Charles Darwin, Patrick Matthew and the Wikigate Scandal

Get the independently verifiable and expert peer reviewed facts, not the credulous propaganda fact denial claptrap

2866 hits so far #wikigate - Get the facts they don't want you to see: https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/3oiVLDQB5u

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) May 24, 2016

Wikipedia Prats Fish Hooked by a Sprat

Try telling that the to the cultish Darwin worshippers deleting facts on that to hide the fact Patrick Matthew's original theory of macroevolution was read, understood a& deemed highly heretical.
Trapped by a social scientist https://t.co/eQvI2LPmqc
Prats fishhooked by a sprat!

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 22, 2018

+

Xmas 1859, Burglar Darwin stole Patrick Matthew's prior published theory (#BigData newly informs us Darwin's & Wallace's friends and influencers had read and cited it years earlier!) "That's a nice book with the full theory of Macroevolution by natural selection. I'll have that." pic.twitter.com/AUciIK1kOz

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 23, 2018

+

The @BiolJLinnSoc Linnean Journal published Darwin's & Wallace's 1858 plagiarising replication of Matthew's 1831 prior published discovery, with no reference to Matthew. Now it plagiarizes my discovery that Wallace's editor Selby prior cited Matthew's book https://t.co/ir8k9ANa5w pic.twitter.com/WHtc63C2pl

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 12, 2018

+

Try telling that to @RichardDawkins and his rapt cult. They dumbly believe Darwin and Wallace had dual miracle immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published theory even though we now know their friends, Wallace's editor and their major influencers cited it years earlier. pic.twitter.com/CIYeNNHNsH

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 26, 2018

+

And when they don't get it they lie and go totally raving bonkers. It's as though the painful truth they so despise acts as an enema that makes them soil themselves in public & spread it all around like a malicious & obscene retard's dirty protest: https://t.co/icMMOyZIgT 💩💩💩 https://t.co/AgUqbWB9XJ

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 26, 2018

+

Each as ludicrously implausible as the other. Yes. In other words @RichardDawkins & others in his Darwin deification cult believe their "Darwinist" namesake & Wallace had dually independent miraculous conceptions of Matthew's theory. That might be even sillier than Christianity. pic.twitter.com/o80LQS8Df4

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 27, 2018

Wikipedia is a fake news website run by a weird cult of ne'er-do-wells

The Darwin-Lobby on #Wikipedia cannot bear fact that New Data on Darwin's plagiarizing science fraud https://t.co/3XMQL72PHL is peer reviewed in criminology journal @BritSocCrim So consistently publish the malicious falsehood that it was not peer reviewed. https://t.co/VOn05utmiA pic.twitter.com/9VSm5JPa22

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 24, 2018

As delusional as the cult of Scientology, see the hard evidence of exactly what the cult of Wikipedia is up to. Witness their punishments of members and the required grovelling of those punished. Witness the fact deletion history and other coverups as they admit deleting the evidence of what they have done on their own history pages. Witness the vile and obscene communications published by their long-standing and prolific editors. Be astounded by their delusional witch hunting, publication of fact denial malicious falsehoods, biased agenda and other gross pseudo scholarship. All these facts are as independently verifiable as the existence of fossils in the geological strata, by virtue of the fact they exist in the archived publication record. They are available on this handy portable PDF  with more details at the bottom of this page on the PatrickMatthew.com website .

• In their own words, Wikipedia editors claim the underlying philosophy of their delusion cult is that "experts are scum" Here   (archived here)
• Wikipedia editors plagiarise my discovery of the selfish gene myth and refuse to cite the original publication of it  (archived here)
• Wikipedia editors caught in a live online 'veracity trap' experiment persistently deleting independently verifiable facts from the historic publication record and serially lying to claim the publication of them does not even exist: here (archived here)

+

Just Google (or use any search engine) to see what you find today when you type "Darwin science fraud"

See today how knowledge evolves as new facts establish a "power of occupancy" and "beat off intruders" in their academic niche https://t.co/6BeQ21ofvB pic.twitter.com/1s3viak6KY

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) February 1, 2018

+

Five years after proven untrue by reference to historic publication record, the weird #Wikipedia cult ( #WikiMalFarm ) still mongers the myth that Darwin coined the term "living fossil"
1. Original Mythbust 2013 https://t.co/e8EcHEMaZr
2. Wikipedia's claim https://t.co/hssb0otyFl pic.twitter.com/SKsYNsAp7S

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) February 2, 2018

Wikipedia is just brimming with lies and nonsense added by silly billy trolls and jealous neerdowell academic failures

Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page edited by academic failures who claim my article not peer reviewed. Proof it is: https://t.co/EEi880uDa7 pic.twitter.com/SvDYdXHRXZ

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) October 13, 2017

One small step at a time: Driving the Corrupt Darwin-Lobby into the Gutter of the History of Science Fraudsters along with their Plagiarising Namesake

The Full Story of Corrupt-Darwin-Lobby Agenda Editor Fraud  - up until yesterday - is here.

On  this topic the Wikipedia page now (currently) reads:

                                                                 ~~~
The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." It approved of Matthew "strictly in his capacity as a forest-ranger, where he is original, bold and evidently experienced in all the arcana of the parentage, birth and education of trees. But, we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.^[11][12]
                                                                  ~~~

Of course, Matthew's orignal conception was not limited to the book's appendix. That is a lie written by Darwin and parroted by his followers ever since as though it is the gospel truth. We know it is a lie, rather than a mistake,  because he admitted to his mentor Charles Lyell that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth on that particular issue. Get the peer reviewed facts - with full references to the independently verifiable historic publication record, which the weird pseudo-scholarly fact denial cult of corrupt Darwinities are trying to keep buried HERE.

When they Delete the Facts and Publish Lies about You, then you Know You've Arrived

#wikipediaisneolengua https://t.co/K8XXdfoH1E

— Emilio Cervantes (@BiologiaPensamt) August 24, 2016

You Can Delete but you Can't Hide: Because delete never means delete on the Internet

Check it out: https://t.co/tALARfQv2k pic.twitter.com/JNJtO8gjyA

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) July 18, 2016

Live Experiment with Corrupt Wikipedia Agenda Editor Bias

This is me. I stand firm and
 challenge the corrupt
Darwin Deification Industry
with 100 per cent proven facts

Here on the Patrick Matthew Blog, I have blogged several times on how corrupt Wikipedia is facilitating the deletion of significant facts in order to pursue a propaganda-driven Darwin deification agenda at the expense of the independently verifiable facts.

To date, these Wikipedia-Agenda-Editor-Clowns immediately delete any fully referenced - even scientific journal peer reviewed (Sutton 2014    and Sutton 2016   ) - mention of the 100 per cent proven, and independently verifiable fact that Charles Darwin lied about the prior-readership of the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book, containing the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection.

Academic corruption in an area such as the history of science is likely to be subtle. Were it any other way, perpetrators who deliberately hide significant facts from the public and their peers and students, would not be able to get away with it for very long. Subtlety is not evidence of any kind of conspiracy, it is simply the only effective way that so many criminal offences are committed by those who wish to avoid detection. And just as so many legitimate members of society facilitate crimes such as theft by selling highly specialist tools such as crow-bars, bolt cutters lock picks and slide hammers to the general public, so to do many of those involved in what we might name "academic agenda project fraud" work anonymously from the inside, slyly astroturfing   , or else simply assisting salaried academics to hide facts from the public by brute censorship in publications where they have power to delete facts that undermine any extremely carefully crafted and orchestrated agenda-view. Such subtle academic fraud, is today, and has for some time been happening, on the Patrick Matthew page on the Wikipedia encyclopaedia. Let me explain and reveal the facts:

This morning, using a relative's laptop PC - revealing it's IP address to Wikipedia and the public - I personally corrected the misleading information on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page   , which gave the typical Darwin deification inaccurate impression that Matthew's heretical ideas on natural selection were not noticed pre-1860. The new - 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable facts, that I added this morning, set the record straight, and are highlighted in this blog post in bold and italics:

Reviews[edit   ]

The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11]   . However, it did, in Part II, on page 457 stridently criticise Matthew's then heretical conception of macroevolution by natural selection, which in fact runs throughout his entire book intertwined with his then seditious chartist politics: "But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."

Let us now wait, observe, and see if the Wikipedia Darwin deification agenda editors allow this disconfirming fact to survive on their so-called publicly editable "encyclopedia".

I predict that this fact will be deleted as part of the 156 year old Darwin Industry's corrupt propaganda campaign to deny Patrick Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. If it is it will not be the first time they have deleted this very same fact!

The deeply entrenched Darwinist myth, started as a deliberate proven lie by Darwin in 1860, that no naturalist read Matthew's ideas before 1858 was first blown to smithereens in my Thinker Media book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" (Sutton 2014). Moreover, this 100 per cent proven fact, proof of Darwin's lies, along with the new 100 per cent proof of the newly discovered existence of many routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of both Darwin and Wallace, passed scientific peer review in March 2016. See: 'On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis'   

Wikipedia and the personal pocket lining lying Darwin Deification Industry will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the disconfirming facts for their published pseudo scholarly fallacies, myths, lies and corrupt propagandising.

Experiment result 1

Postscript 10th May 2016 15.38

Within 90 minutes of the correct information being added to the Patrick Matthew page, about what is 100 per cent proven to have been written about Matthew's book in a published book review of 1831, we see The Wikipedia official editor Dave Souza - who is systematically deleting facts about Darwin and Matthew on this page - has deleted the fact just as predicted. And he did so inside 90 minutes of it being put onto the page.

Even though the source of this fact is cited to the very same source already referenced, Wikipedia editor Dave Souza brazenly, fallaciously claims that it is both un-sourced, contrary to the published source, and "dubious": CLICK HERE to see his edit of 8.58.

• (cur | prev   )   08:58, 10 May 2016   ‎ Dave souza    (talk    | contribs   )‎ . . (41,646 bytes) (-449)‎ . . (Undid revision 719532504 by 2A02:C7D:9E34:8100:6194:58D7:E3DC:219    (talk   ) unsourced, contrary to published source and dubious) (undo   )
• (cur    | prev   )   07:33, 10    
Experimental Edit by Mike Sutton
• May 2016   ‎ 2a02:c7d:9e34:8100:6194:58d7:e3dc:219    (talk   )‎ . . (42,095 bytes) (+449)‎ . . (Added fact from the literature that the United Services journal actually DID mention Matthew's heretical conception) (undo   )

Proof Dave Souza is misleading the public and systematically deleting facts on Wikipedia in order to hide the fact Matthew's ideas on natural selection were read and understood by many others pre 1858.

Here is the proof from page 457 of the United Services Journal review of Matthew's (1831) book :CLICK HERE    to access the actual book and the very text on the page he claims does not exist:

Attribution

Page 457 of the United Services Magazine 1831, book review of Matthew's On Naval Timber and Arboriculture

Wikipedia Editor Souza has done this same thing before (Click to see the facts and discussion of his past behaviour) regarding fully cited sources to Darwin's proven lies on the prior readership of Matthew's book. He claims the cited sources don't exist and when met with protest that he is lying he then is able to actually ban's the complainer from editing anything ever again on Wikipedia! How corrupt is that? 

Is there one or many people hiding behind this Wikipedia editor name Dave Souza?

Here is an image of the entire page containing the text Souza wishes to hide from the general public as part of a systematic Darwin Industry uncomfortable fact deletion campaign Page 457 of the United Services Journal (1831) book review of Matthew's "On Naval Timber"   

.

Corrupt #Wikipedia #Cult is once again begging the public to help it put misinformation online.

Proof they are maliciously publishing misinformation to mislead the public: https://t.co/1rvz2T287X pic.twitter.com/FfVmTIv7ET

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 25, 2021

.