The Big Bear roars

Owen Benjamin responds to Ben Shapiro attempting to get people to talk about his latest attempt to twist the history of the West to serve his Neo-Palestinian interests:

This little shit called my buddy Vox Day a white supremacist today. Shapiro brags about his racial purity that allegedly leads to high IQs and justifies their dominance in power and wealth. While Vox is an American Indian who reads all day and writes video games has never once said white people are “superior.” Ben Shapiro is barely 3 Rogans tall and schizophrenia runs deep in his family.

He should pump the brakes on his (((strong genes))). Apparently not recognizing Jews as racially superior makes you a white supremacist. But it doesn’t though. That’s a lie. Which is what Ben does. You gotta read some of the sick shit this guy has said on record. He’s literally pro (((genocide))) and no the stupid three parenthesis thing is not as offensive as genocide you bunch of sheep morons. #owenbenjamin

I was wondering why Shapiro would suddenly resurrect that old libel to which the New Republic first resorted during the demolition of the Hugo Awards, and apparently the reason is that he’s talking his book.

The very title of Shapiro’s new book is a lie: The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great

Typical revisionist wizardry. One could make a better historical case for the Black Plague than for “reason and moral purpose”. The West became great for three reasons: Christianity, the European Nations, and the Greco-Roman philosophical legacy. The Littlest Chickenhawk is on the side of those attempting to destroy Western civilization, which is why he is consciously echoing the Marxianism of his Trotskyite forebears.

UPDATE: I’ll do a video review of The Right Side of History on Unauthorized for subscribers next week. It won’t take long to read the book, as it’s only nine chapters long and the style is far less meandering than Peterson’s. But having read the introduction, it’s obvious why Ben Shapiro was attacking me in connection with the book’s release, as he uses the false and self-contradictory term “Judeo-Christian” no less than 70 times in the book, although it felt as if he used it 70 times in the introduction alone.

His basic thesis is that Western Civilization is the result of Jerusalem and Athens, which is about five-sixths false. Based on that initial glance, I have no reason to doubt that the book will be full of similar deceptions, falsehoods, and blatant historical revisions.

One amusing point. He actually mentions that his wife is a doctor in the third sentence of chapter one. Promo code: hilarious!

They just keep going off script

Muslim students blame the Democratic Party politicians and activists who have been relentlessly hurling hate speech at Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) for the violent events in New Zealand:

Muslim students have berated Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the victims of the New Zealand mosques massacre, saying she is to blame for the attack.

Clinton, who is pregnant with her third child, was attending the vigil at New York University on Friday when senior Leen Dweik began castigating her in an astonishing moment caught on video.

‘This right here is the result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world,’ says Dweik, gesturing to the vigil for the 49 who were killed in Christchurch when a white nationalist shooter stormed two mosques.

‘And I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deeply – 49 people died because of the rhetoric you put out there,’ Dweik continues, jabbing her index finger toward Clinton as other students snap their fingers in apparent approval of her words….

According to NYU student Rose Asaf, who posted the video on Twitter, students at the vigil were angry about Clinton’s accusation last month that Rep Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, used ‘anti-Semitic language and tropes’ while criticizing Israel.

It’s rather amusing to see how bewildered the media is about this unanticipated reaction. “Wait, you’re supposed to blame the false flag on white supremacists, WHITE SUPREMACISTS! How can you possibly screw this up?”

I have to admit, I know that the rhetoric of “anti-semitism” is losing its effectiveness, but I never anticipated it backfiring to such a degree, and in such an amusing manner.

Stealing the shield

The French globalists are desperately trying to hide behind the shield of anti-semitism:

More than 20,000 demonstrators filled the Place de la Republique in Paris on Tuesday night in response to a nationwide call for mass rallies against the continuing surge of antisemitism in France.

The show of solidarity with French Jews in the capital was replicated across the country, with rallies against antisemitism being held in more than 60 cities and towns, including Lyon, Marseille, Toulouse and Strasbourg — the city in eastern France near which only on Tuesday morning dozens of graves in a Jewish cemetery were found defaced with swastikas and antisemitic slogans.

The vandalism at the cemetery came following a week of high-profile antisemitic incidents, including the daubing of a Jewish-owned bakery with the slogan “Juden!” and the abuse hurled at the French-Jewish intellectual Alain Finkielkraut last weekend by protesters affiliated with the populist “yellow vest” movement.

Under the floodlit statue of Marianne, the symbol of the French Republic, the demonstrators who gathered at dusk in Paris held signs declaring “Ça suffit!” (“That’s enough!”), as well as the greeting “Shalom, Salaam, Salut.” Many of the signs at the rally highlighted the figure “74{eeec9489c486a2281592101ee839cae41681be6ec2c423372fef8d25db0a7fab}” — the total increase in the number of antisemitic outrages recorded in France during 2018.

At the podium, children from schools in the local district read out speeches against antisemitism, some of them recalling the mass deportation of the Jews of Paris by the Nazis in July 1942.

French rap artist Abd al Malik closed the rally, leading the crowd in a chorus of “La Marseillaise,” the national anthem.

Initiated by the opposition Socialist Party, Tuesday’s rallies against antisemitism were backed by 14 political parties from the far left to the center-right. Political leaders attending the demonstration in Paris included Prime Minister Edouard Philippe and 14 other members of the French cabinet, including Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer and Higher Education Minister Frédérique Vidal.

Minutes before the rally against antisemitism commenced, French President Emmanuel Macron paid a separate visit to the Holocaust memorial in Paris.

Yeah, crying anti-semitism works about as well these days as crying drowning polar bears. This clumsy attempt at changing the nationalist narrative in France strikes me as a highly effective way to make anti-semitism very, very popular again. The French globalists are transparently trying to disqualify and discredit the Gilets Jaunes and shore up an emergency foundation of support for a tottering Macron regime, but they will fail because no one who is struggling to make ends meet in a country that is disappearing before their eyes gives a damn about foreign people being killed in foreign lands more than seventy years ago.

Cucks are so very clever

I don’t think complaining about the anti-semitism of Muslims is going to be any more rhetorically effective than pointing out how Dems R the Real Racists.

Jesse Kelly@JesseKellyDC
Republicans should be POURING money into IIhan Omar’s re-election campaign. If you’re a Republican and you wanted to plant a destructive parasite in the Democrat party, what exactly would you be doing differently than what she’s doing? It’s glorious. I’m donating.

Instapundit is similarly skeptical: On the other hand, that’s probably what the Germans thought when they put Lenin on the train for Moscow.

Even so, the fact that there are no less than SEVEN EIGHT posts about anti-semitism on the main page and none concerning anti-American, anti-Christian, or anti-white statements does tend to raise an eyebrow or two. Because that’s the conservative grand strategy, to win by being even less racist and anti-semitic than Democrats.

Anyhow, the fact that most people keep their mouths shut for fear of falling under the scrutiny of the Eye of Soros does not mean that they are going to leap to the defense of that which they fear once those with more courage or less to lose begin to speak out against it.

Whopping the floor

This is highly amusing. A reader sent me a transcript of JF’s absurd attempt at performing a victory lap after his inept retreat to rhetoric in what passed for our debate about the theory of evolution by natural selection:

So there was the debate about the theory of evolution with our friend Vox Day. Vox Day has now made a reply, a kind of analysis after the debate. He considered that I have been winning rhetorically which is hilarious because I could basically not speak, I was unable to speak because I had a deep cough and I was unable to say much sentences. To claim that I have been playing it, playing it dishonest with the rhetoric that is the, is so beside reality that I do not know what to say about this. That being said, he seems to not have understood fully my point. So let me just clarify with the paint description. [JF opens up a paint file and takes notes while talking]

So, Vox Day’s argument. Vox Day he set his own threshold, he came here and said: Alright I have all sorts of takes on the theory of evolution, but today I’m going to do a case that I have a few premises about what should happen in evolution, and this includes mutation and fixation of the mutation. So the mutation must occur and then the mutation must spread across the population, and this is what we call fixation. And he says I have calculated the fixation rate. I have obtained this rate from single cell organism. Maybe it was bacteria, maybe it was single cell nucareat, I don’t know where he got his number, but he said based on this premise my conclusion is that the human-chimp division could not have happened in less than 12 million year as is claimed by evolutionary theorists.

Alright, so that is an argument with a structure, and I have not been winning rhetorically against this freaking argument. I said Vox Day I reject your premise here, you got it wrong. [JF is circling the note that says: “Fixation → rate bacteria” under “1. Premise”] And I even specified why you got it wrong. Because fixation rate, fixation rate greatly vary. Fixation rate in single cell organism is not equal to fixation rate in mammal. And there is two reasons for it. One is sexual reproduction. The second is variability of population size.

Why do we not use fixated rates? It’s because fixated rate are highly dependent on the number of population you have, the number of competitors you have to overcome before a gene becomes widespread in the population. It depends a lot on what you are fighting against, and a million bacteria are fighting together for dominance of the whole population. But because bacteria do not reproduce sexually, or if we are talking about since cell nucareat they do, but only optionally unlike mammals. They are stuck in a replicative cycle that keeps all of the mutations in the same genome. In other words there are no short cut for evolution. If you want to evolve two good genes in a bacteria it needs to be the case that the first gene mutates, and the second gene then mutates. That’s what happen in a non sexual life form.

In a sexual life form like mammals, mutations can get fixed much faster because sometimes you have bottleneck effects, sometimes you will not have a million mammal in a population. Sometimes the productively relevant population that will leave decent in the future can be reduced to thirty, sixty, one hundred fifty. Because all of the others may be subject too have facing environmental pressures that will end up either having them die or their decedents. So the rate of fixation for bacteria is totally unrelated to the rate of fixation in mammals. Because on top of it in mammals the mutation is not stuck in a single individual and all of its decedents. It can jump, because you can fuck woman. And if you fuck woman it is an opportunity for your mutated genes to jump and combine with other mutated genes. Not only because the chromosomes will come from, one from your father, one from your mother and they will link together to form your chromosome, but on top of it there is crossover. So there are scissors that come in, they cut DNA and they re-plug DNA at different parts. This generates a lot of mutations on its own, but it also generates an opportunity for mutations to spread into the population at much much much faster rates than bacteria. The only way for a bacteria to fix their a mutation is to out compete all others.

And on top of it Vox Day is working with a fallacy witch is a fallacy of species as a natural category. It is one thing to say that today chimpanzees cannot reproduce with humans, homo sapiens. It is another thing to know exactly when that lack of reproduction possibility has started for real. Could homo erectus reproduce with a chimpanzee? Who knows, we don’t have homo erectus sperm, we’ll never know. Are there some transitional life form between the two species that could reproduce? Possibly, we don’t know. So that is why we do not talk about fixated, because fixated is a mathematical illusion, created by your understanding of the population size. We do not have population sizes back in Africa in seven million years ago. So we follow mutations and lines of descent like a fucking boss. This is what Vox Day has not understood and he thinks that I have misunderstood him. Motherfucker, I am a PhD in biology. I whopped the floor with you, I have cleaned the floor with you and I had a big cough. I was suffering and I could only use a few words per sentence and I was suffering.

He’s going to be suffering a lot more once people start explaining the difference between rhetoric and dialectic to him, to say nothing of the fact that he completely failed to understand that I specifically addressed the possibility – which is not at all the certainty that he assumes it to be – that fixation rates are considerably faster in mammals than in bacteria for a variety of proposed reasons that include the Fisher–Muller effect and the Ruby in the Rubbish effect, among others. And I did so in the debate, he simply did not understand that I had done so, and not only that, that I had done so in a manner extremely favorable to the orthodox perspective.

Remember, in my initial bacterial model, I utilized the observed average fixation rate of 1,600 generations. First notice that JF completely omits to mention that he incorrectly assumed that this was a successional-mutations regime and tried to claim that I was wrong because I was unaware of parallel mutations. However, it was a concurrent-mutations regime, which is why I pointed out in my post-debate analysis that JF was wrong and that particular objection was irrelevant.

Second, I directly addressed the possibility of faster fixation rates in mammals. In fact, I came up with a completely different fixation model which was built around the idea of a minimum viable population mutating into a recurring series of minimum viable populations. It should be conceptually impossible for fixation to occur any faster than this barring genetic engineering, even if we take asteroids, volcanoes, Biblical floods, and other possible catastrophes into account. This rate reduced the average fixed mutation propagation time from 1,600 to 15.7 generations, more than two orders of magnitude faster than the observed parallel fixation rate. And despite this average rate being considerably faster than any fixation event that has ever been observed or even seriously proposed, the recurring minimum viable population scenario still renders even the maximal evolutionary timelines highly improbable to the point of being considered a mathematical impossibility given the observed genetic differences.

So, it is clear that despite his PhD in biology, JF completely failed to grasp that I had already foreseen and accounted for his objections, and not only that, he still doesn’t understand the significance of the numbers that I cited any better than he understood the math of Askhkenazi intelligence before having it explained to him three times. And he still doesn’t understand that the number of seeds scattered about the forest floor has very, very little to do with calculating the average annual growth rate of the tallest trees in the forest. And finally, his claim that fixation is a mathematical illusion is belied by the continued attempts of more serious and competent biologists to address that very issue.

Joe can’t let it go

Apparently my educated observation that gym bunny Joe Rogan knows nothing about fighting has really gotten under his inked skin.

Doom Bunny: Vox Day, a human devil, devoted to the art of subtle distortions in service of Lucifer, is going to be in charge of a Wikipedia replacement. Well, that sounds about right for this fallen world, which prioritizes the destruction of biblical Christians.

Of course, given that most people don’t want to be bothered seeing Day for what it obviously is, and support it in its Satanism, then I guess God the Father will start cutting at some point. You were all warned. Do remember that through your screaming and crying.

Owen Benjamin: Doom Bunny we know it’s you Rogan. Relax.

Some people have been after me to go on Rogan’s show, but considering that he isn’t even man enough to call out pencilnecks like Jordan Peterson and Jack-o’-Twitter when he has them in the studio, I don’t see what the point of that could possibly be. Besides, he’s media and I don’t talk to the media.

And given the shameless retreats into rhetoric on the part of my most recent debate opponents, I see no reason to engage in any more non-written debates either.

If you choose rhetoric

You will get rhetoric. JF’s fans are crying that it’s unfair I have responded to JF on the rhetorical level. They also don’t know what “disingenuous” or “ad hominem” mean:

Look its disingenuous for Vox to whine about JF’s rhetorical dismissals and then ad hominem attack him.

There is nothing in the least bit disingenuous for someone whose dialectic overtures are met with rhetoric to subsequently switch to rhetoric. Nor am I asserting that JF’s irrelevant objections and inability to distinguish between concurrent and successional regimes, and between Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens sapiens, have anything to do with his panoply of physical, philosophical, moral, and mental shortcomings. What he said in the debate was simply wrong. The total number of seeds ever produced by every tree in the forest over time says almost nothing meaningful about the historical annual growth rate of the trees standing in the forest today.

I just find it to be tremendously amusing that an autistic French degenerate who sexually preys on women living really kickass lives is stupid enough to rhetorically attack a) a comedian and b) the author of what may the best modern book on rhetoric, both of whom are more intelligent and more socially hardened than he is, and his fans somehow interpret this as evidence of his superior intelligence.

If you know anything at all about Owen Benjamin, if you know anything at all about me, then you have a pretty good idea how merciless this is going to be and how long it is likely to last. So, don’t shed any tears, don’t bother shaking any fingers, just sit back, have a croissant, and enjoy the ride.

CBS rejects “Just Stand” ad

Deplatforming doesn’t happen because you are a bad individual with evil ideas. It happens because those with the ability to silence you fear the power of your message:

A veteran-owned apparel company’s pro-flag Super Bowl TV ad that punches back at Nike’s promotion of Colin Kaepernick and his national anthem protests has been rejected by CBS.

According to the firm, Nine Line Apparel, CBS was apparently not satisfied the firm could pay for the 45-second ad, despite having annual revenues of $25 million. A spokesman for Nine Line charged that CBS didn’t like the ad’s content.

The ad features soldiers, first responders, and images of military graves decorated with American flags and gives credit to them for protecting the rights of those like Kaepernick to protest.

Remember, Free Speech was always a fake principle. The Enlightenment was not merely a fake philosophy, it was a complete lie designed to undermine Christian society.

They’re worried

If this gentleman’s perspective is at all indicative of the sort of logic we’re going to see in the debate, it’s going to be more than a little amusing for at least half the audience:

George Doehner
You should back out. You’re dumb and it is clear you don’t understand the material. That and your excessive reliance on logical fallacies reveals things about you that you should try to hide.

First, if I was actually dumb and did not understand the material, they would welcome this debate with great enthusiasm. The reason some of them would like me to back out is because they are correctly worried that I will present JFG with an effective argument that neither he nor they have ever seen before.

Second, their rhetoric about my “logical fallacies” is just inept midwit rhetoric. Someone who actually knows what logical fallacies are usually identifies the specific logical fallacy committed, which they cannot do because I have not committed any of them. And, of course, as most who prefer video are wont to do, they assume that I am presenting my strongest arguments in my videos. Which is understandable, I suppose, but incorrect.

UPDATE: JF and I have worked out a schedule.

  • Monday February 4th, 7 PM ET: Discussion of The Revolutionary Phenotype on the Darkstream.
  • Wednesday February 6th, 7 PM ET: Debate: The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a valid scientific theory that is necessary to our understanding of biology on The Public Space

Heuristics are not proof

And yet they remain useful when conclusive evidence is not available:

Faced with the 1854 cholera outbreak in London, John Snow had no idea what mechanism caused cholera, and his instruments could not reliably identify the contaminants in water supplies, but he noted what we would now call correlations: some water companies had more of their clients die than others, even though all of them supplied to rich and poor households alike. South of the river companies were more deadly, and they drew more contaminated water from the river rather than other sources, and filtered it less than other companies. Some neighbourhood pumps had more deaths nearby than did others. This was a geographic form of correlation (now called a Voronoi diagram) and it was on that correlational basis, without knowledge of the real mechanism, that he took the handle off the Broad Street pump, and stopped the epidemic.

That is the way we tell the story now, but Snow was a careful and clever man, and pointed out another explanation: the cholera outbreak was coming to an end anyway, as people ran away from areas where there were many deaths. The common folk who believed that correlation implied causation ran for their lives and lived to see another day.

Snow also had to cope with a major anomaly in his geographic correlational investigations. None of the brewery workers right next to the Broad Street water pump fell ill with cholera. It turned out that they received free beer, and the water for the beer was boiled so as to release the flavour of hops, thus inadvertently killing off the water-borne organisms.

Snow jumped to a conclusion because his mind was prepared to interpret associations in a particular way, intially by his doubts about the air transmission miasma theory and later by his own hypothesis of water-borne transmission. He jumped to the right conclusion, without proofs of the causal mechanism which were only available years later.

This is why you should NEVER try to dismiss any correlation with the idiot’s refrain that “correlation is not causation”. That is an astonishingly stupid thing to say, as it is tantamount to saying that “a clue is not a mathematical proof.” Who claims that it is?

As Michael Woodley points out, there is never causation WITHOUT correlation. Which means that correlation is a necessary, but insufficient indicator of causation, it is not a synonym for it.