How Genghis Khan’s MITTENS Strangled Darwin

One of the reasons I occasionally find it profitable to engage with anklebiters is that they help me get a handle on what I need to do to bridge the communication gap with normal individuals. No offense, but I often can’t tell the difference between the average midwit and the average retard, or determine precisely where along the logic rollercoaster someone is going to fall off without being provided the assistance of some sort of safety rails keeping them on the track.

So, it was with a bit of chagrin that I realized how, despite my best efforts to make every element of my case for the Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (MITTENS) easily intelligible, I had made precisely the same mistake that the symposium physicists did in 1966. Which is to say, I was requiring my critics to possess an ability to make a correct logical leap that is observably beyond the ability of most people, and had thereby rendered what should have been an incontrovertible argument theoretically contestable in the eyes of the average individual. MPAI strikes again.

Fortunately, a Darwinian true believer who lacked the necessary ability chose to inform me on Gab that the math in MITTENS was both “bad” and “wrong” without bothering to correct it.

I’m no biologist, and I do enjoy math. It pains me to see bad math, which is the only reason I keep on poking at this. Ultimately, it’s not even a math error, the error is in the priors. Asserting that 1600 fixations per generation is the highest possible fixation rate is the root.

First, it’s worth pointing out that setting a ceiling of 1600 fixations per generation would not be an error, and in fact is considerably higher than the highest possible fixation rate ever imagined by anyone. Second, I responded to him by pointing out that since he had somehow managed to reverse the relationship between generations and fixations, and was therefore asserting that it was reasonable to imagine a blistering and hitherto-unseen super-parallel rate of 1,600 fixations per generation, it was unlikely that he had truly been able to detect a mathematical error in what, after all, is some very basic math.

It will probably not surprise you to know that this obvious error neither stopped him nor slowed him down in the slightest:

If I said 1600 per generation, that was a typo. I am flawed, I do make the occasional mistake. That’s the rate for bacteria. Using it for chimps requires more than simply asserting it is so. I will concede that the math itself is correct. Vox is capable of multiplication. The analysis is flawed because the input is incorrect.

It is like taking the top speed of a snail (Best I could find is 0.2 miles per hour for the giant African land snail) and using that to claim we never went to the moon. 226000 miles / 0.2 miles per hour = 1,130,000 hours = 129 years. It has been less than 129 years since the Apollo program, so we can’t have made it there yet.

If you use the wrong starting values, the math leads you astray.

I responded by observing that now he had reversed the appropriate analogy as well. My argument for the mathematical impossibility of the theory of evolution by natural selection is much more akin to pointing out that since the maximum speed of a Moon rocket is the 24,791 mph recorded by Apollo 10, and since it took three days, three hours and 49 minutes for Apollo 11 to reach the Moon, any claim that a Giant African Land Snail travelling at 0.2 mph had flown to the Moon under its own power in less than 24 hours must be false.

This second correction somehow did not dissuade him from continuing to claim that while my math was admittedly correct, the mathematical argument it supported was still “weak”.

The rate of mutation is typically cited per individual per generation. The rate of fixation is of course a population-wide measure. The experiment in the 2009 Nature paper measured a fixation rate of 1 fixation per 1600 generations. The bacteria in the experiment have a rate of mutation of about 1/1000 per generation per individual.

The rate of fixation of neutral mutations is proportional to the rate of mutation (and with certain simplifying assumptions, is equal to the rate of mutation per individual per generation).

The rate of mutation per generation per individual in chimps and humans is on the rough order of 30, over four orders of magnitude higher than that of the bacteria. The rate of fixation will thus be proportionately higher. Using the correct rate of fixation produces numbers comparable to the ones evolutionary geneticists use in molecular clock calculations.

This is why Vox’s “mathematical” argument is weak – it’s using an invalid prior to come to an incorrect conclusion.

I therefore observed that in his attempted defense of neo-Darwinism, he was asserting that mutations fix four orders of magnitude faster ACROSS THE ENTIRE GLOBALLY-DISTRIBUTED SPECIES in both humans and chimpanzees alike than across a small population of laboratory bacteria, which is total nonsense because the fixation rate in laboratory bacteria in the 2009 study published in NATURE is the fastest ever observed by scientists.

I also pointed out his extrapolation that more mutations occurring in a growing, geographically-distributed, and more genetically complex species necessarily means that species will fixate much more quickly than the simpler species was a logical error. To be more precise, his baseless assertion was absolute and utter nonsense; since chimpanzees and humans are far more widely distributed than bacteria living in a single petri dish, any advantageous mutations making an appearance will tend to fixate much more slowly in their populations than in the bacteria.

In fact, the theory of natural selection even suggests that what is an advantageous mutation in one geographical area might well be a disadvantage elsewhere, thereby preventing its fixation. He was literally appealing to his own imagination rather than math, science, or any observable evidence, and he proved quite willing to continue standing upon that imaginary foundation.

Your math is still wrong. Fixation proceeds in parallel. The rate of fixation is equal to the rate of mutation, and the latter can be measured. (Former’s a touch harder, but some bacterial experiments have done it, and confirm the rate.) The rate of mutation needed for the genetic clock is within a factor of two of what’s observed now.

He was, of course, incorrect, as he was citing Wikipedia or some other Internet source without understanding it. As it happens, according to the scientific papers, the rate of fixation is absolutely not equal to the rate of mutation for a) any non-static population, or, b) any beneficial mutation, which happens to be the only kind of mutation that is relevant to the topic of fixation. Also, my critic apparently did not know that the original average of 1,600 generations per fixation reported in the NATURE study specifically included several mutations fixed in parallel.

However, his stubborn insistence that my argument was insufficiently conclusive made me realize that I had unwittingly gifted him the out to which he was clinging by erroneously expecting him to be able to accept what I considered to be obvious: I was assuming that the fastest mutational fixations ever observed in laboratory bacteria were faster, in generational terms, than any fixation occurring in a more genetically complicated species dwelling in the wild. Just as relying upon probability rendered the physicists’ math-based arguments too difficult for the innumerate biologists of the 1966 symposium to understand and accept, my failure to provide a specific example of natural fixation rates among species with higher mutation rates gave my logic-challenged critic sufficient cover to retreat to an ontological argumentum ad imaginariam.

And while I am aware of no substantive studies on mutational fixation rates in humans, which is understandable given the challenge presented by the time frames involved, there does happen to be the famous case of Genghis Khan, who is popularly supposed to have been the male ancestor for nearly one-quarter of the human race. Upon review, this turned out to be a fairly serious exaggeration of his actual genetic influence, but it proved useful nonetheless. And, better yet, his genetic legacy had already been analyzed in terms of mutational fixation!

The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols: a groundbreaking 2003 historical genetics study.

When sampling DNA from 16 populations across Asia, researchers were surprised to find that nearly one in 12 men on the continent shared an unusual Y-chromosomal lineage – one that they said likely came from Genghis Khan. The genetic line showed that about 8 percent of men in the region of the former Mongol empire, and therefore about one in 200 worldwide, share one single male ancestor.

This rise in frequency, if spread evenly over ∼34 generations, would require an average increase by a factor of ∼1.36 per generation and is thus comparable to the most extreme selective events observed in natural populations, such as the spread of melanic moths in 19th-century England in response to industrial pollution (Edleston 1865).

Note two things before we get to the math. First, based on the 2003 date of publication, the researchers were using a period of 23.44 years per generation, distinct from the 20 years per generation I’ve been using. They also appear to have used a slightly starting date for unknown reasons. But these differences are irrelevant and I only mention them to explain the different base number of generations: 40.85 vs ~34. Second, pay very close attention to this phrase: “is thus comparable to the most extreme selective events observed in natural populations”.

Genghis Khan’s third son, and successor, was born in 1186. It took 817 years, or 40.85 generations of 20 years, for his father’s genes to propagate sufficiently to reach 0.5 percent (the 1 in 200 worldwide figure reported in the study expressed in percentage terms) of a species-wide fixation. At this rate, which is “comparable to the most extreme selective events observed in natural populations”, it would take 8,170 generations (40.85 generations x 200) and 163,400 years to fixate a hypothetical “Genghis Khan gene” across the human population, although just to be clear, there is no evidence that there is any genuine mutational advantage to being descended from the individual who was the greatest warlord in human history as well as one of its more conspicuous collectors of fertile young concubines. This application of sexual selection, however one-sided, rather than natural selection per se, means that 8,170 generations per fixation is almost certainly a very conservative estimate.

This means that the fastest observed rate of practical partial fixation in the natural human population has run at 19.58 percent of the fastest-ever rate of observed fixation in laboratory bacteria. As the logic used to construct MITTENS correctly suggested, the bacteria in the lab have been observed to fixate mutations at a rate at least five times faster than the human population has ever been observed to do.

Since evolution by natural selection has now been reduced to purely ontological arguments, what sort of fitness advantage can you possibly imagine that would be more powerful than the sexual-selection advantage the literally rapacious Khan of Khans himself was historically known to utilize?

I’ll lay out the math in analogical terms that everyone can easily grasp in a future post, but for now, the genetic legacy of Genghis Khan should suffice to address any remaining structural objections to the legitimacy of MITTENS and its conclusive falsification of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.

UPDATE: You might think I’m exaggerating the stupidity and the innumeracy of the biologists. I’m not. They legitimately do not comprehend the existence of the concept of an “average”, much less have the ability to grasp MITTENS. This is an actual quote from one self-appointed defender of Darwin:

This so-called math isn’t necessary to evolution since there is no one set speed of evolution or even of mutation.


A Vast and Silent Emptiness

One tends to imagine a vast, wind-swept emptiness devoid of sound in the place of a rich interior monologue. This was posted in response to the NPC Rhetoric meme seen below.

VD: This is what a dialectical meme looks like. It’s utterly ineffective as a meme – it will probably mystify most – and yet it expresses a dialectically vital concept in rhetorical terms.

Kollins: It doesn’t appear to be dialectic at all and it would never go viral, so it’s not actually a meme. (WTF Webster’s online dictionary defines dialectical as “of, relating to, or in accordance with dialectic” which is about as useful as , “falling: of or related to a fall.”) It doesn’t convey a useful message, it isn’t catchy enough to spread and it appears as if you went full Karine Jean-Claude with that word salad of useless big words for the sake of sounding intellectual.

VD: You’re literally retarded. I am referring – obviously – to Aristotelian dialectic, as opposed to Hegelian or Maxian dialectic, and a meme does not need to go viral in order to be a meme. What part of “highly ineffective” was hard for you to understand? It would probably be a good idea for you to refrain from ever reading anything I write or post. It will be lost on you.


A Gatekeeper Discovers IQ

Just as they’ve recently done with Christian Nationalism, the gatekeepers of the Right are beginning to discover that immigration affects IQ, and consequently, the shape of society.

The flow of people from the south into America is having a clear impact on IQ. The claim is that the people coming in will get smarter by standing on the better dirt in the United States, but it will take four or five generations for that to happen. That is roughly a century. While that is happening, the population of low IQ people rises. This is happening rather quickly due to the age distribution of the white population.

For example, using government data, whites have an average IQ of 100, blacks are at 85 and the new people are around 90. This is consistent with what Richwine found in his research and what subsequent research has shown. This is one of those times when the official government position mirrors reality. That means that the average IQ in the United States in 1950 was around 98. By 1980, with the uptick in immigration and decline in white fertility, the average was just over 97.

In other words, with very stable demographics and little immigration, the average IQ in the United States had not changed very much in thirty years. This would explain why the country was able to pull out of the cultural lunacy of the prior decades and turn things around so quickly. There were a lot of smart people. Societies with high average intelligence also have a much larger number of smart people. These are the people who solve the problems made by other smart people.

By 2000, the effects of immigration were showing up in the test scores. The average IQ of the country, based on the new demographic mix, was below 97. By 2020 the average had fallen to below 96. In another decade it will fall below 95 and when the white population is a minority, it will be around 93.

The Great Dimming, The Z Blog, 20 September 2022

Now, you might wonder about the strange reference to “the better dirt in the United States”. Or, perhaps, the way in which it appears to avoid the use of the more common term “the Magic Dirt” as well as any reference to the specific individual who has been pointing this out for some time. Consider the following passage from a book published seven years ago.

Without question the worst effect caused by 50 years of failure, and the one most likely to have the most severe long-term consequences, is the negative effect immigration has had on the collective national intelligence. Researchers around the world have observed that the nations of the West have been gradually becoming less intelligent; the Danish military measured a 1.5 point decline in the average IQ of its soldiers between 1998 and 2014, while the average British 14-year-old lost two IQ points from 1980 to 2008. The same is true for the USA, where a three-point average IQ gain that took place after the Melting Pot migration ended has been entirely reversed as a result of immigration from lower-IQ nations.

By multiplying the average measured IQs for the four major ethnic groups in the United States with their changing demographic ratios, we can calculate how the demographic changes have affected the national intelligence over time. In 1960, we calculate the national IQ average to have been 100.3. By 2010, the average national IQ had fallen four points, to 96. By 2030, if the current population estimates are correct, it will fall another point, to 95. Lest you think that average national intelligence is irrelevant, note that just that four-point difference is essentially equal to the difference between countries such as Austria, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, and countries such as Uruguay and Portugal. There is a strong correlation between societal wealth and average national intelligence as measured in IQ.

Even the left-wing British paper, the Guardian, was recently forced to take note of this phenomenon, as it reported that scientists have determined genes influence academic ability across all subjects, and that as much as 60 percent of the observed differences between various population groups can be explained by genetic factors. So, the mass migration of the last 50 years has been materially dysgenic and has literally made Americans stupider on average. It’s not just you, mass entertainment really has been dumbed down in recent decades in order to appeal to what is an even lower common denominator than before.

Whatever one thinks of these changes, this is one of the fastest demographic transformations of a nation in recorded human history, and it is the direct result of public policy.

CUCKSERVATIVE by Vox Day and John Red Eagle, 4 December 2015

What I find significant about the Z-man’s post is that even mediocrities who assiduously refuse to mention me except to attempt to minimize my hypothetical influence are now being forced by events to address the issues that I’ve been highlighting for more than 20 years, because the observable reality can no longer be ignored.

Now, I don’t take the Z-man seriously and neither should you. I stopped reading him regularly once it became clear that he is a confirmed liar who doesn’t hesitate to try to shape his readers’ opinions despite his complete ignorance of the facts. His gatekeeping role can be seen clearly in the way he follows the lead of the Daily Wire with regards to certain unmentionables who must not be mentioned for fear that his readers might become tempted to leave the intellectual corral he has constructed.

On that note, it’s rather amusing how, in a discussion of various concepts that will be familiar to you even without being named, most of those involved are less willing than Jordan Peterson to Name the Voldemort.

  • There is a certain blogger who has a very outsized opinion of his intelligence. I used to think he was exaggerating somewhat when he said that we could have diversity or we could have running water. No longer do I think he is exaggerating. Nothing explains the way our world runs and has developed the way IQ does. it is the one element of social science that has been battle-tested and still stands. The liberal intelligentsia spent decades trying to disprove it, innate intelligence, and genetically-derived abilities of a population. It sure seems like their final stab at it was Jared Diamond’s stupid book, but once that failed, they just banned it.
  • Said blogger does tend to be self aggrandizing, but that does not automatically make his conclusions wrong. He has been proven correct, in my opinion, in a number of areas.
  • His main point of hubris was that taxonomy of male archetypes. The taxonomy itself is self-evident even without the greek letters: you’ve got jocks, jocks-in-waiting, nerds, normies, and losers. Then our friend realized he was a nerd so he had to add an extra category of “cool nerd who everybody likes even though he’s a jerk” which only exists in TV shows written by narcissistic nerds like Rick and Morty or House MD.
  • The disdain people in the dissident right have of him is a reflection of some of the flaws of the DR. He is one of the few people making headway in the culture war. They sperg out about his quirks and his comics. Those comics are reaching a lot of people. Like it or not, comic books are a good way to reach young people.
  • That blogger has been pretty prescient lately and I’ve come around to agreeing with many of his conclusions about China.

It’s even more amusing to see how they cling to their assumptions even as they cite the evidence against them. But in fairness, once formed, assumptions are hard to recognize, let alone break. As for “the disdain people in the dissident right” harbor for me, well, the dissident right is welcome to join the very long line. Pretty much every group from CAIR and the ADL and SFWA and ComicsGate and Tor Books and Thomas Nelson and the Sad Puppies and the conservative media and the Red Cross and the Google executives and the Swiss media share that disdain. Boo-freaking-hoo.

None of them need me and I certainly don’t need them. All that matters is that everyone who attempts to shape, spin, and shade the truth will be exposed by the harsh light of reality in the end, myself included.

UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that the Z-man has been pulling this gatekeeping stuff for a LONG time.

Steve Sailer has been having a lot of fun with the cooing over Raj Chetty’s big project, pointing out the many methodological flaws. In John Derbyshire’s latest transmission from the bunker, he introduces us to a new term that describes what Sailer has been discussing. It is called “Magic Dirt Theory.” The dirt in places like Utah where children do very well possess special qualities that are lacking in the dirt of places where children do poorly. Magic Dirt Theory is what’s behind the push to export troublesome populations out to the suburbs.

Practical Magic, The Z-Blog, 1 November 2015

NB: Observant minds will note my error in the last sentence of the quoted passage. I should not have used the term “nation”, but rather “polity” or “society”. It is the US polity that has been transformed while the American nation has been suppressed.


Dostoevsky knew the Gamma

From The Brothers Karamazov:

“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself. The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than any one. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn’t it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill–he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness.”

This pleasure in taking offense and revelling in resentment explains the way in which anklebiters will continue their delusional hate campaigns for years. The hatred they feel is not only justified by the imaginary offenses of those they hate, it gives a perverse pleasure to them. This is why it is totally pointless to respond to their demands or even to pay any attention to them, as it is the taking offense that is the entire point of the exercise for them. Once the nominal issue is successfully addressed, they will simply move the goal posts and take offense at something else, in order to keep feeding their emotional addiction.

The Secret King of ComicsGate

It would appear the armistice for which he sued is over. Ethan van Sciver has revealed himself to be a two-faced, shameless, and unrepentant liar. Again. In January 2019, five days after I posted about his two-facedness and historical revisionism, he emailed me out of the blue

An excerpt: Suing for peace.  This is stupid.  SJWs ALWAYS DOUBLE DOWN is too important for me to be in a fight with you.

I accepted, because for all his flaws and idiosyncracies, 2VS is not the enemy. Even now, he’s not the enemy. He’s not a friend, he’s not an ally, but he’s not actually trying to deplatform or disemploy anyone. So, he’s not an enemy, he’s just another anklebiter looking to catch a wave from someone else’s motorboat. So be it. It is what it is.

One of his goals which was to fight the culture war in comics on his own terms he was going to answer the social justice way comics with books like what was that book that he had with Daisy Duke… oh he was gonna fight it on on that level and here we come we here we come we swoop in and go know the way to fight SJWs is to simply succeed it’s not to fight with them on their own terms it’s to actually do good business and make money by being apolitical.

Now you know Vox Day took a real shot, Vox Day took a shot at taking over comicsgate. He took a shot because he tried to start an imprint called comicsgate and he invited people to come his way. I said everybody if your comics say come to me I’ll publish you. That was Vox Day trying to take control. Now we reacted to that a certain way didn’t wait if you remember back to 2018, comicsgate panicked and I invested eight thousand dollars of my own money in a lawyer to cease and desist and to claim ownership over the word comicsgate because I monetized it in my comic see livestreams.

Now that sent Vox Day away but he’s been pouting this entire time. I will reveal to you the Vox Day calls me constantly. I haven’t taken a phone call from him in months, probably a year but he still calls me and leaves messages on my machine. He’s watching comics gate very very closely and he’s using John del Arroz, who has a passing interest in comics.

Allow me to set the record straight:

  1. I have not been pouting about anything, least of all ComicsGate. I don’t care in the slightest about ComicsGate and I never did. I was dragged into that pointless, idiotic conflict by Will Caligan, and I no longer have anything to do with either ComicsGate or Caligan beyond continuing to publish Gun Ghoul.
  2. I have no interest in working with or talking to Ethan van Sciver.
  3. I did not drop the ComicsGate imprint as a result of 2VS’s trademark filing, I dropped it because I did not wish to be associated with the inept and incompetent individuals who identified themselves with it.
  4. I called Ethan van Sciver several times after the resolution of the Indiegogo situation. I thought, as someone with a vested interest in it, he might like to know that it was satisfactorily resolved. As I was incorrect and he did not return my calls, I stopped calling him several months ago.
  5. I do not follow ComicsGate at all. I have no idea what is going on in that little cesspool of the comics industry. John Del Arroz and I do talk about our mutual projects, but I never talk to him about 2VS or ComicsGate.
I don’t know why 2VS felt the need to start talking about me again; perhaps he is upset by the total irrelevance of Cyberfrog when Arkhaven is moving forward steadily on all fronts. Or perhaps the fact that ComicsGate collectively raised one-third the funds it did in 2019 that it did in 2018 has him rattled and looking for me to reprise my villain du jour role.

The problem is that other than setting the record straight, I simply don’t care what he does or says. And now that he has confirmed what we originally believed him to be, there is no need to pay any attention to the Secret King of ComicsGate.

The Z-man doubles down

The ZmanVerified Account@TheZBlog

His blunder was in making claims that can be independently verified. That and picking a fight with the Zoomers. They dug into his various claims because they have time on their hands and they like mixing it up on-line.

A friend said to me that he has become the old man stomping on the flaming bag of poop while shouting into the darkness.

It was entertaining for a while, but I’m bored with it now.

Except, of course, there was never any blunder. My claims were correct and theirs were not. The few “independently verified” claims that appear to have been verified are both inaccurate and irrelevant. If the Z-man wasn’t technologically illiterate, he would understand how ludicrous their claims have always been. No one, including us, has ever run anything on the scale of Unauthorized using a $75 Premium account on Vimeo.

Do keep in mind the actual claims that were made. Even I am not that brilliant.

And the Z-man is now a proven liar. As everyone involved already knows, and as everyone else will learn soon enough, the Z-Man has conclusively and publicly demonstrated that he is not only a liar, but a particularly lazy and stupid one at that. He does nothing and he has accomplished nothing beyond emanating envy of those who take the time to actually produce things, construct projects, and build communities.

I understand it is going to be very, very amusing for those who are in the know and for those who trust me to rub their retarded little noses in their own bullshit as the facts gradually become apparent to even the most wilfully ignorant. Nevertheless, resist the temptation. The more time that passes, the more they double down and insist upon the correctness of their statements, the more amusing it will be.

Uncle John’s Band put it rather well on SocialGalactic: The success of UA has been the snake revealer. The sort of scum who would rather cry in their permitted corners of the status quo than see the change they pretend to want.

An interesting perspective

The Big Bear’s hate club certainly have a different perspective on defamation:

If they are so right, why are they bothered by Crocko who is so wrong – they would be indifferent or just laugh it off if there was nothing to it…

There is nothing to it. No matter how we react – and notice that we did ignore it for months until events yesterday rendered that impossible – there has never been anything to it. By this bizarrely twisted illogic, people only react to true accusations, against which stands the entire history of written and case law dealing with defamation, slander, and libel. Here is just one recent example disproving the hate club’s logic, in this case, from Australia.

Malicious comments on social media can have costly consequences. This was demonstrated in Cables v Winchester [2018] VSC 392. Ms Cables, the owner of multiple McDonald’s franchises, sued Mr Winchester for a series of defamatory comments he posted on the “Everything Albury Wodonga” Facebook page (“the Facebook Page”).

The Court’s Findings

The court found that the posts were defamatory. The Court found that the defamatory posts were published to at least 9,477 people who followed the Facebook page. The Court also noted that as a publicly accessible page, other people who did not ‘follow’ the page or like the page may have seen the publications, and additionally the “grapevine” effect meant it was likely that the publications would have spread further still. The “grapevine” effect  has been described as the realistic recognition by the law that, by the ordinary function of human nature, the dissemination of defamatory material is rarely confined to those to whom the matter is immediately published.

There was direct evidence of damage to Ms Cables’ mental health and wellbeing as well as her professional reputation within the Albury community. The publications even raised the attention of the McDonald’s Head Office in Sydney, who summoned Ms Cables to an urgent meeting. She was told that head office were investigating the allegations made in the publications and that if they were true, she would be required to sell her franchises.


Ms Cables was awarded damages of $200,000. The Court considered aggravated damages to be appropriate because Mr Winchester published the words solely to injure Ms Cables’ reputation, refused to apologise and did not participate in the trial. What’s more, Mr Winchester encouraged scores of comments which denigrated Ms Cables to be published.

Now, you might reasonably ask, what does Australia have to do with anything? Well, YouTube videos are broadcast there, along with nearly everywhere else, which means that the choice of venue is extremely broad. Unauthorized also has many Australian customers, as it happens. Notice, in particular, that last line about “encouraging scores of comments” and how it relates to ALL of the people who are involved in Unauthorized, which is most certainly not, contrary to the defamatory assertions of Mr. Crocko, a scam of any kind.

Every view and every comment on his videos is just that much more ammunition against the individual in question.

“Please retract this smear”

Now this is funny. Evan Schulz wants me to “retract this smear” against him. And precisely what “smear” is that?

I have never been in contact with Davey Crocko, and am not attempting to be an insider “whisleblower”. I am neither. I am not a bear, I am not VFM. All my interactions with Vox have been via email. All my YouTube comments are public and I stand by them. Please retract this smear.

So, Mr. Schulz believes a perfectly factual statement concerning the POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT be someone, posted with evidence of his direct connection to the individual concerned in the form of his comments on the latter’s channel, is a smear, while he stands by the following false statements:

  • “You are dead on with the scamming and ponzi scheme angle”
  • “this grifting”
  • “the constant grifting and lying”
  • “many of us who respected Vox and have been involved with his projects in the past have become disillusioned”

He also asserted the following via email:

  • “Either Owen is too dumb to realize this, or he is a malicious actor.”
  • “The remainder of the Bears that still put up with him are cultist sycophants.”

Mr. Schulz appears to be too stupid to realize that he has very publicly published several false statements that are damaging to multiple persons’ reputations, and that in doing so he has committed several acts of written defamation. In addition to those acts, he has also insulted every single Unauthorized, Castalia House, and Arkhaven customer, and the entire community of Bears.

As I told him in an email, the only one “fallaciously smearing” anyone is him. However, in the interest of accuracy, I have posted an update to the original post making it clear that he denies being the individual who emailed Owen’s anklebiter and claimed to be VFM and an Annual member.

Unfortunately for Evan Schulz and his preference to not be a public figure, his defamatory statements are now part of the public record, and will be available to every friend, foe, family member, and prospective employer in perpetuity.

One thing that people tend to forget is that I’ve been a public figure for 26 years, ever since my weekly column began appearing, complete with my picture, in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. This means that I am very, very accustomed to dealing with all of the various problems and challenges and complications that entails in a way that most people are not. So, if you are a self-appointed critic, you just may want to think twice before getting into a written conflict with me, because I will never hesitate to ensure that your words will follow you around for the rest of your life.

I have had to deal with that for most of my adult life. Why do you think you shouldn’t have to do the same?

A nonexistent insider

One of Big Bear’s anklebiters is claiming that “a Vox Day insider” and “vfm member” is exposing all sorts of nonexistent scams and shenanigans on our part.

we dont trust him but let me share some private messages from a vfm member, paid member an someone who is our mole on the inside.

However, the individual that appears to be behind this baseless slander is one Evan Shulz, an Alt-Hero:Q backer who helped bounce the rubble before getting aggressively butthurt over the Owen Benjamin-Nick Fuentes drama. He is neither an “insider” nor is he VFM, as should be evident from his comments on the video linked above.

Evan Schulz
You are dead on with the scamming and ponzi scheme angle, and many of us who respected Vox and have been involved with his projects in the past have become disillusioned since this partnership with crazy Owen and the endless grift that has ensued.

Evan Schulz
I’ve followed his work for a number of years. His book SJWs Always Lie was quite influential. “What you have to understand” (spoken in Vox voice) is that this grifting and constant fund raising is new and out of character.

Evan Schulz
he was always a pompouse ass. But he had interesting insights on certain topics that he is well read on. If someone is an interesting thinker, I can overlook a bad personality. But the whole Owen partnership and the constant grifting and lying and counter signaling people who are doing good things is new and bizarre.

I was thinking that name sounded familiar and went to check my email. Sure enough, the search revealed an object lesson in why one MUST always excise the gammas from one’s social circles, organizations, and even fan clubs. They are INEVITABLY treacherous, self-righteous little shits who will eventually seek to destroy whatever they cannot influence to their liking, no matter what “fans” or “supporters” they previously claimed to be.

7/14/2019 9:50 AM
Evan Schulz wrote:
Owen. I’ll be blunt. This man is extremely reckless in attacking Nick Fuentes. The remainder of the Bears that still put up with him are cultist sycophants. To dox Nick’s dad and so viciously attack him is putting Nick’s safety at risk from deranged people. Either Owen is too dumb to realize this, or he is a malicious actor working against our worldview and interests. He has diminished your well deserved reputation. My advice is to cut ties sooner rather than later.

To which I responded after unbanning him – unwisely, as it turns out – from the Darkstream chat, from which he’d been banned for repeating a question to which he’d already received an answer.


What on Earth do you think you were doing by repeating your question – which I’d already answered – on the stream? First, it’s not your business. Second, you’re wrong.

Third, how long will it take for you to admit you are wrong when Owen fails to turn on me? Two weeks? Two months?

Either way, this simply isn’t your concern.

Best regards,


7/16/2019, 5:58 PM
Evan Schulz wrote:
I apologize for addressing it publicly. In hindsight that was not very mature of me. For some reason I had not received notification of your email response. 

That being said, I stand by what I said. My main concern was not your reputation, but the wreckless nature of Owen’s behavior and the damage it does to the nationalist movement.

I’m happy to agree to disagree on this one. I still have a tremendous amount of respect for your body of work and original thinking.

Note that it is now December, five months after this email exchange, and we are still awaiting Owen’s supposedly imminent heel turn. And the prediction is more than a little ironic in light of Evan’s own rapid devolution from a tremendously respectful AH:Q backer to a publicly slanderous anklebiter who is henceforth banned from this blog, from the Darkstream, and from all of our collective projects.Perhaps he will find some modicum of consolation in his newfound status with his fellow anklebiters.

The lesson, as always, is this: BANISH YOUR GAMMAS. And in the unlikely event there actually is an Annual Unauthorized member who is discontent with the service that we are providing or believes that we have lied about it, rest assured that we will not hesitate to refund the entire amount to you regardless of when you happened to subscribe.

UPDATE: This excerpt was particularly amusing in light of the YouTuber’s complete failure to grasp the obvious implications of the situation.

Just like he’s saying with a Patreon lawsuit, just like he’s saying about suing YouTube, he said the same thing about IndieGoGo, yet he’s still using that company. And like with YouTube, he’s still using that company. There’s not gonna be a lawsuit against these companies.

His claims of engagement declining significantly are true, because the mods have done an excellent job of methodically beating down and banning the trolls. What he leaves out is that since the Darkstream’s peak engagement was set on February 25, watch time is up 119 percent and average view duration is up 7 percent.

UPDATE: Evan Schulz denies being the fake insider who emailed Davey Crocko and claimed to be VFM and an Unauthorized subscriber. I can’t confirm that, but I can confirm he is neither. He writes:

I have never been in contact with Davey Crocko, and am not attempting to be an insider “whisleblower”. I am neither. I am not a bear, I am not VFM. All my interactions with Vox have been via email. All my YouTube comments are public and I stand by them. Please retract this smear.

Secret King never errs

Curt Doolittle is more amusingly delusional than I would have imagined. This little performance made me laugh.

Curt Doolittle: European Civilization is based on European Civilization that is thousands of years older than Christianity.

Samuel Whittemore: I said Western Civilization, not European Civilization. The European nations are a component of Western Civilization, along with Christianity and the Graeco-Roman traditions.

Curt Doolittle: In the intellectual vernacular, “European Civilization”, “Western Civilization”, and “Christendom” are used as synonyms…. I never err.

Secret King wins again! And yet, it clearly escaped the philosopher of Propertarianism that the reason the three terms are used as synonyms is because his tautological definition of “European Civilization” is incorrect.  Moreover, that definition strongly suggests that he doesn’t even understand what a “civilization” is.