Scotland: This Is Your Fight! End Darwin's 155 Years of Punterization of All Our People.

One day, Scotland will have Patrick Matthew on the back of it's £10 note.

 

  Not for nothing was the great Maya Angelou at the front of the audience listening to Dick Gaughan.

So as not to face their significance, people may not fully engaged with dreadful facts. The range of denial devices used by those in a ‘state of denial’ include what Cohen (2001) terms 'canny unresponsiveness', ‘psychotic negation of manifest facts’, ‘lying to convince your listeners and reinforce your own denial of the real facts’, ‘negation by wishful-thinking’ ‘evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’, ‘victim blaming for their predicament’, ‘withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’ and ‘compartmentalization’. These various manifestations of denial relieve the recipients of dreadful facts from immediate anxiety but, paradoxically, denial’s comforts create long-term dangers, against which we must remain alert.

The world's leading evolutionary biologists admit that Matthew was first to publish the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. But scant attention has been paid to how Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science was stolen from him by the lies, fallacies and poor scholarship of Darwin and his Darwinists. Here is a list of just some of the tactics they employed: 

1. Darwin's and Wallace's friend, John Lindley's (1853) Matthew glory stealing giant redwood seeds bogus priority claiming fallacy.

2. Wallace's replicating plagiarism of Matthew's original conception and unique explanatory examples in his 1855 and 1858 papers.

3. Darwin's (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener's Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.

4. Darwin's friend, Professor David Anstead - or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly added footnotes on his article - mockingly rubbishing Matthew in the Dublin University Magazine (January to June in 1860) effectively writing that he was an over opinionated crank who had written nothing original. The footnote can be read here. The Saturday Analyst and Leader (1860) then did the same thing.

5. In a gushing review of Darwin's Origin of Species. Charles Dickens's Magazine 'All the Year Round' (1860) quoted a paragraph of Matthew's (1831) original prose yet never cited Matthew as its source. The uncited quote is to be found here.

6. The Dundee platform blocking of Matthew at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.

7. Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Ernst Mayr's and Sir Gavin de Beer's published glory stealing fallacies that the original ideas in Matthew's book went completely unread/unread by any biologists - before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860.

8. Richard Dawkins's pseudo-scholarly history and context free typical "state of denial" victim blaming of Matthew for what Darwin and his adoring Darwinists did to him.

DARWINIST DYSOLOGY

In addition to confirming the importance of understanding repeat victimization, their 100 per cent proven Darwinist fallacy spreading and dreadful pseudo-scholarly treatment of the facts confirms that the Dysology Hypothesis explains the Darwin Worship Industry's biased history of the discovery of natural selection:

'Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.'

.@Fact Tell Richard @RichardDawkins and Darwin's other silly lovers @rdfrs @DawkinsDog : https://t.co/FLZbi7tgXG pic.twitter.com/t8cN0aaeDU

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) February 9, 2016

A Criminological Comparison

The following comparison may appear odd, but I would argue no more odd than the similar ways experts in completely different areas can be so wrong about the subject of their claimed expertise in the most dissimilar of cases.

The Metropolitan Police Service officers who bungled the Colin Stagg Case, and top academic Darwinists who have bungled the history of discovery of natural selection have several key characteristics in common:

(1) Breathtaking incompetence

(2) Blinkered decision making

(3) Wholesale failure to follow evidence

(4) Justifying victimization by targeted injustice through a media process of what we might call: "obscure person weirdofication".

All four characteristics are evidenced in the materials provided about the story of Matthew Darwin and Wallace and the discovery of natural selection by clicking the supporting links to the eight numbered examples above.

Furthermore, in relation to characteristic 4, an expert psychologist and the Metropolitan Police used the media to portray Colin Stagg as an obscure personality disordered virgin loner who fits the profile of a rapist and murderer. As it turns out, he has never raped or murdered anyone in his life. Similarly, Darwin (from the 1861 third edition of the Origin of Species onward) and his Darwinists - in the press and Darwinist literature - portrayed Matthew as an obscure writer (a naturalist loner) with a delusional superiority complex who weirdly believed in meteorological catastrophic extinction events. As it turns out, Matthew was far from being an obscure writer (See Weale), Darwin's and Wallace's friend John Lindley perpetrated a proven great myth creation to rob Matthew of the fame and glory of being attributed with being first to introduce giant redwood trees into Britain, and Matthew is today proven correct by facts - as explained first by Dempster - (see also Rapino) and Darwin wrong, because meteorological extinction events most certainly happened.

The Metropolitan police finally apologised to Colin Stagg.

Darwinists have yet to apologise for Darwin and for their own poor scholarship in punterizing us all about Patrick Matthew.

Muddle-headed biased police officers took quite a while to realise they were totally wrong about Colin Stagg. We should perhaps not feel too surprised therefore that their counterparts in the Darwin worship industry are similarly slow on the uptake of new and independently verifiable disconfiriming evidence for their own credulous and biased beliefs. 

Many were convinced of Colin Stagg's guilt for a mere month or two. But "scientific" belief in the supernatural miracle of Darwin's and Wallace's dual immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published original hypothesis of natural selection - whilst surrounded and influenced by those who read it before they replicated it without citing Matthew, and then excused that behaviour by 100 per cent proven lying that none had read Matthew's original ideas before they replicated them - is over a century and a half old. And, amongst others who have been spreading the myth of Darwin, Wallace and Matthew, the Royal Society has been happily awarding Darwin medals to those who gladly parrot its namesake's proven, self-serving, glory stealing, lies as the gospel truth about Matthew. 

Were they to see and admit to the truth about the obvious and significant newly discovered facts in their field, Darwinists have far more than the the Metropolitan Police Service ever had to lose for doing so in theirs. This is because Darwinisits have a proud 155 year old tradition of credulous pseudo-scholarly Darwin worship and prolific output in "scholarly" publications on the topic. Consequently, we should perhaps expect it to take several years, therefore, for the new evidence to sink into the brains of Darwin scholars.

 Who knows, it may never sink in. Perhaps they will simply form the Church of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior Published Theory?

The Blindsight Paradox: Dare you click to see?

How an entire society becomes successfully puntersed? By "blindsight" of silliness of the "majority view" https://t.co/CpYidVrmGQ pic.twitter.com/AnxfUFQENj

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) February 3, 2016

The Blndsight Paradox

Blindsight protects individuals from the dangers of unbearable truth! But it is also, paradoxically, what we must look out for as a society. That is, if we wish to avoid the worst mass atrocities supported by "the majority view" (see Cohen 2001) .

Invoking Godwin's Law

After this photograph was taken, Nazi Germany went on to put this German man into a concentration camp. Then they killed him by conscripting him into a penal battalion of their army - made up of prisoners He died in the fighting in the Ukraine. They killed his wife in a concentration camp. They fostered out two of his children But it was all done in the name of "the majority view". 

The man is August Landmesser. In his day he was a "crank". Today he is our hero as: "The Man Who Refused to Give the Nazi Salute".

SUCCESSFUL PUNTERIZATION 

Alexander Fleming chain-smoked himself to an early death aged just 56

Einstein was successfully punterized to believe
 in the "majority view" propounded by the tobacco industry

Like so many, Charles Darwin was successfully punterized by the tobacco industry's creation of the "majority view" of its benefits and smoked himself undoubtedly into an earlier grave than necessary aged 73. But, by way of contrast, the original thinking "crank" Patrick Matthew, who lived to be 84,  wrote against the stupidity of the smoking habit in in 1839, which was the year after Darwin supposedly completed his first private unpublished notebook on the topic of natural selection. The full hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection was originally prior-published by Matthew in 1831.

 Despite all the obvious and significant evidence to the contrary, the majority view currently remains that Darwin independently discovered Matthew's original prior-published concept. In my considered opinion, today, in light of the facts, this particular "majority view" is just as silly as calling non-smokers "fresh air fiends" and non-Nazis cranks.

Dare you look at and see the "real facts"? 

Warning: Seeing and then acting upon the "real facts" on any issue against the blindsighted "majority view" can be mentally and physically overwhelming for some individuals. Consequently, I wonder: did we humans evolve blindsight, by natural selection, to stay sane, to avoid being murdered by the majority, to stay eligible in the breeding stakes? 

Think! Does it pay you not to "salute" the majority view?

If you can so dare, then see if you can, for the first time, see the dreadful, obvious and significant facts that may help you to overcome the successful punterizing power of the mighty Darwin Worship Industry to blindsight the minds of scientists, and the wider general public, to the veracious history of discovery of the unifying theory of biology, Namely, the theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Click to "see".

Proof Darwinists are in a Classic 'State of Denial' of Obvious and Significant Facts

When asked to say whether they were denying the fact Darwin is 100 per cent proven to have lied about the pre-1860 readership of Matthew's (1831) book that contains the first published explanation of macro evolution by natural selection, an anonymous Darwin scholar responded:

.@Dysology as before, and every time we dance this sad dirge to your cognition, my short answer is YES. My long answer is FUCK YES. @SITP

— THE DISSENT OF MAN (@DISSENTOFMAN) January 31, 2016

I  asked the Twitter account user "The Dissent of Man"  to let me have their name so that I could cite it for the record. After all, it is only right to cite what others publish - is it not? I'm sure they have no reason to hide. There was a bit of confusing procrastination involving a strange Twitter account user copying me into their Tweets whilst claiming - implicitly - to represent The Dissent of Man:

I really can't be arsed with this idiot. I've tried giving him what he wants. Anyone care to educate him? https://t.co/tWVqoUQ0cG

— Jafe (@JFDerry) February 1, 2016

Nevertheless,  I awaited their response to my request.

When a response finally came from it was from  the new "J.F. Derry" Twitter account. Laced with aggressive anger and foul vitriol. The author of the Twitter obsenties, J.F. Derry, has written a book about Darwin. He does seems to be a bit of a Troll. I wonder if this angry Darwinist will come to one of my public lectures? I would be most interested to see what he would do in such a case were I to ask him - as I would - to be so good as to kindly repeat these words in public, in my presence. Perhaps he would froth, rabidly, at the mouth again?

@Dysology Look here you supercilious cunt, I told you who I was immediately. Stuff ur haughty "Wasn't that hard for you was it?" up ur arse

— Jafe (@JFDerry) February 1, 2016

The first Twitter responses from "The Dissent of Man" is one very small item of hard evidence that perhaps  confirms Stanley Cohen's (2001) sociological concept of  'States of Denial' . The second from "J.F.Derry" is open to several possible interpretations that may or may not involve his unrealised, and hence subconscious, desire to wield both colposcope and proctoscope for a living or hobby.

A Typology of Cohen's Concept 'States of Denial' of obvious and significant facts.

And so there we have it, after considerable evasion, we finally learn that someone calling themselves  "J.F. Derry" and elsewhere - apparently - "The Dissent of Man" on Twitter has responded to my request to the account holder of  a Twitter account named "The Descent of Man" to name themselves.They respond as though  they hold the "Descent of Man" account. Who knows, but whatever the case, this "J.F, Derry" Twitter person also writes desperate foul language when cornered by the unbearable real facts they deny.

Such understandable anger.  Poor chap. Like so many Darwin worshippers, he's been successfully punterized by Darwin and the Darwin Worship Industry.

As I collected more data from Twitter users responding to the facts of Darwin's serial lying, I found that one of J.F Derry's Twitter associates kindly copied me into his published thoughts. This chap's Twitter account name is "Thony Christie", and from what he writes, it is clear that he is equally annoyed by  my insistence on sharing the independently verifiable "real facts" discovered by my research. He believes this defines me as mentally ill. How amusing and interesting.  Well, if I'm mentally ill - I'd sure as hell hate to be as "sane" as him.

@Dysology You do realise that you are displaying all the symptoms of severe mental illness. @JFDerry

— Thony Christie (@rmathematicus) February 1, 2016

Perhaps, for being successfully, credulously, straitjacketed by the Darwinist Worship Industry's punterization - "Thorny Christie" has never discovered anything veracious in his life that goes against a factually incorrect majority view in this particular field of inquiry? Whatever the case, he  is most welcome to the 'New Data' that I have originally contributed to the history of discovery of natural selection. And likewise, I must thank him for his public response to that data. Because his published response, and the published  response of Derry, is now public domain data to be used by anyone who so cares to use it in future peer reviewed sociology publications on how paradigm changing discoveries in science are first received by the masses.

Conclusion

In order to further explore the applicability of the concept of 'states of denial' in the history of the discovery of natural selection, I started an appropriately sane discussion thread on Dr Mike Weale's "Patrick Matthew Project" website. The link to that thread is here.

 I confronted Dr Mike Weale with his denial of the exact same obvious significance of the facts Darwin was a serial liar.  The text below is my comment on Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project website:

Mike the facts Darwin lied are both obvious and significant.

Matthew published facts. And those facts were read by Darwin.

Darwin then immediately published a fallacy that was the very opposite to those facts published by Matthew. Obviously, therefore Darwin’s published fallacy is a lie. And it is both obvious and significant that the lie is told by Darwin because his fallacy (lie) serves as an excuse for Darwin’s replication (without citing) the prior published original ideas of Matthew.

Moreover:

Matthew in response to Darwin’s lie:  

Matthew then published a second lot of facts that directly refutes the first lie that Darwin wrote about Matthew’s first published facts. So Darwin’s second fallacy is obviously and significantly yet another lie, because Darwin published the exact same fallacy about the second lot of facts Matthew provided him with as he did for the first. Consequently, Darwin’s behaviour is doubly dishonest, because Darwin repeats the lie on having read Matthew’s fact-based refutation of their first very self-serving lie – the very one Darwin first published as a fallacious excuse for not citing Matthew’s prior-published work.

The obvious and significant facts are that Matthew (1860) informed Darwin his original ideas on natural selection were read by (1) the naturalist John Loudon in 1832, (2) by an unnamed naturalist professor of eminent university in around 1845 (15 years earlier) – who feared pillory punishment were he to teach those original ideas, and (3) by whoever it was at the Public Library of Perth who banned his book for the heretical original ideas on natural selection in it. And then – having read those three obvious and significant facts, Darwin lied and lied and lied again that the original ideas in Matthews book were not read: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23118%2c23118

Anyone not considering this data – that shows Darwin’s fallacious responses to both of Matthew’s letters in the Gardener’s Chronicle (1860) – as obvious and significant facts that prove Darwin was a self-serving liar is obviously in a “state of denial” – in my considered opinion.

The question is what kind of obvious and significant fact denier might one in such a “state of denial” of these obvious and significant facts of Darwin’s self-serving and blatant serial lying be?

If not a “psychotic negator” (surely the worst kind) how about one who is at 3 or 4 in Cohen’s typology of those n a “state of denial” of the obvious and significant facts:

• ‘ Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’?
• ‘Negation by wishful thinking’?

In the Interests of History: Do justice to the truth

Don't Delete Our Disturbing Past: Label it instead!

Oxford University's Oriel College just managed to stave off a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes. He may have done a lot for scholarship at Oxford with his endowments, but his racist views and atrocious racist activities in South Africa offend many students. You can read the story here   .

The pulling down of statues is something that we humans tend to do when times change.

Around the world, we have pulled down many statues of Lenin.   .

ISIS are currently doing the same with ancient statues that offend them   .

Might I suggest a more enlightened educational approach. Why not simply label these "offensive" memorials - exactly as curators veraciously label exhibits in a museum?

Dysology.orgAttribution

Rhodes's Statue: Oxford University

PatrickMatthew.comAttribution

Charles Darwin's statue. Natural History.Museum. London

Charles Darwin is newly 100 per cent proven to have lied in order to create a number of myths that enabled him to get away with plagiarizing Patrick Matthew's prior published and cited hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection and convince us all that no one read Matthew's ideas before he replicated them without citing Matthew. Read the facts here.   

As a spokesperson for Oriel College at Oxford University said    of the decision to remove a plaque that celebrated Rhodes, but to keep his statue:

"...by adding context, “we can help draw attention to this history, do justice to the complexity of the debate, and be true to our educational mission”

What a marvellous sentiment. Might I propose it is seriously adopted.

In the interests of veracity - let us get those labels up.

I will even pay all the costs for the one for Darwin. Hell, I'll make it myself and cast it in bronze!

Feel free to use the infomatic below in any way you see fit

Lightning Strikes Not Just Twice, but more than Thrice, As it So Often Does With Crime and Delinquency: Patrick Matthew was a Repeat Victim of ' Glory Theft by Fallacy Coining'

I think it quite reasonable to suggest that it rather looks like Patrick Matthew was fraudulently cheated by yet another Victorian naturalist. The victimization happened two years before Wallace (1855, 1858) and five years before Charles Darwin (1858, 1859, 1860, 1861) first  and subsequently repeat victimized Matthew by replicating his (Matthew 1831) prior-published work without citing it. And all three of these delinquent scientists were closely connected to William Hooker, the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker.

Let me explain

Given the obvious and significant facts that for 13 years Patrick Matthew and his son John Matthew were cheated by Professor John Lindley out of their right to be celebrated as the first to introduce and propagate giant redwoods in Britain, we cannot rule out the possibility that Matthew was deliberately and cunningly defrauded of his glory by this so-called Victorian 'gentleman of science' seven years before Darwin wrote cunning lies about Matthew's book not being read in order to excuse himself for replicating the original ideas and explanatory examples in it. Darwin lied to cheat Matthew out of his right to be acknowledged as not just first in print, but also the first to influence other naturalists (pre-1858) with his original discovery of natural selection.

If there is one thing criminologists know that comes close to a natural law, it is that, where a variety of particular crime types are concerned, whether it be against a person, place or thing, lightning is quite likely to strike a victim at least twice (see: Farrell 1992). In other words: victimization predicts victimisation. Matthew was a repeat victim of  glory theft by fallacy coining. First by Lindley and then by Darwin. Both offenders stole Matthew's glory in order to enhance their own reputations by publishing falsehoods at the expense of Matthew. Both were members of the Royal Society, Linnean Society and the Royal Horticultural Society. Moreover, although several letters between them are missing, Darwin and Lindley were prolific correspondents from 1843! We know also that Alfred Wallace (1855, 1858)- another who was closely connected to Lindley through his mentor - and Lindley's best friend William Hooker  - replicated Matthew's (1831) original conception, ideas and explanatory examples - claiming to have alighted on them independently of anyone else whilst in a unique in the history  of discovery state of malarial fever! In reality, it is newly discovered (Sutton 2014) that Selby, the editor of Wallace's famous 1855 Sarawak paper  on organic evolution had read and cited Matthew's ideas in 1842, which is the same year Darwin claims he privately penned his first essay on the topic.

Darwin and Lindley communicated on the Theory of Morphological Structure in 1843, which Lindley supported and which Darwin knew supported the theory of natural selection because it dis-confirmed the majority view of the time that each species was created perfect and immutable. 

It may be significant that Darwin and Lindley both knew Veitch well. Veitch supplied Darwin with many orchid seeds. And it was he (James Veitch Senior) who supplied Lindley with giant redwood seeds and shared - at massive expense to Patrick Matthew - the bogus credit with William Lobb and Lindley for supposedly first introducing,  and propagating, the seeds in Britain. 

On 9th January 2016, (Sutton 2016a) it was discovered that, for 13 years, at great reputational expense to Matthew, that Professor John Lindley - a correspondent of both Darwin and Wallace with a deep interest in evolution of species -  hoodwinked the world that he and Lobb and Veitch were the first to introduce the hugely admired giant Californian redwood into Britain and the first to propagate them. The Lindley-Lobb Myth was only debunked in the press in 1866 -  three years after Veitch died, two years after Lobb's demise and exactly a year after Lindley's death. In fact, Patrick Matthew and his son John are proven to be first to introduce the giant redwoods into Britain and that Patrick Matthew was first to propagate them.  Most significantly, the magazine, of which Lindley was Editor, had long held  a letter from Matthew that proved it!

The obvious and significant facts reveal that Patrick Matthew was a repeat victim of glory theft by fallacy coining - first by Lindley, then by his correspondent Wallace,  then by their mutual correspondent Darwin (Sutton 2016b). This multiple victimisation of Matthew - at different times, but for the same academic crime of significant 'glory theft' by fallacy coining', by Lindley, Wallace and Darwin - three keenly co-operative co-correspondents, with a shared understanding that species evolved - is unique and most remarkable in the history of scientific discovery if it is only a mere multiple coincidence.

 It is quite possible that Lindley (the best friend of the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) received Matthew's letter at the Gardener's Chronicle in August, September - or even October - and got a message to Lobb via Veitch to go after the seeds and bring a large number back to Britain.  That would explain (1) why Lobb, via Veitch, delivered the seeds to Lindley, (2) Lindley's replication of John Matthew's earlier (indeed the earliest known to date) use of the name Wellingtonia to describe giant redwood trees and (3) why the truth that Matthew was first into Britain with giant redwood seeds was hidden from the public for 13 years following Lindley's fallacious claim, yet revealed three years after James Veitch (Sr.) died, two years after William Lobb died, and exactly a year after Lindley's death in the very same journal Lindley published it whilst its editor. 

Lindley was also a correspondent of Alfred Wallace.  There is one undated letter held by the Linnean Society (containing a seed) that he is supposed to have sent to Wallace. If there was more to this mysterious letter than the origin of the seed being from the Moluccas, it appears to have "gone missing". It is rather odd that Lindley would be the one to send Wallace a seed originating 'from the Moluccas'. Ternate is from where Wallace sent his famous Ternate paper to Darwin in 1858. Ternate is an Island among the Moluccas Islands. 

Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper set down his marker on the topic of macroevolution by natural slection, and his (1858) Ternate paper replicated. without citing Matthew, Matthew's (1831) original hypothesis of natural selection, along with many of his explanatory examples - including his original Natural versus Artificial Selection Analogy of Differences (see Sutton 2014). Like Darwin, Wallace claimed to have conceived Matthew's prior-published ideas and examples independently of Matthew or anyone else. 

Glory theft, victimized a fourth time, Matthew's right to stand before the scientific community and speak of his original discovery of natural selection was thwarted when he was disgracefully platform blocked by the British Association for Advancement of Science in 1868 (Sutton 2014a and 2014b).  Chambers was there - who cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1832. Wallace was there - who replicated Matthew's work in his 1855 Sarawa paper edited by Selby - who cited Matthew's book in 1842 - and further in his Ternate Paper of 1858 and therein replicated Mathew's natural slection hypothesis as well as his original natural versus artificial slection analogy of differences (here). And Lyell - Darwin's great friend and geological mentor - was there as guest of honour no less. 

Trash Talkling Darwinists and the Patrick Matthew Burial Project

Public Domain

Professor David Anstead

In science, being first has always been everything (see my RationalWki essay)     and under the Royal Society's rules - as enshrined in the Arago Effect - no amount of confirmatory evidence gathering can ever transmute a prior published hypothesis into your own.

Yet when it was shown tin 1860 hat Patrick Matthew beat Darwin and Wallace by 27 years to publish the full hypothesis of natural selection , Darwin capitulated immediately in the press and admitted as much. But that was far from the end of it, because what should have been named Matthewism is today called Darwinism because Darwin's powerful friends, closed ranks on his behalf - and for the most part simply ignored Matthew. Unable to ignore his pending paper at their conference, however, powerful members of the British Society for Advancement of Science slyly platform blocked him from speaking about his discovery (see Sutton 2014    for the full disgraceful details).

Two of Darwin;s supporters went so far as to "trash-talk" the situation in 1860 - signifying Matthew as an unoriginal crank. And this same shamefully ignorant Darwinist defense dysology is still wheeled out by desperate Darwin supporters to this day.

Back in the 19th century, Darwin's friend, Professor David Anstead - or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly adding footnotes on his article - mockingly rubbished Matthew in the Dublin University Magazine (January to June) in 1860)    effectively writing that he was an over opinionated crank who had written nothing original. The footnote can be read here    .

Matthew sent a letter to the Dublin University Magazine in February 1860- three months before the Gardener's Chronicle published his letter of April 1860. They ignored that letter until after April 1860. Although Darwin had admitted in print - in reply to Matthew's April letter in the Gardener's Chronicle that Matthew had got the whole unique theory right 28 years earlier, the Dublin University Magazine (1860) pretended the truth was otherwise and that Matthew had written nothing new:

'In the Gardener's Chronicle for 7th February 1860 is a long communication from Mr Patrick Matthew of Gourdie, NB the author of a treatise 'On Naval Timber and Architecture,' in 1831, in which a claim is made by the author to have been the originator of Mr Darwin's theory of natural selection. In a letter to the editor of this journal Mr Matthew has repeated the claim and considers himself wronged by the remarks in our journal of February (vide p 235). We cannot however perceive, either in the extracts from his work, or in his remarks, any thing more than a repetition of a fact long familiarly known, namely that many species pass into each other by insensible gradations—a fact acknowledged by all naturalists, and to account for which, Lamarque's theory of the modification of specific characters was not the first invented. A statement that individuals and varieties were often involved in a struggle for existence, in which the strongest and the best adapted to the circumstances of the moment would prevail—a knowledge of the existence of sporting varieties in many well known species, and the possibility of certain modifications introduced into species in consequence, do not interfere with Mr Darwin's claim to be regarded as the first who has put forward the principle of natural selection as the method adopted by nature to insure a succession of varieties resulting in species adapted to continue throughout all time and in absolute perfection, the chain of created beings.'

It is peculiarly unjust since Darwin (1860) had fully admitted in the Gardener's Chronicle - in reply to Matthew's claim - that Matthew was first to discover the entire original process of natural selection as an explanation for the origin and extinction of species.

On 24th November 1860 an anonymous naturalist, writing in the Saturday Analyst and Leader    added further insult to injury by proposing that a replicator, such as Darwin, should be praised for his originality by way of his replication of something he claimed not to have read:

"...of Mr. DARWIN’s labours, or the merits of his extraordinary book. It would not detract from them even if he had been acquainted with every word that had been previously written on the subject. But it is very possible that two minds may think out the same original conclusion for themselves without any communication between them. If all that DALTON has written on definite proportions had been previously published, still if he had thought it out for himself, without knowing of the previous discovery, he would unquestionably be entitled to the praise of originality."

If only they had the benefit of BigData technology back in 1860 - Matthew would have been able to show just how many of Darwin's and Wallace's friends, facilitators and admitted influencers had read and cited his 1831 book pre 1858, and how many more were 'first to be second' with unique Matthewisms. For all we know, the anonymous author of the Saturday Analyst and Leader was among them.

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

We do have that BigData technology. Moreover, we who do not credulously deify Darwin as capable of such a miraculous immaculate conception of a prior published theory have no biased 19th century excuses for allowing Darwinists to continue to flout the rules of scientific priority, to come from far and wide to stamp on Matthew's unmarked and unknown grave and to deify their darling Darwin namesake at the expense of justice, reason and veracity in the history of scientific discovery.

Nullius in Verba!   

Visit Patrickmatthew.com    for more information on this topic

Conclusion

Matthew was multiply victimized

1. John Lindley's glory stealing redwood seeds fallacy.

2. Darwin's (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener's Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.
3. Darwin's friend and correspondent David Anstead (1860) mocked and ridiculed Matthew as a deluded crank in the press for claiming to have first conceived the hypothesis of natural selection. An anonymous writer in the Saturday Analyst and Leader did much the same.

3. Wallace's replicating plagiarism in his 1855 and 1858 papers.

4. Matthew's Dundee platform blocking at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.

The multiple victimisation of Matthew - at different times but for the same academic crime of  significant 'glory theft by fallacy coining' by Lindley, Wallace and Darwin three keenly co-operative co-correspondents, with a  shared understanding that species evolved, is unique and most remarkable in the history of scientific discovery if it is only a mere multiple coincidence. 

Further reading 

The full background story of the Matthew giant redwood letter and Lindley's false claim is here.

100 per cent Proof Darwin Committed Lying, Plagiarizing, Science Fraud by Glory Theft 

States of Denial of the Obvious and Significant Facts: Several things the Darwin Fraud case Shares with the Savile and Boston Globe Catholic Priest Pedophile Cases

https://t.co/MlbmxgSSRm

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 22, 2016

What does the case of Sir Jimmy Savile (OBE)  have in common with that of Rolf Harris (CBE) and Charles Darwin (FRS)?

Stanley Cohen's (2001) 'States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering' explains how people deny the significance of sufficient evidence that something is happening or happened in the past. Cohen explains how people do this with regard to a range of things such as marital infidelity, alcoholism, terminal illness, child abuse and genocide.

'One common thread runs through the many different stories of denial: people, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information 'registers' well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.'

Stanley Cohen (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. p. 1.

Cohen (2001) explains that states of denial of the obvious and significant - yet unbearable - facts can take many forms:

• Disingenuous ‘canny unresponsiveness’
• ‘Psychotic negation of the obvious facts’
• ‘Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’
• ‘Negation by wishful thinking’
• ‘Evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’
• ‘Victim blaming’ – blaming the victim for their predicament.
• ‘Withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’
• ‘Compartmentalization’.

Unsurprisingly, there are several shared features underlying the 'state of denial' in the Savile case, the Boston Globe's  Catholic priests paedophile case and the Darwin fraud case :

1. Sir Jimmy Savile OBE was a much loved and wealthy TV celebrity, raised a fortune for charities.He was considered 'broadcasting royalty' by the BBC and as a highly respected, knighted and decorated, 'pillar of society' by everyone else. The BBC held his talent in awe and treated him deferentially.
2. Charles Darwin (FRS), was considered in the 19th-century (being the grandson of the famous polymath and poet Erasmus Darwin FRS), as 'academic royalty' by the Royal Society. After his reports whilst on the HMS Beagle were read with enthusiasm by naturalists, his knowledge was held in awe and the very name "Darwin" was once again treated deferentially. Awarded the Royal Medal, Copley Medal and Wollaston Medal, he was considered a paragon of wealthy gentleman naturalist honesty and originality by everyone else. Harris was awarded the CBE and once spent considerable time with the Queen of England as he famously painted her portrait.
3. Catholic priests, in 20th century USA, and their wealthy church, were considered by many as being at the very top of the social hierarchy of honesty and caring integrity.
4. Both Savile and Harris were immensely popular and highly successful A-List 'celebrity' children's entertainers. Darwin was a celebrity A-list scientist. All three completely transgressed the boundaries of social and professional norms within the particular field in which they were held in such high regard. All Roman Catholic priests were entrusted by society to uphold the 'child protection' values of the Christian prophet Jesus of Nazareth. The 'real facts' of the the behaviour of paedophile priests, Savile's, Harris's and Darwin's behaviour is, therefore, anathema.
5. In what we might name the "Rifkin Imperative by Proxy": Savile boasted about being able to avoid trouble, and in describing his ability to do so gleefully described himself many times as being "tricky". Darwin gleefully described himself many times as being a "wriggler" to do the same. Harris - less obviously - may have been leaving similarly smug and self-delightful obscure clues to his predilections in his music. For example, in  hindsight his hit song "I want my mummy" is most disturbing. More research is needed, but I dare to hypothesise that we might call this song that celebrates and weirdly mocks and delights at the massive trauma felt by a poor lost child a case of the "Rifikin Imperative by Proxy".

But eventually someone is able to break the negative hallucination (not seeing what is obviously and significantly there) to convince the world of the facts that "The king has no clothes!" It takes time to get through the stonewalling of protective 'establishment' interests and public adoration - but the facts pound like a battering ram against their denials, canny indifference and blindsight. Eventually, the wall caves-in and facts then rush through. And after the breech is made, the public wants to know why it took so long. Who, they demand, is to blame?

This link will take you to the independently verifiable 'New Data'. This data proves that, for the past 155 years to the present time of writing, the same psychological 'state of denial' characteristics of the "majority view" are behind the failure to respond to the obvious and significant facts of Darwin's lying, plagiarizing, science fraud by glory theft of Patrick Matthew's prior-published conception of natural selection.

An explanation - with independently verifiable evidence - of how the psychological concept of 'denial' relates to how Darwin scholars have been in denial of the facts of Darwin's lies, told to conceal the wider facts pertinent to Darwin's (1858 and 1859) replication of Matthew's (1831) prior-published conception of natural selection, and more, can be read on the Patrick Matthew Website PatrickMatthew.com - specifically the States of Denial page.

Conclusion

Darwin scholars currently are in a state of denial of the obvious and significant fact that the publication record of what he knew and what he then wrote proves Charles Darwin was a self-serving liar about the prior readership of Matthew's ideas. Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew's original ideas, which he replicated without citing (Sutton 2105   ). Any Darwinist claiming there is an innocent interpretation for this behaviour - namely, that their namesake's published falsehoods were not meant to be taken literally - is offering an incongruous explanation, given the fact that for 155 years the literal interpretation of Darwin's claims by the world's leading Darwinists (here) is the basis of the 'majority view' paradigm that a steadfastly honest Darwin independently discovered Matthew's prior-published ideas.

Being in a state of denial of these facts is analogous, in my considered opinion, to denying that Sir Jimmy Savile deliberately forced his tongue into a child's mouth   . Moreover, it is analogous to cooking up a 'state of denial' defence scenario where Savile simply miss-kissed.

Anyone claiming that Charles Darwin was not a liar, in the teeth of the facts that he was, is surely in a state of denial of the unpalatable halitosis of Darwin's lies. On 1st February 2016, I left a comment to that effect on Dr Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project website (here   ).

Being in a state of denial of these particular facts is analogous, in my considered opinion, to denying that Sir Jimmy Savile deliberately forced his tongue into a child's mouth by claiming instead that it happened in good faith, despite the obvious deviance, dishonest and sexual gratification of the act. It is analogous to cooking up a dual 'state of denial' defence scenario where Savile simply miskissed, and where Darwin wrote falsehoods in good faith despite the deviance of his actions, dishonesty and resulting status as an immortal great orignal thinker and influencer in science.

Darwin scholars really ought to snap out of their 'state of denial' of the facts and deal with them like real - not pseudo - scholars. The facts can't be denied away. Nor should we try. Because it seems reasonable to hypothesise that societies that tolerate and fail to recognise any states of denial may be more likely to provide enabling environments for the worst atrocities committed by human beings.

There is, however a paradox. Denial may initially protect the individual, yet simultaneously contribute to their greatest future threat. This is the "Blindsight Paradox   ", identified by Stanley Cohen in 2001.

I wrote a blog on the blindsight phenomenon here.

You can find links to more blog posts etc on 'states of denial' on the relevant page of PatrickMatthew.com

Feel free to use the infomatic below in any way and anywhere you see fit:

This Prezi-show reveals the obvious and significant evidence 

that 100 per cent proves Darwin committed lying, plagiarising science fraud 

by glory theft of Matthew's prior-published conception of macro-evolution by natural selection

The Evolution of Knowledge in Science and the History of Ideas

Religion is the organisation of certain beliefs. Fundamental beliefs of any religion are not subject to change or challenge. They are fixed. Alternatively, science is meant to be belief-free organised scepticism. Immortal great thinkers and discoverers in science have written things, often long ago, that every new generation of scholar improves upon. The words and ideas of scientists, such as Charles Darwin, are not holy tenets. Scientists may be brilliant people, but they are not our gods. Each scientist is just one step in the evolution of knowledge that is greater than ourselves. The history of discovery of natural selection evolved in 2014, with the original discovery of the New Data (Sutton 2014), which proves that Darwin was wrong about the prior readership of the original conception of the full hypothesis of natural selection before 1858. Because, rather than none whatsoever, as Darwin wrote, seven naturalists in fact did read Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection. And three of their number played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace on that topic pre-1858.

Visit the 'States of Denial' page on PatrickMatthew.com to see how, for the past 155 years, evolutionary biologists and other 'expert' Darwin scholars, have exhibited classic 'states of denial' behaviour to deny the obvious and significant facts of Darwin's lies about Matthew and and who really did read his book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original ideas in it and then defended themselves by claiming, fallaciously, that none had read those ideas before their supposedly independent replications.

Visit PatrickMatthew.com for all the 'New Data' in the history of discovery of natural selection - the unifying theory of biology

Feel free to use the infomatic below anywhere you see fit.