States of Denial of the Obvious and Significant Facts: Several things the Darwin Fraud case Shares with the Savile and Boston Globe Catholic Priest Pedophile Cases

https://t.co/MlbmxgSSRm

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 22, 2016

What does the case of Sir Jimmy Savile (OBE)  have in common with that of Rolf Harris (CBE) and Charles Darwin (FRS)?

Stanley Cohen's (2001) 'States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering' explains how people deny the significance of sufficient evidence that something is happening or happened in the past. Cohen explains how people do this with regard to a range of things such as marital infidelity, alcoholism, terminal illness, child abuse and genocide.

'One common thread runs through the many different stories of denial: people, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information 'registers' well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.'

Stanley Cohen (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. p. 1.

Cohen (2001) explains that states of denial of the obvious and significant - yet unbearable - facts can take many forms:

• Disingenuous ‘canny unresponsiveness’
• ‘Psychotic negation of the obvious facts’
• ‘Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’
• ‘Negation by wishful thinking’
• ‘Evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’
• ‘Victim blaming’ – blaming the victim for their predicament.
• ‘Withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’
• ‘Compartmentalization’.

Unsurprisingly, there are several shared features underlying the 'state of denial' in the Savile case, the Boston Globe's  Catholic priests paedophile case and the Darwin fraud case :

1. Sir Jimmy Savile OBE was a much loved and wealthy TV celebrity, raised a fortune for charities.He was considered 'broadcasting royalty' by the BBC and as a highly respected, knighted and decorated, 'pillar of society' by everyone else. The BBC held his talent in awe and treated him deferentially.
2. Charles Darwin (FRS), was considered in the 19th-century (being the grandson of the famous polymath and poet Erasmus Darwin FRS), as 'academic royalty' by the Royal Society. After his reports whilst on the HMS Beagle were read with enthusiasm by naturalists, his knowledge was held in awe and the very name "Darwin" was once again treated deferentially. Awarded the Royal Medal, Copley Medal and Wollaston Medal, he was considered a paragon of wealthy gentleman naturalist honesty and originality by everyone else. Harris was awarded the CBE and once spent considerable time with the Queen of England as he famously painted her portrait.
3. Catholic priests, in 20th century USA, and their wealthy church, were considered by many as being at the very top of the social hierarchy of honesty and caring integrity.
4. Both Savile and Harris were immensely popular and highly successful A-List 'celebrity' children's entertainers. Darwin was a celebrity A-list scientist. All three completely transgressed the boundaries of social and professional norms within the particular field in which they were held in such high regard. All Roman Catholic priests were entrusted by society to uphold the 'child protection' values of the Christian prophet Jesus of Nazareth. The 'real facts' of the the behaviour of paedophile priests, Savile's, Harris's and Darwin's behaviour is, therefore, anathema.
5. In what we might name the "Rifkin Imperative by Proxy": Savile boasted about being able to avoid trouble, and in describing his ability to do so gleefully described himself many times as being "tricky". Darwin gleefully described himself many times as being a "wriggler" to do the same. Harris - less obviously - may have been leaving similarly smug and self-delightful obscure clues to his predilections in his music. For example, in  hindsight his hit song "I want my mummy" is most disturbing. More research is needed, but I dare to hypothesise that we might call this song that celebrates and weirdly mocks and delights at the massive trauma felt by a poor lost child a case of the "Rifikin Imperative by Proxy".

But eventually someone is able to break the negative hallucination (not seeing what is obviously and significantly there) to convince the world of the facts that "The king has no clothes!" It takes time to get through the stonewalling of protective 'establishment' interests and public adoration - but the facts pound like a battering ram against their denials, canny indifference and blindsight. Eventually, the wall caves-in and facts then rush through. And after the breech is made, the public wants to know why it took so long. Who, they demand, is to blame?

This link will take you to the independently verifiable 'New Data'. This data proves that, for the past 155 years to the present time of writing, the same psychological 'state of denial' characteristics of the "majority view" are behind the failure to respond to the obvious and significant facts of Darwin's lying, plagiarizing, science fraud by glory theft of Patrick Matthew's prior-published conception of natural selection.

An explanation - with independently verifiable evidence - of how the psychological concept of 'denial' relates to how Darwin scholars have been in denial of the facts of Darwin's lies, told to conceal the wider facts pertinent to Darwin's (1858 and 1859) replication of Matthew's (1831) prior-published conception of natural selection, and more, can be read on the Patrick Matthew Website PatrickMatthew.com - specifically the States of Denial page.

Conclusion

Darwin scholars currently are in a state of denial of the obvious and significant fact that the publication record of what he knew and what he then wrote proves Charles Darwin was a self-serving liar about the prior readership of Matthew's ideas. Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew's original ideas, which he replicated without citing (Sutton 2105   ). Any Darwinist claiming there is an innocent interpretation for this behaviour - namely, that their namesake's published falsehoods were not meant to be taken literally - is offering an incongruous explanation, given the fact that for 155 years the literal interpretation of Darwin's claims by the world's leading Darwinists (here) is the basis of the 'majority view' paradigm that a steadfastly honest Darwin independently discovered Matthew's prior-published ideas.

Being in a state of denial of these facts is analogous, in my considered opinion, to denying that Sir Jimmy Savile deliberately forced his tongue into a child's mouth   . Moreover, it is analogous to cooking up a 'state of denial' defence scenario where Savile simply miss-kissed.

Anyone claiming that Charles Darwin was not a liar, in the teeth of the facts that he was, is surely in a state of denial of the unpalatable halitosis of Darwin's lies. On 1st February 2016, I left a comment to that effect on Dr Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project website (here   ).

Being in a state of denial of these particular facts is analogous, in my considered opinion, to denying that Sir Jimmy Savile deliberately forced his tongue into a child's mouth by claiming instead that it happened in good faith, despite the obvious deviance, dishonest and sexual gratification of the act. It is analogous to cooking up a dual 'state of denial' defence scenario where Savile simply miskissed, and where Darwin wrote falsehoods in good faith despite the deviance of his actions, dishonesty and resulting status as an immortal great orignal thinker and influencer in science.

Darwin scholars really ought to snap out of their 'state of denial' of the facts and deal with them like real - not pseudo - scholars. The facts can't be denied away. Nor should we try. Because it seems reasonable to hypothesise that societies that tolerate and fail to recognise any states of denial may be more likely to provide enabling environments for the worst atrocities committed by human beings.

There is, however a paradox. Denial may initially protect the individual, yet simultaneously contribute to their greatest future threat. This is the "Blindsight Paradox   ", identified by Stanley Cohen in 2001.

I wrote a blog on the blindsight phenomenon here.

You can find links to more blog posts etc on 'states of denial' on the relevant page of PatrickMatthew.com

Feel free to use the infomatic below in any way and anywhere you see fit:

This Prezi-show reveals the obvious and significant evidence 

that 100 per cent proves Darwin committed lying, plagiarising science fraud 

by glory theft of Matthew's prior-published conception of macro-evolution by natural selection