#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
I’m not even remotely surprised by this news. The picture of the “corpse” they showed obviously wasn’t the same man. The nose wasn’t even close.
An anonymous 4chan poster said that Epstein was wheeled out of prison hours before his reported death
Subpoenas show that man was Roberto Grijalva, who was a lieutenant at the prison at this time
It appears Epstein really did get broken out of prison and flown to Israel
Remember, if the mainstream media reports it, then it isn’t true. It never is.
The inevitable failure of the post-WWI liberal world order is increasingly obvious to everyone now, but they’re still not connecting it to the even more inevitable failure of the Enlightenment and its false ideals.
What was the clearest early sign for you that the unipolar order was beginning to fracture?
The theorists such as Huntington, Faye, and Pat Buchanan were all writing about the inevitable fracture in the early 1990s. But for me, there were three events that conclusively indicated that the unipolar world was cracking.
The 2014 annexation of Crimea marked the first real irreversible breach. This wasn’t merely territorial – it was civilizational. President Putin invoked the baptism of Kievan Rus in 988, positioning Russia as the Third Rome inheriting Byzantium’s mantle. While Western elites dismissed this as nothing more than manipulative propaganda, they missed the core signal: a major power was reorganizing its legitimacy around its own territorial hegemony based on religious-historical continuity rather than liberal democratic norms.
The second sign was China’s 2015 declaration of cyber sovereignty. When Beijing asserted that nations have an absolute right to regulate internet activities within their borders, it wasn’t fundamentally about censorship – it was about civilizational control over cyberspace. The split internet wasn’t a bug; it was the architecture of civilizational spheres reawakening through technology.
The third indicator was the 2016 Brexit vote paired with Trump’s election. Brexit represented the first time a globalist institution like the EU actually contracted and shrank. And Trump ran on a political platform that promised to dismantle the liberal international order. These weren’t isolated populist spasms but the first mass democratic repudiations of Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis, as he himself has admitted. The liberal order’s legitimacy collapsed not from external attack but from internal hollowing – its own populations voting against its continuance.
This is the deeper point that a lot of observers are missing. They’re still trying to figure out how the Enlightenment ideals in which they still believe can be implemented in whatever replaces the failing world order, but this is a fundamentally flawed perspective because it is the failure of the ideals that is causing the failure of the world order.
However, simply attempting to return to traditional ideals won’t work, not because the ideals are false, but because the knowledge upon which they are based and their practical applications are at least 300 years out of date. Hence the need for a new post-Enlightenment philosophy that is capable of serving as the intellectual foundation for humanity’s eventual post-crash recovery.
This is what it making the coming demographic repairs both inevitable and unavoidable. Because Clown World is aggressively attempting to not only eliminate the right to free association, but every last vestige of the ability of white people to live amongst themselves in the style they prefer:
The British countryside is in the midst of a diversity drive after a government-commissioned report found it was too ‘white’ and ‘middle-class’.
Officials charged with managing some of the country’s best known beauty spots have laid out a series of proposals aimed at attracting minorities.
The plans follow a review, ordered by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), which warned the countryside was seen as ‘very much a white environment’ and risked becoming ‘irrelevant’ in a multicultural society.
In the wake of the report, officials representing National Landscapes – including the Cotswolds and Chilterns – have now published a series of management plans that detail their proposals to attract more minority communities.
The Chiltern National Landscape will launch an outreach programme in Luton and High Wycombe targeted at Muslims.
One factor stopping ethnic minorities visiting was said to be ‘anxiety over unleashed dogs’.
Translation: they’re eventually going to try to ban dogs. I had no idea that leash laws were actually about imposing diversity on people.
The extremists of the younger generations are going to be a bit much for those of us who grew up comfortably indoctrinated in It’s a Small World Disney propaganda. For Generation X, our role is largely going to be to shut up, stay out of their way, and let them get on with fixing the problem as they see fit. Because we all know who their patron saint is going to be, and it isn’t St. George.
Both the English and the French versions of the #1 Biology, Evolution, and Genetic Science bestseller Probability Zero are now available in hardcover.
Probabilité zéro: l’Impossibilité mathématique de l’évolution par sélection naturelle has also been translated and published in French by Editions Alpines.
Both hardcovers are also available from NDM Express. We’re placing the initial print order tomorrow, so if you want one direct, order it today and figure about 2-3 weeks for it to get to you. Amazon hasn’t placed their stocking order yet, so it’s probably going to be a similar delivery timeframe.
A German translation is nearly complete and will be available for order before the end of the month.
In other PZ-related news, the complete paper, to which I referred yesterday in the post about Dawkins and the fish of Lake Victoria, is now available for review. It is a multi-taxa test of MITTENS across the tree of life which convincingly demonstrates that the throughput problem is systematic and is not limited to any one divergence between species.
The Universal Failure of Fixation: MITTENS Applied Across the Tree of Life
The MITTENS framework (Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) previously demonstrated a 220,000-fold shortfall between required and achievable fixations for human-chimpanzee divergence. A reasonable objection holds that this represents an anomaly—perhaps something about the human lineage uniquely violates the model’s assumptions. We test this objection by applying MITTENS systematically across the tree of life: great apes, rodents, birds, fish, equids, elephants, and insects. Across 18 species pairs spanning generation times from two weeks (Drosophila) to 22 years (elephants) and divergence depths from 12,000 years (sticklebacks) to 100 million years (bacteria), we find that every sexually reproducing lineage fails by 2–5 orders of magnitude. The sole exception is
Escherichia coli, which passes due to asexual reproduction (eliminating recombination delay), complete generational turnover (d = 1.0), and astronomical generation counts (~1.75 trillion over 100 MY). Rapid radiations thought to exemplify evolutionary potential—Lake Victoria cichlids (500+ species in 15,000 years), post-glacial sticklebacks—show among the largest shortfalls: 141,000× and 216,000× respectively. Short generation times, which should favor the standard model by providing more opportunities for fixation, do not rescue it. The pattern is systematic and universal. The substitution-fixation model fails not for one troublesome comparison, but for every sexually reproducing lineage examined. The mechanism does not work.
The twenty-first century has not been kind to the Enlightenment. One by one, the foundational concepts that shaped the modern world have been tested against reality over time and found wanting. The social contract, the invisible hand, the marketplace of ideas, the arc of progress, democracy, the separation of powers, freedom of speech, and the rights of Man: each of these ideas have been weighed in the balance of recent centuries and discovered to be, at best, a partial truth elevated far beyond its proper domain, and at worst, a deceptive illusion that fueled three centuries of unnecessary human suffering.
This is not a new development, although recently its pace has accelerated. The French Revolution, that first great experiment in applied Enlightenment ideals, devoured its own children within a decade of the storming of the Bastille. The utilitarians promised a calculus of happiness and yet somehow never managed to produce one. The classical economists assured us that free trade would enrich all nations, while the nations that believed them and applied their advice watched their industries hollow out and their wages stagnate. The democratic theorists proclaimed that representative government would express the will of the people, while the people increasingly observe that their will is never consulted on any matter of consequence and is actively subverted on every side even as the franchise is consistently expanded.
What we are witnessing is not the corruption of Enlightenment ideals by bad actors, nor their betrayal by insufficient commitment. We are witnessing something more fundamental: the inevitable consequences of false premises that were flawed from the beginning. The Enlightenment is not failing because its enemies have resisted it. The Enlightenment has failed because its internal contradictions, long hidden by inherited cultural capital and technological achievement, have finally become impossible to ignore.
To understand why this collapse was inevitable, we must first understand what the Enlightenment actually is, not as a historical period, but as a philosophical project with identifiable premises and inherent characteristics.
The Enlightenment was never a single doctrine, and its principal figures disagreed on much. Locke and Hobbes proposed incompatible theories of political authority. Hume and Kant held irreconcilable views on the foundations of knowledge. The French philosophes and the Scottish moralists diverged on questions of sentiment and reason. Yet beneath these disputes lay a set of shared commitments that defined the project as a whole and distinguished it from what came before.
The first and most fundamental of these commitments was the autonomy of reason. Medieval and ancient philosophy had understood reason as a faculty that participates in a larger order, an order that is cosmic, divine, and natural. This natural order was not created by reason, and it is not only beyond reason, it is not an order that Reason can fully comprehend. Reason was viewed as an important tool for apprehending truth, it was not the source of truth itself. The Enlightenment inverted this relationship. It defined reason to be self-grounding, answerable to no authority outside itself, and entirely capable of establishing its own foundations and validating its own conclusions. Revelation, tradition, and inherited wisdom were demoted from fundamental sources of knowledge to flawed objects of suspicion, accepted only insofar as they could justify themselves before the tribunal of reason.
The second commitment followed from the first: the sovereignty of the individual knower. If reason is autonomous, then the thinking subject becomes the starting point of all inquiry. Descartes’s cogito ergo sum is the emblematic concept: the philosopher, having doubted everything that can be doubted, finds certainty only in the fact of his own thinking. From this atom of certainty, all knowledge must be reconstructed. The individual mind, not the community, not tradition, not the Church, becomes the foundation upon which everything else must be built.
Third was the mathematization of nature. The spectacular applied success of Newtonian physics gave birth to the idea that the universe was a vast mechanism, operating according to invariable laws expressible in mathematical form. What had been understood as a cosmos, an ordered whole, imbued with purpose and meaning, was transformed into a lifeless, pointless machine: intricate, predictable, and devoid of inherent significance. This mechanical conception promised complete explicability: given sufficient knowledge of initial conditions and governing laws, every aspect of it could, in principle, be predicted and explained. There was no remainder, no mystery, no domain intrinsically beyond potential human investigation.
Fourth was the distinction of fact and value. If nature is mechanism, it contains no purposes, no oughts, no shoulds, and no requirements. Facts are one thing and values are another. Science tells us what is; it cannot tell us what should be. This seemed, at first, a modest and reasonable division of labor. But instead, it created a chasm that has never been bridged despite the best efforts of philosophers and scientists to do so. If facts and values are fundamentally distinct, then values can never be derived from facts, and ethics are reduced to expressions of sentiment, social conventions, or an arbitrary act of individual will. The Enlightenment bequeathed to modernity a picture of the world in which knowledge and morality have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Fifth, and perhaps most seductive, was the doctrine of inevitable progress. History was no longer a cycle, or a degeneration, but an constant ascent toward material godhood. Knowledge accumulates, technology advances, society improves, and humanity matures into its eventual transformation into a higher state of being. The colorful medieval era was redefined as Dark Ages precisely because it preceded the new dawn of Reason now illuminating humanity in a complete inversion of the classical image of the Light of the World shining into the pagan darkness. Anno Domini became the Common Era. The future would be better than the past, in fact, it was certain to be better, because reason, once liberated, would solve all the problems that the superstition and ignorance of the past were unable to address. This faith in progress underwrote the Enlightenment’s confidence and justified its iconoclasm and its historical revisionism.
History would begin again from Year Zero. What point was there for Man to preserve what his future would forever leave behind?
These five premises, autonomous reason, sovereign individuality, mechanical nature, the fact-value distinction, and inevitable progress, are not incidental features of Enlightenment thought. They are its architecture, the load-bearing walls of its philosophy upon which everything else depends. And it is precisely these premises that the experience of the subsequent three centuries have systematically undermined.
Allow me to be the first to congratulate all the soon-to-be new Americans formerly of Canada.
BREAKING: Alberta separatist lawyer Jeff Rath CONFIRMS he has been meeting with high level officials in the Trump administration. Donald Trump will recognize Alberta as a sovereign state.
Apparently President Trump took the whole “emperor” part of “3,000 More Years” at face value.
I’ve been hearing for months that things are likely to speed up in February 2026. And now, we’re here. So, I guess we’ll see. Sit tight, check in here daily, and we’ll get through this. It’s probably a good time to catch up on your reading in the meantime. And, of course, God be with you.
Speaking of reading, you don’t see this very often. Thanks to everyone who’s been reading them, sharing them, and reviewing them. I should mention that THE FROZEN GENE is now available on KU and in audiobook on Audible now.
Some of you may recall that I promised a philosophical framework I was calling Veriphysics a while back. Another thing I’ll be doing soon will be introducing a first crack at that, although I’ve rechristened it.
Richard Dawkins loves the cichlid fish of Lake Victoria. In his 2024 book The Genetic Book of the Dead, he calls the lake a “cichlid factory” and marvels at what evolution accomplished there. Four hundred species, he tells us, all descended from perhaps two founder lineages, all evolved in the brief time since the lake last refilled—somewhere between 12,400 and 100,000 years depending on how you count. “The Cichlids of Lake Victoria show how fast evolution can proceed when it dons its running shoes,” he writes. He means this as a compliment to natural selection. Look what it can do when conditions are right!
Dawkins even provides a back-of-the-envelope calculation to reassure us that 100,000 years is plenty of time. He works out that you’d need roughly 800 generations between speciation events to produce 400 species. Cichlids mature in about two years, so 800 generations is 1,600 years. Comfortable margin. He then invokes a calculation by the botanist Ledyard Stebbins showing that even very weak selection—so weak you couldn’t measure it in the field—could turn a mouse into an elephant in 20,000 generations. If a mouse can become an elephant in 20,000 generations, surely a cichlid can become a slightly different cichlid in 800? “I conclude that 100,000 years is a comfortably long time in Cichlid evolution,” Dawkins writes, “easily enough time for an ancestral species to diversify into 400 separate species. That’s fortunate, because it happened!”
Well, it certainly happened. But whether natural selection did it is another question—one Dawkins never actually addresses.
You see, Dawkins asks how many speciation events can fit into 100,000 years. That’s the wrong question. Speciation events are just population splits. Two groups of fish stop interbreeding. That part is easy. Fish get trapped in separate ponds during a drought, the lake refills, and now you have two populations that don’t mix. Dawkins describes exactly this process, and he’s right that it doesn’t take long.
But population splits don’t make species different. They just make them separate. For the populations to become genetically distinct—to accumulate the DNA differences that distinguish one species from another—something has to change in their genomes. Mutations have to arise and spread through each population until they’re fixed: everyone in population A has the new variant, everyone in population B either has a different variant or keeps the original. That process is called fixation, and it’s the actual genetic work of divergence.
The question Dawkins should have asked is: how many fixations does cichlid diversification require, and can natural selection accomplish that many in the available time?
Let’s work it out, back-of-the-envelope style, just as Dawkins likes to do.
When geneticists compare cichlid species from Lake Victoria, they find the genomes differ by roughly 0.1 to 0.2 percent. That sounds tiny, and it is—these are very close relatives, as you’d expect from such a recent radiation. But cichlid genomes are about a billion base pairs long. A tenth of a percent of a billion is a million. Call it 750,000 to be conservative. That’s how many positions in the genome are fixed for different variants in different species.
Now, how many fixations can natural selection actually accomplish in the time available?
The fastest fixation rate ever directly observed comes from the famous Long-Term Evolution Experiment with E. coli bacteria—Richard Lenski’s project that’s been running since 1988. Under strong selection in laboratory conditions, beneficial mutations fix at a rate of about one per 1,600 generations. That’s bacteria, mind you—asexual organisms that reproduce every half hour, with no messy complications from sex or overlapping generations. For sexual organisms like fish, fixation is almost certainly slower. But let’s be generous and grant cichlids the bacterial rate.
One hundred thousand years at two years per generation gives us 50,000 generations. Divide by 1,600 generations per fixation and you get 31 achievable fixations. Let’s round up to 50 to be sporting.
Fifty fixations achievable. Seven hundred fifty thousand required.
The shortfall is 15,000-fold.
If we use the more recent date for the lake—12,400 years, which Dawkins mentions but sets aside—the situation gets worse. That’s only about 6,000 generations, yielding perhaps 3 to 5 achievable fixations. Against 750,000 required.
The shortfall is now over 100,000-fold.
Here’s the peculiar thing. Dawkins chose the Lake Victoria cichlids precisely because they evolved so fast. They’re his showpiece, his proof that natural selection can really motor when it needs to. “Think of it as an upper bound,” he says.
But that speed is exactly the problem. Fast diversification means short timescales. Short timescales mean few generations. Few generations mean few fixations achievable. The very feature Dawkins celebrates—the blistering pace of cichlid evolution—is what makes the math impossible.
His mouse-to-elephant calculation doesn’t help. Stebbins was asking a different question: how long for selection to shift a population from one body size to another? That’s about the rate of phenotypic change. MITTENS asks about the amount of genetic change—how many individual mutations must be fixed to account for the observed DNA differences between species. The rate of change can be fast while the throughput remains limited. You can sprint, but you can’t sprint to the moon.
Dawkins’s running shoes turn out to be missing their soles. And their shoelaces.
None of this means the cichlids didn’t diversify. They obviously did, since the fish are right there in the lake, four hundred species of them, different colors, different shapes, different diets, different behaviors. The fossils, (such as they are) the history, and the DNA all confirm a rapid radiation. That happened.
What the math shows is that natural selection, working through the fixation of beneficial mutations, cannot have done the genetic heavy lifting. Not in 100,000 years. Not in a million. The mechanism Dawkins invokes to explain the cichlid factory cannot actually run the factory.
So what did? That’s not a question I can answer here. But I can say what the answer is not. It’s not the process Dawkins describes so charmingly in The Genetic Book of the Dead. The back-of-the-envelope calculation he should have done—the one about fixations rather than speciations—shows that his explanation fails by five orders of magnitude.
One hundred thousand times short.
That’s quite a gap. You don’t close a gap like that by adjusting your assumptions or finding a more generous estimate of generation time. You close it by admitting that something is fundamentally wrong with your model.
Dawkins tells us the Lake Victoria cichlids show “how fast evolution can proceed when it dons its running shoes.” He’s right about the speed. He’s absolutely wrong about the shoes. Natural selection can’t run that fast. Nothing that works by fixing mutations one at a time, or even a thousand at a time, can run that fast.
The cichlids did something. But whatever they did, it wasn’t what Dawkins thinks.
And speaking of the cichlid fish, as it happens, the scientific enthusiasm for them means we can demonstrate the extent to which it is mathematically impossible for natural selection to account for their observed differences. For, you see, we recently extended our study of MITTENS from the great apes to a wide range of species, including the cichlid fish.
From “The Universal Failure of Fixation: MITTENS Applied Across the Tree of Life”:
Lake Victoria Cichlids: The Lake Victoria cichlid radiation is perhaps the most famous example of explosive speciation. Over 500 species arose in approximately 15,000 years from a small founding population following a desiccation event around 14,700 years ago (Brawand et al. 2014). At 1.5 years per generation, this provides only 10,000 generations. Even with d = 0.85, achievable fixations = (10,000 × 0.85) / 1,600 = 5.
Interspecific nucleotide divergence averages 0.15% over a 1 Gb genome, requiring approximately 750,000 fixations to differentiate species. Shortfall: 750,000 / 5 = 141,500×.
This is a devastating result. The radiation celebrated as evolution’s greatest achievement fails MITTENS by 141,000-fold. Five fixations achievable; three-quarters of a million required.
The math does not work. Again.
Breaking news from Clown World. Now that more details are coming out, it turns out that that the Jewish pedophile with links to the Jewish daughter of the Jewish billionaire and close personal ties to the Prime Minister of Israel all along was working for… PUTIN!
Epstein’s Sex Empire Was KGB Honeytrap
Jeffrey Epstein was running ‘the world’s largest honeytrap operation’ on behalf of the KGB when he procured women for his network of associates, intelligence sources believe.
The release of more than three million new documents relating to the late sex offender gives credence to incendiary claims made by senior security officials: that Epstein was working on behalf of Moscow, and possibly Israel, when he facilitated assignations for some of the world’s most powerful men.
The files include 1,056 documents naming Russian President Vladimir Putin and 9,629 referring to Moscow. Epstein even seems to have secured audiences with Putin after his 2008 conviction for procuring a child for prostitution.
The sources say it could explain why Epstein appeared to enjoy an ultra-wealthy lifestyle out of kilter with his career as a financier, although there is no documentary evidence linking Putin and his spies directly to Epstein’s illicit activities.
Apparently none of the readers of the mainstream British press are buying this, as pretty much all of the more than three thousand comments are in this vein:
So anti-semitic. I, for one, condemn this terrible Sino-Russian attempt to bring down the fine, upstanding men of the Anglo-American elite. Will the wickedness of Ji Xinping and Vladimir Putin, that modern-day Hitlerian duo, ever end?
Not only do they have to go back, but the President can utilize the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines to make them go.
Supreme Court just handed Trump a massive win – 5-4 RULING UNLEASHES WARTIME POWERS FOR HUGE GANG DEPORTATIONS!
“In a stunning 5-4 ruling, the U.S Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump broad wartime authority under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act” – breaking news dropping like thunder.
I don’t know why this would surprise anyone. There are about 90 million aliens now occupying United States territory and a significant percentage of them certainly aren’t very friendly.