The Daily Fulton
March 19, 2022
“Unmasking the Dun Maylock: Exploring the Theories Behind Fulton County’s Most Infamous Cult”

From the archives. Contributor: Spence Hutchins, Curator of the Fulton Hills Historical Society. Republished with written permission from C.W.H.

By C.W.H.

I wasn’t planning to wade into this debate, but then along came Melandre Combs with her ridiculous drivel tying the Nohoda Odsada and Yak Tak Nuhk peoples to the Dun Maylock’s bloody history. Her article wasn’t just offensive—it was an act of historical malpractice. As someone who values truth over hysteria, I feel obligated to step in and remind Fulton County of the real questions we should be asking about the origins of the Dun Maylock. This isn’t about inflaming fears or chasing headlines; it’s about unraveling one of our county’s darkest mysteries with integrity and clarity, not reckless sensationalism.

This article isn’t just an opportunity to set the record straight—it is a mission to counteract the misinformation being peddled by “tabloid hacks” like Combs. To me, exposing the hypocrisy and ignorance of voices like hers isn’t just a responsibility; it is a calling.

For over two centuries, the Dun Maylock has haunted the shadows of Fulton County, leaving bloody handprints on doors and fear in the hearts of residents. But where did this group come from, and what could possibly drive their actions? Over the years, countless theories have emerged, each offering a different lens through which to view their origins. Let’s break them down.

1. The Revolutionary Root Theory

Some claim the Dun Maylock arose from disillusioned revolutionaries in the aftermath of the American Revolution. Frustrated by compromises with centralized authority, these rebels supposedly continued their fight in secret.

• Strengths: Fits with the anti-authoritarian streak seen in the group’s early activities.
• Weaknesses: No concrete evidence ties the group to any known revolutionaries. The timeline aligns, but that’s about it.
• C.W.H.’s Take: While romantic, this theory is wishful thinking. The Dun Maylock were too chaotic to be revolutionaries with a clear agenda.

2. The Frontier Justice Theory

This theory paints the Dun Maylock as vigilantes, seeking justice in a lawless frontier. They allegedly targeted those who exploited vulnerable communities, using fear to maintain order.

• Strengths: Explains the group’s focus on perceived wrongdoers in its early years.
• Weaknesses: Their later, more indiscriminate violence doesn’t align with the notion of vigilante justice.
• C.W.H.’s Take: This theory has merit for their early years but falls apart when you consider the sheer randomness of their later actions. Justice doesn’t leave a bloody handprint—it leaves a gavel.

3. The Indigenous Curse Theory

Once popular, this centuries-old theory claims the Dun Maylock are a spiritual curse tied to the NoHo and Yak Tak Nuhk peoples. Supposedly, their actions are divine punishment for settlers’ mistreatment of the land and its people.

• Strengths: The group’s actions often align with times of great injustice, lending an air of poetic retribution.
• Weaknesses: This theory is not only baseless but also reeks of old school xenophobia and is deeply offensive to the NoHo and Yak Tak Nuhk peoples. Both cultures have publicly denounced the Dun Maylock and any actions attributed to them. Associating them with this violent group perpetuates harmful stereotypes.
• C.W.H.’s Take: This is the kind of xenophobic nonsense people use to avoid confronting their own dark history. The NoHo and Yak Tak Nuhk have their own rich traditions that have nothing to do with a murderous cult. Let’s put this theory to rest where it belongs—buried deep and forgotten. No matter what other “journalists” might sensationalize, let’s remember some are out to just sell papers or subscriptions to their papers. Even if it causes a divide, slanders whole communities, and borders on inciting. I’m all for uncovering the truth, but inventing connections where none exist does nothing but muddy the waters and tarnish real investigative work. The Dun Maylock are terrifying enough without dragging innocent communities into the narrative. I implore these glorified online trash “writers” to stick to facts… if they can even find them.

4. The Cult of Anarchy Theory

A popular explanation casts the Dun Maylock as anarchists seeking to dismantle societal structures. Their violence was allegedly a rejection of hierarchy in all forms.

• Strengths: Explains the group’s indiscriminate targeting of both corrupt elites and everyday citizens.
• Weaknesses: Their actions were too erratic and lacked the ideological consistency typical of anarchist movements.
• C.W.H.’s Take: Anarchists don’t leave bloody handprints and curses—they write manifestos. The Dun Maylock weren’t trying to make a statement; they were sowing chaos for chaos’s sake.

5. The Rogue Mason Theory

Some speculate the Dun Maylock splintered from the Freemasons or another secret society, embracing darker rituals.

• Strengths: Early victims included prominent Freemasons, and some of their alleged rituals resemble obscure Masonic practices.
• Weaknesses: This theory is little more than wild speculation, relying heavily on coincidence and rumor.
• C.W.H.’s Take: While the idea of rogue Masons is tantalizing, it feels more like a Hollywood screenplay than reality.

6. The Opportunistic Copycat Theory

This theory suggests the Dun Maylock were opportunists who took credit for unrelated crimes to build their legend.

• Strengths: Explains why so many disparate acts were attributed to them.
• Weaknesses: Fails to account for their more organized, large-scale operations.
• C.W.H.’s Take: This theory might apply to the early days, but by the time they were burning mills and collapsing quarries, the Dun Maylock were very real—and very dangerous.

7. The Wealthy Manipulator Theory

The Dun Maylock, according to this theory, were tools of the elite, used to silence enemies or distract from their own corruption.

• Strengths: The group’s actions often coincided with power shifts, suggesting they were serving a hidden agenda.
• Weaknesses: No hard evidence ties the group to any specific benefactors.
• C.W.H.’s Take: It’s not out of the question. The powerful often use chaos to maintain their grip on society. If the Dun Maylock were puppets, the strings were pulled by very wealthy hands.

What Are They Doing Now?

While these theories provide fascinating glimpses into the Dun Maylock’s past, the real question is what they’ve become in the digital age. Are they hackers destabilizing governments? Corporate saboteurs? Or have they dissolved entirely, their legend now a convenient scapegoat for unexplained events?

Whatever the truth, one thing is clear: the Dun Maylock’s story isn’t over. Whether through bloody handprints or invisible keystrokes, their shadow looms as large as ever.

• C.W.H.
  Seeker of Truth, Bearer of Light