are some whose mind, when it experiences such an illusion even when the body is asleep, is not contaminated by base imaginations.

(The Ecclesiastical History Of The English People, The Venerable Bede, page 52).

As will be seen, for the time being, these sins I like to analogously call a ‘slices of pie’, in that such as sex for pleasure or wet dreams are not really sins anymore. However, they were evidently cause for concern in the early medieval period. Notice the subtlety of time or temporality in the previous two sentences. That is why I emboldened and underlined the word ‘anymore‘. This is because (as will be seen later) Albert Einstein’s theory may determine the idea that 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, is not absolute, is relative and flexible etc. These types of extremely light sins used to be what the clergy and church was concerned about. As will be seen, I believe sin is relative, in that if you only deal with ecclesiastical snitching, minor sin such as sex for pleasure or wet dreams, then of course little things will seem big and unforgivable to you, where as if we can genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, then relatively, who cares about such minor sins? Therefore, even though I am not a professional, I think you might be at least glad that Albert Einstein’s secular forgiveness, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness is there in the background, just in case such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile ever needed it? Hypothetical time travel (HTT) gives us peace of mind. Where ecclesiastical forgiveness fails or falls short secular forgiveness is there, because it has no limits and can deal with all sins real or imaginable.

Modern and ancient cannibalism.

There are two types of sins, petty things and serious things. We all know how to forgive little or petty things such as a friendly dispute or brother who didn’t repay a debt etc, we know how to do it. We simply let go on the inside or in our hearts and minds. We resist, cool or calm our feelings of anger towards that particular person or persons and let go. So we know technically how to do it. However, how do we forgive big or serious crimes, such as those committed by Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile? We technically have no idea. We do not even know where to begin. We do not even know how to get the ball rolling with forgiving such as Adolf Hitler’s murderous genocide or Jeffrey Dahmer’s modern cannibalism or necrophilia etc? Notice how in reference to such as Jeffrey Dahmer’s sins I always say ‘modern’ cannibalism. This is because adding time lightens the sin. Even if just by a sliver, this could be enough? Also, the recentness of Jeffrey Dahmer’s modern cannibalism is the only difference between his cannibalism and Homo antecessor’s ancient or prehistoric cannibalism, yet Homo antecessor’s cannibalism was relatively fine. You would never judge Homo antecessor? To reiterate, there is nothing wrong with ancient cannibalism! Why? Because of time and relativity. Therefore, Jeffrey Dahmer was anachronistic, in that he committed his sins in the wrong space and time. Anyway, I think the reason we can forgive minor things and not relatively serious things may be because of other people. By this I mean that nobody cares if your brother didn’t repay a debt to you, or, beyond schadenfreude gossip, nobody cares if your spouse has had a baby with someone else behind your back etc. However, concerning serious things, for example, those sins committed by Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, other people do actually care, therefore, there is a fear factor of society and vigilantism. Just saying I forgive them or feeling that you forgive them in your heart has no effect whatsoever. What I am saying is that hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness is that beginning. It tells us how to even in the remotest possibility how we can get the ball rolling with forgiving such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile etc. To effectively and technically forgive them with consciousness and comprehension requires something much more, it requires Einstein’s equivalence, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, crime time or time for forgiveness.

Forgive fascism (time has no animosity).

One thing you will notice by reading hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, crime time or time for forgiveness, is that I am the absolute opposite of a Holocaust denier. I am real and I fully acknowledge the Holocaust happened and I fully know and accept (from reading Martin Gilbert’s book about it), how unbelievably horrendous and soul destroying the Holocaust was. All that I am saying is that we should try or that it is time to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Why? Because it is blatantly apparent that not doing so is extremely detrimental indigenous Europeans. Forgiveness is a different approach to both neo-Nazis and Antifa. The former get on Adolf Hitler’s side and try to justify him, while the latter chastise all white people for Nazism and the Holocaust. The problem with the world today is the polarity of the political spectrum in that most indigenous Europeans choose either one of two extreme directions, that is far-left or far-right, anti-racist or racist. Neo-Nazis believe that Adolf Hitler and Nazism need no forgiveness, while Antifa believe that Adolf Hitler and Nazism will never have forgiveness.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

(Luke 6:32-36).

Both are wrong. I do neither. Forgiveness is the middle way. The first thing to know is that forgiveness is never sympathy or justification. There is a difference between proving someone right and forgiving them. If someone is right they do not need forgiveness. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were unchristian, however, I believe there is only hope for us all if there is hope for Hitler, especially white people. Therefore, the only hope for indigenous Europeans is the forgiveness (never justification) of Adolf Hitler, and this is the problem, in that how do you genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler without justifying him? Adolf Hitler is like a black hole, in that the vast majority of indigenous Europeans try to avoid or distance themselves from him as much as possible, with a few oddballs getting sucked in. No one, not a single indigenous European or indeed any person has ever dared go there and try to forgive him. Therefore, the primary target of this blog is the forgiveness (never justification) of Adolf Hitler, as well as such criminals as Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. There is so much animosity in the world in the 21st century. This is probably because of the internet and social media such as Twitter. The 1990s had no animosity. The animosity comes first and foremost from the left and anti-racists such as Antifa. Therefore, to reiterate, this blog attempts to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler (without justification) with time and relativism, and by never using animosity towards him. I think this disparity is related to the question of how to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler without justifying him, in that nobody ever bothers trying and most people just distance themselves from him, while at the other extreme far-right people get on his side and try to justify him. Even to their own destruction, the vast majority of indigenous Europeans put a lot of distance between themselves and Adolf Hitler, as much as they can, which creates the opposite extreme such as Antifa. Therefore, they become anti-racist. I am simply saying that with time for forgiveness, we can put time between ourselves and such as Adolf Hitler, not distance. On the other hand, because they do not know how to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler, a small minority of indigenous Europeans get on Adolf Hitler’s side and try to justify him or make his conspiracies theories right. To reiterate, this is because they do not know how to forgive him. Therefore, they become racist. There is no middle ground. As will be seen this blog answers that question, in that it demonstrates how we can forgive (never justify) Adolf Hitler in a non-Christian and secular way with time, equivalence and relativism. In order to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler, we have to be able to forgive all crimes or sins real or imaginable, and to that end, this blog also deals with the forgiveness of such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. That should cover all bases. The problem for far-right people is that they do not know even where to start. They have no idea how on Earth how to genuinely forgive fascism and Adolf Hitler without justifying them. Nazism and the Holocaust are so unbelievably big that they do not know what to do about it. For example, just saying “I forgive Adolf Hitler” does not work. It is a waste of breath. And obviously because he was unchristian and because of the religious nature of Adolf Hitler’s crimes, forgiving him in a Christian or ecclesiastical way would not work either. Therefore, far-right people just give up and get on his side. However, as will be seen hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel goes way beyond breath, or just saying “I forgive Adolf Hitler”, in that it allows us to genuinely and technically forgive anyone for any crime real or imaginable with time, equivalence and relativism. To reiterate, with Albert Einstein’s secular forgiveness we understand rationally and technically why, how and when to forgive such as Adolf Hitler with time and relativism. Most especially the far-right care far too much about life, what it is down here on Earth, that is they care too much about race and the continent of Europe etc. I know that life and the universe seem like everything down here, but they are not in fact. We will have our homogeneous indigenous European empires and superpowers in the eternal afterlife. Because of the Holocaust, there is nothing we can do to save our race and countries. Therefore, after long fruitless efforts in this direction myself, I would therefore, like to advise you sort of give up and just look forward to the afterlife. Because of the Holocaust, we can never be racist in this life or on Earth, it is impossible and futile. Therefore, that is what this blog attempts to do, that is ameliorate your anger and frustration and to get you to chill out and look forward to the afterlife.

Albert Einstein’s theory.

This website is the main endeavour of four. The other works are art of forgiveness, fun time and I also DJ or mix trance and techno music, my DJ name is Kotinos (see menu). However, hypothetical time travel (HTT) is definitely the main objective of the first three. Fun time is adscititious or accessory to hypothetical time travel (HTT). To reiterate, T² or fun time is just a non-serious study of time and relativity, or something? Fun time is just a different form of time and relativity, by this I mean it is mathematical time and relativity. Therefore, its purpose is just to contrast and support hypothetical time travel (HTT) which I have labelled philosophical physics. However, please note I am never trying to prove anything with T² or fun time, other than the fact that it proves that I work with and understand a little time and relativity. T² is just an interest. T² is simply fun! There is obviously nothing in fun time that is not credited to Albert Einstein. However, there is also nothing in hypothetical time travel (HTT) which is not credited to Albert Einstein. This is because the relativism of hypothetical time travel (HTT) 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 Albert 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 a consequence of Einstein’s theory could determine that the law in one frame of reference or time period is not the law in another frame of reference or time period, the law is not absolute, the law changes over space and time, the law is not universal, the law is not fundamental, the law is relative and flexible etc. Therefore, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness belongs to Professor Albert Einstein. In fact, a tag line for hypothetical time travel (HTT) among others such as secular forgiveness could be Albert Einstein’s equivalence? You may listen to Albert Einstein but you will never listen to me. Therefore, it is hoped that hypothetical time travel (HTT) is an effect or a consequence of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. Another purpose of hypothetical time travel (HTT) or time for forgivenes is to get Albert Einstein on our side. By that I mean our European or right leaning side. Because of the Holocaust and because Albert Einstein was Jewish, he could easily abandon Europe and side with non-Europeans. Einstein is an immeasurable asset.

Figure 4. Middle Palaeolithic Adolf Hitler, hunting bison.

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 or twenty-somethings 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? It may seem more reasonable to us to assume that the comings of the Christ and the Buddha would be the culminations of advanced achievements of humanity, for example why wasn’t Albert Einstein the Messiah? However, it is simply not the case, in that there is something eternally simple and primitive (or innocent) about the Christ and Buddha which is greater than or superior to Albert Einstein, relativity and E = MC². What on God’s Earth is it? What is this eternally superior simplicity or primitivism? I have removed most references to the spiritual and divine in this blog as I want it to be acceptable to academics. However, although this blog and its entire concept 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 or faith as they are abstruse, recondite, esoteric or even acataleptic. 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).

Ethics.

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 has been mentioned the best love is love for one’s continent and people. And as will be seen compassion is omnipotent in that you may 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 it it is ironic that once you have attained nuclear weapons you are by definition compassionate toward animals. As will be seen later this ironic purpose of lethal weapons may determine that animals (such as humans) only become compassionate once they become invincible and omnipotent. Also, we can say things like it was relatively ethical for Homo antecessor to cannibalise in Europe in the Lower Palaeolithic compared to Jeffrey Dahmer in America in the 20th century 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 relativism and time enough? Because relativism and time can determine if you are innocent and deserve forgiveness isn’t relativism and time therefore ethics? Therefore, why do we even need the spiritual and divine?

Time is not spiritual or divine.

To reiterate I am working on or developing four things hypothetical time travel (HTT), art of forgiveness, fun time and Kotinos. The first three works are related to time, however, the first is philosophical physics, the second is art that portrays crime travel, the third is mathematical time and the fourth is just my DJ name. As mentioned one goal is the comparison of two different forms of time and relativity, hypothetical time travel (HTT) and fun time. What I mean by philosophical physics is that relative absolution and pure innocence are just literature and simply use common sense evolution and anthropology with the terms time, relative and relatively in order to absolve criminals of their crimes? As T² obviously does not prove anything scientifically that is not already known, therefore, it is just a non-serious study of time and relativity, or something? I have learned that other than ‘being ahead’ there is not much in the mathematical time whereas there is ethics, morality, innocence and forgiveness etc in philosophical physics. 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://comedytime.blog 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 all except the last statement. I definitely do not now believe the last, 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. To reiterate, concerning the other statements, what is spiritual enlightenment or spiritual energy anyway? Again spiritual enlightenment and spiritual energy are abstruse, recondite, esoteric or 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 secular forgiveness is real, technical, rational, comprehensible and scientific.

Philosophical physics.

There is no ethics or morality in science or physics such as scientific or mathematical time, however, there is ethics and morality in philosophical physics. Physics has no morality, it is amoral, non-moral or neutral etc, therefore, we have no hope for forgiveness, particularly to do with the Holocaust with science or physics. However, philosophical physics is morality and it can deal with the genuine forgiveness of the Holocaust. Not to get too political, but for example, surely as white British physicist you can see that with current trends in immigration and demographics etc that if the UK ever underwent so much Islamification, to the point that it actually became a caliphate, surely even you could see that this would be wrong, or that it clearly shows that something is wrong? All that I am saying is that Islam or the Qu’ran is morality and that you cannot overcome it, that is science or physics cannot do anything to stop it. However, philosophical physics may be able to forgive the Holocaust? What if physicists ever wanted to philosophise or say something political? Philosophical physics is obviously both philosophy and physics, in that from philosophy is takes moral relativism and from physics it takes time, space, relativity and equivalence. Also, as has been mentioned and as will be seen moral law or just the law is not absolute unlike mathematics or physics which are the same everywhere in the universe and throughout space and time. The same laws of physics have been governing the universe for 13.7 billion years, however, yet for all that time the universe was utterly devoid of moral law. Moral law is something which took billions of years of evolution to achieve. Like the Ten Commandments, moral law is a relatively and extremely recent invention by us humble hominins.

Definition.

  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.

noun (Primitivism)

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! Art is definitely a good example of pure innocence in that the further you go back in time the more timeless, primitive, valuable, priceless and classical art becomes. It is practically a law that the older and more primitive the art the more timeless and priceless it is. For example, contemporary art is less timeless and valuable than modern art such as the post-impressionism and cubism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And skipping things on a bit, modern art is less timeless and valuable than such as baroque art by such as Caravaggio of the early 17th century. And Caravaggio’s art is less timeless, classical and priceless than renaissance art of the 16th and 15th centuries by such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Sandro Botticelli etc. And the renaissance art of Da Vinci and Botticelli etc is less timeless, classical and priceless than the cruder more primitive medieval religious art such as Byzantine art etc. And pushing things to their extreme, medieval art is less timeless and priceless than primitive prehistoric art such as the Upper Palaeolithic cave paintings, such as the Chauvet and Lascaux cave paintings in France etc, which along with Venus figurines etc are the most timeless and priceless works of art that we have on Earth. Think about it, if a cave was discovered in your local area with lots of prehistoric cave paintings, it might as well be filled with gold bullion. In fact, even that would probably not match the value of prehistoric cave paintings? Therefore, relative absolution and pure innocence work the same, in that in the afterlife, the older you are the greater you are. 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 and Aristotle have become over time. Therefore, think of how refined, classical and holy Albert Einstein will become over time. Who is superior Mesolithic man of 5 to 15k 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 pure innocence, in fact, the more recent examples demonstrate it better! For example, the Victorians have become relatively classical and holy almost like the Romans. Therefore, who would you rather be a Victorian with an empire or a modern Elizabethan with an iPhone? This is the temptation of technology. Also, the Nazis labelled primitive people as inferior, but this is absolutely not the case, as will be seen 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 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 blog.

Absolute law.

…relativists don’t believe in universal moral laws…

(Absolute Relativism, The new dictatorship and what to do about it, Chris Stefanick, loc 208).

Figure 5. Upper Palaeolithic (Cro Magnon) Jeffrey Dahmer, hunter with pheasant and deer.

I think the authorities such as government, judges, lawyers and police etc believe that they or the law is absolute. However, if I were a criminal in the dock I would say to the judge, if I only could travel back in time, Your Honour, I would not be in as much trouble. Therefore, to reiterate, the main hypothesis of this blog is that in order to forgive contemporary or modern serious criminals, that they should therefore, be equivalent to animals, primates, prehistoric hominins or ancient people of the past etc. Therefore, if or as along as a criminal or sinner can hypothetically travel back in time and/or make him or herself equal or equate to an animal, ape, primitive hominin, ancient, medieval or Victorian human etc, then in theory all crimes or sins real or imaginable can be forgiven. Therefore, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT) for criminals in order to seek forgiveness acceptance and relative innocence. Is moral law or just the law universal, absolute, eternal and the same throughout space and time? I mean is the law fundamental and the same throughout space and time like mathematics or physics? For example, obviously 2 + 3 has always equalled 5 even at the beginning of time, that is 13.7 billion years ago. Therefore, 2 + 3 has always equalled 5 at any point in time, for example 100,000 years ago. Mathematics is an absolute, universal, fundamental and eternal law. However, is moral law absolute and eternal? I mean were rape, murder and cannibalism always universally evil, as they are to us today? For example, were rape, murder and cannibalism as evil 100,000 years ago? No! Therefore, do the same laws that apply to us in the UK also apply to Americans, Muslims, Africans, bushmen, native Papuans or un-contacted native Amazonians? No! The law changes with space. For example, capital punishment is legal in Texas, such as drinking driving is much less taboo in Africa, marijuana is legal in Amsterdam, speed is unlimited on the German autobahns, execution and amputation are legal in Islamic countries and until relatively recently such as killing and cannibalism were less of a problem for un-contacted native Amazonians and native Papuans etc. Therefore, do the same laws that apply to us today also apply in the Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric periods? 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, Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution, pure innocence, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, crime time or time for forgiveness, whatever you may call it is founded on the following idea:

The law in on frame of reference or point in time is not the law in another frame of reference or point in time.

The law changes over space and time.

The law is not absolute.

The law is not universal.

The law is not fundamental.

The law is relative.

The law is flexible.

Notice the similarity or correlation between the above idea, which I came across 100% independently, and relativism or moral relativism.

Relativism is the idea that there is no universal, absolute truth but that truth differs from person to person and culture to culture. In other words, truth is relative to what each person or culture thinks.

(Absolute Relativism, The New Dictatorship, and what to do about it, Chris Stefanick, location 130).

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

Moral relativism can be understood in several ways.

Descriptive moral relativism, also known as cultural relativism, says that moral standards are culturally defined, which is generally true. Indeed, there may be a few values that seem nearly universal, such as honesty and respect, but many differences appear across cultures when people evaluate moral standards around the world.

Meta-ethical moral relativism states that there are no objective grounds for preferring the moral values of one culture over another. Societies make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the values that exist in their own culture.

Note, all that I am saying is that I agree with such as meta-ethical moral relativism, in that I believe (for the sake of forgiveness) that such as human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism were morally acceptable for the cultures of the Caribs and the Aztecs in as late as the 15th and 16th centuries in the New World. The societies of the Caribs and Aztec made their own moral choices, regarding human sacrifice and cannibalism, based on their own unique beliefs, customs and practices. Therefore, who are we Christians to judge?

Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept each other’s differing moral values, given that there are no universal moral principles. Most philosophers disagree however. For example, just because bribery is okay in some cultures doesn’t mean that other cultures cannot rightfully condemn it.

Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, which says that there is always one right answer to any ethical question. Indeed, those who adhere to moral relativism would say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-relativism

As I said, I came across relativism myself 100% independently, however, the main differences between my version of relativism and ‘orthodox’ moral relativism is that firstly, my version incorporates time, and therefore, it connects to real relativity or Einsteinism, and it also goes much further or deeper with morality or moral values. My version of relativism deals with serious crimes such as rape, murder and cannibalism etc, not just honesty, respect or bribery etc.

To reiterate, returning to maths, like my other blog https://comedytime.blog, mathematics is eternal and absolute, however mathematics is amoral or non-moral, like animals. However, morality is human yet it is transient and ephemeral.

What is the best example? Consider the sabbath or (Shabbat in Hebrew). The sabbath is (or was) was an absolute and eternal Mosaic law, commandment or covenant with God or YHWH, that was once in ancient or biblical times, punishable with death by stoning for transgression. How have our perspectives changed regarding the Lord’s seventh Holy day of rest? Thanks to Jesus Christ and his perfect sacrifice, in the Christian world we no longer observe the sabbath under pain of death. In fact, most of us do not observe it at all. Unlike 2 + 3 = 5, over time, observation of the sabbath has gradually decreased and almost disappeared.

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

(Mark 2:23-28).

Again thanks to Jesus Christ, the Old Testament is the old law and has gone, and the New Testament is the new law and has come. Through his apostles such as St. Paul, Jesus liberated us from covenants and commandments such as circumcision, kosher food and the sabbath etc. I believe this example of the sabbath day really proves that the law is not absolute or universal, but inevitably changes with space and time. However, remember that relativity is a 100% Jewish invention, therefore, by all rights, so is moral relativism. So please don’t shoot the messenger! This may be why the Catholic Church disagrees with moral relativism and advocates moral absolutism? Anyway, with time or hypothetical time travel (HTT) the law is bendy and the law can be bent, it depends where and when you commit your crime. For example, if Homo antecessor kills and cannibalises 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. You may say how can laws against cannibalism be flexible? How are laws against cannibalism not absolute? You can only say that laws against cannibalism are absolute today or now in Britain (for example). Again the immorality of cannibalism is universal across the whole planet (I hope?) today or now. To prove this, consider just murder, did prehistoric man murder? Well it depends on how far you go back in time, but for argument’s sake, quite frankly, no! For example, as you will see much later in this blog, I believe it is impossible to sin if you are not conscious and aware of the concept of sin, as in animals and children cannot sin. Therefore, when chimpanzees kill another chimpanzee (as they frequently do), they are never murderers, and they have not sinned. Therefore, the same logic of chimpanzees applies to prehistoric man, in that up until some point, they were not conscious and aware of the concept of sin, therefore, they were never murderers when they killed another member of the same species. If moral law or just the law was absolute, universal and eternal throughout space and time, it would mean that as a vindictive and self-righteous Homo sapiens of the 21st century, you could travel back in time and judge or condemn such as Homo antecessor for their killing and cannibalism. You must understand how this is wrong, and that you can never judge or condemn such as Homo antecessor. You can never travel back in time and judge or condemn. Therefore, the law is not absolute! To me this would prove to the Catholic Church (who disagree with moral relativism) that moral absolutism is flawed, and that moral relativism is real.

Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, which says that there is always one right answer to any ethical question.

To me the above proves there is not always one right answer to any ethical question, especially when you bring time into the equation. For example, we could ask the ethical question is cannibalism right or wrong? You may think it’s a no brainer or that we take it for granted, but it really depends, it is really not the right question to ask. Cannibalism is wrong now, but it was not always. The correct question to ask may be was cannibalism always wrong? That is what I like about prehistoric man, because they are out of our realm, we cannot judge them, despite their rape, killing and cannibalism etc. They are free! There is so much judgement in our own time.

Therefore, to reiterate, laws are different in different places and in different periods of time, for example, consider that murder is a capital offence in some states in America, and that it entirely depends on which state you commit murder in. Also consider the decriminalisation of homosexuality in western countries such as the U.K. in 1967, whereas homosexuality is and has always been illegal under Quranic law in Islamic countries even up to today. To take Mosaic law once again, we can see how laws that are supposed to be eternal are not absolute or universal, but change over time and space:

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”

(Lev. 20:13).

‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

(Lev. 18:22).

For example, only extreme Muslims throw homosexuals of buildings today. Homosexuality is a ‘relative offence’ in that in the 1940s in Britain it was a crime and even today in Islamic countries it is still illegal, however, in most western countries today it is absolutely legal. Therefore, it depends on where and when you commit your ‘relative offence.’ As an example, a Scottish man in 2017 in Dubai in the UAE was prosecuted for touching a man’s hip and sentenced to three months in jail. Jamie Harron who was 27 at the time was initially arrested for public indecency for touching a man’s hip as he carried a drink through a crowded bar in Dubai on 15 July 2017. The electrician, from Stirling, claimed he was simply trying to avoid spilling his drink when he brushed past the man at the Rock Bottom bar. This is how seriously Muslims take homosexuality. Why is there this fundamental incompatibility? The west would probably say Islamic countries are primitive and backward and western countries are advanced and progressive. Yes, but primitivism is innocence. Because moral relativism determines there are no universal moral principles, therefore, contrary to popular opinion today in the west, particularly in America, freedom is not a universal principle. Muslims do not like freedom, they have something much older and more important than freedom, that is Qu’ranic or sharia law. Similarly, I personally believe that although freedom is perfect in America, I believe it is not conducive in Europe or to European interests. I think the controversial legality of homosexuality in different countries and time periods really proves that the law changes over space and time. The law is not absolute. The law is relative. The law is flexible. Therefore, know if you are serving time for an offence that the British authorities have labelled ‘murder’ or ‘terrorism’ 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 moral law (or just the law) is 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%).

White supremacism.

This blog 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 RA and PI in a different direction, because I want them to be as secular, ethical, benign and as politically correct as possible. Therefore, RA and PI also determine and try to stick to the following philosophy: 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. Evolution is biological, however, it also definitely needs time. In fact evolution is time! For an example of RA and PI take the primitive tetrapodomorph, Tiktaalik roseae, a 375 million-year-old transitional species between fish and the first legged animals. We could sit here after 375 million years of evolution and say that Tiktaalik roseae 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 did to ‘non-Aryans’ with white supremacism. Just because you are an advanced species does not mean you are superior as you are less innocent, also the older you are the greater you are. Tiktaalik roseae has 375 million years of time and experience on its side. Tiktaalik roseae has a 375 million year head start on us. We cannot possibly imagine what that is like or means. So you have been around since 1981 and you think that you are racially and genetically superior to a 375 million year old creature? Think again. This may mean that there has to be universal equality and relativity between all races and all species? Tiktaalik roseae is an important and beautiful creature. Something the Nazis are not.

This does not in any way mean that prokaryotes are “lower” than or inferior to eukaryotes!

(Cowen’s History of Life, Michael J. Benton, page 23).

Therefore, Homo sapiens are not superior to Tiktaalik roseae, at the time Tiktaalik roseae was the equivalent of a human being, in that it was the most advanced tetrapodomorph of its day. Hence, it does not matter if like Tiktaalik roseae you are old and primitive as you are greater and more innocent and this is in a way superior. Therefore, even though RA and PI attempt to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler and occasionally defend indigenous Europeans it can never be claimed that it is ever white supremacism or bigotry. As you will see, the main point of this blog is that being advanced can be a disadvantage. Therefore, how can I be a white supremacist if all that I saying is that being advanced can be a disadvantage? For example, if you are far-right how can you respect Tiktaalik roseae and find it beautiful or possibly great, but not Africans? It may be advanced to be indigenous Europeans, but this never means that Africans are inferior as they are more innocent and there is probably universal equality and time and relativity between all races and all species? In fact, as you will see, up until Adolf Hitler and the Nazis I do not believe many indigenous Europeans ever openly and publicly stated that they were superior to other people. For example, the Georgians and the Victorians never really openly or publicly stated that they were superior to other people, as they had more modesty and decorum than that. Only Adolf Hitler and the Nazis openly, publicly and loudly stated that they were superior. Even today I do not seriously believe that many of the far-right honestly believe that other people are inferior to themselves. That is, I do not believe that defence, separatism or protectionism is ever supremacy, as is all too easily and casually applied and bounced around today. Also, as will be seen, the way to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler with humour is to make him an animal, primate, monkey or primitive hominin with time, equivalence, relativism, hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel. I also believe a solution to the Holocaust could be to humourlessly make all indigenous Europeans monkeys? Therefore, if white people are monkeys how can they be supremacist? It is relative absolution, never bigotry or supremacism.

Relative age.

As has been mentioned and as will be seen, like how art appreciates with time, relative absolution and pure 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 literally consider this. 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 cretins were around in 2.9 million years time. Therefore, in 375 million years time I will be relatively closer to Tiktaalik roseae than whatever cretins 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 cretins 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. As another example consider this, the art of an artist in the 21st century is much less valuable than the art of the renaissance or baroque periods, by such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Caravaggio etc. However, if we could wait a thousand years or so, the 21st century artist would then be relatively closer to Da Vinci and Caravaggio than whatever cretins are doing art in the 31st century. From this perspective or frame of reference the 21st century artist would seem more like a renaissance artist. Therefore, then and only then would Da Vinci and Caravaggio accept the 21st century artist into the ‘renaissance’ fold so to speak. Therefore, only then might the 21st century artist’s work become relatively valuable? And as time goes on relatively the gap between Da Vinci and the 21st artist will get smaller and smaller, so that to those in 10,000 years time, the difference between the two artists becomes negligible. It is relative. The older you are the greater more famous, classical, holy and illustrious you are. 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. For example (and as will be seen), do we really care about our progeny? I know I do not. I care about age, those older than me and our ancestors etc. I would care about the future and our offspring, however, I believe that because of the Holocaust it is difficult for indigenous Europeans to care about the future and our progeny today. I will state now that I couldn’t give a monkeys about the future!

Monkeys, time and relativism.

How is primitivism connected to relativism?‬ What exactly are relative absolution and pure innocence?

For example, animals are funny, particularly for Homo sapiens dogs, cats and monkeys are funny, especially primates such as chimps and bonobos etc. Relative absolution and pure innocence simply use this animal comedy in conjunction with hypothetical time travel (HTT) or time and relativism to compare and make serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile the equivalent of animals, 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. You may say how can calling Jeffrey Dahmer an animal lighten his sins? For example, if you called or equated Jeffrey Dahmer to a racoon wouldn’t that lighten his sins? Being a racoon is about the only place and time or frame of reference that I can get Jeffrey dahmer with lightness, humour or comedy etc. Racoons do crazy things as well? You may think an animal or an ape is childish? However, childishness lighten sins. Think about it.

  • Extreme genocidal racism is evolutionary or anthropological, and the punishment for it is miscegenation.
  • Murder and cannibalism is only alright for an ape, a primitive hominin or prehistoric man etc.
  • Inappropriate sex definitely is a monkey act.
  • Apes rape.
  • Primates fight.
  • Monkeys steal.
  • Etc.
Figure 6. Miocene Adolf Hitler, brown headed spider monkey.

In fact, what if a solution to the Holocaust could be if all indigenous Europeans (instead of being advanced) were apes? Therefore, using three eternal examples this blog demonstrates that all crimes or sins are always an animal, ape or anthropological, in that if you sin or commit a crime you literally make or equate to an animal, primate or primitive hominin, that is you make a monkey of yourself. To reiterate, if you sin like such as Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer the only solution to your crime is an animal or an ape. Therefore, relative absolution and pure innocence are all about how in the afterlife we never wait a long time for forgiveness, but instead, we hypothetically 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? If a criminal can travel in time, could he or she be a ‘relative criminal?’

What is pure innocence?

To lose one’s pure innocence could be like losing one’s virginity, in that for example, when a revolutionary new invention such systemic phoneticism (or writing) is created, discovered or understood for the first time, it is as if humanity has lost some of its virginity and innocence? How do you attain primitive or pure innocence? There are two ways, either like Tiktaalik roseae, you can wait a long time or if you do not want to wait you can hypothetically travel back in time. Pure 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 pure or primitive innocence? Everybody understands what is meant by the old sayings innocent times, innocent days, time is a great healer, you made a monkey of yourself, what type of monkey do you take me for, you are an animal or it’s in the past, hence, relative absolution and pure innocence take these notions very far indeed. Hypothetical time travel (HTT) is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all, it is quite literally time for forgiveness, as in time for the purpose of forgiveness, and second of all, it is definitely about time for forgiveness as in today please. This double-pun is similar to the statements that bipedalism is the first step or the art of forgiveness. Bipedalism is the first step on the road to advancement and quite literally the first physical step. My art is the art of forgiveness as in it is art for the purpose of forgiveness and it is also the art of forgiveness, as in the martial arts. 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 animals or monkeys? Relative absolution and pure innocence are secular forgiveness, in that they deal with the genuine forgiveness of serious criminals such as genocidal megalomaniacs, cannibals and child abusers. Hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness is common sense, in that it is certain undeniable and self-evident truths. 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. Therefore, the more advanced you are the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the more innocent you are. Time for forgiveness is the best title or tag line for this blog, however, it is just a double-pun, it does not do anything. On the other hand, pure innocence travels in time. It locates and identifies old, primitive and obsolete technologies of the past and makes the people who used them more innocent. For example, once you understand the terms primitive innocence or pure innocence, when you remember something from the past, usually an obsolete technology or the negation of technology such as not having the internet, mobile phones or CDs etc, you can then instantly identify that technology and yourself as primitive or pure innocence. PI travels in time. For example, this blog started with the term primitive innocence. I really like this term because it so precisely describes what this blog is about or how it works, which is that the further you go back in time the more primitive and innocent animals such as Homo sapiens and life become. Using this primitive innocence with hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past, in theory we should be able to forgive all sins real or imaginable. However, primitive innocence is not temporal, relative or relevant. Therefore, I believe primitive innocence is philosophical. I even changed it to relative innocence at one point to try and inject a little time into it, but then I changed it into pure innocence, which again is non-temporal and philosophical. You may say why not ditch pure innocence, however, I believe it is essential. Although it is philosophical, I believe pure innocence helps us travels in time, for example, in the 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones and we did not understand smart things such as Spotify and FaceTime, therefore, we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. By this relatively recent example, we can see that this innocence becomes stronger or purer the further you go back in time. Therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent prehistoric people were? I believe prehistoric man was so primitive and innocent that they could literally get away with rape, killing and cannibalism etc. Therefore, I believe if we can hypothetically travel back in time to prehistory we could attain forgiveness, acceptance or relative innocence? That is, relative absolution? However, despite all this travelling in time, primitive or pure innocence is still non-temporal and philosophical, yet as you can see it is absolutely essential. For an example of 1980s primitive or pure innocence please watch the video of the song Shout by Tears for Fears (1985), specifically towards the end of the video, when all the people are dancing together. Note how the people are dancing. This is pure innocence! As will be seen much later in part 5, instead of ridiculing the recent past, such as Shout by Tears for Fears, we should try to say it or they were very innocent! If you think about it this ridicule only happens to famous people because for example, they were the only ones who were recorded on video in the 1980s etc, while the vast majority of us normal working class people did not even have camcorders in the 1980s. Although we had cameras, camcorders only became small enough and widespread enough in the 1990s, therefore, most people do not even have any videos of themselves in the 1980s! Compare this with the 2020s, with everybody having pocket-sized smart phones with 12 mega-pixel cameras etc! This is a primitive or pure innocence! If you think about it in terms of recorded history, most 1980s people do not have videos of themselves in the 1980s, therefore, most people in the Victorian period did not even have photographs of themselves in the Victorian period, therefore, most medieval people did not even have portraits of themselves in the medieval period, we know nothing about most medieval peasants apart a few words on a gravestone etc, probably not even that, therefore, ultimately we did not even know that prehistoric man existed until the 19th century! Surely this must mean that prehistoric man is the ultimate primitive or pure innocence? Therefore, the further you go back in time the pure the innocence. You do not need to go back far in time to such as prehistory to find pure innocence, in fact, the more recent examples demonstrate it even better! For example, I remember the days before electronic music when there was just rock and roll and pop music etc, with such bands as Bon Jovi, Guns n’ Roses, Duran Duran and Wham etc. I remember when I first heard electronic beats or music, with such songs as Good Life by Inner City (1988), Sesame’s treet by Smart e’s (that was the first time I heard proper electronic beats or rave music, I was mind blown, that was in 1992) etc. My generation are the original generation of electronic music, we saw the transition from rock to rave, from drum kits to drum machines. Any electronic music that you listen to today comes from my generation. My generation understand somethings that kids of today will likely never fathom. Acid house, early rave or basically just electronic music is our own primitive or pure innocence! You should try listening to Sesame’s treet by Smart e’s, listen to the drums, this was a breakthrough in 1992 and you can hear the primitive or pure innocence! Another example is that 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. 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 pure 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 pure 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 pure 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 pure innocence! Therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric people were? Prehistoric people were so primitive and innocent they could literally get away with rape, murder and cannibalism etc. Therefore, 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. For example, prehistoric man had no dentistry, and therefore, if they had an excruciating toothache, they had to somehow pull it out. 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 or unethical compared with Homo antecessor because they are anachronistic and out of place and in the wrong time, or in the wrong space and time.

To make it absolutely clear to you what this blog is about, I will reiterate. Ask yourself one question, do you want pure innocence? I bet I know your answer, yes. Everybody and everything since since life started wants pure innocence. pure innocence is life itself. What is pure innocence? We have all heard the old sayings innocent times, innocent days, time is a great healer, it’s in the past, you are an animal, what type of monkey do you take me for and you made a monkey of yourself etc. Hence, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel or time for forgiveness takes these notions very far indeed. Also, the further you go back in time, the more primitive animals such as humans were, therefore, the more innocent they were. Pure innocence makes us proud to be old, in fact it determines the older you are the prouder you are. Let’s take some examples. The more recent examples demonstrate it even better, in that in the 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones, we didn’t even have satellite TV, just four channel terrestrial TV and we still used newspaper TV guides, yellow pages, coal fires and environmentally unfriendly four star (leaded) petrol etc. Therefore, we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. 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 we are today. If you cannot remember the days before the internet and mobile phones or grew up with FaceTime and Spotify then you are much more advanced and therefore, less innocent, more guilty or culpable etc. In the 1980s we could have only imagined that a video call would be like something from Star Trek or the Aliens movies etc, we had no idea it would just be an app call FaceTime. This is pure innocence! And to us music was simply cassette tapes, we didn’t even have CDs, therefore, we had no idea that one day music would be streamed over the internet. In fact, we would not have understood what you meant by streamed or the internet. This is pure innocence! So on and so on. So you get the picture that the further you go back in time the more primitive and innocent life was? You may say how were the 1980s and 1990s more primitive and innocent than the 2020s? What could the 1980s and 1990s get away with that the 2020s cannot? For example cigarette advertising. I specifically remember the Embassy World Snooker Championships in the 1980s (Embassy was a cigarette brand) and I can also remember Hamlet cigar TV commercials with Russ Abbot, and I can also remember Silk Cut advertisements in magazines etc. I have been addicted to nicotine since I was 13 (1994), and I have loved nicotine ever since. I love that first hit in the morning. I use an e-cigarette these days, but obviously we did not have e-cigarettes in the 1990s. Again, this is a primitive or pure innocence! In the 1990s you could smoke anywhere you wanted, in pubs, clubs, restaurants, airports and airplanes etc, you name it anywhere. All this is probably a primitive or pure innocence. What does all this mean? By this relatively recent 1980s example, therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric people were? Prehistoric people were as primitive and innocent as newborn babies, and therefore, prehistoric people could literally get away with rape, murder and cannibalism etc. This is where forgiveness comes in. For example, cannibalism was ethical for Homo antecessor in Europe in the Lower Palaeolithic period, because Homo antecessor was so primitive and innocent and had infinitely less advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc than us smart cretins today. Therefore, the only reason cannibalism was so unethical for Jeffrey Dahmer was because he carried it out in America in the 20th century and because was advanced and because he did advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc. This is why Jeffrey Dahmer gets into so much trouble in the 20th century. Jeffrey Dahmer was anachronistic. He carried out his crimes in the wrong space and time. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer could somehow hypothetically travel back in time to the Lower Palaeolithic period, he might find forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence? On another note advanced technology such as smartphones and tablets are a temptation, in that that they tempt or lure us to exist in the present or future instead of the blissful, primitive and innocent past. Advanced technologies tempt us to ridicule the past, especially the recent past such as the 1980s and to look forward to the future instead. However, please remember, the secret of this blog is that the forgiveness of all sins real or imaginable is in the past. Also, as I have already stated that we are very proud of being old! We born in the 1980s etc understand some things that children of today can never fully grasp. Pure innocence makes us want to age like fine wine and be thousands of year old like Socrates and Plato etc.

Two short planks.

I am not the brightest of pennies, however, I tell you this, I was even less bright in the 1980s and 1990s. Hundreds of times thicker. Why? Because we had no internet, mobile phones or CDs etc. We had no Wikipedia, no Amazon, no kindles, no apps, no math problem solvers, there was nothing smart in our time whatsoever. All we had was just video tape players, ghetto blasters, dinosaur-like Casio calculators and stationery etc. And my father even had to use slide rules. We were as thick as anything in the past. If we wanted information or to keep up to date, we got it off the four channel TV, radio, newspapers and teletext, and was about it. To be honest, I am 39, and I didn’t even pick up a book until I was 35. Think about it, this example of not having the internet and smart phones etc in the 1980s and 1990s really proves that the further you go back in time the thicker it gets. You would probably say being thick is a bad thing yeah? Nope! Thickness is just primitive or pure innocence etc. Think about it, how thick was prehistoric man? How thick was Tiktaalik roseae? How thick was the very first protocell? Thickness is never a problem. As you will see by reading this blog, prehistoric man saves us all from our sins, no matter what we have done. Prehistoric man can solve any problem. Therefore, we are all very proud of our relative thickness in the past. There was no animosity 1980s and 1990s because we had no social media such as Twitter or Gab. Those decades were blissful, primitive and innocent etc. You kids are too smart. Where are you going in such a hurry with all this smart technology? To hell!? Do not forget about the past, it may come back to haunt you!

By God’s grace! Saying daaaang to God!? God is a DJ?

How did I come across primitive innocence, relative innocence or pure innocence? 

I figured out that the further you go back in time the more innocent people were from Matthew 21:9.

The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

It occurred to me that who on Earth would say “Hosanna in the highest heaven!” today except sarcastically? No one! Therefore, this led me to the conclusion that the people of Jesus’s day or the people of the past generally (who genuinely said such things as “Hosanna in the highest heaven!” without a shred of sarcasm) therefore, must have been much more innocent than us today? As you read this blog you will see that I occasionally state that because of the Holocaust and because they are advanced, that indigenous Europeans, have lost their pure innocence or Christian innocence, and that they may need to regain it? I honestly believe that most indigenous Europeans are actually handicapped today when it comes to Christian innocence and with saying such things as grace before dinner etc? It makes them squirm and uncomfortable. You may not believe that indigenous Europeans have lost their pure innocence or Christian innocence, but think about it. Like people comfortably and genuinely saying things like “Hosanna in the highest heaven!”, the vast majority of Europeans today do not sing hymns, say grace before meals or attend church etc. Church makes them uncomfortable and cringe a little. To reiterate, today, saying grace before dinner makes modern Europeans Christians very uncomfortable. At my school, saying grace before dinner was compulsory up to the age of 10. We had to say, “For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful!” I will never forget it! However, most Europeans are uncomfortable singing hymns and being in church today etc. Saying things like “with the riches of God’s grace” is rare today, as such religious language is no longer fashionable or used and it makes us cringe or uncomfortable a little. For example, I myself am so indoctrinated in the western, capitalist and materialistic so called ‘Christian’ way of life and ‘values’ that I totally take for granted that taking the Lord’s name in vain is not a real consequential sin? Gheeze! I must take the Lord’s name in vain everyday! However, not or never taking the Lord’s name in vain is probably very good pure or Christian innocence? Also, I have never observed the abstinence of eating meat on Good Friday either, however, the problem to me is that McDonald’s and Subway etc are still actually open on Good Friday. Why? It is the western, capitalist and materialistic so called ‘Christian’ way of life, that gives us the option to eat meat on Good Friday? It is freedom of religion and freedom of choice? Even abortion is the freedom of choice? Why? Surely McDonald’s or Subway will not go bankrupt for closing it’s doors one day of the year for one holy Christian fast? Do the Muslims get a choice to participate in Ramadan? No! Let me guess, you are about to say daaaaang! (to God)? Anyway, they call such trends and the decrease in church attendance in western societies the death of Christianity. Obviously, regular church attendance, singing hymns and saying such things as “with the riches of God’s grace” is no longer fashionable? But this is not a good thing, because it is our pure innocence or Christian innocence! We Europeans are too fashionable, cool and hip today and this demonstrates that we have lost our pure innocence or Christian innocence. For example, the term ‘wicked’ has come to mean something good, I mean why not have the term ‘evil’ to mean something good as well? Only 100 or 200 years ago people were still innocent enough to regularly attend church, sing hymns, say grace before dinner and use religious language etc. Growing up in Africa, I believe that most indigenous Africans have retained a lot of their pure innocence or Christian innocence, as they still regularly attend church and use religious language etc. For example, if you ask an African how he or she is doing today, it is not uncommon for them to reply “Oh, by God‘s grace!” or “By His grace!” And, this means ‘I am well’. Similarly, are Muslims uncomfortable with their faith? Do they cringe when they pray or say things like “The Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him”? No! It is only indigenous European Christians who are uncomfortable with their own faith. It is only indigenous European Christians who have lost their pure innocence or Christian innocence! Trust me, I am the worst sinner with this Christian innocence and I know from my own weak or vain constitution and disposition how hard it is to say things like grace before meals etc. In fact, I believe Christian innocence is probably a privilege and that God may have removed that grace from us indigenous Europeans because of the Holocaust? To reiterate, I believe that indigenous European Christians are handicapped today with Christian innocence and using such religious language etc? To prove this, the next time your bro or blood asks you how’s it hanging, try replying to him with “By God’s grace” and without any sarcasm. Or try saying grace before a meal without giving the whole room the ‘wet willies’, and I do not mean rub a dub dub, thanks for the grub! I think that (even though it is not their fault) with superstar trance and house DJs spinning the wheels of steel in clubs today, it is hard for young indigenous Europeans not to say daaaang to God! This is why we are handicapped with attending church, singing hymns, saying grace before meals and with Christian innocence etc. I have taught myself to properly beat match and mix trance and techno music since April 2019, and I am very good at it. Let me tell you mixing and beat matching is unbelievably cool. However, I have also tried my hand a scratching, and let me tell you, even though I cannot do it, there is literally nothing as cool on the planet! Scratching practically forces us to say daaaaang to God! Scratching is what vicars, priests and the church are up against? The pope is no competition to a scratch DJ. Trust me, if you can scratch you are a God! You can tell that scratching is an American invention, and that it was probably invented by African Americans, which is ironic in that real indigenous Africans are still so purely innocent and still greet you by saying things like “By His grace!” It also ironic that Europeans are a little more reserved than Americans when it comes to scratching, in that Europeans traditionally prefer just the beat matching and mixing of trance and techno music in clubs etc. This reservedness or conservatism with scratching in the European music scene, could be a little European pure innocence? Scratching basically determines that you have to use hip hop, which is traditionally an American or African American genre of music. Anyway, to reiterate, I think that for example, (even though it is not their fault), because superstar DJs are so unbelievably and wickedly cool, rocking the house and spinning the wheels of steel in clubs etc, that it somehow makes us actually say daaaang to God! Even though I am a hypocrite and I do not mean it literally, I believe that we should metaphorically somehow try saying grace, rather than saying daaaang to God! So if it is not the DJs fault, then whose fault is it? It could be the same powers that be which permit McDonald’s and Subway to stay open for business on Good Friday or it could just be another consequence of Adolf Hitler?

What has relativism got to do with crime?

Time! Crime and sin are relative, because for example, slavery and statutory rape were legal or more acceptable in the ancient, medieval and Victorian periods. Therefore, the only issue with modern crimes is that they are anachronistic, in that they are out of place or in the wrong space and 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. In fact, I believe that time (or this blog) would be a very good thing to study or read in prison?

How can you travel back in time?

Hypothetical time travel (HTT).

I think the idea of this blog that 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, is not absolute, not universal, not fundamental, is relative and flexible etc has a lot to do with seeming. Crimes and sins seem different in different places and different times or in different frames of reference. It is relative. For example, slavery seems very inhumane to us today in Britain, however, it seemed alright prior to 1833 in Britain. And what we call statutory rape today in Britain seems unbelievably horrible to us, however, prior to 1885 it relatively seemed alright? Therefore, seeming has a lot to do with relativism and frame of reference, because what seems bad to one observer in one place and time does not seem as bad to another observer in a another place and another time.

As mentioned at the beginning, we might as well get one thing out of the way right now, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT). You may say what type of monkey do you take me for? I would say I don’t know it entirely depends on the severity of your sins and how far back in time you have to go? However, if you read this blog I will prove to you some people do actually make monkeys of themselves. Therefore, hypothetical time travel (HTT) is not fact today, it is a hypothesis, a proposal or a proposition. The one and only uncertainty in this blog that I have to ask you to believe in or have faith in is hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel, specifically time travel to the past, and never the future. The whole blog hangs on this crux of hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past and therefore, it is the blog’s only exposed part or Achilles heel. I am fully aware that the second law of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics determine that physical time travel to the past (in life or on Earth) is impossible, however, what about the afterlife?

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%).

Would it truly be heaven if we could not see or study extinct creatures of the past such as dinosaurs or Australopithecus afarensis in the afterlife? Therefore, this blog gives us the noble and necessary reason or desire for hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past in the afterlife. To reiterate, hypothetical time travel (HTT) is the only uncertainty of this blog and the only thing that I will ask you to have faith in and to go out on a limb with. 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? There may also be philosophical, ethical or moral laws or reasons which prevent time travel to the past, for example, imagine if we could travel back in time to the Upper Palaeolithic period to Lascaux or Chauvet in France, the sites of the famous prehistoric cave paintings. Imagine if we could show these prehistoric cave painters 21st century photorealistic 3D animations of animals on a iPad? Although they would probably be amazed and think it was magic, there is something very wrong in this scenario. Relatively, it’s ridiculous! Prehistoric cave paintings are sacred, timeless and priceless, whereas photorealistic 3D animations are complete worthless rubbish (trust me I have a Computer Animation degree). All that I am saying is that relative absolution, pure innocence, crime travel, or time for forgiveness may give us the correct moral or ethical reasons for hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past in the afterlife? Therefore, hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past is impossible in life or on Earth, however, I believe it may be possible in the afterlife? All that saying is that if in the remotest possibility hypothetical time travel (HTT) were possible either in the afterlife or future, then at least we can therefore imagine the forgiveness of such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile? For example, as a palaeobotanist would you not wish to be able to travel to the past in the afterlife, 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 wish they could hypothetically time travel to the past in the afterlife? To reiterate, in the afterlife wouldn’t you wish to be able to see real and alive dinosaurs, in the Jurassic or Cretaceous periods? I know it’s a wish but don’t you kind of presume it wouldn’t be heaven otherwise? There are many intellectual reasons for hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past in the afterlife. So please do not take me too literally when I say, ‘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 hypothetically went back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have relative innocence?’ To reiterate, what I mean by hypothetical time travel (HTT) or time for forgiveness in order to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence is that 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, is not absolute, not universal, not fundamental, is relative and flexible etc. What I mean by this is that laws or crimes seem different in different places and different times. For example, the first age of consent was set in England, at age 12 (Westminster 1 statute) in 1275, and the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland in 1875, then the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 raised the age of consent to 16. Therefore, relatively what seems statutory rape to us in Britain in the 21st century, did not seem statutory rape in the Victorian period. It is relative and frame of reference. This could determine that if such as Adam Johnson (who had relations with 15 year old) or Jimmy Savile could travel backwards in time to the Victorian or medieval periods in the afterlife, then in or from this frame of reference, they might seem relatively less guilty? They may attain relative innocence, acceptance and forgiveness?

Figure 7. Victorian (pre-1875) Jimmy Savile, against fence.

Please remember crime travel or crime time is an idea or hypothesis, which is that if or as along as a criminal or sinner can hypothetically travel back in time and/or make him or herself equal to or the equivalent of an animal, ape, primitive hominin, ancient, medieval or Victorian human etc, then in theory all crimes or sins real or imaginable can be forgiven. Therefore, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT) for criminals in order to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. In the context of this blog, time and relativism were adventitious discoveries. Initially I had absolutely no interest in time or relativism whatsoever, in fact, I spent the best part of a year just dealing with primitivism, innocence and forgiveness, and I did not even consider time or relativism. 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 relativism. Therefore, obviously I had/have absolutely no desire to prove how physical time travel to the past was/is possible. Only that the implications of the link between primitivism/innocence and time/relativism, led me to the conclusion that hypothetical time travel (HTT) (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! Hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past is only the secondary motivation. I think this may mean 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 may need to be a much more noble, altruistic and compassionate concept than that? That concept may need to be the genuine forgiveness of all sins? To reiterate, obviously I am in no way 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. For example, as an archaeologist, palaeontologist or anthropologist wouldn’t you really wish or have the desire to be able to travel back in time in the afterlife to study genuine, real and alive ancient creatures in their own time periods and natural environments? Would it be heaven if we could not meet archaic hominins such as Homo antecessor and Australopithecus afarensis? Wouldn’t Donald Johanson and Tom Gray wish 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 hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past in the afterlife is possible we do not know, only the intellectual requirement is there! All that I am saying is that at least we have the noble or ethical reason, desire or purpose.

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).

In the 1980s and 1990s, I think we were possibly a little more gullible, naive and superstitious than we are today, which could also related to innocence? We tended to believe a little more in ghosts, mysteries, myths and phenomena such as UFOs, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and crop circles etc. There was a fad for UFOs in the 1990s which possibly 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 possibly 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 early modern people had a predilection to believe in witches and early medieval people had an inclination to believe in miracles etc. And remember, do not forget about the past, it may come back to haunt you!

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 pure innocence! Unfortunately, we born in the 1980s were spoiled as children at Christmas, we received anything we wanted, for example, an Atari, a Commodore 64 or an Amiga etc, plus all the sweets and chocolate we could ever eat. What does this mean? It means we should look forward to the past, meaning we should look forward to ageing like fine wine and being very old indeed, imagine being 1000s of years old, like Plato and Socrates, instead of childishly seeking youth. 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 relative absolution and pure 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 pure innocence, we can grow old gracefully. Considering the 1980s were more primitive and innocent than today, how primitive and innocent (or thick) 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?

To reiterate, 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 1970s 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 1980s and 1990s if you wanted to listen to music properly 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 us in the 1980s this would simply have been incomprehensible. To wrap it up I remember the Atari, the Commodore 64 and the Amiga 500. Pure 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. Pure 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 early 1980s etc do you consider yourself a generation X person or a millennial? 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 generation X, twentieth-century and second-millennium type! Even those born recently in the 1990s and 2000s desire pure 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. Also can you remember ball mice? That is a good one! Youth is the most attractive and desirable condition down here on Earth, however, I believe the opposite is true in the afterlife, in that the older you become the greater and more graceful, famous and illustrious you become. This could determine that in the afterlife the older you are the more beautiful and attractive you are? Therefore, respect your elders today, as although octogenarian women down here in life are not attractive to us, they can whip your ass with pure innocence, plus in the afterlife they will be fit birds!

To reiterate, technology is very much like evolution, in that it constantly evolves and becomes more advanced every 6 months or so. Like evolution and genetic mutations, technology tempts us into a mad dash for the latest, most advanced and most highly evolved technologies. For example, all those amazing gifts we children of the 1980s received at Christmas such as Ataris, Commodore 64s, Amigas and Nintendos etc have all become worthless junk. Like evolution 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 to ridicule the unfashionable, dinosaur-like and knuckle dragging 1980s and to exist in the fashionable, advanced and smart 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 relative absolution and pure 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 relative absolution and pure 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 pure innocence! I can also remember ball mice, 8-inch, 5 & 1⁄4-inch, and 3 & 1⁄2-inch floppy disks etc. For an example of primitive or pure innocence, consider the very first iPhone which was released on June 29, 2007. In 2020 this very first iPhone is relatively absolute junk to us and you couldn’t pay someone to have or use it, however, give it a few hundred years and the first iPhone might age like fine wine and become holy, classical and have priceless historical antique value? It’s relative.

Responsibilities.

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. There are definitely at least two converse ways in which one can be primitive or advanced. For example, we can use the term ‘early men’ as in cavemen, who are much older than us, and are as primitive and innocent as a new born babies. Or we can use the term ‘early years’ as in infants, who are younger than us, and are as primitive and innocent as new born babies. The former is older than us, yet more primitive and innocent than us, while the latter is younger than us, yet more primitive and innocent than us. Either way, this means that if you are alive and mature enough to read this blog then YOU are advanced, less innocent, more culpable and guilty etc. Using time I have tried to label them as follows:

  1. Early-primitive/late-advanced: The earlier you are the more primitive you are, therefore the more innocent you are. The later you are the more advanced you are, 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 earlier and more ancient, therefore, they were more primitive, and therefore more innocent.
    • This means that Jeffrey Dahmer got into much more trouble for cannibalism than did Homo antecessor, because Jeffrey Dahmer was later and more modern, therefore, he was more advanced, and therefore less innocent.
    • This means that later and more advanced countries such as America are less innocent than earlier more primitive countries such as Muslim countries. This determines that Muslim countries can, therefore, get away with more violence than America.
  2. Early-primitive/late-advanced: The younger you are the more primitive you are therefore the more innocent you are. The older you are the more advanced you are 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, 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, 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 Edward Colston from our high and mighty frame of reference. Apart from the Holocaust, you cannot condemn the past. This is because relatively there was nothing wrong with such acts in those periods. It is only in the 20th and 21st-century frame of reference that slavery seems abhorrent. We should not judge primitive people such as Henry the Navigator, Jean Barbot or Edward Colston, even the Old and New Testaments, Plato and Aristotle spoke positively of slavery. Are you going to pull down statues of Plato or Aristotle? 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 relativism. 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).

Ethics.

How is crime or sin relative?

Hypothetical time travel (HTT) 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! I believe that there is forgiveness for absolutely everything in the afterlife, including the Holocaust, however, remember forgiveness is never justification. 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 blog) 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 appalling. 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 modern 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 ancient 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. The only difference between Homo antecessor and Jeffrey Dahmer is time. It was ethical for Homo antecessor to kill and cannibalise in Europe in the Lower Palaeolithic because they had less advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure than us and because it was such a long time ago. Therefore, it was unethical for Jeffrey Dahmer to cannibalise in America in the 20th century because he did have advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure and because he was much more recent. Therefore, as I have proven I believe time and advancement is what makes cannibalism unethical for Jeffrey Dahmer in America in the 20th century. For example, it is only unethical for us to rape, kill and cannibalise today because of our advanced time and because we have the internet, CDs and iPhones etc. Therefore, you can say to Jeffrey Dahmer, it was so unethical because you did it in the 20th century and because you had computers, CDs and colour television etc. Therefore, as will be seen, if such as Jeffrey Dahmer became, thought like or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric, ape or even animal, then his sins would be much lighter. Only with these primitive hominids and in these places and times could he be accepted and forgiven. Time determines that Jeffrey Dahmer was relatively unethical that is the main difference.

Figure 8. Lower Palaeolithic (Homo habilis) Jeffrey Dahmer, with posture and rock.

How do you practice relative absolution and pure innocence?

Primarily with forgiveness but I also practice generosity. RA and PI 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 £465 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 £225 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. Relative absolution and pure 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).

When you give to someone in need, don’t do as the hypocrites do–blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

(Matthew 6:2-4).

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).

2. PURE INNOCENCE (PI).

Pedantry.

Travelling to Africa is a bit like travelling back in time, therefore, sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world can give us many examples of pure innocence. For example, growing up in Africa, I believe that most indigenous Africans have retained a lot of their pure innocence or Christian innocence, as they still regularly attend church and frequently use religious language etc. For example, if you ask an African how he or she is doing today, it is not uncommon for them to reply “Oh, by God‘s grace!” And, this means ‘I am well’. Similarly, are Muslims uncomfortable with their faith? Do they cringe when they pray or say things like “The Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him”? No! It is only indigenous European Christians who are uncomfortable with their own faith. It is only indigenous European Christians who have lost their pure innocence or Christian innocence! For example, Africans are innocent and funny a bit 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 and pedantic indigenous Europeans 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, it always astonishes me how 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? This extreme disparity concerning nakedness between Africa and Europe always perplexes me when I compare the two scenarios. I have thought about such differences long and hard, and to explain this massive difference between Africans and the Europeans concerning public nakedness consider this. With sounding politically incorrect, I believe that although it is definitely a case of Africans are more primitive and Europeans are more advanced, however, I believe that temperature is also probably a reason why there is the huge difference. This is because natural selection could determine 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? Another example is that drink driving (especially in the bush) is not an issue in the continent of Africa, in fact, it is a bit of a tradition, 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! Why is drink driving a tradition in Africa and an absolute no no in the UK? Because Africa is more primitive and the UK is more advanced. Which would you prefer? Again think this proves that the law is not absolute, for example, getting drunk and driving in the middle of the Sahara desert where there is nobody around for 100s of miles, or the bush of tropical Africa is not the same as getting drunk and driving in the densely populated and highly urbanised civilisation of the United Kingdom. It entirely depends on where and when you drink and drive. Which would you prefer? This difference, could prove that the law is not absolute, in that if you have highly developed or advanced infrastructure such as roads, motorways, bridges, flyovers and streetlights etc, then you cannot drink and drive. However, if you have less developed and primitive infrastructure such as mud roads with giant potholes and no streetlights etc, then you can drink and drive. Which would you prefer? 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 of the same pedantic high standards 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. Again Europeans are quite pedantic with safety. When learning to ride a motorbike in Ghana in 2012 my Muslim ‘instructor’ and I shared one bike and one helmet. Also, there are no L plates or overdramatic and pedantic 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-framed 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.

Although the above makeshift bridge is lethal, Africans are nowhere near as pedantic as Europeans about such health hazards. 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 pure 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 the locals 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). Also, Onyinasi in Obuasi 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, 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. Guava or common guava (Psidium guajava) was also a favourite, the West African equivalent of a mars bar in the 1980s! Pawpaw (Carica papaya) was also on the menu, not my favourite though. Carambola, or star fruit (Averrhoa carambola) were also there. Very sour! Cocoa (Theobroma cacao) was also there to be found, it had sweet fleshy beans in the centre. 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, extradite and incarcerate them? No! You might as well send a lion 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. Because the un-contacted Amazonians are primitive, they do not live under our laws or jurisdiction. I think it is a case of magnanimity and omnipotent compassion. For example, you could say that the Amazonians were warriors? Therefore, was it an act of war? If it was it would hardly be a fair contest, that is the might of the (advanced) British army against a (primitive) tribe of un-contacted Amazonians? It is similar to our compassion toward animals, for example, when a lion kills a human we do not declare war on lions. Therefore, as will be seen later in the next part of this blog, this determines that the reason that the British are magnanimous and compassionate towards un-contacted Amazonians (and lions) is ironically because they have highly advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure etc. This is compassion omnipotence as will be seen later. 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. Pure innocence! Relatively, they have done nothing wrong! We should bear this in mind when judging and condemning our own cannibals and murderers in the developed world. It is only a matter of relativism. For example, because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in America 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 ‘unethical’ compared to Homo antecessor or indigenous Amazonians is that Jeffrey Dahmer carried it out in America in the 20th century and because he was advanced. You may say Homo antecessor only cannibalised when they were hungry and this why it was ethical for Homo antecessor to cannibalise, not necessarily time. Jeffrey Dahmer did not need to cannibalise because he was never hungry, he could have always have gone to the supermarket or his fridge to eat. Yes but the only reason Jeffrey Dahmer is never hungry is because he was advanced and as will be seen shortly the food in our kitchens involves supermarkets, farmers, abattoirs, butchers, factories, food processors and packagers etc. How we feed ourselves and the whole nation today is an highly advanced and collective effort that is only possible through being an highly advanced civilisation? Being so advanced implies much time has passed. Also, like prehistoric man (sometimes) and native Americans such as the Aztecs (who practiced ritual human sacrifice and ate human flesh ritualistically), also Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism was also probably ritualistic? Jeffrey Dahmer ate human hearts to feel at one with his victims. Therefore, the state of being hungry is not the only excuse for cannibalism, but primitivism and time are. Some prehistoric people probably enjoyed cannibalism, but would you judge them? No! It is only a matter of relativity or relativism. 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).

Figure 9. Middle Palaeolithic Adolf Hitler, hunting and aiming spear.

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 hypothetically 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)

For example, consider this. In the 21st century the United States of America is the most advanced country or civilisation the world has ever seen. In my lifetime (since 1981) I have witnessed the great American digital revolution, with personal computers, Microsoft, laptops, the internet, broadband, Bluetooth, iPhones and iPads etc. The list is enormous. Since the 1970s America has conquered the world with its technology. Because of America, the world has never advanced so much in so short a time. You may think this is a good thing, and it is, however, consider this. Because of all this unbelievably smart technology and because America is so advanced, the downside is that America is much less innocent and unbelievably more culpable or guilty than it was 40 or 50 years ago. For example, if I were an American today, I would think a thousand times before committing cannibalism. Think about it. Think of Homo antecessor (who was cannibalistic) and the Lower Palaeolithic Europe (which for argument’s sake, is the only place and time where cannibalism was acceptable) and compare that with 21st century America. The difference between these two places and times is too extreme. If you commit cannibalism in America today, you would suffer because America is so advanced. The difference between extremely primitive Lower Palaeolithic Europe and highly advanced 21st century America is too much. However, then consider this. What about Africans in the 21st century, such as the Southern African bushmen. Even today in the 21st century they are primitive and still live in mud huts and use bows and arrows to hunt game etc, therefore, would Africans or bushmen get into quite the same amount of trouble as an American if they committed cannibalism today? Probably not. To be honest, today it might not be a case of when you commit cannibalism in Africa, but where. For example, Accra, the capital of Ghana, is very highly developed, modern and urbanised, therefore, to commit cannibalism in Accra in the 21st century is probably similar to committing cannibalism in Milwaukee (like Jeffrey Dahmer) in the 20th century? However, in the remoter regions of Africa, such as the bush and jungle, it may be slightly less of a problem? Committing cannibalism today in Accra as opposed to the bush really highlights that is the state of being advanced and highly developed that makes cannibalism unethical. To commit cannibalism today in Accra is murder, however, for bushmen to cannibalise in the bush and jungles of Africa it may be slightly less of a problem? You may say this sounds ridiculous, but go back only 100 or 200 years in Africa and cannibalism was probably slightly less of a problem? This is why such as Jeffrey Dahmer gets into so much trouble for modern cannibalism in America in the 20th century, because he is relatively more advanced and therefore, less innocent and more culpable.

How do they do it? Appreciate your food!

As another example consider Africa, most if not all of Africa is relatively westernised or civilised, certainly contacted, although there are hunter-gatherer bushmen in Southern Africa for example. In the 1980s in Ghana, you still saw people who had never seen an indigenous European 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 could highlight 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 killing another human 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, it is more likely 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 manslaughter or homicide. Which would you prefer? Most people would say Persimmons, Shoprite and ASDA, but then you would have to watch yourself. Do not, for example, go drink driving (another African custom) and accidentally kill someone. However, some people such as bushmen would probably say mud huts and gazelle? You may say how does shopping at ASDA make me advanced? Think about it in terms of caveman and hunting. Even though I am utterly ignorant, supermarkets such as ASDA and Tesco must be mind-bogglingly ginormous, national and global logistical operations? That is how we ‘hunt’ and ‘gather’ today. The food in our kitchens involves farmers, abattoirs, butchers, factories, food processors and packagers etc. How we feed ourselves and the whole nation today is surely a very advanced and collective effort that is only possible through being an highly advanced civilisation? Think of even the amazing and genius engineering that goes into the manufacturing, food processing and packaging factories etc. How do they pod so many peas or shell so many pecan nuts and package them on such an industrial scale? We have all tried cracking nuts at Christmas and can understand how hard it is to get a single whole nut out of the shell without smashing it? So how do they do it? It is advanced. Therefore, think of all that next time you are gorging your 99p blueberries from Chile or your £1.50 strawberries from Morocco or your £3.00 lamb from New Zealand etc. Supermarkets are just that, super! Supermarkets as well as manufacturers, food processors and packagers etc are seriously under rewarded and under appreciated services and amenities by us ignorant grocery shoppers and customers. So therefore appreciate your supermarkets and appreciate your food! Therefore, know that because you live in an advanced western society and because you do your shopping in a supermarket, that you are therefore, highly advanced, therefore, you are more responsible and therefore, you are less innocent than a bushman or prehistoric man etc. YHWH is watching you!

Relative barbarism.

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 duelling, fox hunting, gladiators and cannibalism etc. Why was duelling considered a gentlemanly way to resolve disputes in the 19th century and earlier? Why was fox hunting more acceptable in the 20th-century and earlier British society? Think about it, fox hunting is a pure innocence that children of today and people of the future can never have or understand. In hundreds of years time, people will look back at the 20th century and say ‘oh my God, how did they ever allow fox hunting? They were so barbaric in the 20th century!’ This is pure innocence! It is relative, like how we can never appreciate or understand how the Romans had gladiatorial sports, and the Romans presumably would never appreciate or understand how prehistoric people were cannibalistic, people of the future will look back at the 20th century and say ‘oh my god, how barbaric!’ Therefore, like slavery, is fox hunting a curse for us 20th century people? Similarly, is gladiatorial combat an embarrassment for the Romans? Is cannibalism a shame for prehistoric people? No! Of course it isn’t! It is pure innocence and we are all proud of our relative barbarism! Why was gladiatorial combat deemed acceptable in ancient times? Why was cannibalism deemed acceptable in prehistoric times? We all vehemently claim pure innocence! Older people had more primitive weapons, technologies and infrastructure therefore, they were less compassionate towards foxes, gladiators and other people etc. Therefore, again we should not judge 19th and 20th century people for duelling or fox hunting, Romans for gladiatorial spectacles or prehistoric people for cannibalism etc. This is because they were much more primitive technologically and therefore, more innocent for their (and our) relatively barbaric sports. We should bear this mind when condemning people today, it is simply a case of relativism. 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 indigenous Europeans deem rugby acceptable or that the risk is worth it! Another controversial example of pure innocence is corporal punishment in schools. I cannot remember corporal punishment, and was never physically punished by a teacher at my school, however, I was a little acratic when I was young and probably could have used it? A lot of parents today are so protective of their children, and threaten teachers by saying things like ‘don’t you lay hands on my child!’ etc. However, teachers that practiced corporal punishment in the 1950s and 1960s would all claim pure innocence! Both my parents and grandparents told me stories of receiving corporal punishment at their schools, however, I think my generation look back at corporal punishment and see it as an overly strict, rough and possibly barbaric practice. However, people who can remember and who received corporal punishment at school are probably very proud of that fact and can therefore look down on us soft wimps of the 1980s and 1990s etc. Corporal punishment is their own pure innocence! 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? Relative absolution and pure 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 indigenous Europeans, and that indigenous Europeans have lost their pure innocence because of the Holocaust. The Nazis proved that being advanced failed. Therefore, being advanced is not relevant today. Even though indigenous Europeans have nuclear submarines and Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers etc, because of the Holocaust none of this advanced technology and engineering matters. They cannot overcome anti-racism and human rights. Therefore, today, the third world is the real winner. 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 relative absolution and pure 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 often ridicule 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! Remember to respect your elders today, as although nonagenarian women are not attractive to us, they can whip your arse with pure innocence! Also in the afterlife they will be hot chicks! You do not need qualifications to practice or teach relative absolution and pure 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, when CDs came out and fox hunting etc. I have asked my Mother who was born in the 1953 and she can remember the following: no tumblers or washing machines, hence, they used 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 1930s/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 less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive the more innocent you are.

Relative freedom.

Was there more or less freedom in the past? This is not as so straightforward a question as one might think. For example, for hundreds or thousands of years people have fought and died for their civil liberties, political rights and freedoms etc. For example, in England we had the Barons’ Wars of the 13 century, Magna Carta, the English Civil War and the struggle against absolute monarchy or the ‘divine right’ of kings and the slow establishment of a constitutional monarchy etc. For thousands of years people have struggled for their liberties against monarchy and tyranny etc. Therefore, the instant thought is that the further you go back in time the less freedom people had? Or our automatic thought is that we humans have never been as free as we are today in the 21st century? However, contrary to contemporary popular opinion or consensus consider the following. I think there is another way in which we can look at freedom that goes against the grain. For example, did prehistoric man such as Homo erectus have the freedom to rape, kill and cannibalise anyone he wanted at will? Did Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin have more freedom than us today when he removed about half of the surviving sculptures of the Parthenon (known as the Elgin marbles), between 1801 to 1812? Did Italian explorer Giuseppe Ferlini have more freedom than us today when he blew up several of the Meroe pyramids in Sudan in his search for treasure in the 1800s, leaving many of the tombs missing their pointy tops? Did Christopher Columbus have more freedom than us today when he sailed across the Atlantic and discovered the New World? Did Captain James Cook have more freedom than we have today when he made his three voyages to the Pacific Ocean, during which he achieved the first recorded European contact with the eastern coastline of Australia, the Hawaiian islands and the first recorded circumnavigation of New Zealand? Did he or indeed did the British in general have more freedom in the past to sail to anywhere on Earth they wanted at will? Did we not have more freedom when we could go anywhere on Earth we wanted without passports or visas? Did Napoleon Bonaparte have more freedom than us today when commenced the French campaign in Egypt and Syria (1798–1801)? Did he have more freedom than us today when he brought back the Rosetta Stone to Europe? Therefore, I think it depends on who you are talking about and what kind of freedom you are talking about? For example, to people of African descent there was probably less freedom in the past, because of slavery and apartheid etc, but for Europeans there may have been more freedom in the past? Concerning the types of progressive freedoms that we supposedly enjoy today, are they not possibly degenerate? We seem to be just breaking down conservative barriers with such as Monty Python’s The Life of Brian film, which was banned in the U.K. in 1980s, but which seems trivial to us today. And for example, is it not simply just such as the freedoms of the Jackass TV show that we have, or is it not just freedom of sexuality that we ‘enjoy’ today? Do we need or even want these freedoms? You may say for example, how did such as ancient, medieval or Victorian people have more freedom than we do today? As a simple thought experiment consider the importation of exotic wild animals into Britain or Europe. In the ancient, medieval or Victorian periods etc it was probably a lot easier for a trader or an explorer to bring back say a tiger from India or a cheetah from Africa into Britain or Europe. There would have been no health and safety rules or regulations, no quarantines or red tape etc in order to import an exotic wild animal into Britain or Europe. In the medieval period, it was probably just a case of putting the animal into a box and into the cargo hold of a ship and then unloading it when you arrived at your destination? This is a freedom that we do not have today? In 2010 I smuggled a real 12 foot, boa constrictor snake skin back from Ghana to the U.K., through Kotoka International Airport, Heathrow and Newcastle Airport. I was petrified. And we have all watched the TV show Border Control in Australia, and we know how pedantic the Australian customs officials are with even food and seeds etc, which they frequently say “could cause billions of dollars of environmental damage to Australia.” For example, during the colonisation of the new world, imported European diseases such as small pox nearly wiped out the native Americans, but that did not stop the Europeans migrating to America? So therefore, think about it. Do we Europeans have more freedom today than in the past? I think the above examples may suggest that in a way, the further you go back in time, the more freedom humans had, for example, prehistoric man had or lived by no laws and was therefore, a law unto himself. Perhaps we confuse standards of living and economic wealth with freedom, in that we are all much wealthier today than in the past, but this does not mean we are more free?

3. PHEW! PREHISTORIC MAN OUR SAVIOUR.

The art of forgiveness.

Figure 10. Upper Palaeolithic Adolf Hitler, cave painting.

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 ancient Egyptians who invented recorded history (note it was actually the Sumerians who invented systemic phoneticism) 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. Also, were there laws in the sense that we know and understand them today before the invention of writing? I mean were there oral or verbal laws in prehistory? There probably were verbal laws in prehistory, but I doubt they carried as much weight as written laws do today? In fact, moral law as we know it is probably closely related to the invention and development of systemic phoneticism (or writing). In fact, in terms of prehistory, at the time Homo sapiens invented writing or systemic phoneticism they probably lost a lot of pure innocence? To lose one’s pure innocence could be like losing one’s virginity, in that for example, when a revolutionary new invention such systemic phoneticism is created, discovered or understood for the first time, it is as if humanity has lost some of its virginity and innocence? 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. As mentioned earlier, despite how it may or may not look to you, there is no racism in this blog. I have removed all of it. However, as you will see this blog is entirely about the past and our ancestors such as prehistoric man, medieval and Victorian people etc, therefore, the distinction between me and anti-racists or to be honest even most average people, is that I really care about our ancestors, whereas anti-racists out right do not care about our ancestors and the ‘knuckle dragging’ past and normal people are either cynical or blasé about the afterlife and our ancestors etc. To care about our ancestors is a very good thing as there is nothing in the future. I will state again that I couldn’t give a monkeys about the future!

Compassion.

Animals have little or no compassion for example animals rarely take care of their own sick and injured and certainly do not conserve other species as humans do. An example is that male lions will kill all the cubs of other male lions with absolutely no regret. There is no such thing as a stepdad or foster father lion. I think the further you go back in time the less and less compassion hominins had. You may say how were 1980s less compassionate than the 2020s? Well it is hard to see less compassion in the recent past, but for example, because of the Holocaust, clearly the 1930s and 1940s were less compassionate than us today? (Please make note of this less compassion in the 1930s and 1940s for later concerning Adolf Hitler). For example, certainly 17th century Europeans were much 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 probably 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 and omnipotent as us today. For example, they had no tanks, therefore, ironically, if you have tanks you can be more compassionate towards animals and each other. This irony could determine that the real purpose of advanced and lethal weapons is compassion towards animals and each other? It is a pity that the British and Germans did not understand this ironic use of weapons during the build up to World War One, when they had a huge arms race, and then put them all to disastrous use. 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 ethical conservation of other species as we do today. And the Romans were less compassionate than us because they enslaved, and had gladiatorial sports for entertainment etc (how unchristian?). 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 and omnipotent masters of the world as we are today. For example, how could Australopithecus or Lower Palaeolithic man have been compassionate toward animals, when they themselves were not yet omnipotent masters of the animal kingdom or even worse still prey themselves? It is impossible, compassion simply did not exist. Compassion is omnipotence, in that you must, for instance, first attain advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure such as gunpowder, muskets, rifles, tanks and nuclear warheads etc before you can be compassionate toward animals. It is not a case of 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 omnipotent and 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. Compassion is like kindness or generosity, in that, generally speaking, you can only be kind or generous with your money, food or energy if you have enough or a surplus. If you have £10 to your name it’s harder to be kind or generous than if you have £500. Prehistoric man needed to kill, it is simple if they did not kill they would die. 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 relatively 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 omnipotent masters of the animal kingdom. It is like saying to ‘bear’ ‘I have a nuke now, therefore I am compassionate toward you.’ This is something bear will never understand, in that it is ironic that once you attain nuclear weapons that you are therefore by definition compassionate toward animals. Therefore, the Buddha and Jesus Christ could never have come a prehistoric men. Also without recorded history, they would never have been famous or remembered. To reiterate, compassion is omnipotence, 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.

Examples of possible requirements of compassion (not literal):

  1. Must be omnipotent?
  2. Must have attained relatively advanced weapons, technology and infrastructure, such as gunpowder, rifles, cannons, nuclear weapons, tanks, military, police, emergency services, roads, buildings and bridges etc?
  3. Must be masters of the world and the animal kingdom?
  4. Must no more or rarely be prey?
  5. Must be top of the food chain?
  6. Must not need to hunt or kill animals anymore in order to survive?
  7. Must have an overabundance and surplus of food, energy and water?
  8. Must have agriculture?
  9. Must domesticate animals?
  10. Must be sedentary?
  11. Must have villages, towns and cities etc?
  12. Must have architecture?
  13. As a species you must have no other competition?

Compassion is not free of charge. It is a definite or tangible deal or bargain, in that you must physically have something like all the above before you can or will be compassionate. 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 a lot of compassion and it is equally wrong for us today to have no compassion. To reiterate, prehistoric man had no time for compassion. This must mean that the Buddha and Jesus Christ did. As mentioned, consider this, Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s did not have a lot 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 in the 1930s and 1940s may help ameliorate the Holocaust as it must determine that such as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer 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 linearity of time. The same goes for Jeffrey Dahmer, because even though the Romans were 2000 years older than Jeffrey Dahmer, even they were never cannibalistic. This is why Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer get into so much trouble in the 20th or 21st centuries. They were anachronistic. Therefore, if Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer hypothetically went back time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period, they might find forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence?

Figure 11. Lower Palaeolithic Adolf Hitler, flint knapping.

As mentioned, like how medieval, ancient and prehistoric art is more timeless, classical and priceless than contemporary art, I believe relative absolution and pure innocence determine that in heaven the older you are the greater, more famous and illustrious you are, (as in prehistoric, ancient or medieval people). In life youth is the most important or valuable condition, as in children, teenagers and those in their 20s are the most relevant age groups and the most envied by those older than them. Down here the elderly have nothing desirable other than their experience and wisdom. However, it would be too obvious if the same natural law governed the afterlife, in that if the youngest were still the most relevant, attractive and desirable. This would be hell and therefore, I believe the opposite is true in the afterlife, in that the older you become the greater, more graceful, famous and illustrious you become. This could determine that in the afterlife the older you are the more beautiful and attractive you are? Therefore, to reiterate, respect your elders today, as although centenarian women are not attractive to us, they can whip your arse with pure innocence! Also in the afterlife they will be fit birds! 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 proud. Or imagine if you were an authentic Roman citizen. Even if you were a plebeian you would be so proud you were a Roman in real life. 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. Who cares about progeny? I will state again that I couldn’t give a monkeys about the future!

The art of forgiveness.

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).

Art is related to time in a couple of ways, in that the older the art the more priceless it is. When you look at such as the Lascaux cave paintings mentioned above, although the light reflecting and bouncing off the images into your eye and retina is for all intents and purposes instantaneous, something goes on in your brain that appreciates how long ago or how much time has passed since the pigment was applied to the cave wall. Also, art is always much better understood in its temporal context, that is, with the title of the piece of art, the artist’s name and most importantly the date or year it was finished. Art could be time? It is certainly timeless. Time pervades through the medium of art. If you like the images in this blog you can see more on my art website.

https://artofforgiveness.blog

Therefore, 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 timeless and sacred prehistoric art to you, how much do think a genuine prehistoric piece of art or sculpture would go for? 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.

Figure 12. Upper Palaeolithic Jeffrey Dahmer, sculpting a Venus figurine.

Who are you?

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 forward to the past. I think that because they left no writing or literature behind, and because we do not know their names or deeds etc that the most profound question of all for prehistoric man is who are you? We have no idea who they were? They had no national insurance numbers, birth or death certificates. Indeed, was there anything official in prehistoric times? Similarly, animals such as pigeons are ‘unofficial’ as they also have no national insurance numbers, birth or death certificates. We know about 99% of human births or deaths on Earth today, but the birth of pigeon or the death of a pigeon is unrecorded and unofficial. I suppose the birth and death of pigeon is only for YHWH to account for. I suppose prehistoric humans were similar to animals in their ‘unofficialness’ in that they were 100% natural and simply came from and returned to YHWH like the animals. Who wants a national insurance number anyway? Who wants to be a statistic? 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 greater, 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 will state again that I couldn’t give a monkeys about the future! On another note, 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. 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.

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.

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. Whereas for prehistoric man there was absolutely no civilisation anywhere on Earth. 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.

According to tradition, the Hebrew calendar started at the time of Creation, placed at 3761 BCE. The current (2019/2020) Hebrew year is 5780. Imagine if that really was the beginning of life? That would mean that 3761 BCE would be as far back in time as we could go to absolve our sins, that is back to Adam and Eve in The Garden of Eden and coincidentally back to the original sin! Thank God, YHWH, Allah what ever you may call Him for Charles Darwin and his theory of descent with modification through natural selection! Hypothetical time travel (HTT) determines that there is an urgent need or desire to have the freedom to be able to hypothetically travel back in time much much further than 3761 BCE, for example, as will be seen, because Jeffrey Dahmer was not human, he may need to go back to a time before the derivation of genus Homo from Australopithecus, that is 3 to 2.4 million years ago? And Adolf Hitler may need to go back even further? Therefore, why put a limit on it? We should be able to use all 3.5 billion years of life on Earth to seek relative innocence. Hypothetical time travel (HTT) could surely be the ultimate nail in the coffin for Creationism? I suppose the Bible and story of Creation and Adam and Eve is the utmost pure innocence? Evolution is biological, however, it also definitely needs time. In fact evolution is time! Anyway, 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. For example, ‘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 kill 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. It would have been fine if YHWH had come down and given unto Homo habilis ‘uzzi guns’ and said unto them, this is the law! Thou shalt not steal, rape, kill or cannibalise etc. However, He did not! It would have been fine if YHWH had built roads, buildings and bridges for Homo erectus and said now you cannot kill or do cannibalism etc! But he did not! We hominins built absolutely 100% of everything down here on Earth with our own sweat and blood and by ourselves. From Homo habilis picking up and making the very first stone tool, to building the tallest skyscraper in the world, to putting the first man on the moon, we humble hominins have built and made 100% of absolutely everything unnatural on planet Earth and beyond. YHWH gave us precisely nothing. YHWH did not lift a finger on planet Earth. Prehistoric people even had to make the sticks and stones that they had in order to hunt and defend themselves by themselves. Therefore, prehistoric man obviously did all these things. Because God did not lift a finger and because God did not give us anything tangible, physical or material down here on Earth it means that prehistoric men could do what they want with impunity. Therefore, greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism were relatively no issue with prehistoric men. Because there is no help or 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’? I mean did they at all? If not then who did work out what was ‘good and what was evil’? At what point in time or evolution does killing another member of the same species become murder? In fact, why do things go wrong at all? Why is there sin? Why didn’t humans come perfect beings from ‘the beginning’? It may be because the law is not absolute, in that if the law was universal and absolute, that is fundamental and the same throughout space and time (like mathematics or physics) perhaps nothing would ever go wrong? If moral law or just the law was absolute, universal and eternal throughout space and time, it would mean that as a vindictive and self-righteous Homo sapiens of the 21st century, you could travel back in time and judge or condemn such as Homo antecessor for their killing and cannibalism. You must understand how this is wrong, and that you can never judge or condemn such as Homo antecessor. You can never travel back in time and judge or condemn. Therefore, the law is not absolute! Perhaps if the law was absolute even chimpanzees would never kill another chimpanzee etc? ‘In the beginning’ the universe or life came absolutely lawless. Think about it 100,000 years ago there were no laws. To ask again, were there in fact laws in the sense that we know and understand the today, before the invention of writing? I mean were there oral or verbal laws in prehistory? Not in the same way? I mean there probably were verbal laws in prehistoric times, but I doubt they carried as much weight as written laws do today? In fact, for 13.7 billion years or since ‘the Big Bang’, the universe has been utterly lawless. Only we modern Homo sapiens in the last several thousands of years have created laws and attempted to order the place. Animals have absolutely no laws. A bear has or lives by no laws. As mentioned the principle of relativity states that the laws of physics are the same in all nonaccelerated frames of reference, the laws of physics are the same everywhere. The same laws of physics have been governing the universe for 13.7 billion years, however, yet for all that time the universe was utterly devoid of moral law. Like the Ten Commandments, moral law or just the law is something which took billions of years of evolution to achieve. Moral law is a relatively and extremely recent invention by us humble hominins. On another note, I believe primitive anatomy probably determines if or what amount of trouble you can get in for your actions. For example, if a hominin still has fur then there is probably nothing YHWH or anything else can do to him or her for anything he or she does. To reiterate 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 that YHWH it for its actions. I mean for example, you can probably literally get away with murder and cannibalism if you still have fur for example? Homo erectus or Homo antecessor did not feel guilty for killing or cannibalising another member of the same species, and it was never murder. However, at some point, (perhaps when they lost their fur for example), YHWH had had enough and then more evolved or advanced hominins probably 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 relatively 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? As mentioned, 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? 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? Compassion is more like magnanimity. I think we had to conquer and master the world first before we attained compassion. Homo sapiens probably 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. 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?

Figure 13. Middle Palaeolithic Adolf Hitler, with hafted spear.

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

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, with several mass extinctions, how small and insignificant does Adolf Hitler’s modern 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.

Relative guilt.

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 modern 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 less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are 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 relative guilt. 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 relatively good. Guilt is relatively good because animals do not even feel guilt.

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. To YHWH it is simply a miracle that at least one animal species (i.e.: hominins) is conscious and aware of sin. This is why He is so ready to forgive you any sin. You cannot sin unless you are conscious or aware of sin. That is that children and animals cannot sin. As mentioned much earlier in this blog, you may say how can laws against cannibalism be flexible? How are laws against cannibalism not absolute? You can only say that laws against cannibalism are absolute today or now in Britain (for example). Again the immorality of cannibalism is universal across the whole planet (I hope?) today or now. To prove this, consider just murder, did prehistoric man murder? Well it depends on how far you go back in time, but for argument’s sake, quite frankly, no! To reiterate, I believe it is impossible to sin if you are not conscious and aware of the concept of sin, as in animals and children cannot sin. Therefore, when chimpanzees kill another chimpanzee (as they frequently do), they are never murderers, and they have not sinned. Therefore, the same logic of chimpanzees applies to prehistoric man, in that up until some point, they were not conscious and aware of the concept of sin, therefore, they were never murderers when they killed another member of the same species. Therefore, 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. It is amazing that one animal species has taken it upon itself to become ‘good’. 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 relatively good.


4. HYPOTHETICAL TIME TRAVEL (HTT).

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 (ecclesiastical snitching).

I am not dealing with minor or petty sin such as a man of the cloth feeling guilty 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 make no bones about it 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! PHEW! 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 genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, then relatively, who cares?

Let’s recap.

Time has no animosity.

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 not universal.

The law is not fundamental.

The law is relative.

The law is flexible.

Hypothetical time travel (HTT) is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all, it is quite literally time for forgiveness, as in time for the purpose of forgiveness, and second of all, it is definitely about time for forgiveness, as in right now please!

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 modern 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 relatively good.

Guilt is relatively good because animals do not even feel guilt.

For example, animals are funny, particularly for Homo sapiens dogs, cats and monkeys are funny, especially primates such as chimps and bonobos etc. Relative absolution and pure innocence simply use this animal comedy in conjunction with hypothetical time travel (HTT) or time and relativism to compare and make serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile the equivalent of animals, 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. You may say how can calling Jeffrey Dahmer an animal lighten his sins? For example, if you called or equated Jeffrey Dahmer to a racoon wouldn’t that lighten his sins? Being a racoon is about the only place and time or frame of reference that I can get Jeffrey dahmer with lightness, humour or comedy etc. Racoons do crazy things as well? You may think an animal or an ape is childish? However, childishness lighten sins. Think about it.

  • Extreme genocidal racism is evolutionary or anthropological, and the punishment for it is miscegenation.
  • Murder and cannibalism is only alright for an ape, a primitive hominin or prehistoric man etc.
  • Inappropriate sex definitely is a monkey act.
  • Apes rape.
  • Primates fight.
  • Monkeys steal.
  • Etc.
Figure 14. Miocene Adolf Hitler, (chimpanzee) with right hand.

Therefore, if someone who commits a sin makes themselves equal to or the equivalent of an animal or 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 a hominin for its actions, for example, if a hominin still has fur (such as Australopithecus) then there is probably nothing that YHWH can do to it for its actions? A hominin can probably literally get away with murder and cannibalism with fur for example.

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, accepts or makes himself/herself the equivalent of a primitive hominin, prehistoric man, an ape or even an animal etc, then his or her sin is much lighter or even forgiven.

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

For example, because Adolf Hitler killed so many innocent people in Europe 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.

Relative absolution and pure 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.

Case study 1, Adolf Hitler, (modern genocide).

One thing you will notice by reading hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, crime time or time for forgiveness, is that I am the absolute opposite of a Holocaust denier. I am real and I fully acknowledge the Holocaust happened and I fully know and accept (from reading Martin Gilbert’s book about it), how unbelievably horrendous and soul destroying the Holocaust was. All that I am saying is that we should try or that it is time to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Why? Because it is blatantly apparent that not doing so is extremely detrimental indigenous Europeans. Forgiveness is a different approach to both neo-Nazis and Antifa. The former get on Adolf Hitler’s side and try to justify him, while the latter chastise all white people for Nazism and the Holocaust. The problem with the world today is the polarity of the political spectrum in that most indigenous Europeans choose either one of two extreme directions, that is far-left or far-right, anti-racist or racist. Neo-Nazis believe that Adolf Hitler and Nazism need no forgiveness, while Antifa believe that Adolf Hitler and Nazism will never have forgiveness.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:43-48).

Both are delusional. I do neither. Forgiveness is the middle way. First of all, remember forgiveness is never justification or support. The Jews are the most offended people in history, therefore, how can we make it up to them? Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were unchristian and the Holocaust is the biggest foul-up in history in that it is so unbelievably anachronistic, in that the most tragic and heartless act in history happened so relatively recently in the 20th century in Europe. 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? I believe it is possible to forgive all sins real or imaginable with hypothetical time travel (HTT) or time and relativism (and remember relativity is a Jewish invention). The main hypothesis of this blog is that in order to forgive contemporary or modern serious criminals, that they should therefore, be equivalent to animals, primates, prehistoric hominins or ancient people of the past etc. Therefore, if or as along as a criminal or sinner can hypothetically travel back in time and/or make him or herself equal or equate to an animal, ape, primitive hominin, ancient, medieval or Victorian human etc, then in theory all crimes or sins real or imaginable can be forgiven. Therefore, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT) for criminals in order to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. 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? Anyway, 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 by now. If we think about, it up until fairly recently, there has always been massacres and mass-murders throughout time? Man, woman and child, an entire village here, an entire city there, there has always been such atrocities throughout prehistory and history. The only difference, between prehistoric, ancient or medieval massacres or mass-murders and the Holocaust, is the scale, how organised and how advanced the Nazis were about it. I mean I think say for example, if a king, chief or tribe massacred another tribe or an entire village in the ancient or medieval periods, because they were primitive and because they carried it out with swords, spears, bows and arrows etc and because they wore different clothes and unique armour (as in not identical uniforms like the Nazis), that therefore, these circumstances somehow ameliorated their deed? Therefore, that is why the Holocaust is particularly bad, because it was so anachronistic, because of its scale and its highly organised and highly advanced nature. Adolf Hitler planned the Holocaust with precision, efficiency and like clockwork which is why it is so much worse than an ancient or medieval massacre carried out by a rag-tag band of soldiers. On another note, 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, Adolf Hitler was the opposite of the Buddha when it comes to compassion. 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 one way direction of time. 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 might be in less trouble? 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 absolution and acceptance? Concerning slavery and barbaric sports such as fox hunting, duelling, dog fighting and gladiatorial combats, it is easy to claim pure 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 pure innocence? Considering that the 1980s were thicker or 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 thicker or more innocent. Think back to those innocent black and white films. 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 may need to regain its pure innocence? Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example, the Holocaust, the way to forgive them is to use hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution and pure innocence and call or make them equate to prehistoric man, primitive hominins or primates etc, in order to lighten their sins and forgive them. For example, because Hitler cares so much about racism and “subhumans”, this scientifically determines that he is definitely at the very least equivalent to an ape or archaic hominin! To reiterate the only way I can understand Adolf Hitler with any lightness is if he were equivalent to (and I quote) a “subhuman” such as an ape or archaic hominin. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. 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 making or equating yourself to 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 the equivalent of a primitive hominin, prehistoric man or even ape etc, would we forgive him? If Adolf Hitler hypothetically 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. This example may demonstrate that all crimes or sins are always an animal, ape or anthropological, in that if you sin or commit a crime you always make or equate to an animal, primate or primitive hominin, that is you literally make a monkey of yourself. To reiterate, if you sin like such as Adolf Hitler the only solution to your crime is Einstein’s equivalence, hypothetical time travel (HTT) and an ape. Sin is always anachronistic. 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 may need to regain its pure innocence? In fact, what if a solution to the Holocaust could be if all indigenous Europeans (instead of being advanced) were monkeys? Don’t call him a genocidal megalomaniac call him a ‘genocidal megalomaniac in the 20th century.’ Do not say offence say ‘relative offence.’ Do not say sin say ‘relative sin.’ Do not say crime say ‘relative crime.’ Do not say criminal say ‘relative criminal.’ Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel, we can say in the 20th century frame of reference, Adolf Hitler seems relatively advanced, more responsible and therefore less innocent. However, in the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference, Adolf Hitler seems relatively primitive, less responsible and therefore more innocent. Therefore, in theory, if Adolf Hitler could hypothetically travel back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to the Lower Palaeolithic period, then in or from this frame of reference Adolf Hitler would seem relatively less evil? Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Time has no animosity. 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 not universal. The law is not fundamental. The law is relative. The law is flexible.

Figure 15. Miocene Adolf Hitler, Charles Darwin.

Mental images.

As stated at the beginning, I would like to advise you to stay positive and to not dwell on the horrendous examples and statistics of the Holocaust, torture, cannibalism and necrophilia etc. I find that when an unpleasant image pops up in my mind from the Holocaust and I feel anger or animosity towards Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, that just forgetting about it, staying positive, thinking of Einstein’s equivalence, crime travel, these lighthearted images and not dwelling on the negativity really helps with forgiveness.

Case study 2, Jeffrey Dahmer, (modern cannibalism).

I have read one book on Jeffrey Dahmer and he is definitely the hardest to forgive even more so than Adolf Hitler and relatively 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 or 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 incomprehensible. 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! This is what I meant by how the church in the Venerable Bede’s day was concerned with ‘sins’ such as sex for pleasure and wet dreams etc, however, what you have read above clearly shows that these are the only ‘sins of the flesh’ that we give a damn about.

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? I believe it is possible to forgive all sins real or imaginable with hypothetical time travel (HTT) or time and relativism. The main hypothesis of this blog is that in order to forgive contemporary or modern serious criminals, that they should therefore, be equivalent to animals, primates, prehistoric hominins or ancient people of the past etc. Therefore, if or as along as a criminal or sinner can hypothetically travel back in time and/or make him or herself equal or equate to an animal, ape, primitive hominin, ancient, medieval or Victorian human etc, then in theory all crimes or sins real or imaginable can be forgiven. Therefore, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT) for criminals in order to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example, serial killers, the way to forgive them is to use hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution and pure innocence and call or make them equate to prehistoric man, primitive hominins or primates etc, in order to lighten their sins and forgive them. Because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in America 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. In fact, because Jeffrey Dahmer ‘was not human’ he may have to go back in time to a period before the emergence of the genus homo? That is about 3 to 2.4 million years? To reiterate, because Jeffrey Dahmer equated to a prehistoric man such as H. antecessor in America 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. With these creatures or in this place and time he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be lighter. There is nothing as humble as making or equating yourself to an ape. Going off the un-contacted indigenous Amazonian and bushman examples, in that it could be subtle or technical primitiveness that determines a person’s innocence or guilt, 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, it is more likely he can get away with killing another human. However, because Jeffrey Dahmer did have advanced weapons, technology and infrastructure, in that he lived in a brick house and did his shopping at a supermarket, which as explained earlier is an highly advanced and global logistical operation, therefore, he was more advanced and responsible, and therefore less innocent than such as un-contacted indigenous Amazonians, bushmen and Homo antecessor for killing and cannibalism. That is the only reason he gets into so much trouble here with us, in this place and time. You may say Homo antecessor only cannibalised when they were hungry and this why it was ethical for Homo antecessor to cannibalise, not necessarily time. Jeffrey Dahmer did not need to cannibalise because he was never hungry, he could have always have gone to the supermarket or his fridge to eat. Yes but the only reason Jeffrey Dahmer is never hungry is because he was advanced and because the food in our kitchens involves supermarkets, farmers, abattoirs, butchers, factories, food processors and packagers etc. How we feed ourselves and the whole nation today is an highly advanced and collective effort that is only possible through being an highly advanced civilisation? Being so advanced implies much time has passed. Also, like prehistoric man (sometimes) and native Americans such as the Aztecs (who practiced ritual human sacrifice and ate human flesh ritualistically), also Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism was probably ritualistic? Jeffrey Dahmer ate human hearts to feel at one with his victims. Therefore, the state of being hungry is not the only excuse for cannibalism, but primitivism and time are.

Figure 16. Lower Palaeolithic Jeffrey Dahmer, (Homo antecessor), with human femur.

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 the equivalent of 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 equivalent to a primitive hominin, prehistoric man or even ape, would we forgive him? If Jeffrey Dahmer hypothetically 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. This example may demonstrate that all crimes or sins are always an animal, ape or anthropological, in that if you sin or commit a crime you always make or equate to an animal, primate or primitive hominin, that is you literally make a monkey of yourself. To reiterate, if you sin like such as Jeffrey Dahmer the only solution to your crime is hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, Einstein’s equivalence and an ape etc. Sin is always anachronistic. 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 cannibalism say ‘modern cannibalism.’ Do not say offence say ‘relative offence.’ Do not say sin say ‘relative sin.’ Do not say crime say ‘relative crime.’ Do not say criminal say ‘relative criminal.’ Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel, we can say in the 20th century frame of reference, Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively advanced, more responsible and therefore less innocent. However, in the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference, Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively primitive, less responsible and therefore more innocent. Therefore, in theory, if Jeffrey Dahmer could somehow hypothetically travel back in time millions or hundreds of thousands of years to the Lower Palaeolithic period, then in or from this frame of reference Jeffrey Dahmer would seem relatively less evil? Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Time has no animosity. 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 not universal. The law is not fundamental. The law is relative. The law is flexible.

https://crimetravel.co.uk

Case study 3, Jimmy Savile, (modern rape).

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. I believe it is possible to forgive all sins real or imaginable with hypothetical time travel (HTT) or time and relativism. The main hypothesis of this blog is that in order to forgive contemporary or modern serious criminals, that they should therefore, be equivalent to animals, primates, prehistoric hominins or ancient people of the past etc. Therefore, if or as along as a criminal or sinner can hypothetically travel back in time and/or make him or herself equal or equate to an animal, ape, primitive hominin, ancient, medieval or Victorian human etc, then in theory all crimes or sins real or imaginable can be forgiven. Therefore, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT) for criminals in order to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. Therefore, for the sins, we do not like to forgive, such as child abuse, the way to forgive them is to use hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution and pure innocence and call or make the perpetrators equate to prehistoric man, primitive hominins or primates etc, in order to lighten their sins and forgive them. 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, the term ‘child abuse’ is relative, because what we consider ‘child abuse’ or ‘statutory rape’ in the 20th/21st centuries frames of reference, was not ‘child abuse’ or ‘statutory rape’ in the Victorian or medieval periods etc. Therefore, relatively child abuse was less of an issue in prehistoric, ancient, medieval and even Victorian times. 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 in 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. As late as the 1880s in Britain, before the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 raised the age of consent to 16, it was not uncommon for gentlemen to pay to have intercourse with 13 year old virgins. In fact, it was a journalistic investigation into such activity which led to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. Therefore, for example, the England footballer Adam Johnson (who had relations with a 15-year-old girl) would be absolutely fine in the Victorian period. Remember, especially for Adam Johnson’s sake, that the law is not absolute! You may think that three milliseconds past 16 years of age is the absolute legal age of consent today, but it was not at all only 135 years ago! 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 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, he still made a monkey of himself. Therefore, with these people or 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, ancient or medieval man in Britain 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. With these people or primates or in these places and times he would be at ease, forgiven and accepted. There is nothing as humble as making or equating yourself to an ape. So if Jimmy Savile did not try to be advanced, special or superior to ancient or medieval people or primates and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was the equivalent of a primitive hominin, prehistoric man or even an ape, would we forgive him? If Jimmy Savile hypothetically 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. This example may demonstrate that all crimes or sins are always an animal, ape or anthropological, in that if you sin or commit a crime you always make or equate to an animal, primate or primitive hominin, that is you literally make a monkey of yourself. To reiterate, if you sin like such as Jimmy Savile the only solution to your crime is Einstein’s equivalence, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel and an ape. Sin is always anachronistic. 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 offence say ‘relative offence.’ Do not say sin say ‘relative sin.’ Do not say crime say ‘relative crime.’ Do not say criminal say ‘relative criminal.’ Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference. For example, concerning hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel, we can say in the 20th century frame of reference, Jimmy Savile seems relatively advanced, more responsible and therefore less innocent. However, in the medieval frame of reference, Jimmy Savile seems relatively primitive, less responsible and therefore more innocent. Therefore, in theory, if Jimmy Savile could hypothetically travel back in time thousands or hundreds of years to the medieval period, then in or from this frame of reference Jimmy Savile would seem much less evil? Always use time or incorporate the temporal. Time lightens the sin. Time has no animosity. 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 not universal. The law is not fundamental. The law is relative. The law is flexible.

Figure 17. Medieval Jimmy Savile, with axe and shield.

Waiting.

I would just like to state that although time is a great healer and that such as the Holocaust might seem less of a problem in thousands of years time, I am not waiting for forgiveness, I am not waiting for the families of Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims to die out before we can forgive Jeffrey Dahmer, I am not waiting for all the Holocaust survivors to pass on before we can forgive the Nazis. We need forgiveness now.

Relative offence.

If you find forgiveness of such criminals as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile offensive, remember at the beginning that I stated that I believe offence is relative, in that what causes offence to one person does not cause offence to another person. Also 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 hypothetical time travel (HTT). This is especially important for the afterlife, in that I believe that hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution and pure innocence may be (in a way) how forgiveness or absolution is achieved in the afterlife? And it must happen, there must be 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 hypothetical time travel (HTT) to forgive down here in life or on Earth as a well? All that saying is that if in the remotest possibility hypothetical time travel (HTT) were possible either in the afterlife or the future, then at least we can therefore imagine the forgiveness of such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile? Also considering this blog is 100% the result of Albert Einstein, as Jew, if Albert Einstein is now saying it is time to forgive Hitler, it is time to forgive! Being vehemently anti-racist has no risk or consequences down here on Earth, whereas being vehemently anti-HTT has a risk and potentially has consequences. The thing I like about hypothetical time travel (HTT) is that if you are in trouble you are by definition on my side. For example, you could be the type of judgemental and condemning person who is vehemently against the forgiveness of such serious criminals as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, much like how a vehemently anti-racist person who goes out of his or her way to subdue any form of racism. However, the risk or consequence in being vehemently anti-HTT is that it is all fine and dandy to be against it, until you, your child, a relative or someone you know screws up and therefore needs time for forgiveness. It is risky and not wise to be vehemently against hypothetical time travel (HTT). Being anti-HTT is not the same as being anti-racist. It is just a coincidence that the biggest sinner of all time (Adolf Hitler) was a racist and needs forgiveness. For example, you could drink drive and kill someone, you could hit and run, you could kill someone at work through negligence, like the Deepwater horizon disaster in 2010, which killed 11 people, similarly you could be an air traffic controller who caused an accident through incompetence etc. To reiterate, although hypothetical time travel (HTT) tries to genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler (for the benefit of all indigenous Europeans) it is not racism, because there is a risk in being against it. It also deals with the forgiveness of Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile and what has that got to do with racism? Therefore, if you are the vehemently anti-HTT person, you better watch yourself, because if you ever did need it you would be a hypocrite. It is wise to be pro-HTT just in case.

Hope for Hitler.

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

Hypothetical time travel (HTT) is actuated by both selfless and selfish desires. It is selfless in that I really care about Europe. And it is selfish in that I really care about Europe. First of all, if we can absolve a criminal of his crime then there is hope for us all. There is hope for us all in forgiving serious criminals, such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. To reiterate, there is only hope (especially) for indigenous Europeans if there is hope for Hitler. Even prisoners serving life sentences want hope. By forgiving all sins real or imaginable I am never trying to be Jesus Christ, that is why this blog is 100% secular! Hypothetical time travel (HTT) has perfectly selfish reasons! I am an indigenous European and I believe if we can genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler then indigenous Europeans would have hope and be much better off. If we can genuinely forgive Adolf Hitler this would be beneficial to Europeans, especially Germans. Indigenous Europeans need to eradicate their ‘white guilt’ and to do this they may need to regain their pure 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 and Jimmy Savile are https://forgiven.blog to me, just like prehistoric man! However, you cannot just say I forgive, you have to truly mean it. With hypothetical time travel (HTT), Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution and pure innocence there is genuine forgiveness. I also have my own sins to worry about and basically Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution, pure innocence, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, crime time, 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.”

The following biblical verses I think have particular bearing today between neo-Nazis and Antifa.

(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).

No bones.

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 and it would mean these verses are practically 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. 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? Therefore, we have to go way below the belt or beyond slices of pie to fix crimes and sins. I mean we should make no bones about dealing with and talking about the forgiveness of real sin such as genocide, cannibalism, homicide, child molestation and rape etc. Also, concerning our pure innocence such as the internet, mobile phones and CDs etc, although relative absolution and pure 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 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.

Reiteration.

I will now reiterate everything. If moral law or just the law was absolute, universal and eternal throughout space and time, it would mean that as a vindictive and self-righteous Homo sapiens of the 21st century, you could travel back in time and judge or condemn such as Homo antecessor for their killing and cannibalism. You must understand how this is wrong, and that you can never judge or condemn such as Homo antecessor. You can never travel back in time and judge or condemn. Therefore, the law is not absolute! As you have seen, I have labelled this blog ‘philosophical physics’, and what I mean by philosophical physics is that hypothetical time travel (HTT) or relative absolution and pure innocence are just literature and simply use common sense evolution and anthropology with the terms time, relative and relatively in order to absolve criminals of their crimes. The main hypothesis of this blog is that in order to forgive contemporary or modern serious criminals, that they should therefore, be equivalent to animals, primates, prehistoric hominins or ancient people of the past etc. Therefore, if or as along as a criminal or sinner can hypothetically travel back in time and/or make him or herself equal or equate to an animal, ape, primitive hominin, ancient, medieval or Victorian human etc, then in theory all crimes or sins real or imaginable can be forgiven. Therefore, this blog is about hypothetical time travel (HTT) for criminals in order to seek forgiveness, acceptance and relative innocence. Somehow it was ethical for Homo antecessor to kill and cannibalise in Europe in the Lower Palaeolithic and unethical for Jeffrey Dahmer to cannibalise in America in the 20th century? As I have proven I believe time and relative primitivism are what made it ethical for Homo antecessor to cannibalise in Europe in the Lower Palaeolithic, and that time and relative advancement are what makes cannibalism unethical for Jeffrey Dahmer in America in the 20th century. Therefore, it is only unethical for us to rape, kill and cannibalise today because of our point in time and because we have the internet, CDs and iPhones etc. Therefore, you can say to Jeffrey Dahmer, it was so unethical because you did it in the 20th century and because you had computers, CDs and colour television etc. Therefore, as has been demonstrated, 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 or unethical that is the main difference between him and Homo antecessor. Therefore, 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 not universal, the law is not fundamental, the law is relative and the law is flexible etc. Therefore, it depends on where and when you commit your relative offence. To reiterate, laws are different in different places and different times, and therefore, sins that seem bad in one time period or frame of reference seem not as bad in another time period or frame of reference. For example, slavery and what we would consider statutory rape seem illegal and abhorrent in Britain or America since the Victorian period, however, they seemed perfectly fine in the Georgian, 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 dogs, cats and monkeys are funny, especially primates such as chimps and bonobos etc. Relative absolution and pure innocence simply use this animal comedy in conjunction with hypothetical time travel (HTT) or time and relativism to compare and make serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile the equivalent of animals, 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. You may say how can calling Jeffrey Dahmer an animal lighten his sins? For example, if you called or equated Jeffrey Dahmer to a racoon wouldn’t that lighten his sins? Being a racoon is about the only place and time or frame of reference that I can get Jeffrey dahmer with lightness, humour or comedy etc. Racoons do crazy things as well? You may think an animal or an ape is childish? However, childishness lighten sins. Think about it.

  • Extreme genocidal racism is evolutionary or anthropological, and the punishment for it is miscegenation.
  • Murder and cannibalism is only alright for an ape, a primitive hominin or prehistoric man etc.
  • Inappropriate sex definitely is a monkey act.
  • Apes rape.
  • Primates fight.
  • Monkeys steal.
  • Etc.
Figure 18. Miocene Adolf Hitler, chimpanzee (arboreal) perched on branch.

Therefore, if someone who commits a sin makes themselves equal to or the equivalent of an animal or an ape, this animal comedy lightens his/her sins and hence he/she is forgiven. Do not say cannibalism say ‘modern cannibalism’. Do not say sin say ‘relative sin.’ Do not say criminal say ‘relative criminal.’ Time and relativism lighten the sins. Sin is always relative, in that it depends on your temporal frame of reference as to how bad a sin seems. For example, concerning hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel we can say in the 20th century frame of reference Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively evil but in the Lower Palaeolithic frame of reference, Jeffrey Dahmer seems relatively less evil, therefore, in theory, if Jeffrey Dahmer could hypothetically 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 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. 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 hypothetical time travel (HTT), Einstein’s equivalence, relative absolution and pure innocence and call or make them equate to prehistoric man, primitive hominins or primates etc, in order to lighten their sins and forgive them. 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. Hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel is the theory that a criminal, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, can hypothetically go back in time in the afterlife to a more primitive time period such as the Palaeolithic period in order to find forgiveness and acceptance.‬ The more advanced you are the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the more innocent you are. Crime is relative in that what we call sins today, such as child molestation, murder and cannibalism were relatively more ethical 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 or unethical. 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. ’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 kill 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. From Homo habilis picking up and making the very first stone tool, to building the pyramids, to putting rovers on Mars, we humble hominins have built and made 100% of absolutely everything unnatural on planet Earth and beyond with our own sweat and blood. YHWH gave us precisely 0%, zilch, squat. YHWH did not lift a finger on planet Earth. Therefore, prehistoric man obviously did all these things. It also means that greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are relatively ethical for 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. 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, medieval people had no tanks, therefore, ironically, if you have tanks you can be more compassionate towards animals and each other. This irony could determine that the real purpose of advanced and lethal weapons is compassion towards animals and each other? It is a pity that the British and Germans did not understand this ironic use of weapons during the build up to World War One, when they had a huge arms race, and then put them all to disastrous use. 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 modern 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 relatively good. Guilt is relatively good because animals do not even feel guilt. If you have sinned go back in time hypothetically 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 genuinely 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 hypothetical time travel (HTT). Time has no animosity.

5. Saying daaaang to God!

Ridicule.

For example, this blog started with the term primitive innocence. I really like this term because it so precisely describes what this blog is about or how it works, which is that the further you go back in time the more primitive and innocent animals such as Homo sapiens and life become. Using this primitive innocence with hypothetical time travel (HTT) to the past, in theory we should be able to forgive all sins real or imaginable. However, primitive innocence is not temporal, relative or relevant. Therefore, I believe primitive innocence is philosophical. I even changed it to relative innocence at one point to try and inject a little time into it, but then I changed it into pure innocence, which again is non-temporal and philosophical. You may say why not ditch pure innocence, however, I believe it is essential. Although it is philosophical, I believe pure innocence helps us travels in time, for example, in the 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones and we did not understand smart things such as Spotify and FaceTime, therefore, we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. By this relatively recent example, we can see that this innocence becomes stronger or purer the further you go back in time. Therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent prehistoric people were? I believe prehistoric man was so primitive and innocent that they could literally get away with rape, killing and cannibalism etc. Therefore, I believe if we can hypothetically travel back in time to prehistory we could attain forgiveness, acceptance or relative innocence? That is, relative absolution? However, despite all this travelling in time, primitive or pure innocence is still non-temporal and philosophical, yet as you can see it is absolutely essential. For an example of 1980s primitive or pure innocence please watch the video of the song Shout by Tears for Fears (1985), specifically towards the end of the video, when all the people are dancing together. Note how the people are dancing. This is pure innocence! As you will now see this in this part, instead of ridiculing the recent past, such as Shout by Tears for Fears, we should try to say it or they were very innocent! If you think about it this ridicule only happens to famous people because for example, they were the only ones who were recorded on video in the 1980s etc, while the vast majority of us normal working class people did not even have camcorders in the 1980s. Although we had cameras, camcorders only became small enough and widespread enough in the 1990s, therefore, most people do not even have any videos of themselves in the 1980s! Compare this with the 2020s, with everybody having pocket-sized smart phones with 12 mega-pixel cameras etc! This is a primitive or pure innocence! On a slightly different note, there are possibly two ways in which we can look at 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? (I think that je ne sais quoi is pure innocence?) Or we can ridicule the original films for their primitivism and say that the prequels were better because they were far more advanced? I personally believe that despite their primitivism the original Star Wars films were relatively superior to the prequels, however, why were they? Also we can compare the 1956 film The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston as Moses to the 2014 film Exodus: Gods and Kings with Christian Bale as Moses. Why is it that older former film is so much better than the younger latter film? Although the latter is technologically far superior to the former, it does not seem to matter to the ‘quality’ of the film? The Ten Commandments is biblical, whereas although it is very good, Exodus: Gods and Kings is hardly biblical? The technology used to create the most famous scene of The Ten Commandments where Moses parts the Red Sea is cinematically far inferior to the photorealistic SFX used to create the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus: Gods and Kings, yet it does not seem to matter. Regardless, The Ten Commandments is relatively a far superior film to Exodus: Gods and Kings. Or we can ridicule The Ten Commandments for its primitive lines such as “You’re a sharp-clawed treacherous little peacock!” etc. We can also say that in a way The Second Summer of Love and the acid house youth culture in the U.K. of 1987 to 1990 with pioneering clubs such as Shoom and Spectrum in London and the Hacienda in Manchester were way more powerful and much better than the clubs and dance music scene of today? Or we can ridicule the antiquated music, fashion and hairstyles of the late 1980s and say that today’s dance music is far superior technologically and that’s the end of it? I think that despite the fact that dance music is of a far superior quality today, that in a way Shoom, Spectrum, the Hacienda and The Second Summer of Love were definitely a lot better relatively than today’s dance music or club scene. This is probably because acid house was original, novel and groundbreaking? As mentioned, I remember the days before electronic music when there was just rock and roll and pop music etc, with such bands as Bon Jovi, Guns n’ Roses, Duran Duran and Wham etc. I remember when I first heard electronic beats or music, with such songs as Good Life by Inner City (1988), Sesame’s treet by Smart e’s (that was the first time I heard proper electronic beats or rave music, I was mind blown, that was in 1992) etc. My generation are the original generation of electronic music, we saw the transition from rock to rave, from drum kits to drum machines. Any electronic music that you listen to today comes from my generation. My generation understand somethings that kids of today will likely never fathom. Acid house, early rave or basically just electronic music is our own primitive or pure innocence! You should try listening to Sesame’s treet by Smart e’s, it is so innocent! Listen to the drums, this was a breakthrough in 1992 and you can hear the primitive or pure innocence! You may ridicule Sesame’s treet or Good Life today because they are the recent past, but you should not, as such early rave songs are classical! You have all heard the terms classics or classic anthems in term of trance or house music, and that is exactly what they are! They will age like fine wine and become relatively holy and classical etc, like well, classical music! It is just hard to see that something is classical in the recent past. Also, for example, you may ridicule Rick Astley’s Never Gonna Give You Up (1987), but it is so innocent! Why do we laugh and snigger at something which is pure innocence? Are we evil? Unlike the Buddha and Jesus Christ, Inner City, Smart e’s and Rick Astley will never be young, hip or cool ever again down here in life, however, they will age like fine wine and become classical. I think that pure innocence can be seen throughout time, particularly on TV, in our changing haircuts. PI is like a bubble which gets burst every decade. Looking back at the 1980s and 1990s from the 2020 frame of reference you can see that all the haircuts have changed. Although, at the time I swear our haircuts were fine. Relative to us, only the 1970s and 1960s had bad haircuts, yet now it is 1990s turn to be the ‘hippies’. As one last example, concerning say the 1960s, we can say that the 1960s were much better in a way for Europeans, in that Europeans were more powerful and secure in the 1960s. Secondly, we can ridicule the 1960s and say ‘Daaaaaang! It is so dated and old fashioned! Look how primitive it was! I’m glad I’m in 2020!’ This is the temptation of technology. For example, London in 1969 was 99% indigenous European, however, non-Europeans will, therefore, ridicule the past by saying ‘Oh my God! The 60s!? How old fashioned is that!? Look at the haircuts! Daaaang!’ This is because non-Europeans do not care as much as indigenous Europeans about the past. Without trying to sound politically incorrect, this is because, for example, the past to Africans was less than total freedom, therefore, Africans will naturally tend to look forward to the future and ridicule the past? 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 indigenous Europeans and non-Europeans? One thing is time. For example, indigenous Europeans have been in Europe for thousands if not tens of thousands or (considering Neanderthal) hundreds of thousands of years, whereas, immigrants and migrants are new arrivals. You cannot purchase or buy for any amount of money time. Time is priceless! We indigenous Europeans have been here for tens of thousands of years, and you cannot buy time cheaply. 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 relative absolution and pure innocence, non-Europeans will ridicule the past and naturally tend to look forward to the future instead. 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 late 1990s during the superclub explosion of that decade and although I prefer techno and trance music to rock and roll, I am wise enough to know and understand that (like the British Invasion of the US with rock and pop acts during the mid-1960s) the 1960s were relatively much more powerful, much better and much bigger for Europeans. Hence, if I could I would sensibly choose the 1960s over the 1990s, despite the lack of techno and trance music in that decade. Techno and trance music are the temptation of technology. You have got to watch yourself, we all do it, we all ridicule the past and say ‘Daaaaang! Look at the haircuts! That so last week!’ The original DJs of the acid house youth culture of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and up to the present day probably do this a lot? They likely believe that with their advanced, fast and precise electronic music that they have really ‘done one’ on the dated rock and roll of the 1960s and 1970s etc? However, trust me, relatively, The Beatles are much better. You would rather be a Beatle in the 1960s than a trance DJ in the 2020s. As mentioned earlier, I think that (even though it is not their fault) with superstar trance and house DJs spinning the wheels of steel in clubs today, it is hard for young indigenous Europeans not to say daaaang to God! This is why we are handicapped with attending church, singing hymns, saying grace before meals and with Christian innocence etc. To reiterate, I think that for example, (even though it is not their fault), because superstar DJs are so unbelievably and wickedly cool, rocking the house and spinning the wheels of steel in clubs etc, that it somehow makes us actually say daaaang to God! Even though I am a hypocrite and I do not mean it literally, I believe that we should metaphorically somehow try saying grace, rather than saying daaaang to God! So if it is not the DJs fault, then whose fault is it? It could be the same powers that be which permit McDonald’s and Subway to stay open for business on Good Friday or it could just be another consequence of Adolf Hitler? On a different note, in the afterlife, would The Beatles choose to live in 1969 London or 2020 London (which is over 50% non-European)? 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 leftist 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 indigenous Europeans were. On the subject of fashion, ironically, older music artists should like relative absolution and pure innocence because they look back to the poor, primitive, unfashionable, prehistoric and past, instead of the rich, advanced, fashionable, modern and future. PI does not ridicule the recent past and it makes things age like fine wine and become classical etc. Pop stars and their songs date quickly and become old but like old technologies, with pure innocence or primitive innocence, they could still retain their value and avoid the ridicule? If you watch or listen to 1960s or 1980s music you can see and hear the pure innocence! All pop stars 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 not a lot they can do about it, as the next generation of teenagers are into something else, something new, more modern and more fashionable. And it’s the kids who do the ridiculing. In fact, do kids today even know who Rick Astley, Oasis or The Beatles are? ‘Daaaang! That is sooo last millennium!’ Do they care? 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 stars) 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, pure innocence or primitive innocence may help because it gets rid of the ridicule? As an outspokenly liberal pop star, if you do not care about ‘the knuckle-dragging past’, such as Henry the Navigator, Edward Colston or Horatio Nelson etc 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. If you want us to care about your past, you have to care about the whole past not just your own, by this I mean you have to care about our politically incorrect ancestors such as Horatio Nelson and Cecil Rhodes etc. So what do you choose 1969 or 2020 London? Do you ridicule or praise the past? Do you choose power and security or fashion? Fashion is ephemeral and insignificant. I personally choose power and security. However, in the afterlife, we will be both powerful and fashionable.

Figure 19. Medieval Jimmy Savile, with sword.

Albert Einstein has no animosity.

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 indigenous Europeans are vulnerable. Only now when indigenous Europeans 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 anti-white laws such as the Equalities Act, and because anti-white laws are (bendily) against it, they are too cowardly to fight non-Europeans, so they make up for their lack of bravery by being violent towards indigenous Europeans, so that they ‘appear’ tough. Having said that, because hypothetical time travel (HTT) determines no one is unforgivable, hence I forgive Antifa.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

(Romans 12:14).

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

(2 Corinthians 5:17-19).

Concerning ethnicity because of the Holocaust, relative absolution and pure innocence clearly demonstrate that primitive, developing and third world people are still primitive and therefore more innocent than indigenous Europeans. Whereas advanced, developed and first-world people, especially Europeans, have lost their pure innocence. Because indigenous Europeans are advanced, and because of the Holocaust, they are more responsible and therefore less innocent. Developing and third world people have won the trivial matter of race and will demonstrate this in the future. Before anything else at all, indigenous Europeans must regain their pure innocence? As mentioned, considering this blog is 100% the result of Albert Einstein, as Jew, if Albert Einstein is now saying it is time to forgive Hitler, it is time to forgive! Einstein has no animosity. Finally, I suppose you are thinking it doesn’t matter what I do I will be forgiven? No! Of course it matters, it is time. And you will need a lot of it if you sin. Especially once you have read this blog that is!

Apologies.

As the entire 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. However, I do not really believe any of that is the real issue. Empire was a very natural thing. I believe Nazism is likely the only problem and that it is probably the only thing we have to apologise for and that we can condemn in the past. Therefore, I would like to personally apologise to the whole world for Nazism. With hypothetical time travel (HTT) or crime travel, today we certainly do not think that we are superior than you in any way at all. Europeans just want to to be masculine, like the Greeks or Romans and that is all. Especially right-wing indigenous Europeans just want to be masculine. To reiterate, 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.

The victims and survivors.

As a word of warning be cautious of councillors, therapists or mindfulness guides 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

To reiterate, what I mean by philosophical physics is that hypothetical time travel (HTT) or relative absolution and pure innocence are just literature and simply use common sense evolution and anthropology with the terms time, relative and relatively in order to absolve criminals of their crimes? When C.R. Strahan says ‘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’ he is relatively only talking about or dealing with such as a cheating spouse which is the equivalent of ecclesiastical snitching such as a priest doing penance for taking the largest slice of pie. Although you may feel hurt if your spouse cheats on you and has a baby behind your back, think of the Holocaust victims and survivors. They are the only ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’ we care about. Although having an affair can be grounds for divorce and does get legal regarding finances, custody and property etc, it is not a crime. Therefore, beyond schadenfreude gossip no one cares about your cheating spouse. Suck it up! I have read 115 books since August 2016, I have put years into researching how to make it up for the Holocaust to the Jews and how to genuinely 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 there is only hope for us all in forgiving serious criminals, such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile. To reiterate, there is only hope (especially) for indigenous Europeans if we can forgive (never justify) Adolf Hitler. Even prisoners serving life sentences want hope. Also 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 such as a cheating husband 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 genuinely 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!

Do not be afraid to forgive!

As mentioned, I will state again, that Einstein’s equivalence, hypothetical time travel (HTT), crime travel, crime time or time for forgiveness is just common sense and it is very simple. The only reason it has not been said or done before is because no one has ever dared go there with serious criminals such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, I mean no one has ever dared to forgive them. Therefore, I would like to advise you to not hold back from taboos and do not be constrained by institutional political correctness etc. As mentioned earlier, this blog is an entirely independent project, that is, nothing to do with orthodox educational authorities or institutions, however, the irony is that a work such as this is a catch-22, in that one would simply not be allowed to write and hand in such a work at a modern day university. To me this is a real and genuine tragedy, in that it seems to me that institutional political correctness and fear of so called taboos could really hold back or stifle genuine philosophical, academic or scientific debate and progress? Also, there is something about hypothetical time travel (HTT) in that it is ironic or a catch-22 because it requires a person with several qualities. It requires someone with a lot of time on their hands, someone who is not bound or constrained by institutional political correctness in any way at all, someone with nothing to lose and someone who is a bit of a nut. It basically 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 such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile off with their sins, only that fear prevents them. The only problem with you forgiving, being alright with or associating with serious sinners such as the above mentioned is fear of other people and fear of what other people think. Between you and such as Jimmy Savile there is no problem, only that you fear other people. People are nasty given half a chance, for example liberal demonstrators and vigilantes etc. And remember, the ubiquitous animosity in the world today emanates from the left and Antifa. To reiterate, people today are too scared to forgive, and that is a shame and a disappointment. Please, do not be afraid to forgive! As stated the concept of pure innocence belongs to Professor Einstein, it is ‘Albert Einstein’s equivalence.’ 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 hypothetical time travel (HTT) 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!

How I made a monkey!

You are probably wondering what sins I committed? 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 suffered from an extreme case of acrasia and I did many things that I deeply regret. In short I made a big monkey of myself! Therefore, I know exactly what it is to be a psycho! I am not quite prison material, but put it this way, relative to me you are a slice of pie! Please remember, like this blog, don’t judge a book by its cover. Budush! Judge no one.

Here are the 5Ws and 1H of forgiveness.

1. What? People. 2. Who? Everyone. 3. Why? Hope. 4. How? Time. 5. Where? Afterlife. 6. When? Past.

Conclusion.

I am not saying that we should ditch our iPhones and iPads and then go around beating our chests, wearing skins and waving spears about. What I am saying is that humanity should have infinitely more forgiveness! In fact, I am saying that because moral law or just the law is not universal, absolute and the same throughout space and time, like mathematics or physics, that therefore, humanity should have universal and absolute forgiveness throughout all space and time. That is we should forgive all people throughout history for their sins. As mentioned, despite how it may or may not have looked to you, there was no racism in this blog, however, as you have seen this blog was entirely about the past and our ancestors such as prehistoric man, therefore, the distinction between me and anti-racists or to be honest even most average people, is that I really care about our ancestors, whereas anti-racists out right do not care about our ancestors and the ‘knuckle dragging’ past and normal people are either cynical or blasé about the afterlife and our ancestors etc. Therefore, I am saying that we should look forward to the past instead of the future. I am saying we should respect and look up to our elders and all of our ancestors. I am saying we should stop ridiculing ‘the knuckle dragging‘ past and we should stop saying ‘Daaaang! That is soooo last week!’ I am saying I think that for example, (even though it is not their fault), because superstar DJs are so unbelievably and wickedly cool, rocking the house and spinning the wheels of steel in clubs etc, that it somehow makes us actually say daaaang to God! This is why we are handicapped with attending church, singing hymns, saying grace before meals and with Christian innocence etc. Even though I am a hypocrite and I do not mean it literally, I believe that we should metaphorically somehow try saying grace, rather than saying daaaang to God! So if it is not the DJs fault, then whose fault is it? It could be the same powers that be which permit McDonald’s and Subway to stay open for business as usual on Good Friday or it could just be another consequence of Adolf Hitler? It is only because of the Holocaust that we ridicule the recent past anyway. I mean it is only the recent past that we ridicule fashionably, such as the 1960s and 1980s, but what is the point in saying ‘Daaaang! That is soooo last week!’ to Lower Palaeolithic man, Tiktaalik roseae or single-celled life forms? The only person who can say ‘Daaaang!’ is probably Albert Einstein? Therefore, I am saying that while we are being wickedly cool by mixing trance music, or scratching hip hop music, that we should very aware of the fact that pure innocence exists! People of the past did say innocent things like “Hosanna in the highest heaven!” And some people today still like greeting you with things like “By His grace!” Just one last time, I believe the older something or someone becomes the purer the innocence it or they attain and the more classical it or they become, however, it is difficult to see this innocence or ‘classicalness’ in the recent past, and this is why we ridicule it. For example, we would never ridicule Plato or Socrates but we would ridicule Kenny Everett or Russ Abbot etc (for now). Therefore, while we are using or creating our advanced technologies and works of music or art etc that we should be very conscious of, aware of and appreciative of the past, our ancestors, relative absolution and pure innocence. Please, do not forget about the past, it may come back to haunt you! I will also reiterate once again, that people, most especially the far-right care far too much about life, what it is down here on Earth, that is they care too much about race and the continent of Europe etc. I know that life and the universe seem like everything down here, but they are not in fact. We will have our homogeneous indigenous European empires and superpowers in the eternal afterlife. Because of the Holocaust, there is nothing we can do to save our race and countries. Therefore, after long fruitless efforts in this direction myself, I would therefore, like to advise you sort of give up and just look forward to the afterlife. Because of the Holocaust, we can never be racist in this life or on Earth, it is impossible and futile. That is what this blog hopefully has accomplished, by this I mean I hope it has ameliorated some of your anger and frustration and hopefully got you to chill out and look forward to the afterlife? Finally, before you go judging me and calling me a Nazi because I have forgiven Adolf Hitler, please note this blog is about and was not be possible without the accomplishments of two great Jews, Albert Einstein and Jesus Christ.

Figure 20. Middle Palaeolithic Adolf Hitler, with club.

The three case studies in this blog are…

https://forgiven.blog

And remember the key or secret is…

…in the past.

I couldn’t give a monkeys about the future!