Twitter Scatological Paraphila: Empirical Evidence Case Study of an obscene harassing Darwinphile

More empirical evidence of Julian Derry's scotophilia paraphilia has been collected and officially archived for scholarly publication as part of a larger research project into obscene cyber-stalking, criminal harassment and empirical fact denial committed by Darwin Superfans and facilitated by the Darwin Industry.

Would it be dehumanizing this disgusting creature to suggest it would be happier behind bars? https://t.co/wkCNhVb81B

— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) November 9, 2022

 More empirical evidence of Julian Derry's Social Media and email scotophilia has been collected as part of a larger psychology research project into paraphilias and for another criminological study on cyber-stalking, harassment and empirical fact denial by Darwin Superfans facilitated by the Darwin Industry.

 "Paraphilias are persistent and recurrent sexual interests, urges, fantasies, or behaviours of marked intensity involving objects, activities, or even situations that are atypical in nature."

There are a number of theories as to how telephone scatophilia develops. Kurt Freund, the late Czech-Canadian sexologist wrote numerous papers claiming that behaviours such as telephone scatophilia are caused by “courtship disorders”. According to Freund, normal courtship comprises four phases: (i) location of a partner, (ii) pre-tactile interactions, (iii) tactile interactions, and (iv) genital union. Freund also proposed that obscene telephone calling is a disturbance of the second phase of the courtship disorder. Similarly, Professor John Money proposed the ‘‘lovemap’’ theory suggesting that paraphiliac behaviour occurs when an abnormal lovemap develops which interferes with the ability to participate in loving sexual intercourse. In this model, telephone scatologia, is classified as an allurement paraphilia involving the preparatory or courtship phase prior to genital intercourse.

There is no logical reason not to hypothesise that Twitter Scotophilia is any different.  

Look out for the new science book "An A-Z of Perversions and Paraphilias" (edited by Dr Mike Sutton), written by a top psychologist Professor, forthcoming from Curtis Press later on 2023.  

The Telling Question about Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace and Patrick Matthew

Did Darwin and Wallace have miracle dual virgin conceptions of a prior published theory whilst surrounded by friends and influencers, and influencer's influencers, whose minds if not their testicles, were already fertile with it, because they cited it in the literature pre 1858? pic.twitter.com/168Z0FRsxI

— ScienceFraud (@LiarDarwin) March 13, 2023

Disgusting Darwin Fanciers are Barking Mad

Would it be dehumanizing this disgusting creature to suggest it would be happier behind bars? https://t.co/wkCNhVb81B

— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) November 9, 2022

Darwin Science Fraud in the Scottish National Newspapers

The Charles Darwin story. Now completely debunked by empirical data. https://t.co/iDwP58Z8Oj https://t.co/dSysUA59dJ pic.twitter.com/5vKCfKMnd0

— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) March 4, 2023

The truth will always burrow to the top in the end

 Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism and supporting serial lies are proven by newly unearthed empirical data - the real stuff of science.

The Theory of Natural Selection was first written about and published 30 years prior to Darwin. Patrick Matthew, was truly ahead of his time.

Read the story, and consider the empirical evidence in Science Fraud by Dr Mike Sutton. We need support to share this story @thecoastguy

— Neil Shuttlewood, publisher at Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) January 29, 2023

.

Science Fraud proves emphatically that Charles Darwin was a fraud. It also proves how science and history have been subverted and perverted over the centuries.#darwinfraud #crime #fraud #theft https://t.co/GzjStLw388

— Daily Squib News (@DAILYSQUIB) January 29, 2023

.

Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory ... an overview by Dr Mike Sutton. pic.twitter.com/Fq46TNN8gT

— Neil Shuttlewood, publisher at Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) January 18, 2023

Patrick Matthew - the book: "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory"

Science Fraud, the book, is now available also on Kindle. 

In The UK (here)

In the USA (here)

And on all other Amazon sites worldwide. 

Now you can take a peek inside. 😎.

The story of the World's greatest science fraud. The case of Matthew v Darwin is now available on Kindle from Amazon. So now you can have a peek for free. https://t.co/wwstrGidz1 pic.twitter.com/uWTnTSqpFd

— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) February 15, 2023

Science fraud also available as an E Book

 

Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory is now available as a download ebook at:https://t.co/50ZanjIpBG#patrickmatthew #sciencefraud #darwin #scienceplagiarism #charlesdarwin

— Neil Shuttlewood, publisher at Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) February 5, 2023

 

Joahochim L dagg - Research data plagiarist is a proven pseudo-scholar. Proven by his own words.

Here is the article by "Dagg the Plagiarist" that slyly plagiarizes Sutton's Selby cited Matthew discovery. It sidesteps all the main New Data findings to try to argue Darwin was not a plagiarist. Disgrace to science! @LinneanSociety should be ashamed: https://t.co/Q6Colo3Oz8 https://t.co/naTZm3oxah pic.twitter.com/hll7Pzcb85

— BentSociety @The Veracity Institute (@OnNavalTimber) February 14, 2020

The Selby (Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper journal Chief Editor and friend of Darwin's great friend Leonard Jenyns) cited Matthew's (1831) original theory of evolution by natural selection was not discovered first by Dagg, nor anyone else before Sutton uniquely unearthed it from the historic publication record with his BigData IDD method in 2013/14.

Sutton's Selby cited Matthew unique discovery was first published by Sutton in 2014 In the 500 page E-book Nullius in Verba (Thinker Media)   - "Dagg the Plagiarist" wrote a childishly jealous malicious pseudo-scholarly review of the 2017 book Nulius in Verba archived here and admits to reading Sutton's 2014 book here

In two peer reviewed academic articles Sutton's original research discovery of the Selby cited Matthew original finding was published here in 2014 and here in 2015

 Empirical data underpins proper science. And all data is of interest to science.

Here is the concrete empirical data scientific evidence of Joahochim Dagg's knowing malicious plagiarism of research data first unearthed by Dr Mike Sutton and published by Thinker Media in 2014, Vae Victus (2017) and Curtis Press (2022) and various peer reviewed academic articles in between and Dagg's clear pseudo scientific weird gloating refusal to admit such original and paradigm changing research findings plagiarism is wrong. Image below can be seen on Dagg's Twitter account archived,

Clearly Darwin Superfans (and Dagg is just one of many of them) cannot behave like proper academic scholars and scientists or historians of science - so mentally disturbed are they by the new empirical data that bursts their beloved paradigm based on the now completely debunked Darwin Supermyth. Theirs is a credulously unshakable blind belief and empirical fact denial "religious" worship of Charles Darwin. This explains their malicious anti-science behavior.

Patrick Matthew v Charles Darwin the plagiarist. By Mike Sutton. Serialized in the Scottish Sunday Express

 In 2022, Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory, By Mike Sutton, was serialized in the Scottish Sunday Express national newspaper.

The "New Darwin Data" unearthed by Dr Mike Sutton on the world's biggest science fraud by plagiary and lies is that important. National news for 5 weeks running. 

1. Sunday Express (Mar 2022) 

2. Sunday Express serialized 1 (13 Mar 2022)

3. Sunday Express serialized 2 (20 Mar 2022)

4. Sunday Express serialized 3 (27 Mar 2022)

5. Sunday Express serialized 4 (3 Apr 2022)

See the news page on the Patrick Matthew website news page for many more national news stories on Charles Darwin's science fraud by plagiary and associated serial lies.

The Scottish Forfarshire (now Angus) connection to Patrick Matthew and Darwin's Plagiarism of Matthew's Scottish Theory

The newly unearthed empirical data on the Darwin fraud by plagiarism and associated serial lies bring the history of science and science closer to understanding how the breakthrough in human understanding of evolution by natural selection was really made. 

The research into who did (contrary to the Darwin Supermyth that none see Sutton 2022) read Patrick Matthew's (1831) theory before Darwin and Wallace (1858 / 59) stole it and lied to call it their own reveals more about the three Scots - David Low, Robert Mudie and Patrick Matthew in the 1830's. My earlier blog on the topic has been updated HERE (archived Here) .

One possible interpretation (hypothesis only) of these new findings is that Matthew (1831) got the idea of his analogy between natural and artificial selection form reading the work of Mudie (1830) and that Mudie then read Matthew's (1831) analogy with regards to timber raised in nurseries v nature and added it into his 1832 book. However, a forthcoming chapter in an academic text book on science fraud by plagiary and research ethics, written by Mike Sutton and Mark Griffiths (forthcoming [in print] 2023), reveals something far more profound regarding another Scottish naturalist writing even earlier - who very clearly influenced Matthew earlier than Mudie's 1830 book could have.

Further research on my part reveals more about the importance of Robert Mudie and his likely prior influence on Patrick Matthew before Matthew wrote his 1831 book "On Naval Timber". My latest book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" covers some of Mudie's (1832) replication of Matthew's (1831) ideas in more depth. In the 1830 text that follows we see Mudie (1830) beginning to articulate the analogy between artificial and natural selection. The fact Mudie, Low and Matthew all lived in the county of Forfarshire (now Angus) in Scotland cannot go unremarked.  The evolution of Matthew's theory of the "natural process of selection" surely happened in this region of Scotland. The exact same region in which Darwin's geological mentor Charles Lyell had his great manor house, just a few miles away form Matthew's house. More research is needed into the possible social relationships between Low, Mudie and Matthew.

Another who used the exact trees grown in nature v those grown in nurseries analogy is Thomas Laycock. He published it the year after Matthew also, in 1832.  In 1835, BigData analysis of the literature reveals Laycock was apparently first to be second (F2B2) with Matthew's (1831) apparently original term/phrase  "mental or instinctive powers." See "Science Fraud (Sutton 2022)", the book, for the details of how Laycock was connected to Darwin and Wallace and their greatest influencers. The Scottish connection in that regard is most profound, once again!

THE BRITISH NATURALIST (Part I)  CHAPTER I  Mudie (1830)

INTRODUCTION 

It may be a trite observation but it is at the same time a true one that there is neither waste nor ruin in nature. When the productions of human art fall into decay they are gone and if the artist does not replace them by new formations the species is gone also but the works of nature are their own repairers and continuers and that which we are accustomed to look upon as destruction and putrefaction is a step in the progress of new being and life. This is the grand distinction between the productions of nature and those of art those in which the same power finds both the materials and the form and those in which the form is merely impressed upon previously existing materials. 

The substances in nature are in themselves endowed with faculties unseen and inscrutable by man in any thing but their results which produce all the varied forms of inorganic and organic being of which the solid earth the liquid sea and the fluid air are formed and by which they are inhabited. The fabrications of man are on the other hand in a state of commenced decay the instant that they are made and without the constant labour of repair and replacing they would perish altogether. The most extensive cities and the strongest fortifications after man abandons them to their fate fade and moulder away so that the people of after ages dispute not merely about the places where they were situated but about the very fact of their existence. It is true that when man takes any of nature's productions out of the place or circumstances for which nature has fitted them and supports them by artificial means they cannot continue to exist after those means are withdrawn any more than a roof can remain suspended in the air after the walls or parts that supported it are withdrawn or a cork will remain at the bottom of a basin of water after the weight that kept it from rising to the surface has been removed. If man will have artificial shelter and food he must keep in repair the house that he has built trim the garden he has planted and plough and sow the field from which he is to obtain his artificial crop but if he would content himself with that which is produced without importation and artificial culture no planting sowing or culture is necessary for whether it be in the warm regions or in the cold in the sheltered valley or upon the storm beaten hill in the close forest or upon the open down nature does her part without intermission or error and while the results are so many and so beautiful the causes are those qualities with which the fiat of the Almighty endowed the elements when it was his pleasure to speak the into existence.

Etc Etc