The Patrick Matthew Supermyth

 I am glad to see that the discovery of the Spinach and Iron supermyth has been positively cited in the British Medical Journal in 2023 as an important discovery.

As Springer Science has a book chapter that came out in 20203 on the "Patrick Matthew Effect in Science", it is surely only a matter of time before the Darwin and Matthew supermyth is similarly cited in prestigious journals and the Darwin Industry is compelled to officially distance itself from its current corrupt policy of  enabling and facilitating dementedly malicious fact denial harassment zombies on the likes of Wikipedia to attack, with blatant lies and malicious misinformation, anyone daring to write or teach the new found empirical facts on Darwin's science fraud by plagiary and supporting lies.

The Anti-Depressant SSRI Story and the Darwin Story v the Patrick Matthew Facts

When millions of depressed people were told by the "expert" medical profession to take selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) they were told they had an inbalance in their brain and the drug would restore the balance here (archived page). In reality, that was just an intuitive hypothesis and there is no empirical evidence to support it.

Many billions of people for the last 160+ years were told by so called "expert" biologists and science historians that although Patrick Matthew was first into published print with the full theory of evolution by natural selection that no one had read it and certainly not anyone connected to Darwin and Wallace (1858/59). This zero evidenced claim is used to claim in turn that Darwin and Wallace each replicated it independently of one another and of  Patrick Matthew. These "experts" also told the world that Darwin was extraordinarily honest and did not lie when he claimed he had not seen Matthew's theory before replicating it. In reality many people, read and cited Matthew's (1831) book containing his theory years before 1858. Some were key influencer's of Darwin and Wallace and others were their influencer's influencers. Moreover Darwin is absolutely 100% proven to have lied that no one read Matthew's book and the theory in it before he and Wallace replicated it, because before he told that lie Darwin was very clearly informed directly that naturalists he and Wallace knew had read it and one even reviewed it and mentioned the theory in print in 1832.

It is not scientific to make an unevidenced claim to seek to get people to believe it, without admitting you have zero empirical evidence for your claim.

We know it can take years for those duped into taking SSRI to get themselves off the drugs that have very bad side effects. Similarly, it will perhaps take years for many Darwin addicts to be able to get themselves off their mad Darwin dysology habit. 

Dysolgy of this unevidenced kind can be absolutely lethal. Just check out the Masks Supermyth to see.

The empirical evidence of the real Patrick Matthew story can be found in the Curtis Press book "Science Fraud". HERE.

Facts are driving Darwin worshipers raving bonkers

The Scottish Forfarshire (now Angus) connection to Patrick Matthew and Darwin's Plagiarism of Matthew's Scottish Theory

The newly unearthed empirical data on the Darwin fraud by plagiarism and associated serial lies bring the history of science and science closer to understanding how the breakthrough in human understanding of evolution by natural selection was really made. 

The research into who did (contrary to the Darwin Supermyth that none see Sutton 2022) read Patrick Matthew's (1831) theory before Darwin and Wallace (1858 / 59) stole it and lied to call it their own reveals more about the three Scots - David Low, Robert Mudie and Patrick Matthew in the 1830's. My earlier blog on the topic has been updated HERE (archived Here) .

One possible interpretation (hypothesis only) of these new findings is that Matthew (1831) got the idea of his analogy between natural and artificial selection form reading the work of Mudie (1830) and that Mudie then read Matthew's (1831) analogy with regards to timber raised in nurseries v nature and added it into his 1832 book. However, a forthcoming chapter in an academic text book on science fraud by plagiary and research ethics, written by Mike Sutton and Mark Griffiths (forthcoming [in print] 2023), reveals something far more profound regarding another Scottish naturalist writing even earlier - who very clearly influenced Matthew earlier than Mudie's 1830 book could have.

Further research on my part reveals more about the importance of Robert Mudie and his likely prior influence on Patrick Matthew before Matthew wrote his 1831 book "On Naval Timber". My latest book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" covers some of Mudie's (1832) replication of Matthew's (1831) ideas in more depth. In the 1830 text that follows we see Mudie (1830) beginning to articulate the analogy between artificial and natural selection. The fact Mudie, Low and Matthew all lived in the county of Forfarshire (now Angus) in Scotland cannot go unremarked.  The evolution of Matthew's theory of the "natural process of selection" surely happened in this region of Scotland. The exact same region in which Darwin's geological mentor Charles Lyell had his great manor house, just a few miles away form Matthew's house. More research is needed into the possible social relationships between Low, Mudie and Matthew.

Another who used the exact trees grown in nature v those grown in nurseries analogy is Thomas Laycock. He published it the year after Matthew also, in 1832.  In 1835, BigData analysis of the literature reveals Laycock was apparently first to be second (F2B2) with Matthew's (1831) apparently original term/phrase  "mental or instinctive powers." See "Science Fraud (Sutton 2022)", the book, for the details of how Laycock was connected to Darwin and Wallace and their greatest influencers. The Scottish connection in that regard is most profound, once again!

THE BRITISH NATURALIST (Part I)  CHAPTER I  Mudie (1830)

INTRODUCTION 

It may be a trite observation but it is at the same time a true one that there is neither waste nor ruin in nature. When the productions of human art fall into decay they are gone and if the artist does not replace them by new formations the species is gone also but the works of nature are their own repairers and continuers and that which we are accustomed to look upon as destruction and putrefaction is a step in the progress of new being and life. This is the grand distinction between the productions of nature and those of art those in which the same power finds both the materials and the form and those in which the form is merely impressed upon previously existing materials. 

The substances in nature are in themselves endowed with faculties unseen and inscrutable by man in any thing but their results which produce all the varied forms of inorganic and organic being of which the solid earth the liquid sea and the fluid air are formed and by which they are inhabited. The fabrications of man are on the other hand in a state of commenced decay the instant that they are made and without the constant labour of repair and replacing they would perish altogether. The most extensive cities and the strongest fortifications after man abandons them to their fate fade and moulder away so that the people of after ages dispute not merely about the places where they were situated but about the very fact of their existence. It is true that when man takes any of nature's productions out of the place or circumstances for which nature has fitted them and supports them by artificial means they cannot continue to exist after those means are withdrawn any more than a roof can remain suspended in the air after the walls or parts that supported it are withdrawn or a cork will remain at the bottom of a basin of water after the weight that kept it from rising to the surface has been removed. If man will have artificial shelter and food he must keep in repair the house that he has built trim the garden he has planted and plough and sow the field from which he is to obtain his artificial crop but if he would content himself with that which is produced without importation and artificial culture no planting sowing or culture is necessary for whether it be in the warm regions or in the cold in the sheltered valley or upon the storm beaten hill in the close forest or upon the open down nature does her part without intermission or error and while the results are so many and so beautiful the causes are those qualities with which the fiat of the Almighty endowed the elements when it was his pleasure to speak the into existence.

Etc Etc

Professor Michael Strevens: The Knowledge Machine

On the inside of  the dust jacket to his new book: "The Knowledge Machine: How an Unreasonable Idea Created Modern Science" Professor Michael Strevens writes:  

"...science calls on its practitioners to do something apparently irrational: to strip away all previous knowledge - such as religious, metaphysical or political beliefs - in order to channel unprecedented energy into observation and experiment.'

Interestingly, it was certainly his religious heresy and possibly also his membership, as a Scottish regional representative (see here), of the radical political reformist Chartist movement that led 19th century writers, including some natural scientists (such as john Lindley, who despised and feared the Chartists), to do the dirty on Matthew (see here) or else fear to be associated with his bombshell 1831 breakthrough of the origination of the theory of evolution by what he called the  'natural process of selection.'

Then in the 21st century, the breakthrough of Big Data searching in Google's library of millions of books (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) allowed me (see e.g. Sutton 2015) to find and then to observe in the historical publication record that it is a science myth that no naturalist read Matthew's theory before Darwin and Wallace replicated it (along with many of his essential highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples and analogies). Moreover, I then conducted and experiment (here) to reveal how even to this day the quasi-religious cultish Darwin Industry is involved in  fact denial of what exists in the printed publication record about what 19th century readers wrote on Matthew and his theory before Darwin (1858, 1859) and Wallace (1855, 1858) plagiarized it and then defended their action by claiming no single person had read Matthew's theory before he claimed it was his in a published letter of 1860.

Therefore, it is scientific attitude and techniques that allowed the "knowledge machine" of science, based upon independently verifiable new data, to replace the myth of Darwin's and Wallace's miracle independent conceptions of a prior published theory (that was read and cited by their friends and influencers before they replicated it See Sutton 2017) with the facts of their plagiarism of Matthew and historical and modern day machinations of Darwin fanatics to try to bury the facts of it from the wider public. 

Strevens (p. 7) reasons that the fundamental rule of science is that any dispute between people about what is the truth of something must be made made with refence to empirical evidence. However, that said, he points out that the significance of the evidence is a separate matter and must be determined outside of this "Iron Rule" of evidence. 

Regarding the new data that I uncovered, which proves all the scientists were wrong to parrot Darwin's lie that no single person read Patrick Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber, that data is evidence Matthew's book was read, because at least 30 people are now proven to have cited it in the literature before Darwin and Wallace replicated the theory in it in 1858. To date, the only arguments made against the argument that Darwin plagiarised Matthew are unscientific arguments, because they are based on no evidence. Take for example, Moore's unscientific knee jerk rejection argument against the Darwin Plagiarised Matthew Hypothesis (in Knapton 2014) - a ludicrous argument that is on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page as though it is valid rather than unscientific opinion:

“I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.”

In reply to Moore, at least according to the hard evidence of his unevidenced reply to the New Data evidence of  Darwin's plagiarism and his proven lies about Matthew (Sutton 2017), "I would be extremely surprised if he knows what a scientific argument is, or how to conduct one."

Strevens (p.24) points out that most scientists do not follow any particular paradigm because they believe it is well supported by the evidence, or because it is the "official one" or because it is the one best funded, instead the reason the follow it is because they cannot imagine the truth being different to it. And on p. 25) he explains further: 

"Scientists, like anyone else, see and understand things at any one time from a particular worldview ...it shuts down scientists' capacity to comprehend genuine novelty. ...if the old worldview is incompatible with the new, then you can't see the new view from the perspective of the old either. The new view is simply out of sight."

On page 98, Strevens tells us that what works against this problem in science is what he calls "The Iron Rule" and that is data from observations or experiment that confirm or disconfirm current ideas, knowledge claims, hypothesis and theories.

"The iron rule encourages, instructs, obliges, or forces contending scientists to engage each other with observable fact alone. ...The rule thereby harnesses the oldest emotions to drive the extraordinary attention to process and detail that makes science the discriminator and destroyer of false ideas."

And it was by way of my application of this iron rule to bust with newly detected observable facts in the historical publication record the self-serving supermyth started by Darwin that the theory of  macroevolution by the natural process of slection that is in Patrick Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' (NTA) was totally unread by anyone whatsoever/any naturalist before Darwin and Wallace replicated it in 1858. I found at least 30 people cited NTA in the literature pre-1858, and that means many more, probably many thousands more besides, read Matthew's 1831 theory before 1858. Because most people who read something do not then go into published print to write about it. Especially not when to do so breaks the scientific and wider establishment strictures against writing anything that questions theological doctrine about the origin of species on our planet, which was the case in the first half of the 19th century, before Robert Chambers (newly discovered to have cited NTA pre 1858) put evolution in the air in his anonymously authored best selling book 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' and was then acknowledged by Wallace as his greatest influencer, and was also avidly read by Darwin pre-1858.

                                                                            ~~~

With apologies to Longfellow, here is a little bit of educational doggerel for all you other fact-hater Darwin super fans out there:

And Nature the old Nurse, took
    The professor upon her knee,

Saying, 'Here is a story, un-cooked

    By Darwin for thee.

Come wander with me, she said

    Into books buried, yet undead,

And read what is still unread

    In the manuscripts you dread.'

And he wandered deeper and deeper

    With Nature, the dear old Nurse,

Who sang to him night and day

    The truth of the universe.

Brian J. Ford on Charles Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Prior Published Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

In his  famous book Nonscience, first published in 1971, top scientists Brian J Ford wrote on Charles Darwin's misappropriation of the theory of evolution by natural selection by opportunistically seizing the prime moment when society was finally ready to accept such heresy, that had been prior published by others but stamped in the gutter by Christian naturalists. Robert Chambers (who new Big Data research I conducted - e.g. see Sutton 2015 - revealed had earlier twice cited Patrick Matthew's publications containing Matthew's original bombshell breakthrough in the area) had cleared the way with his best seller The Vestiges of Creation - and both Darwin and Wallace admitted that Chambers influenced them. Wallace went further and wrote that Chambers was his greatest influencer. 

'Charles Darwin... writing his thesis at exactly its most fashionistic time , when everyone was discussing it. He wasn't the first to propose his particular interpretation, of course, but his use of fashionism and the clothing of the argument in detaied observations of animals in general made the whole project an obvious winner.'

                                Ford, B. J. (1971. p 142) Nonscience, Wolfe Publishing Ltd. London

Ford built upon this critical observation in 2011 in an article entitled Darwin: The Microscopist Who Didn't Discover Evolution. By Brian J. Ford. The Microscope. 59:3, 2011. pp 129-137.

In that article Ford wrote:

'Darwin neither discovered evolution as a general concept, nor did he discover evolution by natural selection.' 

And:

 'Darwin is set on a pedestal as though he were Einstein or Copernicus, and anyone doubting adherence to this conventional view risks ostracism. In science, as much as in religion, we can find extreme views that fly in the face of realities.' Click here to read that article.

In October 2020 Ford's Nonscience was updated and re-published by the science publisher Curtis Press

In this new edition Ford (2020, pp 72-73) goes much further to reveal that Darwin plagiarised the entire theory from Patrick Matthew's (1831) book:

'Some 27 years earlier, the theory had been published by someone Darwin didn't know - Patrick Matthew. ... Darwin omitted mention of these earlier investigators when he wrote his book. ...Matthew on reading Darwin's words was was horrified and he complained. Charles Darwin wrote back: "I freely acknowledge that Mr Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered on the origin of species under the name of natural selection. If another edition of my book is called for, I will insert a notice to the foregoing effect." He didn't. Three editions of Darwin's book came out before Matthew's name crept in - and that is the secret of Darwin's success. His theory wasn't original, but he didn't say so. The earlier publications had caused growing interest in evolution, so that - by the time the Origin of Species appeared - everybody wanted to know more. That's the rule. Fashionism is what matters. Not originality. And certainly not integrity.'

In 2020 Ford purchase, read, and then reviewed Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret on Amazon. Here.

Meanwhile the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society - the very same journal that by descent published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarising articles in 1858 is involved in publishing a series of articles by Weale (who wrote malicious poison pen correspondence to the VC of Nottingham Trent University to try to get me fired for defending my original research. His malicious and jealous complaint was formally investigated and rejected for being completely silly, and weirdly disingenuous) Dagg (who like Weale has plagiarised my research in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society) and Derry, (a malicious and obscene cyberstalking harasser who regularly writes to Nottingham Trent University whose legal department has him under notice of prosecution for harassment) to try to argue - ludicrously - that Darwin did not plagiarise Matthew because each had a different theory. Why - besides the obvious malicious intentions of these three (more on their malicious behaviour here) - is that desperate Linnean Society project ludicrous? The answer is simply because their three papers amount to little more than fact denial desperate codswallop. The latest of their instalments was published in 2020 in the same journal, by descent, that, back in 1858, published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's original theory. This is a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from the verfiable facts of the newly discovered data (e.g. Sutton 2015) that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior published theory. Darwin worshipping malicious idiots Derry and Dagg are arguing - in a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from Darwin's newly proven plagiarism of Matthew -  Matthew's theory was not essentially the same as Darwin's even though both Darwin (1860) and Wallace (1879) said it was. As though Dagg the plagiarist of my research and Derry the obscene harasser and cyberstalker (facts of their disgraceful behaviour are here) know more than Darwin and Wallace did about their own (replicating) work. The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is now  total joke. Birds of a feather certainty flock together. The facts of Dagg's plagiarism of my research in that journal are here.

Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "" I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he wrote: "In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that presently to be alluded to propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the Linnean Journal and as that enlarged on in the present volume." Moreover, as if that is not enough to show what utter tripe the Dagg and Derry Show is Darwin himself, being one of the world's three foremost experts of all time on natural selection (those three being Matthew. Darwin and Wallace), acknowledged this in a letter to Patrick Matthew dated 13th June 1862: “I presume I have the pleasure of addressing the author of the work on Naval Architecture and the first enunciator of the theory of Natural Selection.”

For his part, Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and  "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat".Aso in 1879b Wallace wrote: "Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call  attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."

In their desperate fact denial smog-article Dagg and Derry  - arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:  

"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes"

What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (bold and underlined emphasis added here): 

"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."

And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.

Leading Biologist Brian J Ford @brianjford read and then reviews my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT

Proper academics like Brian J. Ford know what plagiarism is. Fact denial Darwin fanatics don't want you to know the bombshell 💣facts. pic.twitter.com/r9frnv8O0U

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 4, 2020

The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article

Reader: beware of desperate fact denial malicious smog-apes like Dagg the Plagiarist and Derry the Obscene Harasser who also share the nasty pseudo scholarly habit of representing their own falsehoods by misrepresentation of precise facts written by others and the context in which they are published.

I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its shameful publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact Derry provides what certainly appears to me to be a fake personal address for his serial dishonest self on the ludicrously childish Dagg & Derry Show 2020 article as 30 Yeaman Place Edinburgh, EH11, which is actually the very precise address of a pub (archived for evidence here) for which Derry wrote a scathing review in 2020. Here and archived here? In his scathing reviews of the pub at 30 Yeaman Place, Derry calls it his local since 2012. Really? How local? So local he lives in or above it? 

Typical of Derry, he posts his savaging reviews of "The Golden Rule" - his supposed address - all over the Internet e.g. also on Trip Adviser (archived here for evidence).

With extreme irony, when it comes to the topic of plagiarism and lies, Darwin said he had a "Golden Rule". Read about that fact here.

.

#

The disgraced plagiarism facilitating @BiolJLinnSoc published by @OxUniPress is at it again. This time allowing a malicious, serially dishnobscene cyberstalker & his plagiarist associate to misrepresent my research in order to keep the Patrick Matthew Supermyth going: https://t.co/8xWt2ilXnV

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 4, 2020

.  

.

.

Indeed, we know plagiarism from (ahem) personal experience. Plagiarists unwittingly admit two key facts: first, they can't think of anything to do by themselves, and secondly, they know your ideas are far better than theirs. Backhanded it may be, but it's a compliment!

— brianjford (@brianjford) October 4, 2020

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society publishes more Absolute Claptrap

Everyone knows Charles Darwin’s idea of ‘survival of the fittest', but Brian J Ford says the theory was never Darwin’s.

Read more in Nonscience Returns. Preorder now: https://t.co/aj6UPOoVTD #nonscience #brianjford #sciencepublisher #nonfiction #mustread pic.twitter.com/ES4k3mTpMb

— Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) September 28, 2020

More amazing fact denial desperate codswallop published in 2020 in the same journal, by descent, that, back in 1858, published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's original theory. This is a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from the verfiable facts of the newly discovered data (e.g. Sutton 2015) that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior published theory. Darwin worshipping malicious idiots Derry and Dagg are arguing - in a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from Darwin's newly proven plagiarism of Matthew -  Matthew's theory was not essentially the same as Darwin's even though both Darwin (1860) and Wallace (1879) said it was. As though Dagg the plagiarist of my research and Derry the obscene harasser and cyberstalker (facts of their disgraceful behaviour are here) know more than Darwin and Wallace did about their own (replicating) work. The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is now  total joke. Birds of a feather certainty flock together. The facts of Dagg's plagiarism of my research in that journal are here.

Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "" I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he wrote: "In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that presently to be alluded to propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the Linnean Journal and as that enlarged on in the present volume." Moreover, as if that is not enough to show what utter tripe the Dagg and Derry Show is Darwin himself, being one of the world's three foremost experts of all time on natural selection (those three being Matthew. Darwin and Wallace), acknowledged this in a letter to Patrick Matthew dated 13th June 1862: “I presume I have the pleasure of addressing the author of the work on Naval Architecture and the first enunciator of the theory of Natural Selection.”

For his part, Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and  "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat".Aso in 1879b Wallace wrote: "Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call  attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."

In their desperate fact denial smog-article Dagg and Derry  - arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:  

"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes"

What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (bold and underlined emphasis added here): 

"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."

And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.

Leading Biologist Brian J Ford @brianjford read and then reviews my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT

The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article

Reader: beware of desperate fact denial malicious smog-apes like Dagg the Plagiarist and Derry the Obscene Harasser who also share the nasty pseudo scholarly habit of representing their own falsehoods by misrepresentation of precise facts written by others and the context in which they are published.

I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its shameful publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact Derry provides what certainly appears to me to be a fake personal address for his serial dishonest self on the ludicrously childish Dagg & Derry Show 2020 article as 30 Yeaman Place Edinburgh, EH11, which is actually the very precise address of a pub (archived for evidence here) for which Derry wrote a scathing review in 2020. Here and archived here? In his scathing reviews of the pub at 30 Yeaman Place, Derry calls it his local since 2012. Really? How local? So local he lives in or above it? 

Typical of Derry, he posts his savaging reviews of "The Golden Rule" - his supposed address - all over the Internet e.g. also on Trip Adviser (archived here for evidence).

With extreme irony, when it comes to the topic of plagiarism and lies, Darwin said he had a "Golden Rule". Read about that fact here.

The disgraced plagiarism facilitating Biological Journal of the  Linnean Society, published by OxUniPress is at it again. This time allowing a malicious, serially obscene cyberstalker & his plagiarist associate to misrepresent my research in order to keep the Patrick Matthew Supermyth going: https://t.co/8xWt2ilXnV

Indeed, we know plagiarism from (ahem) personal experience. Plagiarists unwittingly admit two key facts: first, they can't think of anything to do by themselves, and secondly, they know your ideas are far better than theirs. Backhanded it may be, but it's a compliment!

Darwin's Racism: An excellent book by Leon Zitzer

 

Dr Mike Sutton

5.0 out of 5 stars 

Amazon deleted the following review. But, despite such juvenile silly brute censorship of the facts

by those afraid to rock the boat of proven science mythology with verifiable veracity, the exact same

review can be found on Goodreads and in on the site of the Daily Journalist. Have a read and then 

ask your self why on Earth would Amazon delete it?  Do they employ White supremacists? Are 

anti-Semites deleting all of Zitzer's reviews? What on Earth is going on at Amazon?

The original, Amazon deleted, review comes and goes on Amazon. Yesterday they deleted it. Today

(October 3rd 2020) they re-installed it. I have archived it for scholars interested in how the 

facts about Darwin's plagiarism and racism are being censored. Here.

Darwin's Racism: The Definitive Case, Along with a Close Look at Some of the 

Forgotten, Genuine Humanitarians of That Time

                                                                                    by 

Leon Zitzer

Mike Sutton's Book Review

t

it was amazing

.

This excellent book will not be read by authoritarian credulous, independently verifiable fact denial, Darwin worshippers who exist in a blissful total state of denial about the data that proves Charles Darwin was a racist, whose works - read by Western colonisers and German WW2 Nazis - undoubtedly led to various holocausts.

Zitzer provides direct quotations from Darwin's letters and book "The Descent of Man" to absolutely prove Charles Darwin believed and promoted the idiotic pseudoscience that Black people have smaller brains and should to be classified as a sub-species of human. Moreover, the scientific establishment darling Darwin believed the plight of native peoples under the heel and rifle of Westerners was fully justified as a force of nature "natural selection" as opposed to earlier and contemporary writers of his time who explained such mass murder was not natural at all but a deliberate, unnecessary, unjust and ignorant disgrace. I particularly like Zitzer's use of Lewis Caroll's work to tellingly reveal just how insidious and wilfully ignorant Darwin's influential work was in terms of allowing Western powers to neutralise their guilt and carry on killing.

If only Zitzer had read the work of various author's that prove Darwin and Wallace plagiarised the entire theory of evolution by natural selection from the 1831 book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" by Patrick Matthew. That book - which fitted what Matthew coined "the natural process of selection" (Darwin 1859 slyly four word shuffled Matthew's original phrase to "process of natural selection") into why naval timber was essential for colonial conquest and national superiority in war and trade - was followed by Matthew's second book "Emigration Fields", which took Matthew's bombshell ideas forward to serve as a manual for colonialization of the so-called "New World".

Leon Zitzer would, I am sure, be interested to learn Matthew's 1831 book was cited by Chambers and his orignal terms were first replicated in print by Chambers, Rafinesque and many more naturalists before Darwin and Wallace penned a word on the topic of natural selection.

Thanks to Zitzer we are now seeing the true picture of what Darwin was.

Charles Darwin served the 19th and 20th centuries as a White, bearded, fatherly science hero. In reality, he was an underhand, extremely harmful, ignorant, opportunist plagiarist, serial lying white supremacist racist of the highest order. Or should that be of the lowest order? I'm not sure what is the correct terminology in that regard.

Darwin's legions of fanatical worshippers will hate the facts of this review as much as they will hate the facts in the book that is reviewed here. Why? Because they wish others not to know that their nasty, lethal godhead is a supermyth constructed and maintained by an authoritarian establishment and credulous begging for crumbs toadies such as themselves.

You can choose to be misled by the myth of Darwin. Alternatively, buy, read and then write your own review of this excellent book.

If I have any criticisms of this book - as any review of any book should - it is the amount of untranslated German quotations that are in one chapter and the fact the author thought Darwin originated the theory of evolution by natural selection. But no book is perfect. This one should be read and it deserves to be reviewed and discussed extensively.

.

The review Amazon deleted under pressure from rabid Darwinist extremist fact deniers is here: https://t.co/JWQ1mQYjM9

Judge for yourself why Amazon deleted it. Is Amazon operated by White supremacists or anti-Semites?

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 2, 2020

Darwin the racist III

 .

Charles Darwin the plagiarist and racist only spoke out against slavery to be fashionable: https://t.co/nj2Nivccxe

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 25, 2020

.

Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew's theory of natural selection only because Robert Chambers, who earlier x2 cited Matthew, had made it fashionable, rather than heretical. For fashionable reasons also, the racist opportunist git spoke out against slavery: https://t.co/QhFvpjyu03

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 25, 2020

. Darwin's Racism: The Definitive Case, Along with a Close Look at Some of the Forgotten, Genuine Humanitarians of That Time by Leon Zitzer
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This excellent book will not be read by authoritarian credulous, independently verifiable fact denial, Darwin worshippers who exist in a blissful total state of denial about the data that proves Charles Darwin was a racist, whose works - read by Western colonisers and German WW2 Nazis - undoubtedly led to various holocausts.

Zitzer provides direct quotations from Darwin's letters and book "The Descent of Man" to absolutely prove Charles Darwin believed and promoted the idiotic pseudoscience that Black people have smaller brains and should to be classified as a sub-species of human. Moreover, the scientific establishment darling Darwin believed the plight of native peoples under the heel and rifle of Westerners was fully justified as a force of nature "natural selection" as opposed to earlier and contemporary writers of his time who explained such mass murder was not natural at all but a deliberate, unnecessary, unjust and ignorant disgrace. I particularly like Zitzer's use of Lewis Caroll's work to tellingly reveal just how insidious and wilfully ignorant Darwin's influential work was in terms of allowing Western powers to neutralise their guilt and carry on killing.

If only Zitzer had read the work of various author's that prove Darwin and Wallace plagiarised the entire theory of evolution by natural selection from the 1831 book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" by Patrick Matthew. That book - which fitted what Matthew coined "the natural process of selection" (Darwin 1859 slyly four word shuffled Matthew's original phrase to "process of natural selection") into why naval timber was essential for colonial conquest and national superiority in war and trade - was followed by Matthew's second book "Emigration Fields", which took Matthew's bombshell ideas forward to serve as a manual for colonialization of the so-called "New World".

Leon Zitzer would, I am sue be interested to learn Matthew's 1831 book was cited by Chambers and his orignal terms were first replicated in print by Chambers, Rafinesque and many more naturalists before Darwin and Wallace penned a word on the topic of natural selection.

Thanks to Zitzer we are now seeing the true picture of what Darwin was.

Charles Darwin served the 19th and 20th centuries as a White, bearded, fatherly science hero. In reality, he was an underhand, extremely harmful, ignorant, opportunist plagiarist, serial lying white supremacist racist of the highest order. Or should that be of the lowest order? I'm not sure what is the correct terminology in that regard.

Darwin's legions of fanatical worshippers will hate the facts of this review as much as they will hate the facts in the book that is reviewed here. Why? Because they wish others not to know that their nasty, lethal godhead is a supermyth constructed and maintained by an authoritarian establishment and credulous begging for crumbs toadies such as themsleves.

You can choose to be misled by the myth of Darwin. Alternatively, buy, read and then write your own review this excellent book.

If I have any criticisms of this book - as any review of any book should - it is the amount of untranslated German quotations that are in one chapter and the fact the author thought Darwin originated the theory of evolution by natural selection. But no book is perfect. This one should be read and it deserves to be reviewed and discussed extensively.

View all my reviews

Terraforming: and Patrick Matthew

Veracity v Myth and Matthew V Darwin in the invention of terraforming

Based on the Supermyth that Darwin and Wallace uniquely and independently discovered the natural process of selection, there is a related, daughter, myth that Charles Darwin, together with his botanical mentor and best friend Joseph Hooker uniquely invented terraforming by way of what they did on Ascension Island (e.g. that story here).

In reality it is Patrick Matthew, the plagiarized and cheated 1831 originator of the theory of natural selection, whose research and observations of nature provided the factual and theoretical base for terraforming.

When, in 1831, Matthew published his theory in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it contained, amongst other religious heresy at the time, the heresy that trees could grow better in other than their "natural" habitats when transplanted there by humans. This heresy was heretical because it went against then Christian doctrine that "God", as designer and creator, placed every living thing in its ideal location. Matthew's heresy probably just one of those that led his book to banned by Perth public Library in Scotland and for reviewers to demand readers not even think about his ruminations on the laws of nature. Indeed, Selby (a regular church-going Christian naturalist, who I, in 2014, 2014a, 2015 see my later 2016 paperback uniquely discovered cited Matthew's book in 1842 and wrote that he could not understand this idea before going on to be chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper. NOTE: My Selby discovery was later plagiarized in the Linnean Journal by Dagg The Jealous and Sly Plagiarist - facts here).

In 1843, a year after Selby (1842) noted what Matthew had written abut some trees doing well outside their natural habitat, Joseph Hooker landed on Ascension Island (see here and here) and arranged for an abundance of different species of tree to be planted there.

Selby wrote that he could not understand how it could be so that Matthew said trees could do better when grown outside their natural habitat. See Prideaux John Selby, A History of British Forest-Trees: Indigenous and Introduced, Van Voorst, London 1842. In this way, whether he really could understand it (but pretended otherwise to appease the powerful church) or not, Selby drew attention to Matthew's heresy. Later it was picked up upon as no more than an important fact for economic botany and cited prominently by William Hooker's (William being Joseph Hooker's father and also a friend of the Darwin and his wife) correspondent William Jameson in 1853 (facts here).

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:

"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."

Darwin and his cronies capitalized upon the opportunistic fact Matthew had been earlier silenced in the first half of the 19th century when the church was still in its ascendancy to steal his ideas. Indeed, while Matthew mocked the church and priests, in many editions of the Origin of Species Darwin kept the notion of "The Creator" in as a supernatural deity that created evolution by natural selection.