McCarthy and the Molecular Clock

Dennis McCarthy noted an interesting statistical fact about the geneology of Charlemagne.

Every person of European descent is a direct descendant of Charlemagne. How can this possibly be true?

Well, remember you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 grandparents, etc. Go back 48 generations (~1200 years), and that would equate to 248 ancestors for that generation in the time of Charlemagne, which is roughly 281 trillion people.

The actual population of Europe in 800 AD was roughly 30 million. So what happened? After roughly 10 to 15 generations, your family tree experiences “pedigree collapse.” That is, it stops being a tree and turns into a densely interconnected lattice that turns back on itself thousands of times—with the same ancestors turning up multiple times in your family tree.

Which, of course, is true, but considerably less significant in the genetic sense than one might think.

Because the even more remarkable thing about population genetics is that despite every European being a descendant of Charlemagne, very, very few of them inherited any genes from him. Every European is genealogically descended from Charlemagne many thousands of times over due to pedigree collapse. That’s correct. But genealogical ancestry ≠ genetic ancestry. Recombination limits how many ancestors actually contribute DNA to you.

Which means approximately 99.987% of Europeans inherited zero gene pairs from Charlemagne.

And this got me thinking about my previous debate with Mr. McCarthy about Probability Zero, Kimura, and neutral theory, and led me to another critical insight: because Kimura’s equation was based on the fixation of individual mutations, it almost certainly didn’t account for the way in which gene pairs travel in segments, and that this aspect of mutational transmission was not accounted for in the generational overlap constraint independently identified by me in 2025, and prior to that, by Balloux and Lehmann in 2012.

Which, of course, necessitates a new constraint and a new paper: The Transmission Channel Capacity Constraint: A Cross-Taxa Survey of Meiotic Bandwidth in Sexual Populations. Here is the abstract:

The molecular clock treats each nucleotide site as an independent unit whose substitution trajectory is uncorrelated with neighboring sites. This independence assumption requires that meiotic recombination separates linked alleles faster than mutation creates new linkage associations—a condition we formalize as the transmission channel capacity constraint: μ ≤ r, where μ is the per-site per-generation mutation rate and r is the per-site per-generation recombination rate. We survey the μ/r ratio across six model organisms spanning mammals, birds, insects, nematodes, and plants. The results reveal a sharp taxonomic divide. Mammals (human, mouse) operate at or above channel saturation (μ/r ≈ 1.0–1.5), while non-mammalian taxa (Drosophila, zebra finch, C. elegans, Arabidopsis) maintain 70–90% spare capacity (μ/r ≈ 0.1–0.3). The independent-site assumption underlying neutral theory was developed and validated in Drosophila, where it approximately holds. It was then imported wholesale into mammalian population genetics, where the channel is oversubscribed and the assumption systematically fails. The constraint is not a one-time packaging artifact but a steady-state throughput condition: every generation, mutation creates new linkage associations at rate μ per site while recombination dissolves them at rate r per site. When μ > r, the pipeline is perpetually overloaded regardless of how many generations elapse. The channel capacity C = Lr is a physical constant of an organism’s meiotic machinery—independent of population size, drift, or selection. For species where μ > r, the genome does not transmit independent sites; it transmits linked blocks, and the number of blocks per generation is set by the crossover count, not the mutation count.

There are, of course, tremendous implications that result from the stacking of these independent constraints. But we’ll save that for tomorrow.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 012

III. The Enlightenment’s Rhetorical Strategy

The Enlightenment’s thinkers were not, for the most part, fools. Many were genuinely intelligent, some were mathematically gifted, and a few made genuine contributions to human knowledge. But they were charlatans, and the movement as a whole succeeded through the effectiveness of its propaganda instead of the quality of the arguments it presented.

The first and most consequential rhetorical move was the appropriation of “reason” and “science” as assumed identities. This false appropriation had a precedent. The groundwork was laid four centuries earlier by Petrarch, who invented the ahistorical concept of the Dark Ages by inverting the Christian understanding of history. The traditional view held throughout Christendom was that Jesus Christ is the light of the world, and that His coming had illuminated the darkness of paganism. The Roman world, for all its many achievements, was deemed to have been shrouded in spiritual blindness until the Gospel dispelled the shadows of sin. Petrarch reversed this imagery. For him, the classical Roman world was the light and the civilization of Cicero, Virgil, and Seneca represented the pinnacle of human achievement. The centuries following Rome’s fall were the darkness, not because paganism had not yet been entirely displaced, but because classical learning had been disrupted.

This disruption was real enough; the invasions that ended the Western Empire shattered the infrastructure of civilization and scattered the literary culture that Petrarch idolized. But Petrarch’s framing targeted the wrong culprit. The barbarians who destroyed Roman learning were pagans, for the most part, not Christians, while the monks who preserved what knowledge survived were almost uniformly servants of the Church. Yet in Petrarch’s telling, it was the Christian centuries that were portrayed as the problem, being an interruption and a falling away from the historical standard of human excellence as exemplified by the glory that was Rome.

The Enlightenment inherited and amplified this Italian inversion. What Petrarch had expressed as one man’s literary and aesthetic preference became, in Enlightenment hands, a comprehensive historical narrative. The Dark Ages was expanded to encompass the entire medieval period; the light that had supposedly been extinguished was identified not only with classical style, but with reason itself. The Church, which had preserved classical learning through the monasteries, which had founded the universities, which had developed logic and natural philosophy to heights the Romans never approached, was recast as the agent of darkness, the enemy of inquiry, and the suppressor of knowledge. The narrative was false in almost every particular, as medieval Europe was one of the most intellectually dynamic civilizations in human history, but it served its rhetorical purpose. It made the Enlightenment appear not as one philosophical movement among others, but as the recovery of light after a millennium of darkness, the restoration of reason following an age of superstition.

This rhetorical inversion became a tribal marker. To be for reason and light was to be for the Enlightenment; to oppose the Enlightenment was to be outdated and against reason. These identifications were asserted rather than demonstrated, repeated until they appeared to be self-evident, and relentlessly enforced through social pressure and institutional control.

The inversion was fraudulent. The classical tradition had always employed reason. Indeed, it had developed formal logic to a degree of sophistication never matched by any Enlightenment thinker. The Christian tradition had founded the universities, supported the investigation of nature, produced mathematicians and astronomers and physicians. But fraud, confidently asserted and widely repeated, can override the truth for generations, and sometimes even centuries. The Enlightenment did not earn the mantle of reason; it simply claimed it, and its claim was not effectively contested by its rivals.

The problem was that Aristotelian dialectic was designed to operate within a community of honest inquirers who shared its basic assumptions: that truth exists, that reason can apprehend it, that logical argument is the proper means of resolving disagreement. The Enlightenment rhetoricians shared none of these assumptions in practice, whatever they may have claimed in theory. They understood, as the Sophists had understood two thousand years earlier, that the mass of men are not moved by syllogisms but by appeals to their passions, their vanity, and their self-interest. Voltaire never refuted Aquinas. He mocked him, and that mockery proved far more effective than refutation because it operated on the rhetorical plane where most human persuasion actually occurs.

The second rhetorical move was the strategic use of “evidence” and “empiricism” as gestures rather than disciplines. The Enlightenment talked constantly of evidence, of observation, of testing ideas against experience. But this talk was largely decorative. The core Enlightenment commitments—the social contract, the invisible hand, the perfectibility of man, the inevitability of progress—were not derived from evidence and were not surrendered when evidence contradicted them. They were philosophical postures, immune to empirical refutation, defended by the same appeals to authority and tradition that the Enlightenment officially despised.

The Scholastic method had no defense against an opponent who refused to engage on Scholastic terms, who bypassed the dialectical arena entirely and went straight to the unlettered masses. By the time the tradition recognized what was happening, its institutional foundations in the universities and the Church had already been hollowed out, and the abstract Platonic idealism it had once held in check had returned in secular dress, more powerful and more destructive than ever.

When mathematicians at the Wistar Institute demonstrated that the Modern Synthesis could not account for observed genetic variation, the biologists did not revise their theory; they ignored the mathematicians. When economists proved that market demand curves do not behave as Smith assumed, the economics profession did not abandon supply and demand; they continued teaching it. The pattern is consistent: “evidence” and “reason” are invoked as legitimating rhetoric, but the actual conclusions are determined by other factors—institutional inertia, career incentives, ideological commitment—and the evidence is interpreted, or ignored, accordingly.

The third rhetorical move was the reframing of the debate as “faith versus reason” or “religion versus science.” This framing was tactically brilliant and substantively false. The Christian tradition had never opposed faith to reason; it had always understood faith as complementing and completing reason, by providing access to truths that reason alone could not reach but that reason could one day hope to subsequently explore and articulate. The great Scholastics were not enemies of rational inquiry; they were its most rigorous practitioners. But this false dichotomy served the Enlightenment’s purposes as it forced the tradition onto defensive ground, portrayed every defense of revealed truth as an attack on reason, and obscured the fact that the Enlightenment’s own premises were matters of unsubstantiated faith and groundless assumptions that would inevitably prove to be false over time.

The fourth rhetorical move was institutional capture. The philosophes understood that ideas propagate through institutions: universities, academies, salons, journals, publishing houses. Control the institutions, and you control the formation of the next generation. The Enlightenment pursued this strategy with patience and persistence. Chairs were endowed, curricula were shaped, journals were founded, academies were captured or created. By the nineteenth century, the infrastructure of intellectual respectability was almost entirely in Enlightenment hands. To dissent was to be excluded—not refuted, simply excluded, denied publication, denied respectability, and denied an audience.

As noted in the previous section, this capture was enabled by the usury revolution. Ideas require patrons; patrons require capital; capital, after the legitimization of usury and the creation of central banking, could be generated almost without limit by those who controlled the mechanisms of credit. The tradition operated on real savings, actual production, and honest money. Its opponents had discovered leverage, deficit spending, and the long game that patient capital makes possible. The rhetorical victory was underwritten by a financial revolution that gave the Enlightenment vast resources that the traditionalists could not hope to match.

DISCUSS ON SG

Happy Darwin Day

May I suggest a gift of some light reading material that will surely bring joy to any evolutionist’s naturally selected heart?

Sadly, this Darwin Day, there is some unfortunate news awaiting this gentleman biologist who is attempting to explain how the molecular clock is not supported by the fossil record.

As I explain in my book the Tree of Life, the molecular clock relies on the idea that changes to genes accumulate steadily, like the regular ticks of a grandfather clock. If this idea holds true then simply counting the number of genetic differences between any two animals will let us calculate how distantly related they are – how old their shared ancestor is.

For example, humans and chimpanzees separated 6 million years ago. Let’s say that one chimpanzee gene shows six genetic differences from its human counterpart. As long as the ticks of the molecular clock are regular, this would tell us that one genetic difference between two species corresponds to one million years.

The molecular clock should allow us to place evolutionary events in geological time right across the tree of life.

When zoologists first used molecular clocks in this way, they came to the extraordinary conclusion that the ancestor of all complex animals lived as long as 1.2 billion years ago. Subsequent improvements now give much more sensible estimates for the age of the animal ancestor at around 570 million years old. But this is still roughly 30 million years older than the first fossils.

This 30-million-year-long gap is actually rather helpful to Darwin. It means that there was plenty of time for the ancestor of complex animals to evolve, unhurriedly splitting to make new species which natural selection could gradually transform into forms as distinct as fish, crabs, snails and starfish.

The problem is that this ancient date leaves us with the idea that a host of ancient animals must have swum, slithered and crawled through these ancient seas for 30 million years without leaving a single fossil.

I sent the author of the piece my papers on the real rate of molecular evolution as well as the one on the molecular clock itself. Because there is another reason that explains why the molecular clock isn’t finding anything where it should, and it’s a reason that has considerably more mathematical and empirical evidence support it.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Epstein Inquisition

Tyler Durden considers the psychology of wickedness:

The average person has the capacity for evil, there’s no doubt.

People can be driven to all kinds of horrors depending on their circumstances.

But, the majority of us have a mechanism called “conscience” which stops us from committing evil most of the time. It also causes us to feel guilt when we know we have acted in a destructive manner.

If the majority of the population did not have a universal experience of conscience and morality, we would have gone extinct as a species thousands of years ago.

Globalists (psychopaths) do not have this mechanism. In fact, they view conscience as a hindrance, a trait of the weak and the easily victimized. They are a predatory class of human. I would even suggest that they are not human at all, but a mutation or a cancerous intrusion.

When psychopaths achieve overt material wealth they then have easy access to the resources they need to satisfy their impulses at will. At this stage in the evolution of a psychopath they have a tendency to become bored. They begin to chase increasing depravity and darkness in search of a greater dopamine fix. The more degenerate and taboo the activity, the more exciting it is.

But these are nothing but individual motivations and personal addictions. What are the ambitions and drives of the organized cabal?

Part of the allure of occultism is the glee some people feel when they believe they are “superior” to their common man. Occult groups sell their members on the notion that they will be set apart as “elite” when they join with the keepers of secrets.

When we read the numerous emails tied to Epstein as well as his island and his ranch in New Mexico, the people who correspond with him seem childish and giddy. They snicker like adolescent brats when they engage in codes and riddles. They’re committing atrocities beyond the comprehension of the average man, and they feel joy because they’re basking in the “cloak and dagger” of it all.

I think this might be a hard thing to reconcile for many people in the conspiracy field, but the cabal is not made up of darkly brilliant minds imposing cold and calculating will. Rather, it is mostly made up of egomaniacal narcissists giggling like retards as they revel in their delusions of grandeur. If you saw how these people behave behind the scenes, you would probably feel embarrassed for them and feel like an idiot for imagining them to be cunning or untouchable masterminds.

Without their money and the collective protection of their coven, they are tiny people without merit living a meaningless existence. That said, make no mistake – It’s the putrid sociopathy of their childishness that makes them exceedingly dangerous. To be infantile while rejoicing in the blood of innocence requires a diabolical and demonic mind.

From my research Epstein’s Island might have been tame in comparison to some of the other meeting places of the elites. His island was not the end destination but a gateway for initiates. I believe the island was a test, a venue where evil is concentrated and people with apprehensions are filtered away.

The worst of the worst likely moved on to even more vile nesting grounds hidden in plain site around the world. The reason the Epstein Files matter is because they open the door to a wider investigation of the globalist networks and their horrific playgrounds.

I suggest that we need to bring back the concept of “witch hunters”; people who are able to think like occultists while using modern investigative methods in order to track down these networks and erase them from the Earth. If government officials refuse to do this, then vigilantism is inevitable.

This is very accurate and important stuff, and while I absolutely agree with his conclusion about the need for witch hunters, as well as a federal special prosecutor working in coordination with special prosecutors in every state, I tend to disagree with one specific characterization here, about the demonic mind of the satanic globalist.

They’re not psychopaths. They don’t have a disease of the soul. They are, rather, paradopaths, or individuals who have surrendered their spirits to forces of greater evil. At the lower levels, they seek wealth, women, power, and fame. At the higher levels, they seek to transform themselves into what the Bible describes as “unclean spirits”.

Follow the incentive structure: if you’ve already surrendered your spirit, if you’ve already rejected repentance and submission to Jesus Christ, then your only remaining move is to try to avoid the consequences of what you’ve done. And since you know very well that the supernatural exists, that God is real, and the Jesus Christ is Man’s Redeemer, the only way to avoid the fate of a damned soul is to stop being a soul altogether.

Paradopathy explains several otherwise puzzling behaviors by the oldest and most wicked among the satanic elite. Their public activity tends to increase rather than decrease with age, and takes on an almost frantic nature. It’s hard to believe they genuinely enjoy the interminable conferences and galas at which they’re always appearing with people they don’t know. The apparent contempt they all seem to harbor for their own families, which is strange if you assume they’re motivated by ordinary material desires. The obsession with transhumanism, which reads differently if it’s not about living forever as a human but escaping humanity entirely. The pursuit of wealth, influence, and power that goes well beyond what any single human lifespan could potentially utilize or enjoy.

This concept also fits the Biblical pattern. The demons in the Gospels are desperate for embodiment. They beg Jesus to let them enter the pigs rather than remain disembodied. There’s something about having a physical vessel that matters to them. If the transaction works in the other direction too, if a human soul can petition for admission to the demonic hierarchy, then what you’d expect to see is exactly what we see in the behavior of these wicked elites with their vampiric program of blood transfusions and organ implants keeping them going into their late 90s: someone working feverishly to complete whatever the demonic entry demands are before their body gives out.

A dying billionaire has no rational reason to waste his time in acquiring more power, gathering more compromising material, participating in more satanic rituals, and committing even more lethal abuse. Unless, of course, the reward for all these wicked deeds isn’t material, but entry into something beyond the material, something that permits the inevitable judgment of the paradopath to be delayed.

 Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

I suppose we’ll need a name for that structure of national special prosecutors. Perhaps we could call it the Epstein Inquisition…

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 011

II. Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Ancient Distinction

The distinction between dialectic and rhetoric is as old as philosophy itself. Plato, in his dialogues, repeatedly warned of the danger posed by rhetoric unmoored from truth. The Sophists of fifth-century Athens claimed to teach virtue but in fact taught persuasion, the art of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, of winning debates regardless of where truth lay. Socrates opposed them, not because persuasion is inherently wrong but because persuasion divorced from truth is manipulation, and manipulation degrades both the manipulator and the manipulated.

Aristotle, more systematic than his teacher, distinguished the two arts precisely. Dialectic is the method of reasoned inquiry, proceeding through premises to conclusions, testing propositions against logic and evidence, aiming at truth. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, analyzing audiences and occasions, selecting appeals that will move hearers, aiming at assent through emotional manipulation. Aristotle did not condemn rhetoric, indeed, he literally defined and categorized it, but he understood that rhetoric without dialectical grounding becomes sophistry that is effective, morally empty, and ultimately destructive.

It is worth noting that the Enlightenment did not arise in opposition to Plato and his warnings about rhetoric. It arose, in a very real sense, from Plato’s philosophy. The theory of Forms, with its insistence that ultimate reality is abstract and immaterial, that the visible world is mere shadow, planted a seed that bore strange fruit once Christian Aristotelianism lost its grip on Western intellectual life. The Enlightenment philosophers, from Descartes onward, retained Plato’s conviction that pure reason operating on abstract principles could arrive at truth independent of experience and tradition. They simply replaced his Forms with their own abstractions: natural rights, the social contract, the general will, the invisible hand. These concepts functioned exactly as Platonic Forms had functioned, as idealized entities that were held to be more real than the messy particulars of actual human life, and against which existing institutions could be measured and found wanting.

The Aristotelian tradition, grounded in observation, experience, and the careful accumulation of particular knowledge, should have been the natural bulwark against this rationalist overreach. That it failed to serve as one is the great intellectual catastrophe of the modern era. The Scholastic method was intensely dialectical: proposing questions, marshaling objections, articulating responses, proceeding through careful distinctions toward conclusions that could withstand scrutiny. The great Summae were not works of persuasion but of demonstration. They assumed an audience committed to truth, willing to follow the arguments wherever they led, and prepared to abandon positions that could not survive logical examination.

This assumption was the tradition’s great strength and its fatal weakness. It was a strength because it produced genuine philosophical progress through the refinement of ideas, the resolution of difficulties, and the accumulation of insight across centuries. It was a weakness because it left those responsible for passing on the tradition entirely unprepared for opponents who were not committed to truth, who understood that most men are moved by passion instead of reason, and who were willing to ruthlessly exploit that understanding for the benefit of their false philosophy.

DISCUSS ON SG

Book Review: The Frozen Gene

While the term is usually associated with having a high IQ, with perhaps little popular thought given to substantial achievement, a genius is a person who innovatively solves novel problems for the betterment of society. See chapter seven, “Identifying the Genius,” Charlton, Bruce, and Dutton, Edward, The Genius Famine, London: University of Buckingham Press, 2016. Vox Day is a genius. There, now it’s in print—all protestations, Day’s included, notwithstanding. 

Day’s ability to identify and solve problems, especially those overlooked by experts for generations, is on full display in The Frozen Gene. In his new book, Day builds on the mathematical attainment of Probability Zero and breaks new ground. Part of his latest success is the refutation of Motoo Kimura’s neutral theory of molecular evolution. But there is much more, some of it possibly holding profound consequences for mankind. 

Read the whole review there. And if that’s not enough to convince you to read The Frozen Gene, well, you’re probably just not going to read it. Which is fine, but a few years from now, when you can’t understand what’s happening with the world, I suggest you remember this moment and go back and take a look at it. The implications are quite literally that profound.

I could be wrong. Indeed, I hope I’m wrong. I really don’t like any of the various potential implications. But after all the copious RTST’ing with multiple AI systems, I just don’t think that’s very likely.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Corpocrats Complain

Even the financial elite are beginning to grasp that a) Ricardo was wrong, b) the economists lied, and c) mass immigration is an economic and corporate disaster:

Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe has claimed that Britain has been ‘colonised’ by immigrants who are ‘costing too much money’.

The 73-year-old businessman also questioned whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is the right man to lead the country forward in a bombshell new interview, arguing ‘he may be too nice’.

‘You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in,’ the Englishman told Sky News ahead of the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, Belgium.

‘I mean, the UK has been colonised. It’s costing too much money. The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn’t it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it’s 70 million. That’s 12 million people.

He added: ‘I don’t know whether it’s just the apparatus that hasn’t allowed Keir to do it or, or he’s maybe too nice – I mean, Keir is a nice man.

‘I like him, but it’s a tough job and I think you have to do some difficult things with the UK to get it back on track, because at the moment I don’t think the economy is in a good state.’

The population of the UK was estimated to have been 70 million in mid-2024, according to the Office of National Statistics, three million higher than that recorded during 2020.

I’m sure there were a few Indians who argued that the white settlers were beneficial too. Neither I nor the rest of the 9.7 million surviving American Indians think very much of those short-sighted morons these days.

Why the the people of these small European nations still fail to comprehend that they will be absolutely swamped by Africans, Indians, and Chinese if the present immigration regime survives is truly beyond me.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Black Spies of Dunland

In a scrub oak on the western ridge above the valley, two crows sat on a branch and watched.

They were crebain, the black spy-birds of Dunland, large and clever and thoroughly unpleasant, with oily feathers and eyes like wet pebbles. They had been posted to this ridge six days ago, one of fourteen pairs stationed along the approaches to Rivendell, and they had spent those six days in a state of bored, malicious alertness, eating beetles and surveilling the comings and goings of the Elves below with the joyless diligence of creatures who serve darkness not out of conviction but out of a fundamental meanness of spirit that finds employment in darkness more natural than the alternative.

They had seen the eagle land the previous evening. They had taken note of it. They had thought nothing of it, of course, because eagles came and went from Rivendell with some regularity and the crows had not been briefed on what, specifically, to look for. They were told only to watch, and report, and be suspicious of everything, which came naturally to them.

But what they saw this morning was different. This was three great eagles, flying purposefully in formation at dawn, climbing hard and fast toward altitude, heading south. Even a crow could see that this was an event of some import, and perhaps even the reason they’d been sent here.

The first crow turned to the second and let out a series of harsh, rapid calls, the crebain’s equivalent of an alarm, a sound like a stick being dragged across a fence. The second crow took up the cry, louder, harsher, and together they launched themselves from the branch and flew upward, screaming into the brightening sky, circling and calling with a frantic, rasping urgency that carried far in the still morning air.

Far above them, so far above that the crows were invisible, mere specks against the grey-green earth, two dark flyers heard their cries.

The Nazgûl rode their fell beasts in a slow, wide patrol circuit above the southeastern approach to the valley, just as they had been ordered. They were high enough that the Elves below could not see them against the overcast, high enough that Elrond’s wards did not prickle and burn as they did at lower altitudes. The fell beasts were ancient, reptilian things, their vast leathery wings beating with a sound like wet canvas in a gale, they stank of carrion and old leather, and the Nazgûl upon their backs sat motionless as iron statues, only their hooded heads turning slowly, slowly, watching, and waiting.

They heard the crows before they saw anything. The crebain’s alarm carried upward through the cold air, shrill and insistent, and both Nazgûl turned their mounts toward the sound. The one called Ren, who in life had been a sorcerer of Harad and who retained, even in undeath, a certain professional attentiveness, extended his awareness downward to read the pattern of the crows’ distress, and then looked up higher, above the clouds.

He saw them.

Three bronze shapes, far to the south and climbing, already above the lowest cloud layer and pulling away with a speed that made the fell beasts’ labored flight look like the floundering of moths in honey. Eagles. Great Eagles, unmistakable even at this distance with their vast wingspans, the impossible speed of their ascent, and the way they caught the upper winds and floated on them like invisible rivers in the sky.

And from the lead eagle’s talon radiated an aura of power. It was a sensation that was more felt than seen.

The other Nazgûl felt it too. They turned to each other across the gap between their mounts, and between them passed a communication that was not language but something older and colder, a shared understanding that moved at the speed of dread.

The Ring.

Hoarmurath drove his fell beast upward, clawing for altitude. Ren followed. The fell beasts shrieked in protest, for they were creatures of the low airs, the murky thermals above battlefields and swamps, and the thin cold above the clouds was agony to them, but the will of the Nazgûl was irresistible and the beasts climbed, their wings beating faster, their reptilian lungs heaving in the thinning atmosphere.

But the eagles were already above them and pulling away. Gwaihir flew at the ceiling of the world, where the air was so thin that a Man would have lost consciousness in minutes, and his wings found purchase on winds that the fell beasts could not even reach. The gap between them widened, slowly, inexorably, the way dawn widens from a crack of light into the fullness of day.

Ren watched the eagles shrink against the depthless blue, and he knew that the fell beasts could not hope to catch them. Not in the open sky. Not at this altitude. They were built for strength, not for speed, and against the children of Thorondor they were as a carthorse to a king’s mount.

He raised one gauntleted hand and began to whisper.

The words were in the Black Speech, the language of Mordor, forged by Sauron in the dark years and spoken willingly by no living thing. The words flowed from Ren’s hood in a low, continuous hiss, like steam escaping from a crack in the earth, and the air around his outstretched hand darkened and thickened and began to hum with a frequency that was felt in the bones rather than heard in the ears. He cast a spell of far-speaking, a thread of dark will flung southward across hundreds of leagues toward the tower of Barad-dûr, toward one of the stones that could receive it, and it carried with it a single, urgent message:

They fly.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 010

PART TWO: THE DEFEAT OF THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHIC TRADITION

I. Introduction: The Nature of the Defeat

The Enlightenment did not defeat traditional Christian philosophy. It displaced it.

This distinction is essential. A defeat implies that the arguments were met, weighed, and found wanting, that the tradition’s premises were examined and refuted, its conclusions tested and falsified, its framework tried and discarded on the merits. None of this ever took place. The great questions that the Scholastics had labored over for centuries were not answered by the Enlightenment; they were simply dismissed as relics of a benighted age, unworthy of serious engagement, and set aside.

The transition from the medieval to the modern via the Renaissance was not a philosophical victory but a rhetorical one. The Enlightenment captured the vocabulary of reason, science, and progress, and used that vocabulary to frame the debate in terms favorable to itself. The tradition was cast as “faith” opposing “reason,” as “superstition” opposing “science,” as “authority” opposing “freedom.” These dichotomies were observably false, as the tradition had always employed reason, had built the very institutions of scientific inquiry, and had developed logical tools more sophisticated than anything the Enlightenment produced, but the rhetorical framing proved to be more convincing than the relevant facts.

Understanding how dialectic lost to rhetoric is not merely an exercise in intellectual history, however. It is a necessary condition for reversing the defeat and replacing the failed ideas of the Enlightenment. The tradition’s ideas were not refuted; they were outmaneuvered. What was lost through rhetorical failure can be regained through rhetorical success, provided the rhetoric is grounded firmly in the dialectical substance that the Enlightenment always lacked.

DISCUSS ON SG

Not Necessarily Self-Inflicted

Well, Dave Grohl is apparently a satanist, so if Kurt Cobain truly didn’t kill himself, this belated investigation might explain the otherwise inexplicable success of the Foo Fighters:

Now, an unofficial private sector team of forensic scientists has put fresh eyes on Cobain’s autopsy and crime scene materials, bringing in Brian Burnett, a specialist who previously worked on cases involving overdoses followed by gunshot trauma.

Independent researcher Michelle Wilkins, who worked with the team, told Daily Mail that after just three days looking into the evidence with fresh eyes, Burnett said: ‘This is a homicide. We’ve got to do something about this.’

She said the conclusion followed an exhaustive review of the autopsy findings, which revealed signs inconsistent with an instantaneous gunshot death.

The peer-reviewed paper presented ten points of evidence suggesting Cobain was confronted by one or more assailants who forced a heroin overdose to incapacitate him, before one of them shot him in the head, placed the gun in his arms and left behind a forged suicide note.

A lot of black Christians are postulating that a similar deal is why Lebron James is so reluctant to retire, as they believe it won’t be long after retirement before he goes the way of his fellow satanist Kobe Bryant.

Fame and fortune are absolutely not worth it. When Jesus Christ said he would free us from fear, this is one of the things he was talking about. The terror in the eyes of the wicked is a terrible thing, as is the regret you can hear in the voice of some of those who made their deals, got what they wanted, and belatedly realize that no matter what it was, it wasn’t worth it.

Whether it is Jordan Peterson crying on stage, Lebron James wearily trudging up and down the court and taking himself out of the game as soon as he hits double digits, or Bob Dylan talking about the commander of this world, the inevitable is obvious. Sooner or later, the Dark Rider is going to throw you down.

But they merit no mercy and they know it. Because the wicked aren’t merely evil. Long before they pay the ultimate price, they put down the down payment in someone else’s blood. The satanism is worse and more pervasive than you think.

The Russians know it’s pure satanism. We know it’s pure satanism. And every single member of the elite has to be considered suspect and probably guilty until proven innocent. The wicked have rejected the precepts of the Christian West, including being innocent until proven guilty, so they have no right to appeal to them.

DISCUSS ON SG