Posts.

Technical compassion.

Consider compassion, how can Australopithecus or Lower Palaeolithic man be compassionate toward animals, when they themselves were not yet masters of the animal kingdom or even worse still prey themselves?

It is impossible, compassion simply did not exist. Compassion is technical, in that you must, for instance, first attain advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure such as gunpowder, muskets, rifles, automobiles, militaries, police, emergency services, roads, buildings, bridges and skyscrapers etc before you can be compassionate toward animals. It is not a case of hey compassion for compassion’s sake like the Buddha. Compassion is not free of charge, it is a definite and tangible deal or bargain. Only now that I am invincibly safe and secure from wild animals in my city, town or fortress and surrounded by guns, and now that I have an overabundance and surplus of food, energy and resources etc can or will I be compassionate toward animals. Prehistoric man needed to kill, it is simple if they did not kill they would die. Therefore compassion did not exist, in fact, it was probably wrong and even heinous at that time. It is only when you do not need to hunt or kill animals, can you then be compassionate. Therefore, the Buddha and Jesus Christ could not have come prehistoric men and only came at a certain level of civilization, when we no longer needed to hunt or kill animals in order to survive. The Buddha and Jesus Christ were blessed compared to prehistoric man. Therefore, compassion toward animals was only attained with sophistication, collective development and civilisation (perhaps through agriculture, domestication and the Neolithic revolution etc) because then and only did Homo sapiens become invincible and masters of the animal kingdom.

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

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

Compassion requirements:

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

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 no compassion. It was equally good for them to have no compassion. I think it is a case of it was wrong for prehistoric people to have compassion and it is equally wrong for us today to have no compassion. Now think of this, Adolf Hitler did not have much compassion, in fact, he was the opposite of the Buddha when it comes to compassion, nor did Jeffrey Dahmer for that matter. However, bear this in mind, because as will be seen this lack of compassion must determine that such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile were in fact 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.

https://technicalcompassion.com

Natural selection.

What does the statement ”ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE NAZIS” mean? It can only mean that if as a white person even if you are vehemently anti racist, and you choose a white wife or husband then you are a Nazi. This is because this is about as ”racist” as the vast majority of white people get, in that they infinitely and naturally prefer their own race when it comes to marriage, relationships and offspring. White people naturally select their own race. You may say “I am never racist, but I don’t want a non-white partner,” but in the eyes of antifa this makes you a racist Nazi. The hundreds of millions of ordinary and sensible (white-partnered) Europeans should come to together and crush this scourge of antifa!

5C32C60F-EFF3-411D-890A-E964BC1F250E
Actual stickers being sold by Brighton antifa on their site.

https://time4forgiveness.com

Unforgivables.

Unforgivables.

Who is unforgivable? Even to my own chagrin primitive relativity and primitive innocence determine no one. However, I would like to say that there are “unforgivables” that include such white traitors as mainstream politicians who have betrayed their own countries and people. However, they are not nearly as bad as treacherous antifascists who deliberately cause infighting between whites and who have the slogan “all white people are Nazis!”

5C32C60F-EFF3-411D-890A-E964BC1F250E
Actual stickers being sold by Brighton antifa on their site.

How can you betray your own people and effectively give your own women away? I just cannot get my head around it. To me there is nothing worse than treason and infighting. Despite the fact that Hitler is the real cause (not antifa) of every Europeans’ woes and has ruined everything for Europeans I could forgive him if he went back in time hundreds of thousands of years to a more primitive period to seek “relative innocence”. I could forgive Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism if he went back in time tens of thousands of years to a more primitive period to seek “relative innocence”. I could forgive Jimmy Savile’s abuse if he went back in time hundreds of years to a more primitive period to seek “relative innocence”. However, I cannot forgive eternal white traitors such as antifa who deliberately cause infighting between whites. Therefore, I can forgive totalitarian genocidal megalomaniacs, necrophiliac cannibals and pedophiles, but I cannot forgive antifa! That is the affection I have in my heart for antifa! There are no words to describe antifa’s treachery. Time will tell if there are any greater or more infamous cowards in history or prehistory? Antifa come very late in the game, they are an afterthought, they only show up when white people are vulnerable. Only now when white people have made peace and equality with the world, decolonised and exposed themselves etc have antifa decided to get “brave”. Only now it is safer for them have antifa taken the easier and cosier option and cowardly jumped on the winning and majority-non-white side or bandwagon. I have no problem with Muslims and can forgive them easily for terrorism such as beheading westerners and suicide bombings etc, but I cannot forgive white traitor politicians who idly sit by and watch it happen and do nothing meaningful to stop it. I also cannot forgive cowardly antifa who blatantly defend and abet terrorists, by infighting with mildly pro-British parties such as For Britain. To me white traitors who cause infighting are the only “unforgivables” and I believe that is not a bad designation for them. However, having got that off my chest, because time for forgiveness is so good and I do obey it, I will do my best. How far would antifa need to go back time to find “relative innocence”? Antifa do not care about the past, so why should they be allowed? However, as primitive relativity and primitive innocence state we should forgive everything (including “unforgivable“ anti-fascists), therefore, if I were to say to antifascists “I forgive you” (and I am not Jesus) for causing shameful infighting between whites (which is the hardest for me) then surely you can forgive the Nazis? Anyway, to me antifa are the “unforgivables” for now and they will probably have to wait a long time for forgiveness. Modern antifa and the real WWII Nazis are as bad as each other, however, as time for forgiveness states, it would probably be better if there was genuine forgiveness between these two extreme, polarised, irreconcilable and diametrical opposites. Primitive relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all it is definitely about time for forgiveness!

C463342C-7EFB-46E5-8820-4FA181B8B1E4
North East antifa.

“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.

https://time2forgive.com

It is relativity not supremacism!

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

 

It is relativity not supremacism.

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

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

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

https://time2forgive.com

Technically primitive.

As another example consider Africa, most if not all of Africa is relatively westernised or civilised, certainly contacted, though there are hunter gatherer bushmen in Southern Africa, and there could still be relatively uncontacted or very remote and native, indigenous or primitive people’s in other parts of Africa, in such as the Congo for example. In the 1980’s in Ghana you still saw people who had never seen a white man before, especially young children would be frightened and cry at the sight of a “bruni” (white man). This is rare today. Therefore, the vast majority of Africans would go to prison for killing a westerner. However, would we incarcerate a bushman for killing a westerner? Possibly not! This really highlights that it is subtle or technical primitiveness that determines an individual’s innocence or whether they live under our or western laws or if they should go to prison for homicide etc. For example, if a bushmen lives in a mud hut and has to hunt wildebeest or gazelle to eat meat, then technically they are primitive, and therefore less responsible, and therefore more innocent. Therefore, they can get away with murder. Prison is a better dwelling place than a mud hut and the free food in prison would certainly ameliorate the situation. Therefore, technically if you live in a brick house and do your shopping at a supermarket, then you are technically advanced and therefore more responsible and therefore less innocent, therefore, you would go to prison for homicide. Which would you prefer? Most people would say Persimmons, Shoprite and ASDA, but then you have to watch yourself! Do not for example go drink driving (as mentioned another African custom) and accidentally kill someone. However, some people, especially bushmen would say mud huts and gazelle!

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

Advanced and primitive weapons.

There is no point in having an advanced military and advanced or smart weapons such as laser-guided bombs (LGB) and nuclear warheads etc if you cannot even effectively deal with race, that is if you cannot effectively deal with immigration and minorities etc and prevent certain people from entering your country. Third world immigrants and Muslims will conquer America “from within”, that is through exploiting their weakness when it comes to race, that is they will simply conquer America through immigration. For example, the Romans are much happier and infinitely better off with a primitive military and primitive weapons such as the gladius, catapults and ballistas etc, because more importantly they can quickly and effectively deal with race, that is they can discriminate on grounds of ethnicity or religion and prevent certain people from entering their territory. The Romans would never swap their primitive weapons and technologies for advanced weapons and technologies, if it meant they can no longer discriminate on grounds of race. Similarly, for example, 15th to 19th century Europeans etc are infinitely happier with and much better off with primitive militaries and primitive weapons, such as swords, muskets and cannons etc, because it means they can effectively deal with race, that is they can discriminate on grounds of ethnicity and religion to prevent people from entering their territory. They would never swap! Therefore, Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) are an inefficient waste of ‘time’, ‘energy’ and ‘money’ without efficient laws or philosophy such as this essay tries to suggest. In other words the pen is mightier than the sword. Advanced weapons and military technologies are ineffective and inefficient without a piece of paper, such as the efficient laws or philosophy attempted to bring about in this essay. The most advanced aircraft carrier in the world is less important than a document. You might as well tickle Muslims with a feather. Therefore, we should devote all our ‘time’, ‘energy’ and ‘money’ into researching laws and philosophy on how to effectively battle race. Unless you are Marcus Licinius Crassus, no single person can purchase or create an advanced military, but one person can write an essay. Who would not want to save or do something beneficial for their own people? For example, if someone professional were to write an expert book on primitive relativity and primitive innocence, and if it changed the world for the betterment of white people, (something like The Communist Manifesto), imagine how brave and heroic that person would be in the afterlife? Conversely, you can be like mainstream politicians such as Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson and go out like anti racist cowards and traitors to your own country and people. The pen is mightier than the sword.

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

https://primitiverelativity.com

Holy Fathers.

Definition.

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

I bet you are a sceptic and do not believe that the qualities of primitive or chronologically early cultures are superior to those of contemporary civilisation? However, the further you go back in ‘time’ the more primitive and innocent life was and this could constitute in a way as a superior quality. The only advantage the present or future has is its advanced technology, but this does not necessarily mean an advantage. Who is more refined, classical or modern people? Although at the ‘time’ classical people were probably much less refined than we are today, however, two to three thousand years later, the classical period has aged like fine wine and become unbelievably refined and holy, for example, consider how refined great people like Moses, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Jesus Christ have become over time. The classical period inspired a lot including artistic movements, while we advanced modern people are relatively trashy. You do not need to go back far to find primitive innocence, for example, the Victorians have become relatively ‘classical’ and great. Therefore, who would you rather be a Victorian with an empire or a modern Elizabethan with an iPhone? This is the temptation of technology (see website). Even the 1920’s and 1950’s have primitive innocence and could soon become ‘classical’ and great. A main theme of the essay (see website) is the Lord’s Prayer, and as will be seen the older you are the more holy you are, and because we do not and cannot know the names of our holy fathers on earth such as prehistoric man, therefore hallowed be your name and on earth as in heaven is for them. Because their names are forever lost to us, the answer to the question who is prehistoric man is YHWH. This is important for those primitive hominins who did not even have a name, in this instance, these anonymous humans must be called YHWH. The Buddha and Jesus Christ are primitive and ancient men, yet they are eternally fashionable and eternally relative or relevant, even more than anyone alive today. Contemporary civilisations are much less primitive and innocent, which could be inferior. As a Briton would you rather have been born in 1919 with the largest empire in history or 2019 with an iPad? This is the central question of the essay.

https://primitiveinnocence.com

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

Primitive innocence.

10738227-A4FA-4AC9-AE6D-FD4E27B3D60B

Innocent twenties!

My grandfather was born in 1926 and I remember him telling me in the 1990’s that what he got for Christmas as a child was “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking.” This is primitive innocence! Unfortunately we born in the 1980’s were relatively very spoiled as children at Christmas. We received anything we wanted, for example an Atari, a Commodore 64, an Amiga or a Super Nintendo etc, plus all the candy and chocolate we could ever eat. Compared to the 1920’s we born in the 1980’s were relatively much less innocent.

What is the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and innocence or primitivism?

In the beginning’ the ancient Egyptians and Romans ascribed divinity to super-rich god kings and god-like emperors, such as Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II of the 11th-Dynasty and Julius Caesar. The statement that the poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are, points in the inverse or opposite direction of capitalism or instincts, that is to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future, thereby creating the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity). It means that the poor deserve divinity and not the rich, for example Jesus Christ deserved divinity where as Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II or Julius Caesar did not. Also for example, as the above paragraph on the innocence of the 1920’s demonstrates that the older and poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are. For example my grandfather humbly received “an apple and an orange and a penny in a stocking” for Christmas as a child in the 1930’s. This is primitive innocence! Therefore, the further you go back in ‘time’ the more primitive and innocent life was. For example we could imagine that even meat might have been a treat for ancient or medieval children. This is primitive innocence! However, how does primitive innocence work for ancient or medieval Kings and Queens, such Elizabeth I? Everyone in the medieval period (especially the poor and peasants) can claim a lot of primitive innocence! That is except for the Kings and Queens of the period, this is because like today, even in the ancient and medieval periods Kings and Queens were spoiled, desired for nothing materially and basically received their heart’s desire. Therefore, Kings and Queens do not have much in the way of humbleness. Therefore, despite being ancient Kings and Queens have very little primitive innocence. This proves that it is the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich.

A77EEA2E-27F6-4E4C-B01F-21A07FE3B62E
Elizabeth I suffered for a love of sugar. Because of her sweet tooth, Elizabeth I eventually had to have a number of badly-decayed teeth removed. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/royal-food/0/steps/17059

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

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

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

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

The above quotes demonstrate how even medieval Kings and Queens were relatively spoiled, in that they received everything their hearts desired. For example, how many of the poor and peasants of the medieval period received and ate marzipan?

How is it that the poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are?

We could say that for example all people are equally primitive and innocent, that is that the Queen is just as primitive and innocent as a working class Briton on minimum wage. However, as mentioned above, the statement that the poorer you are the more primitive and innocent you are creates the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity), in that it demonstrates that a working class person on minimum wage deserves divinity a lot more than the Queen. It makes us more altruistic and noble meaning that we look back to, point in the direction of and care about our own poor people, more than rich and famous people. For example, Kings and Queens of more or less any period cannot claim much primitive innocence compared to the peasants of their period, because they were spoiled, desired for nothing and were never hungry or thirsty.

Temptation of technology.

Primitive innocence.

What do I mean by primitive innocence? I mean that the further you go back in ‘time’ the more primitive life was and therefore, the more innocent it was. You do not have to go back far in ‘time’ to such as the medieval or prehistoric periods to find primitive innocence. For example, I was born in 1981 and I can tell you that even the 1980’s were relatively much more innocent than the 2010’s. This is because we had no internet or mobile phones and we still used coal fires etc, therefore, we were much more innocent in the 1980’s than we are today. For example, we had way less knowledge in the 80’s, as in we did not comprehend advanced things like Spotify and FaceTime, hence we were much more innocent. If you understand advanced things like Spotify and FaceTime you are much less innocent. The less said about it the better! Also, since the invention of the internet and social media such as Twitter the world has become filled with hate and we are therefore, much less innocent.

Technology is temptation.

Technology is temptation in that it tempts or lures us to exist in the present or future instead of the past. For example, iPads and iPhones tempt us that were born in the 1980’s to severe our connections to and disparage the 1980’s and to vehemently exist in the present and to look to the future. Technology coaxes us out of the decade of our birth, the primitive 1980’s and into the advanced and evil teens of the present 21st century.

3570E46F-2205-4120-BF5A-D29927CA49F0
Apple Inc. logo.

The temptation.

There are two ways in which we can look at the past, firstly, concerning say the 1960’s, we can say that the 1960’s were much better in a way or relatively for white people, in that white people were relatively more powerful and secure in the 1960’s. Secondly, we can all say “Daaaaang! It is so dated and old fashioned! Look how primitive it was! I’m glad I’m in 2019!” This is the temptation of technology. For example, London in 1969 was 99% white, but non-whites will denigrate the past by saying “Oh my God! The 60’s!? How old fashioned is that!? Look at the haircuts!” This is because some non-whites have little to no past. For example, try to put your mind in the mind of an African, “the past” to Africans was segregation or slavery, therefore, they do not care about or want to know about the past. But why should white people care? Why just because Africans do not care, should white people also not care about their past? It is like how in August 2017, in The Guardian, Afua Hirsch questioned whether Nelson’s Column should remain in place, with the implication it might be removed. She argued that the London monument is a symbol of white supremacy because Horatio Nelson opposed the abolitionist movement. Why should we white people care? Non-whites are the future. White people do want to know about and hold on to their past. The further you go back in ‘time’ the more primitive life was and therefore, the more innocent. Today white people are the unfashionable. Fashion and technology move on and non-whites are now fashionable and will become more fashionable in the future. The Victorians are no longer fashionable. Empire was lost because of technological temptation and because it became unfashionable. Think of this, in the afterlife, would The Beatles choose to live in 1969 London or 2019 London (which is over 50% non-white)? Considering the 1960’s were much more primitive and innocent, and because their fame and fortune depends on it, I expect they will choose to exist in 1969 London in the afterlife. In fact, despite every white person’s outspoken leftist tendencies down here on earth, I bet you the vast majority of white people in the afterlife (when fashion does not matter) hypocritically choose to live and exist in the ‘time’ periods of their birth or youth, in that most people will go back in ‘time’ as far as possible. I know I will at the least live in the innocent 80’s! This is because the further you go back in ‘time’, relatively the more primitive life was and the more powerful and secure white people were. For example, I bet you that a white person who was born in the 1920’s, despite having outspokenly leftist tendencies today, will choose to exist in the 1920’s, 1930’s or 1940’s time periods in the afterlife. (That is unless they are tempted by an iPad to exist in the 21st century?) This is because white people were relatively much more powerful, secure and better off in 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s etc. Plus despite the Holocaust, those decades are much more primitive and innocent. Think of this also, Jesus Christ and the Buddha, despite being ancient, primitive and old fashioned men are still eternally more fashionable than anyone alive today and always will be. If there is such a thing as a “resurrection” for over-the-hill artists (such as The Beatles), it will require the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism. This is because it makes us look back to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. So what do you choose power or fashion? Fashion is ephemeral and insignificant. Fashion can be controlled. To attain the power and the glory you have to look back instead of forward. I choose the power. The two ways of looking at the past should give precedence to power first, technology second. In the afterlife we will be both powerful and fashionable. Booyackasha! Wicked! Innit!

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

https://primitiverelativity.com

 

Recorded history ratio (H. sapiens).

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

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

8FC52332-EF0A-4E1A-900C-D4788220685B
Pie chart showing how long prehistoric and historic H. sapiens have existed relatively.

Recorded history ratio.

Just to demonstrate how utterly stupid and ignorant we modern advanced ‘historic’ Homo sapiens are of prehistory, consider this. Australopithecus evolved in Eastern Africa 4 million years ago, and the derivation of the genus Homo from Australopithecina took place in East Africa after 3 million years ago. Homo habilis inhabited parts of sub-Saharan Africa from roughly 2.4 to 1.5 million years ago. Homo erectus emerged about 2 million years ago. Homo antecessor of the Lower Paleolithic, is known to have been present in Western Europe (Spain, England and France) between about 1.2 million and 0.8 million years ago. Homo heidelbergensis radiated in the Middle Pleistocene from about 700,000 to 300,000 years ago. Homo neanderthalensis lived from 430,000 years ago to 40,000 years ago. And finally the earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 300-200,000 years ago. Hence, despite the fact we do not know their names, memories, deeds, stories or individual characters, ‘prehistoric man’ has been around for 4 million years, while ‘historic man’ has been around for a piddling 5000 years! That is literally a fraction or 1/800 or 0.00125 out of 1 or 0.125% of the length of time ‘prehistoric man’ was around. That is a ratio of 600 : 0.75 or 800 : 1. Prehistoric man constitutes 99.875% of our total time on earth. If 4 million years was crammed into 24 hours, then relatively recorded history has been around since 23:58:12. We modern ‘historic’ H. sapiens sit here with our crumby 5000 years of history and think we are so great, smug and smart for knowing where we have come from for 5000 years, yet we are practically nothing in the scheme of things! Relatively ‘prehistoric man’ has been around for an inordinately longer time than ‘historic man’. That is 4 million years of memories, deeds, stories and eventually names that we will never know about. Surely in heaven ‘prehistoric man’ must be compensated for this total lack of knowledge and appreciation with much fame and illustriousness.

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

5D78DF87-94A6-4758-9442-A5BEF499B8D9
Pie chart showing how long prehistoric and historic man have existed relatively.

The inverse of divine ascription of nativism and the forgiveness of primitivism could determine that we modern Homo sapiens should identify with recorded history and call ourselves ‘historic man’. We are 5000 years old and nothing else! And although anatomically there is not much difference between ‘prehistoric’ and ‘historic’ Homo sapiens, there is a huge difference mentally between prehistory and recorded history, even between Neolithic Homo sapiens and ‘historic’ modern Homo sapiens.