The checkmarks are how many weeks a 28 year old has remaining should they live to 100 years old.

Next, here is an illustration detailing the various stages of life with different symbols showing how long or short each stage is relative to each other:

Most of our years are spent working. Below is another graphic detailing what a high earner in various countries will expect to be burdened with regarding taxation, averages across their working years, also including the average of these countries:

Below is an example of Canada’s Earned (Blue) versus Unearned (Red) incomes by cohort and relative group size:

This graphic above is less relevant if it has nothing to compare itself to, so I will include the other countries as well below. Basically, red is again more unearned income versus blue as earned income. Purple areas are where these overlap:

As incomes rise, it can clearly be seen that their unearned incomes vanish. That’s pretty obvious under “progressive taxation”. But no one ever stops to think what this really represents. It is less so the money, but the time. Time is life, and so such productivity is punished. This has become a class system, which pits the Active class into being the victims of the Stagnant class.

Above you will see the growth in unearned income. The dotted line in each line graph represents 1900 numbers. The vertical dotted line represents the threshold of earned (right) versus unearned (left). In every country pictured, the cohort of unearned income individuals has significantly increased.

Clearly a class has developed which now takes more than it earns, at the expense of everyone who does earn. With increased political power in this cohort, what can be done to prevent the parasite from devouring its host?

What is the incentive to produce when much of what you produce just goes to the Stagnant class? What future is there for a nation which objectively punishes productivity, creativity, and usefulness, and rewards Parasitism?

Rosa Luxembourg, Communist as she was, did not demand merely the wealth of others, but instead the availability of work (ideally productive work). If there was no work then she simply asked for bread, a symbol of the bare necessities to sustain life. She was not asking to be a parasite, rather she was asking to have a right to live. In her view the ownership class was a form of parasite which absorbed wealth from labour and did little to deserve it. But look at the current state of things. There is no civilization which has survived a parasitic burden of ~50% of its resources with no appreciable benefit from said parasite. The same goes for nature.

A spectre is haunting The West — the spectre of anti-parasitism. All the powers of the Stagnant Class have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Lesbian Preacher, Managers and Human Resource Officers, Welfare Islamists and Recent Gimmigrants.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Anti-Parasitic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of anti-parasitism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its Stagnant adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Anti-Parasitism is already acknowledged by all Western powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Anti-Parasitists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Anti-Parasitism with a manifesto of the idea itself.

…

You have nothing to lose but the other half of your paycheque and the world to win or something etc.

If we don’t solve the problem, we will pay it back double with pain.

Now that the date has passed and there’s been enough time to reflect on the goings on, I felt it is time to analyze the experience around the “Truth and Reconciliation” narrative from my own perspective.

Usually this day passes as one of those “I don’t really care but I’m happy to be paid to not work today…” sorts of “holidays”, and I’m very certain that’s similar for many Canadians.

However, what I noticed beyond the virtue signalling types on one side and the “politely keeping to themselves and hoping to just get through it” types on the other, was the official narrative has been nudged.

At first it was about recognition of the suffering of natives in the, in many cases, forced public schooling (referred to as “Residential Schools”). There are a number of realities which cannot be denied regarding these institutions, but there’s quite a bit of mythology as well (children allegedly thrown into furnaces).

Firstly, I noticed the dichotomy. On one side there are self-flagellating Neo-Converts who either genuinely feel badly about how the government treated the First Nations peoples, or feign it. I think it comes across in a sort of “the lady doth protest too much” manner, but given I cannot read their minds, I cannot be certain. In any case, let’s presume they are genuine feelings.

On this side of the dichotomy, anything, any statement, any lack of self-flagellation, anything that defends European culture or dignity, any questions regarding the validity of oral rumour or testimony, is seen as denialism. I will refer to this as the “Residential School Truther” (RST) going forward. It has become a bit ridiculous, wherein even requesting evidence is seen as denial. I was told “There is already evidence. Victims have testified that X and Y occurred.” They claim “bodies have been found” or if they haven’t dug them up yet, it’s because they want to “respect the dignity of the buried dead.” It has gone so far as to render the very question: “Show me the evidence”, which is referring to the alleged mass, unmarked graves, is a blasphemy, and there have been instances where businesses have been pilloried, owners disenfranchised from their business, and employees fired.

This is beyond the normal range of illogical thinking, which makes me suspect that it is being nudged. It is often greeted with presumptions. For example, in the SBC-Adair incident it is presumed that Adair is a “denialist”. I have yet to hear his own opinion from his own mouth, however this is quite common, and I have myself been accused of this. But this isn’t what I believe at all, and I suspect the same for Adair in this case. For reference, I do not deny the residential schools existed, nor do I deny that abuses occurred there, nor would I have any reason to deny those things. Such is the very nature of large underfunded institutions, especially those which run along the lines between cultures in an attempt (however pointless in my view) to merge them together. We can refer to so-called “Denialists” as “Residential School Evidencers” (RSE).

In fact, my presumption regarding institutions, and I believe most people would agree, that large institutions and abuse are part and parcel. Essentially, anyone advocating for such an institution is de facto advocating for abuse.

So how then could I be framed as a denialist, when from the very baseline I presume the existence of abuse and neglect within large institutions?

This is the dichotomy and narrative being nudged. I don’t believe the residential schools were or ever are a good idea. I think it’s bad because it’s Liberalism manifest, attempting to dissolve the organic social bonds that hold cultures and peoples together. Liberalism will always seek this dissolution because it regards these bonds as oppressive, and counter to the cause of “individual autonomy”. But what they fail to reconcile is that “individual autonomy” can be more accurately understood as social isolation.

Many of those subjected to residential schools suffered from this exact pattern. They are forced or otherwise to attend a residential school (mostly because schooling became mandatory in the early previous century). If they survived the abuse and disease (surprisingly most did) they would eventually return to their communities, often with their language skills in English improved, but at the cost of their mother tongue. They would know how to do arithmetic, read, write, and have some understanding of the larger world stage and history. But they weren’t in their tribe absorbing the organic material and immaterial wealth of their ancestors, some of whom would pass away while they were at said schools. From Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, 1920:

I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that the country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone… Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department, that is the whole object of this Bill.

This is often quoted as proof that the government of Canada was attempting to genocide the First Nations through the method of these residential schools. But in context what he is saying is he wants to wipe out the First Nations cultures and traditions, so that there can be unity and harmony, by being absorbed into the Canadian nation. I myself would argue that this is definitionally genocidal, but, it is not murderous. It wasn’t declaring that First Nations should be killed. So what is the disagreement?

On the Residential School Truther (RST) side, although I have seen mixed opinions, the less intelligent ones tend to see this as an explicit blood-thirst by a European man, and thus use it as a basis for blood libel against other people of European descent. As you move up the intellectual hierarchy of the RST, you find more nuance, such as referring to it as genocide. Some perform a Motte and Bailey fallacy, wherein they say it was genocide (the purpose of which is to make it seem like murder), but then when confronted, they retreat to the cultural genocide narrative. That being said it makes any nuanced discussion of the topic very poisonous, and really hurts trust.

The nudge is obvious from the framing. Living Canadians had nothing whatsoever to do with 19th Century Liberal bureaucrats decisions, nor do they have anything to do with 19th century conditions, nor do they have anything at all to do with 19th century power relations between groups, whether racial, tribal, military, economic, or political. There is not one living drop of blood pumping through a living human heart in a conscious mind and body which was present nor witness to a witness of these events. So why is the State enacting collective guilt on contemporary Canadians? It is clearly the State itself which is and was to blame for such actions in any case. This is complete misdirection on both sides. The RST self-flaggelators are wrong because they played no role in the institutions nor do they possess any political power now or at the time of the events. The RSE (“Denialists”) are even less guilty and need not defend the actions of long dead powerful people. Not only do they have no need to defend the actions of the past in which they played no part, those actors in the past probably ran the country counter to so-called “Denialist” political beliefs. And so for the RST types to go after and persecute RSE types is completely morally and ethically wrong. But let’s see what sort of logic would make them right.

The attacks on RSE by RST, especially through the coercion of the Canadian State, only makes sense through a persecutory secular-religious framework:

“Canada has sinned. I am a Canadian and I am compelled to atone for this sin. I can atone for this sin by attacking those who sin. If I cannot attack those who sinned (they are dead), then I can attack those who reject my framing; I can burden others with this sin and then attack them. I can erect an enormous insurmountable strawman, and burn it down. I can attach my sins to this goat and punish the goat for being so sinful. Those who disagree with me are denying my truth. The truth will set you free. I will impose truth on you for your own good. I will punish you for your own good. I will punish you so I won’t feel bad and maybe I can avoid punishment. Even if my truth isn’t absolutely true, it is directionally moral. Even if it isn’t true, I will pretend because the ends justify the means. I have anxiety and punishing people that disagree with me makes me feel better about myself. I am a worm, but my enemies are less than me. My enemies don’t deserve to live. Allowing them to live is limitlessly merciful and kind. I am a kind person for letting my enemies live. My enemies do not deserve a single thing in life and even letting them live is a privilege that people not as good as me would not allow. They should be punished forever until they agree with my framing. I am not in a cult nor am I a cultist. I have no personal religious beliefs and this belief is not religious, it’s just the normal thing people believe. Anyone outside of my belief framework is an enemy. I must destroy my enemies before they destroy my truth. I am a good and honest person.”

And this is where the RSE gets things wrong themselves. They think they are arguing with fools, the uninformed, the misled. Normal reasonable people who have simply not seen all the facts or refuse to. But that’s not true. You are really dealing with a form of secular religious doctrinaires, who will never relent because they have been deracinated, and their organic attachments are being actively attacked through the mechanisms of ideological liberalism.

Interestingly, none of the parties to all of this conflict have ever thought of who the “bad guy” really is. Everyone seems to associate whatever the true bad guy is to their, quite literally, arranged enemy. For RST, it’s the DENIERS, rather than the Government of Canada. For the RSE, it’s the LIBTARDS, rather than the Government of Canada. For the Government of Canada, it’s you and me, who had nothing to do with it.

Why? The Government of Canada loses nothing. It puts its sins on the goats (Canadians) when we had nothing to do with it. They set us against ourselves, all COMPLETELY INNOCENT of any of the crimes of previous century Government of Canada institutional abuse. Even worse, this same guilty Government of Canada has probably abused everyone, at least in terms of a heavy tax burden, not to mention the high likelihood of further institutional abuse of contemporary populations.

The whole affair is a stitch up. They will abuse you, then blame you for your abuse, and then they will punish you for your abuse. Let’s lay the blame where is actually lay, and it’s not us. It’s like a rapist getting tow of his rape victims to argue over which one of them is guilty for the rapist raping a third victim. The punishment? The decided guilty party gets raped, and the rapist is the one to execute the sentence. There is only one guilty party here, and it’s the rapist.

We are The Raped.

Rights derive from particular relationships and the will to defend them. Liberalism’s “universal” alternative is simply violence against human nature itself.

What is a “right”, exactly? Much is said about rights: they are unassailable, undeniable, impenetrable. They have become the definitional focus of postmodern humanity in a liberal world. But what are they?

It is difficult to parse what most people think they are, but they are certainly definable. Everyone is alleged to be “equal” before the “law”, which thus alleges to justify the granting of “equal” “rights”. But we must go further, of course, for what does equal before the law mean?

Firstly, Law is the institutional structure which enables…Justice? So we now must consider, what is justice? Justice is ultimately an emotional process, meant to be balanced through “corrective actions”. Well, what are those? Violence, and we all know what violence is, so let’s work our way back to rights.

Violence is part of corrective action used to repair emotional desires for justice, which seeks to satisfy the liberal demand for “equality before the law”. Laws therefore, are a call for corrective violence in defence of a particular “right”. In shorter form, rights are violence.

Although many rights are exercised without the need for violence, that is still where from the rights derive. Better yet, it is the willingness to exercise violence in the name of rights which is where they derive.

Therefore, a concept like “universal rights” means “universal violence”. But there is no such thing as universal violence. For example, a random man in the Hindu Kush has little to no knowledge of, bearing, nor relationship to myself. Therefore we have no mutual interest in each other’s rights. There are literally BILLIONS of instances such as this, which is not possible in a system of universal rights, as these rights must (by the logical definition of “universal”) be applicable always, and to everyone.

Rights always must come from relation. The Golden Rule is relational. The Bible is relational. The Koran is relational. The Bhagavad Gita is relational. These set forth localized communal relationships, through which mutual and particular rights are exercised.

It is a failed liberal project to conceive of the human species as one communal unit. It may not always be antagonistic, as most of the time human communities are neutral to each other, but they are much more often antagonistic than friendly. Most antagonism is avoided simply due to distance and lack of contact. There is a sadistic cruelty to mass immigration for this reason, as it tends to generate antagonisms due to mere contact between communities with different values. Although the internal logic of liberalism imagines this is an attempt to glue humanity together, it instead acts as an acid, attempting and often succeeding in dissolving relational bonds.

So then we enter the milieu of liberalism’s imagined conception of rights: the Universal Violence against Communities, which is many words just to say, Humanity.

To summarize, rights derive from relationships, and the will to enforce them, while liberal “rights” are the violence it takes to force all into a universal relationship and then punish those in opposition to the arrangement..

It should not be a surprise that such arrangements are unstable. The liberal solution? Even more violence. Even more universality. Even more atomization: the homeless drug addict criminal is actually just another member of the universal human family and you have a duty to help him as much as your own flesh blood. No one believes this yet this is a fundamental conception of the liberal system.

The main overarching issue is that Liberalism is a fallacy. You cannot bring people together into a universal of man, it is simply antithetical to the concept of man. To be the dissolving acid which digests the particular relations between us, at least those to which we were born and given no choice in the matter, and then believing this can be substituted with purely voluntary relations (ones acquired through choice, rather than duty or obligation) is anti-human or even anti-mammalian. We recognize many of these differences even in current law.

A parent is by law made to care for their children. It is their duty. A fundamental personal shame drops upon you like a heavy curtain should you fail this duty. Often those who have lost this duty through personal failure are somewhat ostracized for doing so. It is a deep spiritual embarrassment to lose that responsibility; all of which only makes sense if relationships are particular. You cannot simply replace your particular child with another random child and feel the same fulfillment. You can of course adopt children, but that’s different than losing a child or trying to replace your child with a stranger. Everyone knows this is the case. It is therefore reflected in our law. Liberalism is fundamentally and philosophically against this.

If rights must be defended through violence, and rights are particular and defined through relations, what about people incapable of violence? They must rely on their community, (network of relationships) in order for their rights to be upheld. On an individual level they possess no “rights” other than through this. So when liberalism dissolves those relationships via its acidity, these rights are essentially lost. Universality of rights does not reestablish the bonds. It is a lot like a chemical reaction, once the bonds are broken, something new and different will form. And like in chemistry, strong bonds require strong input energy to break. The resulting formation is different, and to reverse the reaction will likely take even more energy input to repair, and in most cases this is not possible because human beings do not have infinite time, infinite energy, nor infinite patience. Once this occurs, through whatever means, it is a definitive ends, and through this, society, the family, and love is tortured to death.

It is partially why men and women have been set against each other, yet where the relationship is formed despite this, it yet flourishes. Where family has been set against itself, it yet flourishes where it does. Success in liberalism means to destroy the particular and replace it with the universal. Why would anyone claim to be liberal? That is what it entails, so they must merely not know, or regard particular relationships with ire. It’s ignorance or evil. The evil might feel banal but it is real.

The evil of treating relations as universal is hard to grasp. But let’s imagine as best we can why a liberal might think it’s good. It could be posited that certain relationships being universal means you have a certain number of “relationship slots” like an RPG character load-out. Your “Wife” slot could be filled with anyone, or they might just call it a “Partner” slot. Your “Partner” is a replaceable functional category. Repeat this for your “Parent” slots. Your “Parent” or perhaps “Guardian” is a functional category. This goes for any relationship “slot”. This differs from one’s particular “Wife” or “Husband”, or “father” and “mother”. Each of the particular relations represents an undermining of liberal universality, because it ties you to a specific human lineage, and a particular human future. This is why terms like “Partner” or “Parent” are so widely used, because liberalism wishes to maintain the functional category (due to its inherent utility) without the relationship (by that I mean the relationship outside the function). I personally cringe when someone uses these terms, often in trying to be “good” or “kind”, but it’s like the term “comrade” in the USSR. The terms are astringent, shallow, universal, hollow, and ultimately sad. The reason for this is that you cannot maintain the utility without the particular relationship, meaning that in the end all liberalism does is destroy healthy and productive human relationships and replaces them with NOTHING. Maybe they get replaced with a bureaucracy, and that is the best you can hope for. From this I posit that the birth rate decline is largely being caused through this mechanism.

How do you survive? It’s not easy but you must not abandon your familial and by extension natural friendship relations. For any reason (perhaps other than the immorality of the other person). Loyalty, fidelity, honour, love, respect, all must be maintained despite the pressures of the system to abandon them as concepts. Stripped of its theft of past civilizing forces, liberalism is ironically, just a Christian Heresy. It takes one thing (universal peace, or a reluctance to war over the particular) and makes it EVERYTHING.

However there is indeed hope. Universalism is a Great Filter. Those who dodge its acid will continue the human journey while those who get dissolved by it will become the fertilizer upon which humanity will later flourish. But yet I lament their destruction. It is so pointless, so destructive, so banal. When I think about it I almost have tears in my eyes for them, for they know now what they are doing to themselves and they do not even know why they are doing it. Yet they still do it and nearly nothing you say to them will save them. That is the true story of lemmings running to their destruction over the cliffs into the sea, it was never naive lemmings, but naive human beings hellbent on self-destruction in the name of the “good”. Even sadder, is that although their individual death is sad, it is the death of entire lines of human beings which will never exist, all of whom are the victims of their ancestors who could not be saved. It is, judging by the birth rate decline, millions if not billions of holocausts, and I say that with no joke. The building of Holocaust museums and memorials, taken in this context, is for the Liberal, the construction of the Triumphal Arches of our age, regardless of any claims to the opposite.

Abstract

Through iterative application of a simple procedure — identifying the nearest prime to a value and computing the average of all primes strictly below it — a striking exponential decay emerges. Starting from 144,000 and repeating the process yields a sequence that conforms almost perfectly (R² ≈ 0.9993) to the geometric model y ≈ 165,569 × (0.4502)step. This paper documents the phenomenon, presents the mathematical fit, visualizes the data with trend extrapolation, and postulates on the deeper number-theoretic implications of this unexpectedly orderly behaviour in the primes.

Subscribe

1. Introduction

Prime numbers have long been studied for their irregular distribution yet underlying statistical regularities (e.g., the Prime Number Theorem). Most investigations focus on gaps, density, or analytic properties. Here we explore a novel iterative operator on the primes: the "downward prime average."

Starting with a seed value, we replace it with the average of all primes less than the nearest prime to the current value. Surprisingly, this operator produces a clean geometric contraction with a stable ratio near 0.45 per iteration.

The process was discovered empirically while exploring averages of primes below successively smaller thresholds. The consistency of the decay across more than four orders of magnitude suggests the existence of a hidden contraction mapping induced by prime averaging.

Novelty and Prior Art

Extensive searches across academic literature (arXiv, mathematical journals), online forums (MathOverflow, Math Stack Exchange, Reddit r/mathematics and r/numbertheory), and general web resources have not identified any prior documentation or postulation of this specific iterative operator: repeatedly replacing a value x with the average of all primes strictly below the nearest prime to x. While related concepts exist—such as the asymptotic average of primes up to the n-th prime (consistent with the Prime Number Theorem), iterative maps on prime gaps, studies of geometric sequences arising in number theory, and Gilbreath’s conjecture on iterated differences—no known work describes this exact feedback loop or the resulting remarkably clean exponential decay with a stable contraction ratio of approximately 0.4502 (R² ≈ 0.9993 across the observed range). This suggests the phenomenon constitutes an original empirical discovery.

Potential Applications and Usefulness

The discovery of this clean exponential decay (stable contraction ratio ≈ 0.45) arising from a simple iterative operation on primes has several promising applications:

Number Theory Research

• New empirical tool for studying prime averages and their asymptotic behavior without exhaustive computation.

• Testbed for refining approximations derived from the Prime Number Theorem.

• Evidence of surprising scale-invariance and hidden order in prime distributions.

Computational Tools

• Fast approximation of the average of primes below large n using the geometric model (O(log n) instead of sieving).

• Generation of predictable geometric sequences with prime-derived statistical properties.

• Benchmarking and verification of prime-counting and summing algorithms.

Education and Visualization

• Excellent teaching aid for exponential decay, geometric sequences, and the practical consequences of the Prime Number Theorem.

• Powerful visualization of how simple rules applied to primes produce remarkably smooth, ordered behaviour across many orders of magnitude.

Broader Mathematical and Scientific Connections

• Analogies to dynamical systems, contraction mappings, and renormalization processes.

• Potential inspiration for pseudo-random number generation or information-theoretic studies of redundancy in prime sets.

• Parallels to physical decay processes where stable multiplicative factors emerge from underlying rules.

Overall, this phenomenon shows that elementary operations on primes can yield highly regular, scalable behaviour — making it a fertile area for both theoretical insight and practical computational tools.

Comment

2. The Observed Sequence

The iterative process generated the following sequence of values (each entry is the nearest prime to the average of all primes below the previous entry):

Share

3. Visualization and Trend Analysis

Figure 1 below displays the sequence on a logarithmic y-axis together with the fitted exponential trend line and its theoretical extrapolation toward 1,000,000. The data points lie almost exactly on the trend line, confirming the geometric nature of the decay.

Get the app

4. The Mathematical Model

Linear regression performed on the natural logarithm of the sequence values yields an exceptionally strong fit:

log(y) = 12.0171 − 0.7981 × step

Exponentiating both sides produces the closed-form geometric model:

y ≈ 165,568.6 × (0.4502)step

Equivalently: y ≈ 165,568.6 × e(−0.7981 × step)

Goodness of fit: R² = 0.9993 (99.93% of variance explained).

Mean consecutive ratio: 0.4207 ± 0.1156 (standard deviation).

The ratio between successive terms remains remarkably stable (≈0.45) until the values become very small, at which point discrete effects and the sparsity of small primes cause minor deviations. This stability is the hallmark of pure geometric decay and is rarely observed so cleanly in number-theoretic constructions.

Share

5. Theoretical Postulates

The emergence of such clean exponential behavior invites several interpretations. We offer the following postulates, ordered from more concrete to more speculative:

Postulate 1: Hidden Contraction Mapping

The operator “average of all primes below the nearest prime to x” acts as a strong contraction mapping on the positive reals (or at least on the integers). Each application multiplies the magnitude by a factor whose expectation is approximately 0.4502. This suggests the existence of an underlying fixed-point attractor at the origin, with the primes inducing a discrete dynamical system whose trajectories are geometric.

Postulate 2: Reflection of Prime Density via the Prime Number Theorem

By the Prime Number Theorem, π(n) ∼ n / ln n. The sum of primes up to n is asymptotically ∼ (n² / 2 ln n).

Consequently the average of primes below n behaves roughly like n / (2 ln n) for large n. When this average is itself fed back into the process (via the nearest-prime step), the logarithmic correction produces a multiplicative contraction whose ratio stabilizes. The observed 0.45 factor may be viewed as an emergent constant arising from the interplay between linear growth in the sum and logarithmic growth in the count of primes.

Postulate 3: Self-Similarity and Scale Invariance

The near-perfect linearity on the log–linear plot across four orders of magnitude implies a degree of self-similarity. The same contraction ratio appears whether one begins at 144,000 or (theoretically) at 1,000,000 or higher. This hints that the prime numbers, when coarse-grained through repeated averaging, exhibit a fractal-like or scale-invariant statistical structure not immediately obvious from their individual distribution.

Postulate 4: Information Compression / Entropy Reduction

Each iteration replaces a large set of primes (whose collective information content grows with their count) with a single scalar — their average. The process therefore performs a drastic dimensionality reduction. The fact that the output remains predictably related to the input via a simple geometric rule suggests that the “information” carried by the primes is highly redundant when viewed through the lens of averages. The exponential decay quantifies the rate of this information loss.

Postulate 5 (Speculative): Connection to Analytic Number Theory

It is conceivable that the constant 0.4502 (or its logarithm −0.7981) bears a relationship to known constants in analytic number theory — perhaps involving the Mertens constant, the Euler–Mascheroni constant, or integrals over the Riemann zeta function. Further analytic work would be required to derive the exact contraction factor from first principles rather than from numerical fitting.

Message me

6. Conclusion and Future Directions

We have documented a surprising and highly regular exponential decay that arises from the repeated application of a natural averaging operator over the primes. The phenomenon is empirically robust, mathematically clean, and theoretically suggestive. It demonstrates that even within the famously irregular distribution of prime numbers, certain iterative constructions can produce deterministic, low-complexity behaviour.

Promising avenues for further research include:

• Deriving the contraction constant analytically from the Prime Number Theorem or related asymptotics.

• Testing the process with much larger starting values (106, 109, etc.) to confirm the ratio remains stable.

• Exploring variants: e.g., median instead of mean, or averages of primes in arithmetic progressions.

• Investigating whether analogous contraction phenomena appear in other multiplicative sets (e.g., highly composite numbers, factorials).

• Searching for a closed-form expression or generating function that reproduces the observed sequence without iteration.

The primes continue to surprise. What appears at first glance to be an ad-hoc numerical experiment has revealed a clean geometric law — a reminder that deep structure can hide in plain sight within the most elementary operations on the most elementary objects in mathematics.

Below was another response from an Indian national in India, to complaints regarding the senseless and horrific murder of Henry Nowak by a member of the Indian race. One will note, that when one group murders within its own group, there is little to complain about and the matter is dealt with normally. Only when a member of one group murders a member of a different group, is there suddenly a problem. This is because we do in fact have racial and cultural differences, and see an attack on kinfolk as an attack on ourselves. Note also, that a group ought to deal with violations of inter-kinfolk relations as a far more serious than intra-kinfolk relations because the former carries with it the possibility of racial warfare. If an attack on my kinfolk is an attack on me, then my only option becomes elimination of said threat. The only way to prevent this is to punish your own kinfolk who violate said concept much more harshly, while in the Nowak murder the exact opposite was done, with the family of the murderer doing their best to lie and cover-up the incident. They’ve also shown no remorse and have only doubled down since.

Not much need be said regarding the image below. I just thought it was funny.

Below is a popular meme format. This one encapsulates the current state of affairs in the YooKay. Starmer, blinded by his Liberal Social Democratic philosophy, so believes that the English are a superior species that he actually forces himself in a philosophical sense to oppress the Wnglish people. This side claims there are no indigenous British peoples, that random minorities who came here last Tuesday deserve your family’s silverware, and that there is no value in investigating the mass racial rape of British women and girls by largely Pakistani gangs of men, who did such horrible things as testified by the Grooming Gang Inquiry by Rupert Lowe et al., such as nailing a girl’s tongue down and sexually abusing her with animals, tools, weapons, and all such manner of things. There has been no justice for these victims, and so Starmer must ignore the issue or he becomes guilty of complicity himself.

Below is a meme regarding corporate promotion of degenerate sexual behaviour.

Below demonstrates (via the Dominion Society) how the mainstream media obfuscates the negative and harmful behaviours of recent immigrants not adapted to Canadian society. One wonders if they ever could be adapted. The mainstream or, legacy media, is highly subsidized by the Canadian government, and the lack of accountability in government via legacy media scrutiny has become extensively noticeable since 2015. This shouldn’t be seen as a coincidence. As a result, Liberal perspectives and policies have become increasingly stuck-in in the mentality of a seemingly slim majority in Canada. For how could you have a view that you’ve never heard of? There are no solutions to this beyond repealing such subsidies, and there is no political will to do so because entrenched views will not be easily reconsidered (without great pain, thus leaving an overall weaker and less adaptable system).

This speaks for itself, but I find has been relevant for a long time regarding the mass immigration crisis. When a national does a crime in his country he is expected to be held to account. I have no issues with having a serious incorrigible criminal put to death for their transgressions, even if he is some distant or near relative. Yet the (for lack of better terms) liberal-establishment cuck/reddit-tier counterfactualist will, in response to denunciations of foreign guests in our country violating civic and cultural legal norms via rape and abuse or theft etc, suddenly put on display a convicted criminal of the majority population. They claim it is hypocrisy that we complain about some foreign guests yet not about Mister John Smith, White Male. But that is because We punish John Smith. We know exactly what to do with John Smith and John Smith ought to understand what will or should happen to him as a result of his crimes. Yet every day we hear sob stories about some brown immigrant who “is oppressed” by the “system” and/or “wasn’t aware” that “raping children” was illegal.

If true (and I have no reason to believe them and it is probably just a desperate attempt to get away with his crimes) then such people should ALL as a community be removed from society IMMEDIATELY as they pose a clear and present danger to everybody. Such discourse (if it can be called that, it’s just obfuscation) makes everything functioning, impossible.

Thanks for reading, I have to get back to helping the wife with my son the newborn baby boy Nicholas. Hard to get things out these days but eventually I should be back up to speed.

Cheers,

NDWS

The regime reaction to the murder, the calling for “calm” and “reason” and to “respect the wishes of the family” should fall on DEAF EARS, deafened by our disgust at the system in which we inhabit. No doubt his grief stricken family was at once pounced upon by regime forces who likely pressured and coached the family to “react” in the typical “don’t look back in anger” style. But they have done this too often and we noticed the game.

The indignity with which 18 year old dying Henry was treated should enrage anyone, for it is a symbol of the system in which we live, and it is a pronouncement that people like Henry, people like you and me, in fact when it comes to the regime occupying our ethnic power centres, have no functional rights.

What are rights exactly?

Rights are the things or ideas which we as a collective decide we are willing to use force in order to enforce. We have rights to life because we are collectively willing to enforce such ideas and concepts. We have a right to not be raped or abused because as a collective we are willing to enforce such things with physical force.

But 18 year old dying Henry Nowak wasn’t even given the right to have his CORPSE treated with dignity, as the officer handcuffed him as his spirit ascended, reading aloud his “rights” to the corporeal form. Is there anything more symbolic of the current moment than this?

So why was young Henry not treated with a degree of dignity even as he expired? Because he was White.

Is that hyperbole? No. The Police statement that “he would have died anyways” should only enrage us further, as if the inevitability of death granted LOICENCE to the attending officers to treat him in such a manner. The truth is that we all suffer the fact of death’s inevitability, but we expect to be treated with dignity all the same.

They ought to have known he was dying, as he so declared:

“I’ve been stabbed.”

Which was greeted with:

“I don’t think so, mate.”

What could have caused this? White peoples under our system have fewer rights than other groups because the State has decided not to enforce rights for White peoples. This is explicit in State policy, and it taught by leadership in State apparatuses and instituted top-down. Therefore this cannot be solved without change from the top-down.

If the State is unwilling to enforce a particular right, then there is no moral legitimacy in the State itself. This grants moral legitimacy to ANY OTHER ENTITY WHICH IS WILLING TO ENFORCE RIGHTS.

The moment is clear, the State’s own reaction, the downplaying of the situation, the attempt to contain and manage the family, all of it proves its own illegitimacy. Something must be done. The State must change course, or the course MUST be changed. There are no alternatives. You either stand up and demand your rights as White people, or you remain tax-cattle farmed for your productivity, which will and is being used against you and your own kin.

Rights only exist so long as they are physically enforced. Young Henry had no rights, that is why he died and why he died in such an undignified manner. The system ground him up and spat out his corpse. The system tried to manage and control his family’s reaction. All of this is unimaginably immoral and cruel. You should be righteously angry. But don’t just be angry. Make the change happen. Make sure someone else’s young Henry doesn’t suffer the same indignity. It could be you, your son, your grandson, or granddaughter. It could be your neighbour, your friend, your brother. Don’t let it keep happening. Demand real and lasting change. Demand consequences. Demand justice for murdered White people and an end to anti-White discrimination. You don’t owe Third World-descended people your family silver. You certainly deserve not to be treated as a second-class citizen, and even if you happen to deserve it or are some sort of self hating ethnic masochist, your children deserve better.

RIP young Henry. You deserved better. The people who allowed the system which caused your death deserve a worse fate than you suffered.

All who oppose such change should be remigrated back to where they came from.

Welcome to the Spring of the Discontented Dissident. Many things are being said openly which should be solved behind friendly doors, but many are quite literally washing dirty laundry, skivvies and all, in all their soiled glory, before our murderous hecklers, spellbound to hate us, spellbound to despise us, and encouraged by all real power centres to end not our lives, but our conscious thoughts (which could corrupt them).

Yet here we are stepping on our own toes, soiling ourselves. Why? Are we so weak and so stupid to do this in front of our common, and I repeat for good reason…MURDEROUS enemies?

We can agree to disagree on certain things because for certain things between us in this sphere there are unavoidable conflicts. But that is always true!

We mustn’t forget the other constants in our domains. This will be how it is no matter who holds the reins of power. That is no reason to toss lit dynamite at our co-dissidents, and heap praise upon our enemies.

Orange Man has done a no-no? Well, what the fuck are we going to do about it? There are plenty of forms of action which could be taken. The weakest is to complain publicly. Doing so only benefits the enemy, and any benefit accrued to ourselves is at the mercy of that enemy. That enemy that wants you dead, your kids raped, and they think it’s funny (by the way). Keep that in mind prior to pandering for their mercy (we will get none and deserve the opposite for our carelessness).

We could lobby leadership through existing channels, fight on our own terms and our own territory. Many times this has worked. Leaders seldom lead 100% of the time and must through pure necessity, delegate, both action and thoughts, to trusted others.

Such callous carelessness concedes that we as a movement lack the organizational capacity, courage, and strength, to even appear united (which is of course literally always a farce). We accomplish nothing but the handing over of power to even worse people. It reminds me of the perils of Boomerized modern marriage, where rather than “solving issues” behind closed doors so that both parties can maintain a modicum of self respect and thus trust, the relationship becomes a ticking time bomb ready to make both parties out like litches.

I don’t want to alarm anyone in particular here and want to just raise the point that there are alternatives to suicide, and being that I am Canadian and we have the joy of MAiD to solve everything from depression to a twisted ankle (never you mind the moral implications, do you really want to interfere in the free choice of mentally ill, impoverished, and depressed?); as well as a new Liberal policy in discussion which purports to fine young Canadians for leaving the country, fleeing the infertile tundra for greener pastures in the USA or Europe. The fine isn’t small: $500,000. It could be worse though, as most simply don’t have $500,000 to pay. It’s a sick joke really, held up by a thick spread of irony, where in order to ever hope to make that much money as a Canadian, they’d definitely have to head south.

I must also despite all of these things, mention something key about the fate of the young in Canada. It was said recently (I cannot recall where I read this) that if Elon Musk had remained here instead of going to the United States, he would have been a mid-level manager at CIBC (one of the members of the Banking Monopoly here). It sounds again, like a joke, but it isn’t, and the more you ponder it the more disastrous the Canadian economy appears. It isn’t a lack of talent, Canadians punch above their weight on the world stage, but institutional, which is the worst type of problem, because the institution itself needs to be able to recognize what’s wrong, while at the same time that same institution was ideologically designed to be insulated from knowing, and solving such problems.

So then we now have this contradiction in Canada, where the government is “Liberal”, but our institutions are nearly as “conservative” as the Soviet Union. This is where the so-called “left” has some things right. Our institutions intensely guard our few monopoly industries such as telecommunications, farming, dairy, resource extraction, and manufacturing. What are they guarding against? American dominance.

So to my American friends, such is how Canada has essentially always defined itself, not in relation to, but in OPPOSITION to the USA. When you elect Orange Man, we vote Libtarded garbage like Justin Trudeau (the more I think about that the more goofy I realize he was, an absolute disgrace and buffoon). When you are patriots, we are globalists. When you tread onto the issue of sovereignty, we are suddenly patriots. When you restrict immigration, we gape open our borders. When you pull out of Europe, we make deals with them. When you expand freedoms, we restrict them, when you restrict freedoms, we make them open to the most deranged degeneracy imaginable. The beatings will continue until the Boomers are out of power.

Yet despite this, I have to respect my fellow dissidents. Despite so-called “national issues”, I respect my ideological allies in their fight for their lives. I am of course worried that the USA might end my nation’s sovereignty, who wouldn’t? But I am much more concerned about the ongoing genocide of my ethnos by my sovereign state on behalf of…I don’t know what…misplaced suicidal empathy?, ZOG? I must for the sake of this discussion reveal, that I’m partially American. My Grandmother on one side as well as a Great Grandmother on my other side were American born. So in that regard I am some three eighths American. I have actual second and third cousins on the US side of the border. I would like them (as well as my American friends) to survive.

This all reminds me of a popular saying in Arabic,

“Me against my brother; me and my brothers against our cousins; me and my cousins against the world.”

To put it into a nouveau-Sam Hyde-style quote:

“They want power like you do, but they want you to live, they want your children to live and multiply, and they think it’s wholesome.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/man-responsible-for-humboldt-broncos-crash-paid-his-debt-to-society-and-should-not-be-deported

I encourage you to read through it, for it makes I believe the best possible liberal case for the man involved.

I will not demand that you harden your heart towards a man who, in his ignorance drove dangerously and caused the deaths of 16, many promising young hockey boys as well as their team support; or the lifetime of injury caused to many others on the bus which could not stop in time to avoid the death trap truck strung across the rural highway.

One of the teenaged boys who survived remembers at one moment being on the bus, then waking up in a maelstrom of freezing cold death and destruction, his teammates strewn across thousands of square feet of wreckage. Some mangled beyond recognition, experts relied on dental records to determine who was who. But this young lucky survivor, though himself badly injured, somehow found a cellphone in the wreckage and called for help. This wasn’t a warm summer Saskatchewan day either, but a bitterly cold prairie winter, with twisted metal and broken glass, a sight no one wants to see nor should anyone need to, in short it was Hell.

Manley goes on in his opinion piece to comment on the virtues of compassion, the importance of forgiveness and letting go, ostensibly the pain of the event will more quickly wither away and free us from the burden. But this to me is nonsense.

The pain is a memory, a memory of failure, a memory of such pointless painful loss. If you breakdown Manley’s point, it is an argument that because of the limitations of law, we should have an equal limitation to our morality. But that is just not how that works. Law which reflects our morality is righteous and correct. It encourages correction towards justice, not away from it. It is natural, a tool which evolves along with those it affects, society on large. But when the opposite is the case, we are putting the cart before the horse, the tail is wagging the dog. It is an improper order of things, and risks morality being dictated by law, that law itself shall limit morality. This is untenable, and puts the very notion of law into disrepute, and posits that experts on law shall be able to determine right and wrong but they cannot. A law which reflects the morality of its people is the definition of justice, and all else is injustice.

Ask yourself, do the deaths and injuries seem conducive to an 8 year prison sentence with release after some 4 years, does it seem like justice? Our ancestors roll in their graves.

I am not calling for the man found guilty to be hung from the neck until he is dead, though our ancestors would have and it would have been considered indubitably correct, but we have other options, which Manley argues against.

He should be deported to his homeland. Not because it’s mean, not because he deserves it, but because it is the closest thing we have to justice, and considering the likely attitudes of our ancestors, also very kind.

There are some actions from which one cannot return to polite society. Some sins are far too heavy for a man to bear, and many of our ancestors truly felt that the noose was a tool of mercy. Sending him back home fulfills this without the necessary dirty work on our end.

I call on John Manley to rescind his letter, for the simple fact that it is morally wrong.

Reality eventually snaps back against ideological delusions, no matter how much money and effort is spent propping them up. Yet many brainwashed ideologues still carry water for power’s leaky bucket—endlessly defending a flawed, inefficient system that can’t hold onto reality or truth. It’s pathetic, disgusting, murderous, and ignorant.

The initial reports were foggy—understandable in the chaos, with scarce information. We’re reasonable people (perhaps too reasonable), and our delusional leaders exploit that goodwill. But as the fog cleared, every new detail confirmed what many of us suspected early on. We didn’t call it out of negativity or wishful thinking—we called it because we understand basic cause and effect.

Here’s what happened for me: Around 10:32 p.m. on the day of the shooting—roughly eight hours after it began—I got a text alert in my group chat with my brothers. I immediately Googled it and saw this initial police description: “The suspect was originally described as a female in a dress with brown hair.”

I sent that quote to my brothers at 10:33 p.m., and within the same minute followed up with: “Tranny?”

I’m no wizard or prophet—just a guy 1,200 km away who pays attention to patterns. Women (biological females) almost never commit school shootings. Normal men don’t wear dresses in public. Put those together with the description, and the logical conclusion was obvious. I take no pride in being right; I feel resentment toward those who label such reasoning “bigoted” or “hateful” when it’s simply observing reality.

That’s why I wrote the related Substack post: Reddit.com is dangerous for children. It exposes them to harmful, unscrupulously promoted ideas that can literally kill them—or lead them to kill others. Reddit played a role in brainwashing or fuelling this individual’s resentment, victimhood complex, and impossible beliefs to the point where he murdered his mother, his stepbrother, then went to the local high school to kill more children and injure many others.

I didn’t know this person. I’d barely heard of Tumbler Ridge beyond its reputation as a hardworking resource town. Yet all I needed was that initial description to predict the shooter was likely trans (a man identifying as female). And I was correct.

Many others predicted the same: SSRI use, drug abuse, a Reddit account full of narcissistic trans-related dialogue, even anime influence turning kids trans (as Matt Walsh noted years ago, quoting what turned out to be this shooter’s actual posts). The shooter had a Roblox account with a game featuring a mall shooting. His mother supported trans issues (though it’s unclear if she enabled it—and why she was killed remains uncertain). Our side remains discerning while the official narrative crumbles.

Now the latest tactic is to shame us for “focusing on the killer instead of the victims.” That’s nonsense—likely scripted by some government-affiliated crisis management outfit. It reframes critics as heartless, but our focus isn’t the shooter himself—it’s the circumstances and ideologies that created him. There’s even an emerging effort to paint the shooter as a victim, though that risks overreach. The cover-up wheels are turning.

The reason is obvious: The government bears responsibility. Admitting fault would mean acknowledging that their policies on trans issues, guns, community safety, crime, and drugs are fundamentally flawed. It would force them to rethink their entire grasp on reality. They likely can’t be rehabilitated—they need to be replaced.

That replacement can only happen at the ballot box in an election year, though the narrative complex has captured so many minds that it will be an uphill battle. Other paths aren’t realistic. Remember this event for what it was: the result of incompetence and ideological blindness. Don’t forget who enabled it.

When I first joined Reddit in 2012, at the age of 24, the site had a relatively modest user base of several million people worldwide. Today, it has grown substantially larger. While this expansion has broadened the diversity of perspectives in some respects, it has also amplified more populist and less discerning forms of engagement.

As a result, Reddit has increasingly become a venue for pronounced political polarization and extremism.

This development carries several problematic implications.

First, the average person—often preoccupied with immediate personal and local responsibilities—is generally ill-equipped to engage meaningfully with complex global issues. Exposing large numbers of individuals to intense, emotionally charged coverage of distant events can be burdensome and, arguably, counterproductive. Most content encountered through screens bears little direct relevance to one’s everyday life. The vast majority of what appears on social media is detached from personal experience and constitutes a form of mediated simulation rather than lived reality.

For example, many users form strong opinions about events such as ICE operations in Minnesota, despite having no personal or national connection to the matter. Such opinions are often not only uninformed but also serve as a form of symbolic participation with limited practical value.

Similarly, intense focus on high-profile political figures—regardless of one’s stance—rarely translates into meaningful insight or actionable understanding. The perspective of an ordinary individual on such matters carries negligible weight in the broader context. Far greater moral and practical responsibility lies in attending to the needs and circumstances of one’s immediate community. Yet discussions frequently prioritize distant figures and events over local realities.

Moreover, Reddit is occasionally accessed by minors, typically because they are drawn to age-appropriate content such as video games, memes, or hobby-related communities. However, the platform’s open structure and algorithmic recommendations quickly expose these young users to a wide array of unrelated and often mature content, including intense political discussions, ideological advocacy, and adult-oriented material. Unfortunately, some adults exploit this access to influence impressionable young users in inappropriate or harmful ways. While not all such interactions are maliciously intended, they can nonetheless expose children to ideologies, lifestyles, or behaviors that may be premature or unsuitable for their age and level of maturity.

Parents already face considerable challenges in raising children amid modern pressures. The presence of adults who, intentionally or otherwise, seek to shape young people’s worldviews through online forums adds an unnecessary and concerning layer of risk. Most responsible parents would not permit such unsupervised influence in real-life settings; the same standard should reasonably apply online.

Finally, even in areas supported by clear empirical data—such as comparisons of gun-related violence—platform discourse often reflects prevailing media narratives rather than objective analysis. For instance, since 1980, Canada has recorded approximately 107 mass shootings involving four or more victims, while Texas has recorded 32 during the same period. These figures are particularly notable given that Texas and Canada have relatively comparable populations (approximately 30–31 million people each during much of this timeframe), which allows for a more direct per-capita comparison. Yet public perception frequently inverts this reality, demonstrating the powerful role of narrative framing over factual comparison.

In summary, Reddit’s scale and structure have contributed to an environment that promotes superficial engagement with complex issues, disproportionate emotional investment in distant events, unintended exposure of minors to mature or ideologically charged content, and a tendency to prioritize narrative consistency over evidence. These dynamics warrant serious reflection regarding the platform’s broader social impact.

Importantly, extremism represents a genuine and tangible danger in contemporary society, capable of fostering division, radicalization, and—in extreme cases—real-world harm. Given the platform’s current trajectory, Reddit has become one of the more prominent online sources contributing to the amplification and normalization of such extremist views. Notably, these extremist perspectives often emanate from otherwise ordinary, banal individuals—people who in their daily lives appear unremarkable and moderate, yet find in online echo chambers the space and reinforcement to adopt and express increasingly radical positions.

This phenomenon is neither inherently a right-wing nor left-wing issue per se; extremism can emerge on either side of the spectrum. However, because Reddit’s prevailing culture and user demographics lean markedly far left-of-center, the most visible and amplified forms of extremism on the platform tend to manifest in that ideological direction.

Dear reader,

I have had the unfortunate experience of witnessing the agonizing final moments of a handful of individuals who were on their last breaths. Before those final moments however, there were often several days or weeks, sometimes as much as months which lead up to that final moment. This pales in comparison to my mother who is a retired retirement home nurse who witnessed this on a constant basis. She became very good at preparing for and dealing with the practical side of these moments, and took great pride in her professionalism, courtesy, and compassion for these people, their families, and their friends.

Of course in this day and age many turn a blind eye to death, and never know what to expect at the end, often leading to chaotic outcomes, resentment, fear, and worst of all, regret. This of course lead me to think of political comparisons, and I see that what was once called conservatism has now entered the stages of agonal breathing. I used this website as reference.

But let’s look at the signs which lead up to that point, and later, to death. The first is that talking and physical activity decrease significantly. Your loved one may sleep for long periods of time and resist movement of any kind. Is there any better descriptor of conservatism which has failed to conserve anything, even itself? If it’s defense is said to be anything at all, it is the defense of societal retreat. It is the abandonment of issues. It is in the least, the opposite of movement, stagnation, frozen stiff, not by resolve, but perhaps fear.

Leave a comment

A further sign is a reduced interest in eating and drinking , or they stop altogether. This is normal and expected as your loved one’s physical systems slow down. Problems with swallowing can cause choking or coughing with any attempt to ingest medication, food or fluids. In the dying, food isn’t really a priority, it isn’t something that the body systems which are shutting down can even contemplate really, and at a certain point the systems are on such end stages that the need for food is greatly reduced.

When it comes to the political this food is energy, ideas, creativity, gumption, and leading the next generation towards truth. But this is dead to the conservative movement. While the Liberals establish well-paying jobs for their proteges, Conservatives (of all stripes) do nothing. It is as if they are already dead. If we were only to speak of this subject alone it would prove well-enough that Conservatism is rather doomed. Without investment in the next generations, such torches will not be passed on, while our enemies pave the paths of their inheritors with gold stolen from your coffers.

Sadly, this leads to further complications as constipation becomes more evident as your loved one’s appetite for food and fluid lessens. A loss of bladder control and functioning also may occur. For where is the direction? Where is the gumption? Where is the legacy? What is set forth to carry the will forward for the next generations? Does it rain down from the sky like mana from on high? Come on now. You must leave the legacy for it to be adopted and preserved. If you leave nothing then there will be nothing. Your enemies will run roughshod and in effect inherit your good works, perhaps only to destroy them. This is a pathetic viewpoint and needs to be addressed. Who have you raised to carry your legacy forward? Why are they not ready? How many of us as well as our enemies will have to suffer due to such cowardice? In the fight between the truth and the darkness, who shall hold the knowledge of the light?

The similarities don’t end there either, for your loved one’s body temperature may drop by a degree or more. Other people may develop a mild fever; their torso and face may appear flushed and feel warmer. Not to sound cruel, but what is more cruel than leaving nothing for those who follow you upon your exit from stage right? Of course I am not addressing nor ever was addressing any particular you, but rather that philosophical you which resided over the powers in our society which once culminated in the minds of men concerned for truth and justice, the true philosophs, versus the incorrigible sophists. For there is a reality we face which is beyond words, beyond the muttered lies of men? May you be blessed on your redeeming day with a warm comforting blanket, for you have cultivated your successors capable of seeing you in your final moments of need. But for those of you who haven’t, that cruel coldness of a society which cares not for you except abstractly, will pay you back doubly what you have invested.

Share

—-Near the end of life, vital signs such as blood pressure and heart rate may fluctuate or gradually decrease.—-

We will and continually do witness an ever declining conservation and ever-acceleration towards Liberal extremism. What better examples do we have but collapsing birth rates? Extreme Individualism and atomization? No collective connections? Bonds broken like dry spaghetti in the spag bol of life? We are in convulsions. There is yet so far no way out! There are no current real solutions! Everyone and their mother is coping! Sing from the highest hills that all of this is COPE!

It is not like our SKIN is even getting thicker to help with the cope, skin may become purplish, pale, gray, or blotchy, especially on the knees, feet, buttocks, ears and hands. This is often a sign that death will occur within days or hours. Although pressure wounds can develop at any stage of a terminal illness, open wounds may appear rapidly at the end of life as the skin, like other organs, begins to stop functioning. Our skin becomes thinner, our wounds fester and no longer heal and begin to devour us. We in effect, bear witness to our own dissolve. We would cry out but have no energy to scream, we would cry tears of regret but we are parched beyond salvation. All that lays before us is that one path we all resent but will at some point come to terms with. Despair is all which remains of hope.

Do a Twitter with me?

We then enter that world of pain. Pain may increase as [the] [disease] progresses, chronic conditions such as arthritis or stiff/inflamed joints worsen, or pressure injuries to the skin increase. The situation can only accelerate. Weeks ago we had all the time in the world, months ago doom seemed distant, and years ago unfathomable. Yet here we are, continually advancing towards the end state at an ever accelerating pace. It is not really a question of what could have been done, because that time is over, now we must contemplate another wholly different plan. Death may be inevitable, but legacy always has a chance. What can be done, even now?

When death is near, breathing changes to a new pattern. Instead of a normal rate and rhythm, you may notice several rapid breaths followed by a period of no breathing, called “apnea.” Eventually, apnea increases from just a few seconds to longer periods with no breathing. This is the agonal stage, the stage of essentially no return. The end is hours or, mere moments away. It feels like the pro-Civilizational aspect of conservatism is in this stage. Pundits and gatekeepers, trying to stop new ideas from spreading, from taking hold, still setting standards for a sinking ship, banging new holes in the hull as others in despair try to repair the damage long-done. They scuttle themselves as we try to save them from themselves, and for what? Vanity? Jealousy? Cowardice? Treason? How do we stop them? Can they be stopped?

Consider these final, final stages:

1. Your loved one may hear the wind blowing but think the sound is someone crying; they may see a lamp in the corner of the room but believe it’s a person standing there. (We must blame the Liberals for our failures!)

2. The person may report hearing, seeing, or feeling things that others cannot perceive. (Nazis are gonna get me!)

3. The person may be fearful that others are trying to harm them or believe they can accomplish impossible things. (Commies! DRUMPF! etc.)

4. Your loved one may tell you they will die soon or say they soon will be able to see God, another religious figure, or beloved family members and friends who have preceded them in death. They may talk about taking a trip or activities related to travel, such as packing a suitcase or getting on a plane. (Why take action? Just pray!)

5. Before death, many people become completely unresponsive. In this deeply unconscious or coma-like state, they cannot be roused, will not open their eyes, and are unable to communicate or respond to touch. (I am become death! Despair not for me, but for those who live!)

The similarities between mainstream conservatism and the processes of natural death are shocking. Is there a solution? Does a doctor prescribe medicine to the dead? What remains but legacy? Can it be salvaged, or must we begin from square one, and what will that look like? How much energy shall we put into reviving the corpse?

Sincerely yours,

N.D. Wallace-Swan

Published by: Antelope Hill Publishing

It is with great personal interest that I am given the opportunity to review this book, Nuremberg The Last Battle by the famous historian David Irving.

The embattled Mr. Irving is well known around the world for his work, relying largely on first-hand, or second-hand sources. In this work concerning the infamous Nuremberg Trials taking place after the Second World War, he establishes an impressive and persuasive narrative of the events leading to, during, and after the notorious trials.

The narrative begins with the events and discussions happening before the end of the war amongst the different Allied leaders. In the USA, different factions were fighting over what was to be done with the defeated enemies post-conflict.

US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, for example, had a plan to de-industrialize Germany, enslave most of its population, and divide the country into many pieces. Thankfully Herbert Hoover saw the plan was unworkable and this lead to work being done later via the Marshall Plan in 1947 and its antecedents. It is notable that US President Truman referred to Morgenthau as a "block head, nut" who "didn't know shit from apple butter."

Counteracting this plan by Morganthau, was Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who wanted to return Germany to being the heart of European prosperity. Despite the initial wishes of FDR and Churchill, Stimson wanted the major Nazi war criminals to be put on trial, rather than immediately executed upon confirmation of identity. In this he found a strange bedfellow in Joseph Stalin. This set the stage for the Nuremberg Trials.

Into the ruins of the bombed-out city of Nuremberg, descended a great mass of lawyers, judges, representatives of each of the Great Powers of France, the USSR, Great Britain, and the USA, into the Palace of Justice. It had survived the bombing raids and had a nearby prison complex, all which would serve the unfolding events.

From what can be gleaned in this book, the trials were not on par with the legal standards of a place like the USA. To put it quite bluntly, it was somewhat rigged in favour of the prosecution. This has been downplayed in popular media in order to give the trials moral weight. But throughout the trial as set out in this book, things ignored like the Katyn massacre, the USSR invasion of Poland, the planned invasion of Norway by Great Britain (in contrast to the German invasion), as well as the limited resources offered to the defendants, tilted the court (no pun intended) towards the prosecution.

Combining this with the abysmal diet and other conditions of their imprisonment, Irving cuts through the flashy sentiments, and reveals the trials for what they really were: the victors celebrating their victory over the defeated.

Contrasting below, Göring before and during the trials:

The story of Rudolf Hess and his eventual trial at Nuremberg was quite a curiosity. He had of course landed in Scotland during the war, in a daring attempt to propose peace with Great Britain. Unfortunately this failed and millions of people continued to lose their lives until the end of the war. Even worse, he was kept as essentially a personal prisoner of Churchill until these trials, which seemed to drive him into madness. At the beginning of the trial, he claimed amnesia, and said he knew no one except recognizing names from newspapers.

In any case, due to his imprisonment through most of the war, he wasn’t found as guilty as others like Göring, Keitel, or Jodl (all were due to hang, one did not). Yet he was still given life imprisonment at Spandau where he somehow in 1987 at the age of 93 decided to hang himself with electrical cord in a suspicious death ruled a “suicide”. I suppose it wasn’t two bullets to the back of the head (Hello, competence crisis!).

Göring of course as it is well known, escapes the rope through attaining a cyanide capsule from what his suicide notes claimed was a cunning ruse of hide and seek. However we later learn that he had traded his gold watch amongst other items to an American guard from Texas, in exchange for its retrieval from stores. His suicide note mocked his jailers: “You cannot hang the Reichsmarshall!” He mocked the process throughout the trial, seeing through the veil of so-called International Law. Irving presents the Reichsmarshall as he was, a complicated man, but in the end a dutiful soldier, father, and husband. The very human face put upon his character was a refreshing contrast to most literature on the man. You will learn a lot about many of these characters in reading this book.

Do not fear this book, even if you are a so-called “liberal”. I have never read a book which had so many annotations, references to sources, and in-depth indexing as is done by David Irving, and I’ve read Von Mises. At the end of each of the 22 chapters is given extensive references to every claim, every captured moment, quote, dialogue, or archived document. When you first open up the quality cover and finger through the first pages, you should notice the contrast with many other history books, whose authors are not so diligent, whose publishers are not so concerned with quality. The quality binding and quality paper, the clear printing and eye-catching premium colour images (found in the middle of the book, showing the trial and its characters) give a feeling of care, if not love, that has been put into this edition. If you are looking for a good read, and for it to look impressive upon your shelf, go ahead and purchase this edition, which you can get here for a discount using the coupon code “liquidswan” (without quotes): https://antelopehillpublishing.com/product/nuremberg-the-last-battle-by-david-irving/

It is available, recommended, and hard to find anywhere else.

This is a tough subject to breach, but it would be a powerful narrative reversal if all the narrative power of Greta could be flipped to the right in the culture war.

It would be a true conquering of foreign held territory, because all the expense of her creation has been born by the left and liberal progressives. But let’s say it is successful. There are two ways in which it could go. Firstly, she is turned into an energy source for rightist politics, and so the right benefits from that narratively (I’ll get to those benefits and questions in a moment.) Secondly, in the case that it fails, then the opposition has been disarmed of her narrative, and that investment in such a cultural chess piece is lost; again a win for us.

So what is there to be concerned about? Well, she’s a climate change ideologue, a fanatic, sort of antinatalism and antihumanism wrapped into one. But that can be handled easily. The left may try to criticize: “Oh so now you believe in climate change?” To which an apt rightist might say, “[Chad] Yes; we shouldn’t allow people to litter as it hurts the environment.”

The antisemitism narrative can be just ignored (it’s fake anyways) or we can flip it into Israel/Palestine whereby we’d say: “Israel is starving Palestinian children.” Which is true. In some real sense, perhaps based on just the fumes of Christian morals, Greta the Great is a European Joan of Arc character who is hyper focused on her goal of feeding starving kids, constantly harangued by Israeli gunboats while bravely crossing the entire Mediterranean Sea to do so, example of flattering AI Slop:

You don’t have to like her, you don’t have to agree with her, you just have to recognize the moment is ripe to judo flip her narrative to our side. This should be a coordinated event, it should carry the weight of much of the right, and readied to withstand the professional classes and their slaves revolting against the idea. Flagrant use of flattering AI Heroic Greta/Crusader Greta slop is obligatory. If you want o get involved, DM me @liquidswan on X.

Laissez-faire presents to us a philosophy of social suicide. This may seem harsh, but consider what it means. One must allay their preferences in favour of marketism, that is to say surrender favouritism of their kin in favour of highest price. Friends, family, relations of other kinds and differing distances, must be put aside, sacrificed into the fire, and with it yourself as that social being. Social connections become a materialist concept without basis in any spirit or brotherhood. The French Revolutionary slogan of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity is a lie. Liberty is only to be free of the social ties which bind us and keep us united and whole. Equality is a straight up lie meant to cajole and confound the naive. Fraternity on the grand scale is deconstructed by laissez-faire marketism. The question of honour, peace, resolution, are all poisoned by it. There is no way to repair this, for it is the mortar behind it conceptually. The only solution is to reject it and tear the false idol down.

Why we are right to deconstruct laissez-faire marketism:

In the grand schema the strength and resiliance of a people, which is all that civilization is made of, not merely of people in large, but the qualities which allow for civilization within a people to develop, is thus and civilization. Barbarism in contrast is the lack of this resilience, and the result is a continuous degrading cycle of pain that never ends and never grows beyond its materialist limits, that being a generation, for little is passed down except that which barely makes one human versus animal, and one might state that this very limit is the basis of the human as animal. These types, with barely a nuance of spiritualism, the idea of that which is beyond them was quite limited and in being so, limited them. The spirit to wield civilizational developmental force requires that sort of sacrifice to the future, not to the current or present or past, though one might honour the past. It requires that you think beyond yourself, beyond even your own children, and embew within them too that same ethic so that the cycle does not end, that Rome becomes great not from the organic natural processes which random chance and circumstances allow, but because men so loved her that they bled for her, fought for her, and willingly died for her, so that she may have stood the tests of time and the trials of barbarism infesting her crevices and caverns, always looking to pounce like a predatory cat upon her silken frame. Where were these men then and where are they now? They are you and I, bretheren. And where do you turn for material support in our brotherhood but your brothers? Yet many of us sell each other out, wield weaponry of all kinds against one another, while the Godless barbarians dressed as kings, who rule over us laugh and sup upon our blood and flesh.

What do you notice? The infighting, narratives which oppose each other, the victimization complex which is all so barbaric and overly feminine in such a manner, rather than the concept of competent control of one's envirnment, this must come to an end. This is not to speak of ourselves as overmen, but, we must at least not yield to the weak whimpers of the undermen. Every such surrender is one more step towards that anti-civilizational darkness.

But what can be done? It starts with fraternity, brotherhood, elitism, favouritism. Waver not from this and we will win. Do not accept the outsider (without proof of dedication at minimum). Remember that violence does not orignate from us, for we are the walls into which the barbarian creeps, and he must be repelled at all costs. When you sleep on that duty, Rome falls. Laissez-Faire delenda est.

It is important to use the appropriate words to properly discuss issues. So let’s make sure we have them on hand for quick reference:

Perhaps an apt term for our era could be called “The Age of Consent”. Consent based morality comes from the same idealism as “laissez-faire” liberalism, but instead of regarding economic exchange it has to do with social expectations and etiquette.

This got me thinking. If many of us find consent based morality a problem, why do we think laissez-faire economics not to be? Or perhaps why do we not consider it a problem now? Does that not imply that we did see it as a problem before, and if so, should we regard our ancestors who did believe it to be a problem as insane or stupid? If that is the case, on what basis could we assert such a thing? Should we not regard our ancestors as having some wisdom even if limited? Why should we limit such wisdom to outside of the scope of economics, and on what basis would that hold true?

My point with the above is to explain how many assumptions we must make in order to believe what many believe today. We have to assume that all our ancestors were shambolic imbeciles, lacking reason and empathy, not only individually, but on a society-wide scale. Is that even reasonable? I do not believe it is. So should a man of reason then just accept such liberal presuppositions like many hold today? obviously not. Yet these rather extreme biases hold.

One may object to my use of extreme here, yet it is apt! Consider the contrast. On the liberal side of things, nearly everyone in history was an unreasonable, insane, and cruel idiot up until Liberalism stepped in and saved us from our lunacy. It begs the question, how did we even get by before?

The answer to that strikes us down from our high horse: We simply did. Meaning that our Liberal assumptions are inherently extremist and in this case wrong. To assume we are better now than we were hundreds of years ago, when we look upon our fellow man and observe them as they are, all too human, few geniuses amongst them if any, and of the remainder, many, many fools.

It is also key to mention, that at least what can be said of our ancestors is that whatever their means, they lead to ourselves, and to bray about the ignorance of the past is surely to damn ourselves by arrogance. Making by at least two logical measures, that our liberal assumptions are incorrect or arrogant, for, by which magical force did our enlightenment arrive?

Idealism in many ways, is ignorant, arrogant, and presumptuous. In this I am speaking of laissez-faire economics. Rationally, it would hold true that this is the case, but requires a sort of idealist vision of the world which is by all definitions, non-ideal. There is a certain amount of cultural development over time which has had the effect of rendering down the level of cruelty at play. For example, charity. But charity now is not the same as charity in the past. State provided welfare for example has filled the role of “provision” for the weak, feeble, or otherwise impoverished classes. In the past however, the Church did this. It would however not provide charity to undeserving wretches who simply suck off the teat unjustly, who could otherwise provide for their fellow man and be a productive member of society. Such men (or women in some cases) were treated badly with disrespect as warranted by their shameful behaviour.

Consider the reality of such behaviour: The scoundrel produces less than they could (if not none at all), which means they are taking from that society, and from those who are truly needy, and at the expense also of those who do produce. Is this not cruel? It may be several degrees of separation away from the originator, but the cruelty is yet there to see. From the producer, more must be produced to achieve the same ends, and for the feeble there is less by the same means, and so they too must suffer. On a society-wide scale, there is perhaps no greater volume of cruelty, though it be spread across such a vast area that it seems minuscule. In reality if you could concentrate such cruelty into a single event, it would be regarded as one of the worst genocides in human history.

Yet, liberalism regards us as cruel if we do not oblige with those scoundrels and their “needs”. Likewise, liberalism scorns us for things such as nepotism, or the favouring of our “in-groups”. Perhaps you gift your nephew your old car rather than sell it to a stranger who pays you for it. You don’t give your nephew your old car because you would profit from it, but because you value your nephew and your relationship greater than that of the economic one, because it is less about economics per se, but instead about relationships, and accountability.

Although you could sell your car, the price negates any accountability between you and the buyer. There is no need for accountability, and thus the cash in effect dissolves this social relationship. The car is no longer your problem. This causes obvious social issues when you sell a car which is a lemon. However when you gift a car to your family member, if it is a lemon, you may be accountable, and he may be accountable for not taking care if it, or you may inform the family member of the issues with the car because you care about that family member, who maintains a relationship with you which is not negated through that cash, the connection is not dissolved by the transaction. There is a value in this, a security in which booth parties can gain something far beyond the material and cash value difference. The transaction in this social and familial sense contains a duty, a responsibility, and a relationship, which is lost through the laissez-faire philosophy. In nepotism, you gift your car for zero direct economic gain, to a family member who can gains an opportunity they otherwise lacked. You are relationally incentivized to be truthful about the condition of the vehicle. You have reduced the odds of cruelty overall by a large amount through an accountable, charitable act. If the family member “blows it”, you have gained information on who deserves or doesn’t deserve such charity, or, are at least able too hold the family member to account.

Thus we can see how alleged liberal “neutrality” simply hides the reality that it enables economic bad actors and undeserving welfare scoundrels to spread their cruelty evenly across the entire system undetected. So wisdom. Such progress. Wow.

These ideas can be expanded of course, where one develops trade laws which defend local or national interests rather than seeking out economic advantage through free trade internationally. We even see ideas which match this despite such liberal ideology, where people are encouraged to buy local or buy Canadian, etc. This is in direct conflict with liberalism and laissez-faire ideology. Tariffs should be seen less as defending “national interest” and seen more as “decreasing national cruelty”. Perhaps then it would be an easier idea to sell to those who are ideologically possessed.

So now that we have determined that there lay good reason for nepotism or non-“laissez-faire”-ism, and that our ancestors were not nincompoops, perhaps too we can better explain how consent culture in a social context is also cruelty.

The liberal claim sits on a throne of “it causes no harm to others, therefore it is okay.” Let’s test that theory.

Imagine you have a romantic partner (easier for some, lol). You spend time with this romantic partner and both of you are completely satisfied with this time together. You however realize you have a spare 4 hours per day on average where you and your romantic partner cannot possibly be together. You however could use this free time to spend with a second romantic partner, and you decide to do so.

Ah, but what if the other partner doesn’t know? Let’s assume the partner does, for these purposes, but I will note that nothing in liberal ideology of consent morality would necessarily mean the knowledge is necessary.

But what about the potential for disease? This is a problem, but let’s say for this example, that the second partner is exclusive with the one with extra time and also disease free. Such would be in line with Liberal consent morality.

Yet, despite this, the person with two partners would be regarded as cruel towards their first or primary partner. Why?

Some would disagree that it is cruel and that the primary partner shouldn’t be so controlling of their laissez-fair-lover, and that the ethical dilemma lay with the original partner, but that is currently a minority opinion. The reason why we widely regard polygamy as cruel is because there is more to morality than just consent. There are expectations in relationships that go beyond consent, and into duty, reliability, expenditure of resources, extended familial ties, and social expectations. Time too, for perhaps that 4 hours “extra” could be better used in the original relationship in some manner other than increased sexual gratification for either of the original parties. Liberal ideologues may reply with “So what?”, to which I would reply, “So what?”

But that is not where the cruelty ends for consent morality. Most societies allow for certain modifications of the body, usually quite minor, which serve some sort of cultural or religious purpose. Hardly however does a contemporary society exist in which entire body parts are wantonly removed or modified at will. In any case, rarely on the historical record are the mentally unstable permitted to alter their bodies in any unusual manner. Ear piercing, nose piercing, tattoos, breast augmentation, all of these are generally acceptable in most societies as minor expressions of individuality, culture, or religion.

Society even allows for replacements or modifications to make up for lost or missing body parts, such as amputated arms or legs, glass eyes, toupees, hair transplants or plugs, and reconstruction surgery after a traumatic accident. All of these aforementioned modifications are to lessen the effects of a cruel world.

But, there remains an area of or society in which the liberal consent morality has reared its nasty head in a gross and disturbing manner. So-called “trans” people sometimes seek out modifications of their bodies, which are permanent. Such people and their advocates claim it is necessary in order to cure their “dysphoria/dysmorphia” condition, which has them view their minds as being trapped in the incorrect bodily form, and thus they require medical intervention and surgical modification. The reality is of course that no such interventions could modify their genetic code to be the opposite sex, and so all modifications and hormones for these purposes are purely aesthetic or illusory.

There are two main cohorts of trans individuals. The minority cohort are essentially gay men who dress as women and act out the sexual role of a woman, but are functionally just gay men, making up roughly 20% of the trans population. The remaining 80% however are classified as autogynophiles, which is a mental condition in which the man is sexually aroused by the idea of himself as a woman. This is demonstrated by the vast majority of this cohort identifying as “lesbian”, meaning they are attracted exclusively to females. Essentially, this is a sexual fetish disguised as a normative sexual identity. There is also a small cohort which are attracted to fellow male-to-female trans.

The modifications involved in these surgeries is extreme. There is no way to reverse such surgeries as they are so traumatic to the parts involved, with patients essentially being mutilated for life, as well as for the remainder of their lives requiring regular and relatively severe medical interventions (in comparison to men). The procedures done are generally permanent, yet patients are often lied to and told they are reversible. The claim is that these surgeries reduce suicide rates, but this has yet to be demonstrated, as suicidality after 7 years appears to return, possibly due to the novelty wearing off and the realization that there is no way back to the way they used to be.

Yet, supporters and advocates and trans people themselves will declare that they were consenting to all of it and therefore it should not be any of our business. I wish that were the case, but it is not. It is the duty of all good people in society to reduce or at least not increase cruelty in our society lest it devolve into a level of barbarity which would make Chingiz Khan and Atilla the Hun blush.

One might envision liberalism as a psychopath slowly slicing up live kittens for fun and telling you it’s none of your business because he owns them and gets enjoyment from it. Everything else is cope.

Power, however constituted, is in a precarious situation. It is always in the minority, yet must rule over the masses. How can this be done? It cannot be done through force because it is not strong enough.

So what remains? It first must be organized within itself, so that its energy can be concentrated and controlled for its most effective and efficient use. Secondly, it must make the masses weak in some manner. The first is through division of these masses into smaller, less resilient groups, and by weakening the members within those groups. In fact the only time that power requires strength is in two situations:

(1) An outside force threatens power

(2) a larger productive capacity is needed

This situation of power is best represented by the current managerial industrial technocracy. This is the advent of the Mass Man. Mass Man is reliant, atomized, materialistic, fearful of material deprivation, non-spiritual or anti-religious, fanatically rational, obedient, and most importantly, predictable.

Most reading this would agree, though they may still be unable to grasp the relevance or point of this information. But what has been changed to end up here? Perhaps by looking at this list, we can come up with a way to escape, or at least admire what Man used to be. Let’s start with opposites. If Mass Man is atomized, natural man is communal. If he is reliant, then natural man is mutual. If he is materialistic, then natural man is religious. If he be fearful of material deprivation, natural man is fearful of spiritual deprivation. Fanatical rationalism becomes holistic and irrational. Mass Man’s obedience becomes natural man’s defiance, and Mass Man’s clock-like predictability becomes unpredictable, perhaps seasonal.

So what was natural man? He was seasonal, irrational, religious, communal, holistic and defiant. Compared to Mass Man, he was a hero, maybe oft times antihero. His power recedes into the fog of myth and legend. The mass man is mass-satiated through mass media, no longer told of heroic feats and stories, but shown them in full simulacra on the silver screen, or the black mirrors in their pockets.

Mass Man’s tedious existence blurs the fact of reality with the orgiastic simulation of the “real world”, and yet now, the “User” becomes empty of feeling, affect, now overstimulated by mass marketed media, mass produced ultra processed foods, and all the feats of flesh which abound the entire world, all at his fingertips.

Some people have had near death experiences where they are beckoned towards the light and in their mind they state they didn’t and this is why they returned to us alive. I fear we have perhaps been beckoned not towards the light, but the materialistic darkness which promises all the stimulation one could desire. Perhaps this search for meaning in the deep black hole of material modernity is what is driving the incessant march of opioid overdosing youth into their early graves. This to me evokes that poem from the Great War, In Flanders Fields.

Perhaps we are not in such a Petty War, but instead the Greatest War, a war for our very being as Men:

In Flanders fields, the poppies blow    

Between the crosses, row on row,   

That mark our place; and in the sky   

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,   

Loved and were loved, and now we lie,                          In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw   

The torch; be yours to hold it high.   

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow                            In Flanders fields.

And how fitting, though not perfectly analogous (nothing ever is), that these men too were blown to smithereens, to kingdom come, to incomprehensible and uncomprehending bits by industrialized death machines. For what? Power?

Power for whom? For what purposes? For what ends? Undoubtedly for the ends of many young men, for what purposes I cannot comprehend, and for whom? For those responsible. And how have the descendants of these sacrificial lambs been treated? They’ve been systematically marginalized by power, racially replaced, their money has been devalued, their housing and land has been bureaucratized, and their complaints have fallen upon deaf ears. They have had their society destroyed, with promises of betterment, progress, that suffering would go down. But everywhere you see suffering, you see pain, you see poverty, impoverishment, debt, addiction. You see the lost, the wanderers.

You see a growing resentment towards power and its proclamations. You see a growing ire against Power, against the inadmissibility of power, its deep corrupting lens warping time and space and wrenching natural man between inescapable suffering, and ceaseless drudgery. No family, no community, no prospects, no love, no touch, no feeling but anger and that aforementioned seething resentment just laying beneath the surface ready to erupt like Vesuvius and make a Pompeii of it all.

If it were just that and only that, perhaps it could remain tolerable, but that is not the end. Power while it screams at you that your destiny of being replaced is sealed, further sells you down the genetic river and at every turn, and around every corner, it commands you to bear no fruit, to have no children, that to do so is irresponsible and foolish, detrimental, greedy, selfish, impoverishing, and guilt-ridden. It wants you to be blinded by lust, gluttony, and, outside of strict working hours, sloth. Besides your productive duties to fill their coffers, you are all but commanded to do nothing, and so nothing shall you do.

But how does one return to a more natural man from mass man? Perhaps it is not possible. I cannot be certain anyways as to how it might be done. But being virtually enslaved is surely no route away from it. They will make you suffer for it, they will make you feel pain, and they may even try to kill you to maintain control. But you can resist. You can become irrational, unpredictable. You can build your natural community, family. You can be spiritual instead of materialistic; brave and defiant rather than cowering, fearful, or obedient. All of which can be done smartly, thoughtfully, with purpose, proving you are in fact, a free human being.

It is either that and willful cooperation with your friends, or the opposite and willing obedience to people who hate you.

People throw around rights claims like they are toilet paper to wipe an arse too big to fit a seat. But what are rights? Ask someone what they are, what answers do you find?

Most won’t give you a proper answer, or will give a shrug, turn the question back to you, or perhaps some liberal spiel about rights they learned at some point. Most however don’t think about what a right actually is.

Often I find people claim rights come from God, the State, or some other entity of power. In this they are only partially correct, perhaps spiritually correct. But what is the mechanism from which rights derive? Not the abstraction, not the words, but the deeds themselves that bring rights about?

Violence, force.

Without these there can be no rights. From this you can deduce that those who cannot enact sufficient violence or force do not possess rights in any real sense. This is of course true of the weak, the disabled, many elderly, and largely women and children in large.

But, that’s not where this idea ends. Rights for an individual also do not exist, since any group large enough will be strong enough to overpower the will of any individual. Thus we must come to the logical conclusions which follow: groups.

Family, community, and nation are the origins of all rights when they possess the necessary force and violence to enforce a member’s rights. If that nation, community, or family no longer possesses the will or capacity to enact the force and violence necessary to enforce member rights, those rights cease to exist, with those members and their group entity having been conquered.

Thus there is the question of group rights. People claim that group rights do not exist. Well, if groups are the origin of rights, how could groups not themselves have rights? Rights again, please recall, descend from the will of force of groups, which through the eons of Darwinian selection, have earned such rights.

When a group whines to you and says:

“You are abusing my rights!”

They are saying that you owe them your willingness to use violence against others on their behalf. When you see the State or other group entity selectively enforcing laws, they are choosing sides. When they harm you (physically, mentally, financially, spiritually) in order to preserve the alleged “rights” of anyone else, that means you are not a member of that group entity and the other party in question, is.

In order to have a family, there must first unite a man and a woman from different families. Many families form a community. Many communities form a State or Nation. Families concern themselves with their members. Communities concern themselves with their families, and Nations concern themselves with their communities. Losing any of those layers, or appropriating one layer into another, regardless of the reason it was done, is a loss of rights for members in their entities

Individual rights do not exist.

The discussion essentially consisted of whether the use of “they/them” to refer to singular individuals in the present tense was natural or artificial. In his view, language “constantly evolves” and that the reason for the so-called adoption of this new characteristic was that, “[We] realized that using gendered pronouns hurt the feelings of certain people, and so [we] started using gender neutral pronouns such as they/them instead.”

The first thing I must point out is that presumes that people in the past didn’t care about people’s feelings. Why should we presume that? The argument from the other side is that’s simply what happened. But I disagree. People simply didn’t believe it to be a serious complaint, or, considered the complaint selfish and strange. One wonders, think of the work of Ed Dutton regarding increasing genetic mutational load, if these people would simply have not existed in the past (being selected out by nature due to high mutational load).

Yet we must, if we accept Darwinian natural selection as a concept, that those with high mutational loads simply would be a lot less likely to survive, and so perhaps these strange people, the runts of the litters, come at us now with these problems which prior, were at least relatively imperceptible in the past. In this view, the push for such neologisms, is a byproduct of industrialization, which is for all intents and purposes, artificial.

Secondly, although language does change over time, the rate of change is not consistent. Advances in language such as the printing press and now the internet, have had the effect of conservation. Even before this, the most stable structures of language hardly ever change. Words like these include mother and father, personal pronouns, core verbs like to be, to go, to have, to want, to do. Nouns like apple, water, table, chair, seat, bed, very highly conserved. Overcoming this powerful conservation over short time spans (within a generation) regarding core aspects of the language can only be done artificially, through coercion and manipulation, requiring State or monopolistic magnitudes of force, which cannot arise organically.

Testament to this are cousin languages to English, such as Icelandic, Norwegian, German, French, Latin, Swedish. At first these seem non-mutually intelligible, but this is only true to some degree. The Icelandic first person is “ég” [yehg’], and its present tense form of the verb to be is “er” [airh’]. “Er” is akin to the English “are”, and we know this because in Icelandic “er” is also used for the third person singular form of the verb to be. Icelandic is very well conserved from Old Norse, particularly because of their tradition of written language dating back to the settlement. But Old Norse uses “em” [ehm] for the verb to be for the first person singular (Ég em [yegh ehm]). In German it is even more conserved and retains the [b-] sound from proto-Germanic (which would be the grandparent or great grandparent language to all Germanic languages). “Ich bin” (I am) or “Du Bist” (you are). Ich is very close to both the original English “Ic” and the Icelandic Ég, and both “bin” and “bist” if you remove the [b-] are similar to “em” (am; versus -in, m and n are common lingual interchangeables internationally) or “-ist” which is similar to the English “is” or Icelandic “ert/er” (“þú ert”, “you are”, or “hann er”, “he is”). Even the relation in German of “Du bist” and “sie/er ist” is similar to the Icelandic “þú ert” and “hún/hann er”, which is similar to the English “Thou art” and “she is”.

English was a regional language of trade, and Old English was partly mutually intelligible with Old Norse at one point. With the various invasions, the language landscape of England became a mixture of Old English (Anglian), Celtic influence, French influence, and Neo-Norse influence. The British Empire later expanded the influence of the English language which on the one hand lead to widespread worldwide adoption as a language of trade, but on the other hand forced its simplicity, losing things like gendered objects common in most Indo-European languages.

With the invention of the printing press, most of the language became conserved, however it also eliminated a few interesting aspects of English, such as three important letters, “yogh” (looked like the numeral 3, and was the sound -gh- in night, light, fight, sigh etc. (Looking similar to NI3T, LI3T, FI3T ETC). Two others were “ð” (eth) and “þ” (thorn). All three of these didn’t exist in the Latin script, and so when printing presses were imported from the continent, printers substituted other letters to create the phonemes (in this case “gh”, and “th”, though in the case of thorn and eth, sometimes they were replaced by the letter “y”, thus “you” replaced “thou”).

Most of these changes over time occurred because of a changing landscape for language (environment, separation, trade) as they were at one point mutually somewhat intelligible, which indicates at one point they were fully mutually intelligible because they were the same language in the past, and existed in the same environment. Other factors were revolutionary like the printing press which mostly allowed for the conservation of language (purely oral languages tend to change faster as retention is only in the minds of the speakers) while also artificially altering the language. The artificial portion has lead to a fledgling “Anglish” movement amongst purists.

But let’s move back to the main topic. The issue of they/them as a third person singular in the present tense is an artificial construct. You feel it when you hear the words “they is”. It of course sounds wrong, bizarre, forced, like a shoe for your right foot jammed on the left while being too small as well. You feel it in the lack of clarity of “They are” when your fellow conversant refers to a singular individual and wishes to invite them to an event you’re hosting and now you think they are (referring here to the friend) going to bring a group to the event rather than just one person. I experienced this myself when my daughter was referring to her friend who apparently identifies as “non-binary”, which made it sound as if she was having many people over, which depending on the number may strain the space in our small home. Being overly polite to this person (who wasn’t in our presence at the time) lead to quite a long conversation to figure out exactly what the hell she was even saying. Language is about clarity, and that which cannot quickly clarify does not tend to be conserved, just as adaptations which hamper survival in a particular environment tend to be selected out of the gene pool (for example, thick coats of fur adapted for the cold, but in desert environments instead.)

So, I made an analogy with my colleague, where forcing the third person plural into the present tense singular where a third person singular pronoun such as “he/she/it” would suffice, is akin not to natural evolution, not to natural selection, but artificial selection.

Imagine you capture a polar bear and release it into the Sahara desert. Would it survive? Probably not. But if you were to select the most likely to survive, and spend decades breeding them in the desert environment, slowly breeding better “desert polar bears” over time, eventually you may have a polar bear-like creature who is barely (or BEARLY, haha) adapted to barely survive in that environment. But this was only possible through artificial selection, careful husbandry, and a huge amount of resources.

I didn’t get much further in the discussion as they decided to simply stop talking after a while, but one thing that was said was: “Are you saying that your contention is the improper use of the word ‘they’? What is I used the word ‘jookadooby’?” [or some nonsense word to that effect] and I simply said I would not object to that. I am also fine with people using the actual third person singular nongendered pronoun “it”. Some may complain that the term “it” carries connotations of objectification, and other pejorative concepts.

But, isn’t that their whole argument? That language evolves? Why don’t they use the word it, and try to remove the pejorative from the term, if “language evolves/changes” over time? Wouldn’t it be much easier to change the perception of “it” than to attack a core of the language, the highly conserved third person plural “they” by forcing it into a first person pronoun? You can try, using immense force and effort to force a square peg into a round hole, but by doing so not only do you waste valuable energy and resources, in the end you no longer have either a square peg, but no longer will you have a round hole, as both will have been changed forever into something else entirely. Will that bring greater clarity to language? Is clarity not the entire point of language? If communication is the point (I believe it is) then clarity will be selected for. That being said, if the opposite is indeed true, then language is not about communication, and lack of clarity will be selected for, leading to selection against language itself.

But I don’t believe that is possible. Language is too core to society. The language will persist despite the attack by neopronoun ideologues, who will be selected against over time. Firstly for the lack of clarity making communication more complicated and time consuming, creating inefficiencies and thus their actions less effective. Secondly, the natural order of things, that of natural selection, will require fewer resources, less time, and will be more efficient and effective.

On another note, the notion of nonbinary is nonsensical. The human species is sexually bimodal. This means there are two modes of sex, and, everyone not within those two modes, fall between them. Sex is either red or blue. The red and blue overlap but never do they ever blend to make purple. Even hermaphrodites are not “purple” in this regard, they are chimeric, exhibiting portions of both modes. In some sense they are a great representation of human beings being bimodal, and not some undefined third option. This spread indeed includes them and doesn’t deny them their humanity. Claims to the opposite are false.

Language, and when I speak of language I largely speak of the core of that, is not changeable in a manner that grants clarity. Every alteration generally reduces clarity, and the proof of that is whether such a change persists. In short, clarity is always conserved. Proof of this is in the usage. Artificial constructs get selected out for this reason. Dad words, slangs, and unimportant neologisms and phrases come and go, but the core remains. In one place and era, cosmos is preferred, whilst in another it is space. Yet pronouns, core verbs, and common terms have been conserved since long before the printing press, changing only slightly if it can be said to have changed at all. The fact that you can interchange the pronouns of different languages within foreign sentences is testament to that. That in effect proves conservation. “Ég bin hungry.” “Ich am svangur.” “I er hunger.” (Three blends of Icelandic, German and English, all mixed up) should seem not mutually intelligible, but they basically are. “I am hungry./ Ich bin [habe/have] hunger./ Ég er svangur.” Even here you can see that it is the Icelandic which is more closely related in that sentence to English than German (German using like the French, “to have hunger” instead of “to be hungry”). And that was prior to the printing press and industrialization of literature.

So remember, if someone wants to play the feelings game regarding pronoun misuse and language clarity, it is not a passive thing. It is an active attack on your language, an active attack on you. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t bring it up and would just remain quiet and go about their lives. It is by all accounts degenerative, selfish, hubristic pride. It is the very essence of the tower of babel’s construction and demise.

Know that you are right.

It concerns the issue of “African Time”. Some compared it to Mario Bros. Where Mario doesn’t move but experiences time and space moving around him as he proceeds through the level. Likewise for an African, he or she needs to experience something in order to create time in the present, which soon washes behind them into the infinite past. There is no distant future, just like to Mario on level one, there is no level two, at least not until he completes level one. Life for the African is an infinite level one until you complete it, wherein you enter level two and so on.

This brings up another example of some bus systems in Africa. When does the bus leave? Not at a specific time necessarily, but when the bus is full.

The video above was widely mocked, and I can understand why, as the concept is so foreign to Westerners. But we were not always like this.

The preindustrial West used to be similar. People were not attached to the artifice of the clock, the mechanical tick tock reminding everyone that their life was quickly passing before their eyes, one second at a time. Before the clock, people simply experienced the day, which varied in real length throughout the year as the seasons cycled through. This is not unlike experience mentioned by the woman in the video. Westerners too, experienced time, completed the various feudal duties they possessed, and otherwise lived their lives, not by the clock, but by the natural rhythm of the seasons.

Perhaps it is for the reasons of the clock, of industrial man, where he becomes consumed as a society, as a culture, with what Spengler called “expansion into infinite space,” as the defining characteristic of the West. The endless pursuit of progress towards some grand utopia, bringing about philosophical idealisms like liberalism and socialism, communism and fascism, all of them seeming to say: “If you could only control the mechanisms to be even more tight, more restricting, and adhere more tightly to the tick tock of death, then you can achieve utopia.”

Do not fool yourself to think that these systems are spiritually variable, they are not, they are simply looking at the same problem from different angles, but they are yet the same solution from different angles: “De-nature man and form him into machine.”

This complete mechanization concerns me now with the coming “A.I.” And robotic assistant/slave revolution. Are these going to be helpful for us? Or simply is man too stubborn to submit fully enough to the ideological will, and so we must be replaced by the perfect machines?

My first reaction to the video was honestly to laugh at the fact this woman was saying Africans do not really think of the distant future, “The bus will come when it comes. The bus will leave when it leaves.” —a more whimsical way of life. I laughed because I thought it was so ridiculous to not be governed by the tick tock of death, the industrialization of man’s most precious commodity: life.

I’m not laughing now.

This had me thinking what would the left do under similar circumstances, should the tables be turned?

It is easy to point out problems but much more difficult to point out solutions. However, the left has generously provided a skeletal structure upon which a solution might be built.

(1) The Personal is the Political

This is true, as much as we may want to deny it. Wanting to be left alone is a weak position, a tearful cry for mercy. The enemy laughs at that and is encouraged by it. You can only meet strength with strength (and perhaps cunning).

(2) The Political is Personal

If X is Y, then logically Y is X. But what can be done by this?

It would not be too difficult in this day and age to save information. Large data drives exist and anonymous Google sheets could be created and curated by interested parties, perhaps at an advantageous overseas location outside of the grasp of state authorities. By this I mean that all authorities exist as human beings, humans with loved ones, with loving homes filled with their prized possessions and families. They have names, aforementioned addresses, friends, and they shop at your local stores.

They are indeed members of your community, so why do they do such wanton damage to it and enforce such action? Is that not treachery?

Do traitors get left alone by anyone? Or are they confronted and shamed, accused and blamed? What if these authorities were documented and named so it was no longer anonymous police officers and bureaucrats making decisions? They could just be observed, recorded, and their information uploaded to publicly accessible websites. This could be printed onto paper at anonymous homes, and as fliers, distributed to the public. Should a person who actively engages in the destruction of your country just be able to get away with it because they have a badge? I don’t think that is just, moral, nor right. It’s evil.

The solution is actually quite simple, funny enough.

Should it be done immediately? I don’t know, but the current paradigm is definitely not conducive to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s life and property.

But how easy would it be to do.