2000

Lancia Beta 2000 Spider
By Markus Spiske

2000 |
Thursday – February 19, 2026

Ah, the year 2000 is for the most part 25 years ago, but some parts of that year are more than 26 years ago. How did that happen? Well, it's called life and really it's called time, but more on that little nuisance here. Was I around in 2000? That's none of your business, but I asked that question for a good reason. See, people treat the amount of times that an individual has circumnavigated, if you will, the Sun as if it's some kind of quality, some kind of ontological imperative. Of course, this is a nonsensical view, and really quality in this sense has nothing to do with age, and in fact, the concept of age is really a very new and modern thing, another one of those evil constructs that progressives impose on you, read about that here. But if you were born in the year 2000, I guess knowing your "age" should be fairly easy. But really, how can age ever be something qualitative about a person, something essentially substantive? In what way can the Primordial Body be considered aging? Pure potentiality knows no material boundaries, and that very much includes that dastardly and evil concept of age. But of course, the main reason why moderns keep going on about age is simply so that they may find yet another reason to retire you in favor of the next and even more obedient "generation"; generation being another one of those modern and evil "conceptions", as if there are more things about the material and divisible to be "discovered", quite in keeping with this evolutionary nonsense that the so-called scientific "community" goes on about, but that's another point outside the scope of this post, read about "Queer" evolution here. Of course, the modern delineation between "adult" and "childhood" is of course useful from a material point of concern, but as I stated in my post about "childhood", it must be understood that this is still a rather recent concept. But I do not intend to dwell on about the rather arbitrary distinction between "adult" and "child", for this is an entirely profane legal matter, and I suppose as well that any attempt to question this distinction would be served with a good deal of that phenomenal and hysterical sentimentalism. I will say this if you're a 26-year old: you are not young and neither are you old, you are merely a living human being in a time of great confusion and upheaval, but besides any of these points, you're really in no way special and you just happen to have slightly easier time using the "year" on the calendar as a reference point, but only up to the point of tens, unless you're very ambitious of course, and this is perhaps why you should consider "transhumanism", because that's your best option if you really think you're going to stay around that long, but if you do this, remember that you're just living for the profane and the material, and really one could describe you as a slave, but this I have already done here. Of course, the same is true in that last sentence if you're older or younger than 26, but I feel that 2000 is a good reference point, and it will surely remain that way for the rest of this century. Verily, time is a silly thing but the quantification of time is even more silly. What is there to be discovered or found out about the world by keeping time? Well, for the most part keeping time can help satiate that existential dread that most moderns live under, and yes I suppose there may be a lot of material practicality in simply having a reference point in a dimension beyond the spacial, but again I do not regard this as a legitimate construction and this may be why the physicists are so unable to understand time as anything other than a criticality in the vector of modernity, for everything is in a state of evolution and continual progress, they claim. Of course, I claim no such thing, but that's besides the point here. Why is time so important? Well, how would you square that modern assertion of progress and evolution without this imaginary dimension? You can't, but what will become quite apparent without this time delusion is the fact that everything tends towards decay and rot, particularly in the era of the Kali Yuga, and indeed this would be even more true about civilization itself. Of course, this is why old people are generally treated very poorly, particularly in the West, but this is also connected to individualism; really from a metaphysical point of view these things are, if not equal, very much corollaries of the same general deviation away from the primordial tradition.

    This post has been somewhat rambling, but the main point still stands: your age says nothing about you or the world, but modern people are, generally, unable to segregate these material "concepts" from the truly essential and substantive parts of your constitution, and this is why individualism is so rampant these days; as the moderns get more and more confused so will their attempts to "liberate" themselves become. Of course, there are certain modern individuals that do hold a somewhat insightful perception of age as one of those "sociological constructions", but these people too often fail to see beyond the structuralist notions of "relativism", another distinctly modern confusion; sure, plenty of material features exist in relation to human value judgement, but to reduce even the corporeal aspects of life, and they are growing, to this basic and rather fluid notion that never fails to emanate strictly into that nihilistic rectification is nothing short of epistemological heresy, another modern monstrosity whose apatite seems to know no boundaries. Should we go on like this? Yes, at least until the final stages of this our era, the Kali Yuga, and they are closing in, have played out, to borrow that modern invention of time.

    Lastly, I would like to clarify that I do not reject the concept of time: indeed, I find time to be a useful tool, especially in the study of history, since all of human life, in the most affirmative sense of "human life", is past tense; sure time is a useful dimension and all of those reference points that make up the material descriptions of this peculiar thing we call the world would do better off staying "relative" to each other in this extension of "spatialism" and geometry. What I do want to make clear is that I reject this distinctly modern tendency of attempting to replace quality with quantity, or rather to confuse the quantitative substance with the essence of true quality, and this tendency is most aggressively expressed in the modern obsession with keeping time, and these same people like to go on about the supposed "mysticism" of the sacred sciences. If anyone should be labeled a mystic, should it not be the man obsessed with the quantification of something entirely fictitious, really imaginary in the truest sense of that word?

Reginald Drax – February 19, 2026.