Did Darwin's Establishment Toadying Plagiarism and Associated Lies to Cover it up Cause the Holocaust? Darwin kept God in his plagiarised sanitized version of Matthew's atheist heretical and seditious theory

There is a back hole at the heart of the history of discovery in science. And it hides the truth about how the world's greatest science science fraud by lies and plagiarism played a necessary causal role in the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin, who plagiarised the prior published full theory of evolution by natural selection from the Scot Patrick Matthew, kept his own Christian notion of the "Creator" in his theory replicating book the Origin of Species. There is plenty of sound evidence  to argue that Darwin was atheist or agnostic. And I think he most likely was. Yet in some (but not all) of the six editions of The Origin of Species Darwin kept the notion of a so-called "Creator" God, deliberately setting the whole process of natural selection, in motion. He referred to what he called "the Creator" in all editions of the Origin, but in the editions discussed here he clearly wrote that he believed what he called "the Creator" was actually behind designing what Matthew (1831) originally coined the "natural process of selection" to run. Darwin originally re-wrote Matthew's orignal term by way of a four word shuffle to "process of natural slection."

Darwin, if he was to explain Matthew's theory to scientists and the wider public in order to gain its acceptance, was no doubt compelled to plagiarize Matthew's essential four word term - the theory being completely about selection that was natural (as opposed to artificial) and worked as a process to eventually create new varities and species. Associatively, Darwin also no doubt felt compelled to have to plagiarize in the opening Chapter of the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859) Matthew's essential explanatory analogy of differences between varieties of species raised in the wild by nature and those raised artificially by humans. As evidence of his plagiarism in this regard the highly renowned (except by Darwin fact denial superfans) social anthropologist and historian of science, Loren Eiseley, discovered Darwin, in a private essay, replicated Matthew's highly syncratic and original analogy of differences between trees raised in nurseries and those in the wild (see the facts here). Obviously, in the Origin Darwin carefully swapped that total giveaway of his plagiarism for more general examples.

Darwin most probably did all of this to appease the Christian parson naturalists who ran Western universities and other scientific establishments in the 19th century. By doing this, unlike Matthew, whose work he and Wallace shamefully plagiarised and lied about (see my expert peer reviewed academic articles on the topic Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2015 and my book Nullius in Verba) and in my most recent book (Science Fraud) published in 2022 by Curtis Press: Here. Darwin appeased the "Establishment" by keeping sedition and heresy (which ran through Matthew's book like words in Blackpool rock) out of his own replicating book, and in doing that his sly replicating work went mainstream so that he became a household name. On the other hand Matthew (1831 p 367),  wrote - what was considered sedition at the time - that the upper classes were, for example, unnaturally selecting their progeny to the point of uselessness in nature:



He also committed gross heresy by mocking the notion of God as a "creator" of species (Matthew 1831 p. 382):




And (Matthew 1831 p.383)




And (Matthew 1831 p.384)



Earlier on page 132, in a footnote, Matthew (1831) also mocked Christian priests:


Darwin did not so alienate the establishment with free speech. Instead he censored himself in his plagiarism of Matthew by effectively writing that what he called "the Creator" created the laws that governed natural selection. We see this in Darwin's Origin of Species 1869 - 5th Edition, p. 424) Also in the same edition published in 1860 in the USA. And it is on page 524-525 of the earlier famous third edition of 1861 (in which Darwin was compelled to cite his influencers under the criticism of his peers) as we see below:

Had Darwin not kept the Christian notion of "the Creator" in the Origin of Species then his book might have been stamped upon in the gutter in the same way Matthew's (1831) was condemned for its heresy and sedition in prominent reviews (reviews that Darwinite paid editors on Wikipedia have fought to pretend do not exist! (See the fully evidenced proof of that here). The United Services review (1831) in question can be read in the image below:

In the first half of the 19th century, laws on sedition and heresy prevented the discussion of issues on species creation, and political news of any kind at scientific meetings and published literature. those who broke the law were imprisoned, forced to retract publications or lost their professional employment (see Sutton 2017 for details of the law and examples of what happened to those scientists breaking the law). 

In 1860 - claiming his theory back from Darwin - Matthew wrote an open published letter to Darwin explaining this matter with examples of his book being banned by  Perth public Library and a prominent professor who was afraid to talk or write about it for fear of pillory punishment. In his prominent 1831 review of Matthew's book the famous naturalist John Loudon wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on "the origin of species" no less (the later title of Darwin's plagiarizing book) but that for Matthew's lack of practice in writing he would not want to see it banned or otherwise rejected.

"An appendix of 29 pages concludes the book, and receives some parenthetical evolutions of certain extraneous points which the author struck upon in prosecuting the thesis of his book. This may be truly termed in a double sense, an extraordinary part of the book. One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner. His whole book is written in a vigorous, cheerful, pleasing tone; and although his combinations of ideas are sometimes startlingly odd, and his expression of them neither simple nor lucid, for want of practice in writing, he has produced a book which we should be sorry should be absent from our library."

Wallace's famous Sarawak paper editor John Selby also read and cited Matthew's book in 1842 (before Wallace wrote a word on natural slection anywhere) and wrote that he could not understand how trees could grow better outside their natural environments. This fact, that I originally unearthed to disprove the claims that "no naturalist" had cited Matthew's work pre-Darwin's 1859 replication)  has been been disgracefully plagiarized in a recent Linnean Society journal paper by Darwin superfan Dagg - who is very weirdly obsessed with my work on this topic and other breakthroughs I have made in the history of science (more on that can be read here).

Selby was deeply religious and like all Christian naturalists believed that the so called "Creator" God had placed everything where it was best suited to thrive for the needs of mankind. Matthew's observations that reality could be proven to be otherwise was deeply heretical in in the first half of the 19th century. His observation in that regard was later prominently cited by the naturalist William Jameson in 1853 who was a correspondent and of William Hooker (father of Darwin's best friend and mentor Joseph Hooker and patron and correspondent of Wallace). 

Had Darwin not plagiarised Matthew's work and pretended it was his own, in cahoots with Wallace who did the same, and had he not made it more acceptable to encourage others to participate in ruminations on a newly uncovered law of nature and not have to worry about the inbreeding practices hereditary nobility, than Matthew did, to appease the Christian scientific and wider "establishment" that ran scientific institutions in the 19th century then the theory of macroevolution by natural selection might never have been accepted by mainstream society and might therefore not have been the scientific principle misused by Nazis in World War Two to underpin the Holocaust. This leads us to the telling question: "Did Darwin's plagiarizing science fraud cause the Holocaust?"

Obviously, had he not written it, the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, with all of Matthew's essential terms and explanatory examples that Darwin simply had to plagiarize in order to explain to popularise it, could not have been misused by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust (note anyone interested in this should read for themsleves what Matthew wrote about Jews and the Rothschild family in his 1831 book). But Matthew's bombshell breakthrough scientific ideas and supporting observations were brute censored by the so called "establishment" because of his Chartist background and his book's heresy and sedition. Only Darwin popularised Matthew's scientific orignal ideas on evolution by natural selection. And Darwin could only do that by way of lies and plagiarism. Consequently, I argue that Charles Darwin's, and also in smaller part Alfred Wallace's, establishment toadying lies and plagiarism caused the Holocaust.

Today, the Jewish social scientific community is certainly aware of the evidence for Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism of Matthew's breakthrough. (see the proof here)  But I challenge anyone to manage to get that fact published on the Patrick Matthew page of Wikipedia, or to get them to publish the newly unearthed data that has enabled me to publish the list of naturalists - known to Darwin and Wallace as their influencers, editors and influencer's influencers - who actually cited Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it in the published literature record long before Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarising replications.

Facts and lies don't go away, despite all the fact denial nonsense and total blindsight bias and downright lies (see just one example here) written on this topic in places such as Wikipedia on Patrick Matthew - they just sit there waiting. Waiting to rise to the surface to glorify their discoverers and shame those who buried, or otherwise suppressed them, with dishonesty. And to shame the organisations that collaborated in such selfishly self interested censorship. But where would you position yourself dear reader? As a collaborator in the "Establishment's"  Patrick Matthew Burial Project? As a teller of independently evidenced truths and righter of wrongs contained in published falsehoods? Or are you like the majority of people just happy to be lied to, because you are too lazy to find out and care about the truth for yourself? 

Do people care about the truth? What happens when enough of them don't? 

This post is achieved HERE





.