Why do some universities shy away from the most painful verifiable facts?

 J.D Benal (1954) taken here from the 1969 (third edition) Pelican publication (pages 33-34):

‘In fact at all times the individual scientist has needed to work in close connection with three other groups of persons: his patrons, his colleagues and his public. The function of the patron, whether a wealthy individual, university, corporation, or a department of State, is to provide the money on which the scientist must live and which will enable him to carry on his work. The patron will in turn want to have something to say on what is actually done, especially if his ultimate object is commercial advantage or military success. It will apparently be less so only if he is operating from pure benevolence. Or in the pursuit of prestige or advertisement; then he will only want results to be sufficiently spectacular and not too disturbing.

In a Socialist society the function of the patron is taken over by the organs of popular government, at all levels, for the factory or farm laboratory to the academy institute, and is radically changed in the process. Because such a government can, and indeed necessarily must, take a long-term view….’

On which point, I have an email safely archived from the Press Office of my old university, Nottingham Trent University (NTU), informing me that a dean has insisted my prestigiously fully funded (by the UK National Lottery Heritage Fund) trip to disseminate my published and expert peer reviewed research findings on Darwin's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's theory remove any mention of NTU from a Scottish press release on the matter.

This is how disruptive new breakthroughs are supressed by the zombie horde of anti-academic vacuous - managerialist gimp - dullards. 

Unscientific, Thick, Incurious, Credulous Scientists, Patrick Matthew and Covid19

We should not be surprised that English scientists advising the UK government on the 2020 Covid19 pandemic have got so much wrong and are refusing to admit it and would rather tens of thousands more people die than back pedal on their mistakes, lose face and their status.

 Get the full story on the Patrick Matthew website: https://patrickmatthew.com/
.

Scientists often turn to the past to understand where we are today. To understand why the government has been misled by scientifically incurious, credulous ludicrous dogma following pseudo-scholars we can learn much studying imbecilic Darwin worshippers: https://t.co/RKbJV7ogAU

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 21, 2020

On Charles Darwin Harassment Fanatics: Dysology and "The Lads"

THIS BLOG POST IS PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC AND ACADEMIC INTEREST AS A FULLY EVIDENCED EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF THING THOMAS KUHN DESCRIBED AS TYPICAL FIERCE REACTIONS TO PARADIGM CHANGING DISCOVERIES IN SCIENCE AND THE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY


Professor Brian J Ford has written about the cult of Darwin worship in our institutions of science and how its underbelly inhabitants attack anyone who dares to question Darwin's originality and honesty.

In this blog post I provide actual, independently verifiable data, of the sort of anti-science, and infantile attempts at revisionist history dysology, they get up to. 

Thomas Kuhn famously wrote about attacks on those whose research findings bring about a paradigm change in science. Such attacks attempt to bring the forces of chaos into the realm of science with an aim to extinguish the flame of human knowledge progress. What follows is a source of actual data - provided by a victim (me) of such dysologically radicalized individuals - for use by the scientific community on the fanatical anti-scientific behavior of radical Darwinite extremists.  

After he had kindly read through a draft of my 500 page e-book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret in 2014, Professor Donald Forsdyke  made several suggestions for its improvement and wrote in an email that I should tone it down considerably or else face vicious harassing attack in my place of work (then Nottingham Trent University) by a group of unnamed individuals he referred to collectively as the "The Lads".

Forsdyke wrote that he was concerned that unlike himself, I had years of work to go in paid employment in academia and that "The Lads" could curtail that career with their endless harassment. I was as unconcerned then as I am now by such threats. I was 55 years of age in 2014 and with two of the best pensions in the world, seeing how dunder-headed infantile managerialism has wrecked our universities, intended to retire before my 60th birthday. I did so on reaching 59 years of age.

This blog is about the unethical and fanatical activities of some of those "Lads" Forsdyke warned me about. Childish kidult Darwin fanatics!

Within a few days of the publication of my book and an article about it in the UK broadsheet newspaper, The Telegraph, written by it's science editor Sarah Knapton. In that article career Darwin biographer James Moore (of the Open University) was quoted as responding anti-scientifically to the totally newly discovered facts he had not even read - and had certainly never heard of before - in typical apocryphal Semmelweis Reflex by proxy fashion “I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.” Then a second Darwin Lad got himself involved to protect his Royal Society majesty King Charles Darwin. Dr Mike Weale was communicating with me - using an anonymous pseudonym - via the comments section on the article, now deleted by the Telegraph, but many are in the archive I made of it four years ago.

Weal thereafter set up his website and began discussing the issues with me on that site and via email. His website is "The Patrick Matthew Project". That site looks to me like nothing more in reality than a propaganda stealth instrument to try desperately argue that Darwin never plagiarized Matthew and never lied when he did plagiarize and lie. Just like the utter nonsense Wiki-Darwiboppers (Weale is one) write on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew webpage, it's a waste of time trying to get between a fool and their errand, which is an old adage confirmed as Weale's behaviour would become rabid when he escalated to writing to my employer to complain about me. But I'm getting ahead of myself.  I write more on the fool Weale's malicious correspondence later in this blog post.

Around the same time as the Telegraph article was published, George Beccaloni - then curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum London (now an employee of the Charles Darwin Trust no less!) posted what is essentially a fake review of my book, Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, on the Facebook page of the Richard Dawkin's Foundation. My publisher Bob Butler called him out on the fact he knew Beccaloni had not even read my book, despite making claims about its contents as though he had (here and archived here). Clearly "The Lads" were starting to get busy, just as Professor Forsdyke warned.

As we have seen in my posts here in 2020, a growing number of proper scientists accept that the New Data I have originally unearthed with the IDD BigData research method proves that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace more likely than not plagiarized Patrick Matthew's complete and prominently prior-published theory of evolution by natural selection. Arlin Stoltzfus was, in 2016 (here - more precisely here in the comments section of a blog) one of the first brave rational expert scholars to look at that newly unearthed evidence and reach the obviously correct conclusion that Darwin was  most likely a serial liar and was a plagiarizer in that regard. Most importantly, he being a proper scientist - unlike most who newly know of the new found facts but perhaps fear "The Lads" - was not afraid to stand up and say so on the record on several occasions. Science needs more proper scientists, as opposed to those uncritical scholars Stolzfus refers to as "the zombie horde."

Dr Stoltzfus is Research Biologist at the USA National Institute of Standards and Technology.

In the link provided in this blog post to the desperate Darwin defending website of Dr Mike Weale you can see how this Darwin's "Lad" Weale gets himself emotionally tied up with his Darwin worship into silly irrational linguistic-yoga-knots by trying to deny the logical reality of Dr Stolzfus's completely rational and fact based arguments on Darwin's lies.

Incidentally, for the record of how the Darwin "Lads" seek to bury painful facts by attacking their original discoverer, Weale slyly tried to set the Vice Chancellor (VC) of my university (Nottingham Trent)  on me - knowing full well as a senior academic (Reader in Statistical genetics himself at the university where my VC had graduated) was an attack on my livelihood as Reader in Criminology and my entire senior academic career - therefore an economic attack on my dependent family. Weale's ludicrously childish and disingenuous malicious communication lengthy "Lad" rambling email-letter of complaint (I have a copy of it)  to my employer was mostly about my mocking outing of  his fellow "Lad" Dr John van Wyhe for calling me a conspiracy theorist in an email to a journalist immediately after suspiciously resigning from the editorial board of the expert peer reviewed academic journal that had just published my bombshell article on who we now newly know actually did read and cite Matthew's 1831 book and ideas before Darwin and Wallace stole them and Darwin alternately claimed no naturalist/no one whatsoever had prior read them. Weale sought also - and failed miserably - to ridicule the devastating facts I have originally unearthed.

My then employer (As said, I am now very comfortably retired from the civil service and university) Nottingham Trent University, investigated Weale's complaint with an HR team headed by a Professor of Criminal Justice.  They found Weal's essential allegations of academic misconduct unfounded and concluded that his complaint was disingenuous. One thing they pointed out was how Weale essentially begged me to keep debating - around and around in circles - with him on his website and it was only after I stoically refused that he then sent his malicious communication to my employer. (You can find archived files all of the debates I , and others had, in the comments section on Weale's website at the end of this blog post).

After being cleared of any academic misconduct, I was subsequently advised by university management staff  to report Weale to his VC for his malicious communication to my employer academic misconduct if I so wished. I could have taken it further than that. But unlike Weale, I was then and remain content for the malicious behaviour of he and his fellow Darwin fanatical "Lads", with whom he is proven to be networked on social media and his own website, to speak for itself in the historic publication record for future scholars to use in their studies into vicious, yet futile, resistance to paradigm changes in science and the history if science. As I said, I have all the emails. I have the report of the findings of the inquiry that followed Weal's malicious email letter.  And I have archived more of 'The Lad's' malicious and raving bonkers desperate internet activities - including cyberstalking and endless criminal malicious communication harassment by way of many emails and social media publications targeting my colleagues, co-author Professor Mark Griffiths, close friends, senior managers at Nottingham Trent University, peer reviewed journal editors, book publishers and even my post graduate students! Targeting anyone for endless harassment by emails to their university email accounts and via malicious whacked out harassment blog-sites who is in any way related to me or even the general field of criminology, has written a word of support, provided a platform for dissemination of the newly unearthed and expert peer reviewed facts or reported on them. Targeting people I don't even know for email harassment merely because they are eminent criminologists. All of this data has been collected and saved forensically - some of which is clearly evidence of criminal harassment - is now held by others pending action.


What Professor Trevor Palmer writes below is what science is supposed to look like. Namely, when their earlier thoughts and subsequent conclusions are dis-confirmed with independently verifiable newly discovered evidence proper scientists change their minds accordingly. Unlike Darwin cultists who seek to bury the painful facts under a stinking pile of their constant lies, harassment and laughably unscientific Darwibopper claptrap.



One of the Darwin superfan "Lads" has even committed gross academic misconduct by way of blatant plagiarism in the Linnean Journal of my original (See e.g. Sutton 2014 and 2015) expert peer reviewed discovery that Selby (Wallace's Sarawak paper editor) cited Matthew before Wallace wrote a single word about natural selection in his private notepad. The culprit here is the totally obsessed harassing cyber-stalker "Lad" Dr Joachim Dagg - who has been weirdly, obsessively, publishing absolute nonsense about many areas of my published work - not just the bombshell findings about Darwin and Wallace. Dagg's sly plagiarism of my original, expert peer reviewed. and prominently published work about Selby, which he has proven elsewhere, earlier, that he read, because he commented on it in writing, is in the very same Journal that published the 1858 papers of Darwin and Wallace, which stole Matthew's original prior-published theory and in which each plagiarist claimed to have independently conceived it. He even stupidly brags about not citing me in the article in which he plagiarized me by way of a comment on Wikipedia (here). The Linnean journal sure does scrape the dregs of the barrel doesn't it. Just like Wikepdia, the world's worst encyclopedia, then.

For future critical and ethical scholarship into criminal and deviant behaviour among scientists and those on the fringes of science (facilitated by such dodgy organisations as Wikipedia and the Linnean Society) the misdeeds of Darwin's 'Lads' - including fully referenced proof of Dagg's knowing plagiarism in the Linnean Journal - can be found fully referenced and safely archived on the Patrick Matthew website - click HERE.

As said, I have Weale's malicious  email to the VC of Nottingham Trent University. I have also a copy of van Wyhe's email to the journalist in question, and one day, in published print (only under expert legal advice), the public will see exactly what Darwin's 'Lads' got up to in what I think essentially amounts to their pathetic yet nasty attempts to re-bury the newly unearthed bombshell truth about Darwin being a liar and plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft. By attacking the discoverer they tried to discredit me in order to try, it appears to me, to discredit the independently verifiable, expert peer reviewed, new bombshell evidence they so hate. That sort of thing is the oldest trick in the book, and we all know it.


 Darwin and Wallace have been proven to be liars and plagiarists. Of course something like that can be 100% proven to exist. If it's printed or published and in your hands it is there. Just as Weal's malicious email 100% exists, as does van Wyhe's. Cover either email with your hand 100 times. When does it disappear? Most importantly, does it vanish from the publication record? Try it a million times. You will get exactly the same result 100% of the time. Publications in the publication record are like fossils in the geological record. They 100 per cent do exist and that can be 100 per cent proven. They do not fail to exist before or after we know of their existence. They are there. They are real. They are in the publication record.

Perhaps these magical thinking desperate Darwin worshiping fools who claim Darwin is not a proven liar and plagiarist spend years covering Darwin's published and proven lies with their trembling hands on video in the hope of them just magically vanishing once? Perhaps they will argue that Dagg The Plagiarist is not a plagiarist by way of their usual muddle-headed delusional nonsense?

From an academic point of view, if we wish to understand why Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew with assistance from the Linnean Society and other scientists, we need to understand why Darwin sought (although on that occasion he failed) to implement an official policy of sly mass plagiarism of many original discoveries by those outside his own circle of wealthy gentleman toff-scientist cronies - (see those facts here) and by association, why Dagg plagiarized me with the help of the Linnean Journal.

Firstly, just as Barbary apes steal the progeny of others to offer to dominant males in the hope of rising up the social hierarchy, so did Darwin and Wallace steal the "progeny" of Matthew. And likewise, so did Dagg The Plagiarist steal mine. Secondly, just like Matthew the radical libertarian Chartism leader, I mock religion, I write about dishonesty in politics, and I mock the "scientific establishment" aristocracy and upper classes (toffs) for their dishonesty. Also like Matthew did in his bombshell book of 1831, I mock current mainstream falsehoods and delusions shared by the scientific community. Unlike Matthew, I also mock the Linnean Society for facilitating science fraud by plagiarism! Oh yes, and I've been mocking the 'Lad' Dagg for the mass of muddle-headed harassment nonsense he has been writing about me in his silly blog sites and elsewhere on social media for some years now. After all, what a silly little 👶 babyish plagiarizing twerp he is.  Thirdly, just as Barbary apes choose to steal the progeny of those lower down the ranks in their tribe, because they think that gives them the best chance of succeeding in their theft, so did Darwin and Wallace target the work of the already censored Scott Matthew, and so did the sniveling coward plagiarist Dagg target my work after other 'Lads' such as Becalloni, Weale, van Wyhe and others, had between them, started doing, amongst other things, one or else more of such things as writing ignorant/deliberate fact denial nonsense in social media about me, to journalists, my employer, close friends and associates, school teachers, Members of The Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group in Scotland - who received National Lottery Heritage Fund money to build the Patrick Matthew Trail and to finance a conference on Matthew at the James Hutton Institute - Employees of the National Lottery Heritage Fund, employees of the James Hutton Institute, my book's reviewers and its cover designer, Organizers of the Conway Hall Sunday lectures, Organizers of various Skeptics in the Pub groups, and/or otherwise cowardly writing poison pen emails to harass me and my associates in other ways for the independently verifiable facts I dared to uncover and tell the world about Darwin and Wallace. For research purposes you can get the evidence of who did what exactly of all that and far more besides here).

To continue with the revealing analogy on progeny stealing to please more socially prominent apes, Becalloni "collected" a very rare centipede, living and perhaps even endangered biological artifact, from Thailand to impress older and more powerful men at his place of work (here and archived here). Furthermore, Becalloni's plagiarizing and lying science fraudster hero Alfred Wallace similarly "collected" by shooting for money an orangutan mother and then stealing her child for his own sick amusement and literary glorification by the likes of those who knew no better in the 19th century, and those who still know no better today.

These Victorian and latter-day smog apes are an absolute disgrace to science in my opinion. And the true Originator, of macroevolution by natural selection, Patrick Matthew? Whilst Matthew's opinions on colonization of the World by the British are heinous, he did advocate - as a man so often many decades ahead of his time - the European Single Market, the Peace Corps (published here) and respect for all living creatures. And he was first to introduce giant redwoods into the UK. But Darwin's glory thieving, lying, circle of cronies stole that honour from him too (here)! Among many other achievements, the man who Darwin portrayed as "a little known Scottish writer on forest trees" accurately predicted the Tay Bridge Disaster in the teeth of mockery from foolish others supporting powerful lobby interest groups (here).

As said, Darwin and Wallace plagiarized whole swathes of original text, ideas and many highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples from Matthew's book and were closely networked and influenced by those we newly know cited Matthew before Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of natural selection. I originally discovered that Wallace even fraudulently doctored a letter in his autobiography to try to conceal from us the fact that Darwin and his cronies were paying him to assist in plagiarizing Matthew's breakthrough before the crooked Linnean Society in 1858 (get the proof here)!

Although latterly jumping on the RSPCA domestic pet anti-cruelty movement, at least (here), Darwin, (whose famous grandfather - Erasus Darwin - is a twice proven plagiarist) like Wallace had little to zero respect for wild living creatures. Darwin ate an owl once and lived to shoot thousands of pheasants as a young man, and his son boasted of his father's amazing stone throwing rabbit killing skills (all here). The Captain of HMS Beagle wrote of how Darwin wrecked murderous death on many trusting sea birds with his geological hammer (here). Once, Darwin even tortured a puppy. Oh, and one more thing, it's a total supermyth that Darwin discovered evolution by natural selection by observing finches on the Galapagos Islands, he got it all from books as he admitted himself (get the facts on that here).

By keeping the Christian notion of "God" in so many editions of The Origin of Species, his plagiarized version of Matthew's theory, as one thing leads to another, it is even arguable that Darwin possibly caused the holocaust by his plagiarism.

The Sly Smog Apes Darwin and Wallace

Incidentally, contrary to utter ludicrous nonsense written by Darwin fan Richard Dawkins - (who incidentally - to the foot stamping impotent wrath of one idiot cyber-stalking and endlessly harassing nut job juvenile Darwibopper Lad, who wrote to the expert peer reviewed journal publishing the fact to complain bitterly that it published painful facts I have uniquely unearthed on Darwin's and Dawkins's plagiarism, Richard Dawkins did not coin the term selfish gene) - that Matthew never understood his own ideas because he never trumpeted them from the rooftops before Darwin replicated them, not only (seemingly unknown to the conveniently historically ignorant Dawkins) was Matthew and his original breakthrough brute censored many times in print, he had his book banned by public libraries and was platform blocked at a major science conference in the 19th century, the Darwin Lads on Wikipedia were caught out repeatedly fact denying - by deleting links to the original source texts on this censorship - such censorship even happened. They were caught "live" in an hilarious sting operation by me (here).

"Mr Matthew", ejaculated Emma Darwin, "my husband is more
 faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" At that
precise moment the three knew she'd put her foot in it. You could
have cut the atmosphere with a snark.

The above cartoon is based on the letter Emma Darwin sent to Patrick Matthew where she put her foot in it by writing that "With regard to natural selection, my husband is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" The original letter is in the National Library of Scotland. I have been granted permission by the copyright holder to publish the image of that letter and others Charles Darwin sent to Matthew (click here to see and read them).

As time passes since my bombshell breakthrough of 2014, the number of journalists, scientists and other scholars following the brave grown-up lead of Dr Arlin Stoltzfus in admitting to the truth of the devastating facts will increase exponentially. In 2020 we can see this happening.  I have recorded and fully referenced details of the current known number of scholarly references here and press articles here. 

Conclusion

When enemies of independently verifiable newly unearthed facts about Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism and serial lying behave like Darwin's low-life 'Lads' it is obvious I must be doing something right. These thick idiots thought I was their prey. But as the facts of their behaviour reveals, only they are the prey of their own vicious stupidity. Anyway, I digress. Do you fancy a good laugh dear rational reader? If so, the idiotically hilarious childish Darwin worship contortionist spectacle on workplace, malicious harasser, Weale's idiotic Darwin worship propaganda site is archived here for all proper adult scholars to cite in their future critical work in this area of dysology studies and science model crisis following bombshell paradigm changes in science.

Archived comments on Weal's Patrick Matthew Project website

1. http://archive.is/WjCSl
2. http://archive.is/jyUbX
3. http://archive.is/4mbTx
4. http://archive.is/Qb8BO
5. http://archive.is/l5q5k
6. http://archive.is/4NoLw
7. http://archive.is/J4Elh

Scientists behaving like a bunch of blissed out demented believers

It's time scientists faced up to the newly unearthed facts about Charles #Darwin instead of behaving like a demented naive and willfully ignorant blissed-out church congregation listening to an atheist explain what verifiable evidence really is: Visit https://t.co/xBGGof5eY7 pic.twitter.com/mbXo3JBpeO

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 26, 2018

Myths About Darwin (No, 4) The Darwin Got It but Matthew Never Extinction by Natural Selection Myth

According to William D Stansfield (1977) The Science of Evolution. Newy York. Macmillan,

(Stansfield, p. 31) Darwin wrote:

'I feel as if my book (Origin of Species) came half out of Sir Charles Lyell's brain.'

This is totally wrong. Darwin's Origin of Species was not published untill 1859. The closest Darwin got to writing what Stansfield claims is in an 1844 letter to Leonard Horner:

'I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell’s brains & that I never acknowledge this sufficiently, nor do I know how I can, without saying so in so many words—for I have always thought that the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one’s mind & therefore that when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes— it would have been in some respects better if I had done this less—but again excuse my long & perhaps you will think presumptuous discussion.'

We should expect as much complete nonsense because there is so much of it in the Darwin deification industry. So Stansfield confirms the Dysology hypothesis, and it is not long before examples pop out of his book as further confirmation of the general acceptance of falsehoods about Patrick Matthew's influence, and the contents of his 1831 book, by the scientific community.

Dysology about Matthew has facilitated the enabling environment that enabled Stansfield to to get away with writing so much more nonsense to be published for consumption as though it were true. And his completely erroneous nonsense is published by the prestigious Macmillan publishing house, no less!

Clearly Stanstead had no more read Darwin's original correspondence than he had carefully read Matthew's (1831) original  book. Because on page 32 he writes:

'Matthew did not conceive of the role that natural selection could play in the extinction of species'

This is yet another Darwinite myth, told to enhance Darwin's reputation at the expense of the originator whose work he replicated. In reality, on page 381 of his 1831 book On Naval Timber, Matthew wrote:

Note that here Matthew is mocking the notion of divine interference in the creation and extinction of species: "Discover an almost complete difference to exist between the species... of one epoch from that of every other." And "...admit, either of repeated miraculous creation; or a power of change,..." Now, if Matthew is not explaining the role of natural selection to create new species though a power of change then I am one of the amazing golden unicorns that gave Darwin and Wallace their miraculous cognitive contraceptives!

What Matthew's extinction explanation explains is superior to Darwin's. Matthew's included catastrophic extinction events as well as how species evolved from branching from a common ancestor that would eventually become extinct as new species did better in the same ecological niche. Darwin - parroting Lyell's uniformitarian ideas - rejected catastrophic extinction events. Matthew was right and Darwin wrong.

See Sutton (2016, p. 176 for the respective references):

'From the third edition of the Origin onwards, Darwin (1861), a follower of Lyell’s erroneous uniformitarianism, jumped at the chance to bolster Lyell’s theory and denigrate Matthew by referring to him as a catastrophist. Dempster made this injustice abundantly clear. Punctuated equilibrium — essentially Matthew’s discovery — is accepted in science today but, as Dempster noted, its Darwinist purveyors sought to keep the originator of that theory buried in footnote oblivion. In a more well-known account, Rampino explains just some of the detail conveyed by Dempster'

To Publish 100 Per Cent Veracity versus Ignoring a 'Stain upon the Silence'

My earliest remembered thoughts on the topic of this blog post began some years ago when I read a British Society of Criminology article entitled: 'Leaving a ‘Stain upon the Silence: Contemporary Criminology and the Politics of Dissent' by Paddy Hillyard*, Joe Sim, Steve Tombs † and Dave Whyte (here   ).

In that 2004 article, the authors noted how the British Home Office funding of certain types of research project aimed, ultimately, at reducing crime quickly with least cost, was diminishing the worth of others that adopted a more critically nuanced view of seeking a longer term solution focused on improving our understanding of both the underlying causes of crime and the various processes whereby offenders enter the criminal justice system. The authors argued that the issue they were raising was seen almost as academic taboo and that, increasingly, the British Home Office was facilitating the imposition of a narrow and pernicious research agenda - in our British universities - that was being funded and sanctioned by the state. They felt that the type of work that interested them most was being slowly silenced.

Used only with express written permission

On which note, when I and my colleague Philip Hodgson first published our article 'The Problem of Zombie Cops in Voodoo Criminology' (Here   ). to show that the arithmetic and reasoning behind the widely cited Home Office claim - and effective orthodoxy - that beat policing was ineffective at preventing crime was nonsense on stilts, I was told by some colleagues, both in and outside my own university, including some very senior academics indeed that (a) I should desist and feel ashamed because I was promoting conspiracy-theory thinking (b) I was playing into the hands of the 'critical - cultural - criminology' school by giving them ammunition to throw at those who were seeking to promote what they describe as a more academically 'vigorous' policy-oriented, hard data driven, crime science (c) that I was wrecking my career chances because I would now be seen as a bitter and wrathful contrarian by those with whom I have worked and collaborated in the past.

Copyright Dr Mike Sutton 2012Used only with express written permission

The exact same arguments have been made regarding my later work on why the current criminological notion of 'crime opportunity' as a cause of crime is utter nonsense because its premises on what constitutes an opportunity and what represents a good causal explanation are 100% wrong. (See: Sutton 2015) .

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

Stepping off the obvious path of criminology last year, I published a book in the field of evolutionary biology. In my book: Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (here   ), I also absolutely 100% prove that current orthodox 'knowledge' about the history of discovery of natural selection is based on a set of myths that have - following my original research - been completely punctured by hard facts that prove them completely and absolutely untrue. As a result, I have been repeatedly told off for setting the mythical record straight on this topic with hard and, independently verifiable, newly discovered data. The telling off is based upon the reasoning that I should not have written this book because I am (a) giving ammunition to conspiracy theorists and (b) giving ammunition for creationists to throw at Darwinists. The fear of arming creationists with veracious facts comes from those who know the history of academic battle fighting in the American educational system against the teaching of divine species creationism as a compulsory subject or as science. (Sutton 2104).

My own experiences of being criticised by eminent academics for exposing and proposing a solution to tackle such stains upon the silence regarding hard facts in various areas of orthodox 'knowledge' must sit amongst a multitude of others - some probably far more serious and important - that began centuries ago with crimes of heresy, sedition and treason.

That today, following the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment that began in Europe, others - who should know better - still seek to silence veracious independently verifiable hard-fact-based knowledge. I think this is an area upon which we should now be shining an exposing spotlight. And to be absolutely clear, by that I mean we should be producing the evidence that shows who it is who has been making the stain upon the silence.

Used only with express written permission

As the Founding Director of the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crimes, I am aware of how allowing the teaching of absurdities might perhaps lead ultimately - along a spectrum of such'dysology'    (bad scholarship) - to the production of "academic atrocities". I think it might well also play a hand in facilitating violent atrocities. For example, according to many scholars, Adolph Hitler was convinced that the fictional book "The Protocols of Zion" was evidence of a genuine Jewish world domination conspiracy. That fallacious belief byHitler, combined with his pseudo-scientific notions of white Aryan supremacy, played no small part in the arguments made inside his own head and then conveyed to others for carrying out the Holocaust.

Public Domain

Hence, as a hate crimes scholar, I am interested in researching what may possibly be a process by which academic absurdities lead to violent irrationalism of the kind that happened in hit Paris this month.   

I am interested also in other areas where the exposure of stains upon the silence have been criticised.

I am currently reading "The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Sheppard' (Here   ). The book (written by the gay journalist Stephen Jimenez) reveals considerable new, hard dis-confirming evidence for the orthodox criminological 'knowledge' that Matthew Shepard was the victim of a homophobic hate crime. Jimenez has been criticised by his detractors for denigrating the official story of the Matthew Shepard killing because the evidence he is presenting provides ammunition for the anti-hate crime lobby, because the Shepard killing was one of two recognised notorious hate crimes that led to the enactment of hate crime legislation in the USA.

One of my colleagues, Claire Cohen recently published a book on male rape: ' Male Rape is a Feminist Issue: Feminism, Governmentality and Male Rape' (Here   ). Her book has received some vitriolic reviews by some academics who argue that her subject matter and arguments draws attention and resources away from the area that they have sought so long and so hard to establish, which is to have rape of women taken more seriously, prosecuted more effectively and treated more fairly - ultimately, with an aim to reduce the currently high incidence and prevalence of rape of females.

In all these cases that I outline in this blog post, I take to my heart and mind the reasoning supplied by Stephen Jimenez for exposing the stain upon the silence about the Shepard killing. He tells us that as a gay man he deserves better than to have the case made for better protection of the rights of the gay community based upon what is in fact discoverable with facts to be a myth.

Conclusion

I am, therefore, seeking out, exposing and tackling stains upon the silence, because the arguments for covering them up are what actually makes them a stain upon the silence in the first place.

de Beer, Dawkins and the Dysology Hypothesis

The dreadful scholarship of eminent Darwinists, who have for the past 155 years deified the serial liar Charles Darwin, confirms the Dysology Hypothesis that unchecked poor scholarship in any field creates an intellectual spiral of decline. 

Credulous Darwinist belief in Darwin's lie that Matthew's ideas had not been read before 1860 enabled the eminent Darwin 'expert'  Royal Society Darwin Medal winner de Beer (1962) to write the absolute shameless claptrap that no one at all had read Matthew's book before 1860 and Richard Dawkins (2010 in Bryson) to ridiculously blame Matthew for not trumpeting his heretical, seditious, and scientifically taboo deduced ideas from the rooftops when it was against their own rules, created following William Pitt's 'gagging Acts' (see Secord 2003), for scientific societies such as the Royal Society and British Association for Advancement of Science to discuss them. 

Weirdly, deBeer and Dawkins - like so many 'expert' and renowned Darwinists - writing with such presumed authority on Matthew seem, not to have read his second letter in the Gardener's Chronicle (1860) where he told Darwin of a naturalist who had read his original ideas but dared not teach them for fear of pillory punishment! 

The irrefutable facts of their past and current behaviour suggests that anyone calling themselves a 'Darwinist' is seemingly going to be intellectually incurable of researching and writing any kind of veracious history of the discovery of natural selection by a man not called Darwin.The pseudo-scholarly shame of it! We should not really expect Darwinists to admit this, of course.