Even in Democratic Societies We are not Immune from Establishment Lies and Propaganda

Are YOU immune to being credulously hoodwinked to ignore or hate facts so much you can't see them?

History will look back at us and laugh. But perhaps today we still time now to have the last laugh.

Do YOU know what time it is? 

Get the empirical facts before its too late for YOU: 

 https://thedailyjournalist.com/thethinker/even-in-democratic-societies-we-are-not-immune-from-establishment-lies-and-propaganda/

Archived: https://archive.ph/jE9SR#selection-335.0-335.85

SCIENCE FRAUD

 NOW AVAILABLE AT AMAZON EUROPE (Here).  Official release date Darwin Day 2022.

This book is jam packed with independently verifiable empirical data (most of it newly unearthed in the historic publication record by an original Big Data mining method known as IDD) evidence that both Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Patrick Matthew's prior published theory. 

FACTS

Don't be afraid of the facts. Even though many university professors are very afraid of them.

I tried to avoid speculation of any kind in the book "Science Fraud" and I have emphasized that fact in interviews with several journalists in the UK who are going to publish the story on Darwin Day (Feb 12th 2022). But getting the facts accepted by the scientific community will depend upon three things, (1) honest intellectual curiosity on the part of Darwin scholars and others (2) objectivity in accepting that verifiable facts are facts (3) being prepared to scientifically debate what all those facts mean, rationally, given the preponderance of the "new data" evidence of knowledge contamination of Darwin's and Wallace's pre-1858 brains.

Charles Darwin was a very naughty boy

 Visit the Patrick Matthew website patrickmatthew.com to find out the verifiable facts on Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, Patrick Matthew and others at the centre of a shocking story of the worlds greatest science fraud.

In the 19th Century, Robert Chambers published, anonymously, the heretical science book that influenced Darwin & Wallace. Namely, "The Vestiges Of Creation". But there is a massive hidden, shameful, secret in that story.

Darwin was a very naughty boy!https://t.co/UWWc1nPSuL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 8, 2021

Samuel Butler Nails Charles Darwin's Sly Glory Thieving Plagiarism in the 19th Century

Samuel Butler's identification that Darwin in 1859 plagiarized Matthew's 1831 book is strangely absent from Wikipedia - the world's worst encyclopedia. Wikipedia paid, astroturfing (fake grass roots), Darwin worship cult editors have a habit of slyly deleting uncomfortable, yet independently verifiable, facts about Matthew to continue the Darwin supermyth. Wikipedia editors were caught out in an editor fraud trap doing just that HERE

Actually, @BiologiaPensamt in "Luck and Cunning" Butler accused Darwin of plagiarizing Patrick Matthew most of all.

I dare anyone to try to get the #Wikipedia Darwinite-paid professional editors to allow that fact about Matthew in the worst Encyclopedia. https://t.co/sYKkVvjZ5b pic.twitter.com/OyWEFrdPnn

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) February 21, 2020

.

Is it a #ConspiracyTheory or significantly evidenced yet painful fact that paid #Wikipedia #DarwinIndustry editors are slyly covering up Darwin's & Wallace's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory? Get the facts and decide for yourselves: https://t.co/MYlC6OyXZa pic.twitter.com/zPo2zGCpCQ

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 22, 2020

'Mr Patrick Matthew epitomised their doctrine more tersely , perhaps, than was done by any other of the pre-Charles-Darwinian evolutionists.' 

What Butler failed to understand without the benefit of my BigData IDD method is that Matthew (1831) was first to coin the term 'natural process of selection' in published print and Darwin (1859) was later first to coin the exact yet slyly four-word-shuffled term 'process of natural selection'. Most importantly,  the IDD method also unearthed that Robert Chambers (anonymous author of the best selling Vestiges - see page 249 below), who cited Matthew's book decades before Darwin and Wallace had put so much as pen to private notebook on the subject of evolution, was apparently first to be second in print with Matthew's original term (see the facts newly unearthed in the historic publication record: Sutton 2014, 2015, 2016). Matthew's four word term was plagairised by Darwin because it is so essential to explain the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, it being (a) natural (b) a process and (c) selection by nature. For the same reason of requiring Matthew's essentially necessary components, Darwin and Wallace were also compelled to plagiarise his unique artificial versus natural slection explanatory analogy of differences. Darwin - in a private essay (Darwin 1844) which was later published, even plagiarized Matthew's highly idiosyncratic, arboricultural and foresters, artificial versus naturally selected trees explanatory analogy of differences to make the theory understandable (read that story here). 

Page 87 of Butler's 'Luck or Cunning'

Above we see Butler suggesting (as Darwin's biographer Clarke later did) that Darwin suffered from cryptoamnesia when he plagairised Matthew. (see a relevant blog post on this page of Butler's book Here)

On page 249 of his 1887 book 'Luck or Cunning', Samuel Butler quite rightly points out the historic habits of plagiarism among key writers in this particular field. Not only was Darwin a dreadful plagiarist, who passed the theory of others off as his own, but so did Matthew and those who came before both of them. 

The key point Butler failed to comprehend, however, is the fact that (as Sir Gavin de Beer, Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins all later showed) only Matthew was first in published print with the complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Butler also failed to realize precisely what Darwin and Wallace stole from him and the number of their prior-influencers, influencer's influencers, friends, and even Wallace's Sarawak paper editor - Selby - who prior read and cited Matthew's (1831) book and the orignal ideas in it (see Sutton 2016) before Darwin's' and Wallace's great science fraud by plagiary and lies.

Are the questions actually the answer to Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew and Dagg's sly and jealous plagiarism of me? 

1. Did Matthew's failure to cite his influencers allow Darwin and Wallace to neutralize their guilt in plagiarizing Matthew's book and lying about who they knew who prior read and cited it? 

2. Did the fact Matthew, the regional atheist Scottish Chartism leader, broke all the rules of the scientific community in his heretical mocking of "God" and Christian religion, inclusion of politics and news in his book allow Darwin and Wallace the guilt neutralization excuse not to cite him as their influencer?

3. Does the fact I mock credulous Darwinite cultists, who refuse to face the newly unearthed facts on Darwin's lies about Matthew and plagiarisng science fraud, political leaders, religious folk, and Richard Dawkins for not admitting that he never coined the term selfish gene give Dagg and the dreadful Linnean journal editors the guilt neutralization excuse they need to jealously and slyly plagiarize my Selby cited Matthew original discovery? (see the facts on Dagg the Plagiarist Here). See the facts on Dawkins and the Selfish gene supermyth here and here.

Top Psychologist Backs Book on Darwin's Plagiarism

Distinguished Professor of Psychology Backs Book on Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s Plagiarising Science Fraud https://t.co/5Huqb8jQiM pic.twitter.com/7ciOKB4s51

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 12, 2017

What can we Learn from the Lunar Men?

Erasmus Darwin lived in Derby, the nearest city to my own domicile of Nottingham in England. He once stood on a box in Nottingham's market square to be better heard as he encouraged the people to let fresh air into their

Erasmus Darwin.
Grandfather of Charles Darwin.

homes - for better health.

In Derbyshire, down a Blue John mine, Erasmus Darwin found fossilized fishes    and that is said to have inspired his poetical writing on evolution   . After seeing those fossils in 1767, Erasmus wrote    to his friend: “I have been into the Bowels of old Mother Earth, and seen Wonders and learnt much curious Knowledge in the Regions of Darkness…”

Today, I started reading "The Lunar Men: The Friends who made the Future by Jenny Uglow (1998)   .

I am impressed by what Uglow wrote on pages xiv-xv of her prologue about the men who formed a club they called The Lunar Society of Birmingham; so called because they met as close as they could to each full moon, so that in those days before street lights they might better make their way home at night:

'Ten of these men became Fellows of the Royal Society but only a few had a university education and most were Nonconformists or free thinkers... They came from varied backgrounds but when they edged towards rows they agreed to differ, turning back to the things they shared: "We had nothing to do with the religions or political principles of each other" wrote Priestly"...Their passionate common exchange and endeavour was of a type that would never be possible again - until today, with the fast, collaborative intimacy of the Internet.'

This resonates with my current experience in many ways. For example, in my endeavors to be even-handed in my research into the true story of the discovery of natural selection, I have reported to my Internet associates on The Patrick Matthew Project    some hard and independently verifiable evidence that Patrick Matthew, the subject and hero of my book,Nullius in Verba   , more likely than not, in my opinion, plagiarized two minor observations reported by Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin (see Sutton 2015) those observations were associated with the original research and famous experiments of both Thomas Knight and Erasmus Darwin on trees. Some of those apple trees, bred by Knight, were famously in the garden of the house where Charles Darwin grew up see Kohn 2008   

In the spirit of healthy scholarly progress, underpinned by the hard taskmaster of skepticsm, not all agree that I am right. But each of us is trying, in our own way, to approach a purer form of the truth in the story of the history of the discovery of natural selection. And we are doing so: '...today, with the fast, collaborative intimacy of the Internet.' But things are different on the internet. The discussion areas of blogs and websites do not resemble in any way the inside of a drawing room in a fine house full of like-minded friends who are there by invitation only.

On the internet there are those who behave like trolls, joining such sites, in part at least it seems, as deliberately anonymous disturbed immature spirits - virtual lunatics if you will - who cannot help but vent their spleens and disrupt the work of those who are seriously dedicated to using hard evidence to arrive at a purer form of knowledge.

How we keep important scholarly websites and blog-sites open to all who wish to add value to the discussion, whilst regulating the excesses of those who seek primarily to disrupt them with deliberately baiting time-wasting false statements and fallacies, is the problem.

Perhaps it is time some kind of universally acceptable 10-point ethical commandment codification of etiquette be drawn up? What might such a universally acceptable code look like, I wonder?