Posts by MikeSutton:

    Scots finally take stand against discovery theft by English plagiarist Charles Darwin

    May 11th, 2017

    Scotland Independence Referendum 2.0?

    The Darwinite dogs may bark but the train rolls on

    – Article by Mike Sutton –

    With National Heritage Lottery funding, the Scots are building a Patrick Matthew heritage trail in Scotland. Moreover, in September there will be a week of Patrick Matthew celebrations held in Perthshire, where the great man lived.

    Effectively, it is the facts about Patrick Matthew’s original discovery of macro evolution by natural selection that have received UK National Lottery Heritage funding: Latest news story on how his achievements are to be commemorated and celebrated can be read in the Scottish Courier Newspaper HERE


    To their shame, our institutions of science have not yet displayed the professional and scientific integrity required to admit the facts prove they were all wrong    about Matthew, Darwin and Wallace.


    Comments Off on Scots finally take stand against discovery theft by English plagiarist Charles Darwin

    An Experiment On Impact

    November 26th, 2016

    Google Scholar’s Citation Index H-index score was mentioned with reverence dysologyat a recent meeting in a British University. The speaker was explaining how universities ranked the relevant importance of academics and the impact of their work. I was intrigued to hear the presenter refer to this measure as an important determinant.  The reason I was surprised is because he used one of my friends as an example of a top scholar with major impact according to the Google’s h-index.

    For reasons that will shortly become obvious, I won’t name the presenter, the university involved or the name of my friend. Suffice it to say my friend is a very well known professor and that his Google Citations H-index score is above 90.  If you are unfamiliar with the h-index that will be completely meaningless. For the benefit of those who don’t know about it Professor Andre Spicer explains:

    ‘To put it in a slightly more simple way – you give an H-index to someone on the basis of the number of papers (H) that have been cited at least H times. For instance, according to Google Scholar, I have an H-index of 28. This is because I have 28 papers that are cited at least 28 times by other research papers. What this means is that a scientist is rewarded for having a range of papers with good levels of citations rather than one or two outliers with very high citations.’

    According to the expert London School of Economics “Impact Blog” HERE, as can be seen by its tables below, on average, UK professors in the social sciences have an h-score of  4.97. Specifically, among UK professors of Sociology the average h-score is  3,67.

    My own h-score is 12, and so I’m happy to see I’m way above average as a Reader in Criminology and Sociology  HERE.

    So what?

    What concerns me about the h-score being used as a determinant of an individual’s success and academic impact is that it is totally vulnerable to manipulation by ambitious manipulative academics who are more concerned with playing the game of climbing the greasy pole of academia than actually making a genuine impact on knowledge anywhere. By way of example, my anonymous friend told me he has been playing this game for over three decades. In effect, he has been citing his own work within his other own work as many times as he can get away with it and with incredible regularity. Moreover he has been doing so in journals that are not even peer reviewed. That means that by far the majority of the citations that make up his hugely impressive h-score of over 90 are from his own citations of himself. That means his impressive impact is only impressive on himself with his own ideas, or the ideas of others he is recycling. Obviously his academic impact has also affected the brains of those who think his impressive h-score score means anything more than that.

    To prove how this works let’s conduct an experiment here on The Daily Journalist.

    As we have seen, my current h-score today (26th November 2016) is 12. But if you look at my citations page you can see that two more citations for my non-peer reviewed primary research paper: ‘ How Prolific Thieves Sell Stolen Goods: Describing, Understanding and Tackling the Local Markets in Mansfield and Nottingham. A Market Reduction Approach Study’  will mean it will then have been cited 13 times. Once that happens my h-score will go up to 13, because I will then have 13 publications, out of all my other publication, that have each been cited a minimum of 13 times.

    So to demonstrate with hard data exactly how easy and fast it is to corrupt any useful impact measure the h-index may have I am going to now cite that very minor and non-peer reviewed paper in two non-peer reviewed minor publications. First, I’m going to cite it here. OK here goes:

    Sutton, M. (2008) How Prolific Thieves Sell Stolen Goods: Describing, Understanding and Tackling the Local Markets in Mansfield and Nottingham. A Market Reduction Approach Study. Internet Journal of Criminology.

    Simultaneously, I am going to dual publish this post on Best Thinking Website and as a comment on the E-Skeptic Magazine. If, by conducting this experiment, I personally drive my own h-score up from 12 to 13  – which I am almost certain I will –  an update will follow within the next few weeks.

    Comments Off on An Experiment On Impact

    How useful is the concept of the smoking gun? What about lots of gun smoke alone?

    August 21st, 2016

    – by Mike Sutton –

    GunSmoke Evidence

    The term “smoking gun” is generally held to mean an item of of incontrovertible incriminating evidence. My 19th edition of Brewer’s Phrase and Fable (2012. p.1253) explains:

    ‘The phrase acquired a particularly apt association with the widely diverging views, before, during and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 about whether Saddam Hussain still possessed WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Their discovery would have been hailed by the finders as a smoking gun.’

    At the time of writing, Wikipedia is once again wrong    in its etymology, this time to claim that the term ‘smoking gun’ derives from an 1893 Sherlock Holmes story.

    Anyway, better than mere ‘smoking gun’ incriminating evidence of Wikipedia’s mistake exists, because it is 100 per cent proven to have been used in published print at least as early as 1878 (Appleton’s Journal. p. 17   ):

    ‘Two men approached, the younger with a smoking gun:

    “So it’s you, is it?” said she as he came up.

    “It is I” said he with a smile.

    “Well I think you’ve got very little to do to go round shootin’ fleckers. This one in particular. I was just gettin’ used to him.”

    On Smoking Gun Evidence in the story of who really did read Patrick Matthew’s prior published origination of the hypothesis of natural selection.

    Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated Matthew’s (1831)    origination of macroevolution of natural selection. They failed to cite Matthew, and they claimed to have arrived at Matthew’s prior-published bombshell concept independently of Matthew. Darwin and Wallace excused themselves for doing so by claiming (as a proven lie in Darwin’s case) that Matthew’s ideas were unread by any naturalist / anyone at all before 1860. In reality, as opposed to the credulous zombie-hoard mynah birding of Darwin’s lies (e.g. de Beer 1962, Mayr, 1982   ), by Darwin’s acolytes, the Darwinists, Darwin’s and Wallace’s friends, associates, correspondents and facilitators and their influencers influencers, the naturalists Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson all read and cited Matthew’s book pre 1858 (see Sutton 2014   ).

    So what constitutes ‘smoking-gun’ evidence in this case? I would propose that there are three areas where the usefulness of the phrase needs to be examined.

    1. Smoking gun evidence that Darwin or Wallace read the original ideas in Matthew’s (1831) book themselves or in some other way copied from it.
    2. Smoking gun evidence that, as opposed to the ‘no naturalists read it’ premise, that other naturalists did read Matthew’s orignal ideas pre-1858.
    3. Smoking gun evidence that Darwin lied in 1860, and in 1861 (and in every edition of the ‘Origin of Species’ thereafter) when he claimed that no naturalist / no one at all read Matthew’s orignal ideas before 1858.

    Smoking gun evidence

    The ‘New Data’ discovered in 2014 and first published in Nullius in Verba    provides better than mere smoking gun evidence for 2 and 3 above. We know other naturalists did read Matthew’s orignal ideas pre-1858, because they cited his 1831 book before that date and mentioned those original ideas. The 100 per cent proof of the matter exists in the print record of the 19th century published literature. And Darwin’s lies are proven because before he wrote them Matthew informed him in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle (1860), very clearly and forcefully, that at least two naturalists did read his ideas and that his book was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland (see Sutton 2015    and also Sutton 2016   ). But, with regard to point 1, above, we have not discovered a letter to or from Darwin or Wallace, or a notebook or diary entry, anywhere, that indicates Darwin or Wallace read or were told about Matthew’s (1831) book before they replicated so much of Matthew’s orignal work. But the fact that much of Darwin’s and Wallace’s and the notebooks and correspondence of other 19th century naturalists is lost or destroyed means that absence of evidence in this regard cannot rationally be considered as evidence of absence it ever happened.

    However, what we do have with regard to point 1 is solid proof that some form of pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Wallace and Darwin could have happened via Loudon, Selby, Chambers, Jameson and others newly discovered to have read and cited Matthew’s (1831) book pre-1858.

    And we know that knowledge contamination can take place in at least three main ways (seeSutton 2016   ):

    1. Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic, which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator about its existence.
    2. Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author and title of the publication.
    3. Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes, or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.

    Gunsmoke evidence

    From the solid evidence from the correspondence and publication record of the 19th century (see Sutton 2104    for the fully cited proof of the following facts) we know that academics talk and share sources and ideas. We know that editors insist on changes and insertions to text and we know that Loudon edited two of Blyth’s influential articles – which influenced Darwin and Wallace. We know that Loudon was a friend of Lindley (William Hooker’s best friend, who was the father of Darwin’s best friend Joseph Hooker) and a correspondent of William Hooker. And we know that William Hooker was Wallace’s mentor and correspondent from as early as 1848 and that they met before Hooker wrote a letter of introduction for Wallace in 1848 so that he could set off specimen collecting for cash – some of which came his way from Hooker. We know that Selby edited Wallace’s Sarawak paper, was a friend of Darwin’s father and Darwin’s good friend and most frequent correspondent Jenyns. We know that Selby was a close associate of William Hooker’s circle and we know that Chambers met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858. Moreover, we know that Jameson was a regular correspondent of William Hooker pre-1858. All this, if not “smoking gun” evidence, is certainly evidence of multiple whiffs of gunsmoke; a type of evidence classed as “circumstantial evidence”. In the story of Darwin, Matthew and Wallace there is an awful lot if it – and much more than is covered in this blog post (see Sutton 2014) This circumstantial evidence, combined with more than smoking-gun proof of Darwin’s lies, and proof that the original ideas in Matthew’s (1831) book were cited by Darwin’s and Wallace’s influencers and their influencer’s influencers pre-1858, completely punctures the ‘no naturalists read Matthew’s orignal ideas pre-1858’ and the ‘honest Darwin’ myth’ – upon which is founded the old paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s supposed dual independent conceptions of Matthew’s prior-published hypothesis.


    We do have two important items of better than smoking gun evidence of Matthew’s pre-1858 influence on Darwin’s and Wallace’s work on natural selection.

      1. We 100 per cent know that the orignal ideas in Matthew’s (1831) book were read by Darwin’s and Wallace’s influencers and their influencer’s influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. This is better than ‘smoking gun’ evidence, because it absolutely disproves the ‘no naturalist read Matthew pre-1859’ premise that underpins the old Darwinite paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s dual independent conceptions of Matthew’s prr-published hypothesis.
      2. We 100 per cent know Darwin lied when he claimed no naturalist /no one at all read Matthew’s prior-published ideas before he replicated them.This is also better than ‘smoking gun’ evidence, because it completely disproves the honest Darwin premise that also underpins the Darwinite paradigm of Darwin’s independent conception of Matthew’s prior-published hypothesis.
      3. Due to our rational understanding of the concept and typologies of of ‘knowledge contamination’ we have a lot of smoking gun, evidence that those who read Matthew’s (1831) orignal ideas had many opportunities to influence Darwin and Wallace and influence their influencers with Matthew’s original ideas may years before 1858. This represents “gun smoke evidence” that such knowledge contamination took place.
      4. We have no smoking gun evidence that Darwin and Wallace did copy Matthew’s orignal ideas or were knowledge contaminated by them pre-1858.

    From this four-point analysis, it can be argued that insistence upon smoking-gun evidence to substantiate claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s probable Matthewian ‘knowledge contamination’ is based upon a misunderstanding of the better than mere smoking gun paradigm busting facts of the New Data in this story and of the gun-smoke significance of the multiple examples of newly discovered clear routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.

    Please note: Wikipedia’s corrupt editors are not averse to altering its story-lines byplagiarising my orignal discoveries and passing them off as their own (as they did with my unique discovery of the origination of the term ‘moral panic’) – so their fallacious account of the origin of the term “smoking gun” will undoubtedly change at some point, but without citation to this blog post.

    Comments Off on How useful is the concept of the smoking gun? What about lots of gun smoke alone?

    Precious Irony Discovered in Science Cranks

    August 13th, 2016 Amazingly, the real cranks can be those - wedded to newly debunked beliefs -who first crank call those who discover paradigm changing new and independently verifiable paradigm changing data


    – By Mike Sutton –

    Interestingly, those who discover paradigm changing and independently verifiable new data are often portrayed by desperately biased scholars, with vested career and in-group establishment interests in the old but newly myth-punctured paradigm, as cranks. But, with painful irony, the real cranks are those who let their bias interfere with their critical reasoning.

    Dr Arlin Stoltzfus, referring to discussions between Dr Mike Weale and I on Weale’s BlogsiteThe Patrick Matthew Project    explains why Weale’s loyal ‘belief-based’ Darwinite bias cannot trump the fact-based uncomfortable – newly discovered – truth in the story of the history of discovery of natural selection.

    Stoltzfus, A. Friday, August 05, 2016 (Writing on the Sandwalk blog site)   .

    ‘Darwin, by repeating the idea that no naturalist read or noticed Matthew’s book, repeated a self-serving statement that he knew to be factually incorrect, because Matthew himself had pointed this out. These facts are not in dispute. Sutton describes these facts by saying it is “100% proved” that Darwin “lied”.

    In the cited web site, the case made by author Mike Weale is entirely based on quibbling about “lied” and “100 % proved”, while bending over backward to give His Holiness Charles Darwin the benefit of the doubt. According to Weale, when His Infallible Holiness Charles Darwin says that “nobody read it”, we must interpret this as the kind of harmless exaggeration that occurs every day– of course His Holiness must have known that the book would have been read by *someone*, so obviously he wasn’t intending to be taken literally (*). To accuse his holiness of “lying” would be to impute deception, which cannot be proved “100 %” because it requires an inference of motives (according to Weale).

    Thus, Weale’s case against Sutton rests on the same kind of scholarly double standard that we are now accustomed to seeing: (1) insisting on a literal interpretation of a rhetorically loaded version of Sutton’s argument, while Darwin gets off easy precisely because Weale *refuses to hold Darwin to a literal interpretation*, and (2) insisting that Sutton can’t rely on inferences or touch on the issue of intentions by invoking “lied”, while Weale is free to defend Darwin precisely by appeal to inferences about Darwin’s knowledge and motives (sentence above with *). ‘

    Read the New Data that has so upset the brains of the biased Darwinite community in my latest peer reviewed science journal article on the topic Here

    Alternatively, as proof of the simple concept explained in my paper, simply Google (using double speech quotes just as I do here) the term “on knowledge contamination”.

    The way forward

    Please do something (no matter how small) to support veracity in the war for veracity over claptrap in the story of the discovery of natural selection. Because Darwinites currently dominate the scientific community, but they are behaving like an authoritarian religious deification cult.

    Read the first four chapters for free

    Modern advanced societies will be harmed by having an inaccurate history of scientific discovery, disseminated through the propagandising machinations of palpably biased salaried academics and other powerful establishment in-group members. Only a crank could not see that.

    Follow me on Twitter


    Comments Off on Precious Irony Discovered in Science Cranks

    Now you too can change the course of history of scientific discovery

    August 7th, 2016

    By Mike Sutton.

    As soon as a rare and fortuitous opportunity come along, which needs to be capitalised upon to benefit from, we might make the mistake of believing it is nothing unusual and that if we fail to seize it another will soon follow. Whether it comes to the most intriguing dating opportunities, a great new career, or the chance to be part of something big, such big opportunities rarely come along twice for most of us. At least not in my experience.

    Here now is a significant once in a lifetime opportunity for you. Would you want to know you were one of those people in at the start of a major paradigm change in the history of scientific discovery? If so, then thanks to the internet you can be. You too can comment on an important discussion thread that might well be the turning point towards veracity and away from mythmongery, lies and mere unevidenced, wishful thinking, beliefs in the history of discovery of natural selection. Let me explain.

    The comments section of the “Sandwalk” Darwin deification blog , named after a path in Darwin’s garden at Downe House, at the village of Downe, near Bromley – and published by Professor Larry Moran of the the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto – contains arguments from scientists that might well mark the slow turning point needed for the scientific establishment to cease promoting 155 year old and more recent pseudo scholarly fact-denial, falsehoods, myths and lies in the history of discovery of natural selection.

    At last, as we can see in this particular comments section, a few scientists are admitting that the New Data, about the pri-1858 readership of Matthew’s 1831 original ideas is right and significant and actually exists – and they are now telling others to read my published peer-reviewed articles (e.g. Sutton 2016 ) on the topic and to stop ignorantly dismissing what they have not even looked at. Biologist Dr Arlin Stoltzfus , of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research is one such scientist. He writes on the sandwalk blog (29th July 2016 ):

    Ed, to someone who has read parts of what Sutton has written, your reply looks very foolish. Contrary to what you state, Darwin does not “cite Matthew as a source” of his thinking. Instead, Darwin admits that Matthew preceded him, but then claims that no naturalists paid attention, and he indirectly blames Matthew for this (by putting his theory in the appendix of an obscure mis-titled book on naval arboriculture). That is, Darwin continues to take credit for what he calls “my theory”, and simply writes himself a set of excuses for not attributing Matthew as the source, e.g., by referring to it as “Matthew’s principle of selection.”

    Sutton gathers the evidence that Matthew’s book was not just read by naturalists, but (1) received multiple published reviews and (2) was cited by (3) naturalists in Darwin’s circle of acquaintances and influences. Loudon’s review actually mentions that Matthew’s book contained interesting ideas on the origin of species. To find out why naval arboriculture was so interesting to Brits, you’ll have to read Sutton, or just consider the basis of the British Empire in 1831.

    *Clearly*, Matthew has priority by ordinary scholarly standards, and clearly Darwin misrepresented the situation by spinning a yarn about Matthew’s obscurity. Sutton points out that Darwin’s followers have uncritically repeated that yarn for 150 years.

    The only remaining question is whether Darwin was actually influenced in some way, which might range from vague diffusion of ideas through a personal network, to stealing the ideas and trying to hide it.

    Sutton offers textual evidence that Darwin was influenced by Matthew, and points out personal connections that may have been a conduit for this influence. I have not spent much time reviewing this evidence, but it is based on similarities of phrasing. There is no smoking gun.

    However, now that Sutton has pulled back the curtain on this, it is no longer responsible in scholarly writing to assert that Darwin wasn’t influenced by Matthew, or even to assert that there is no evidence– there is circumstantial evidence, however weak. If you doubt the evidence then the appropriate way of saying it is “I’m not convinced by the evidence that Darwin was influenced by Matthew.”

    But again, this only addresses the issue of borrowing. The issue of priority is already settled, in favor of Matthew.’

    If you wish to see more details on this story for yourself – look at both sides of the argument – and choose which one to side with according to independently verifiable facts, instead of long parroted proven falsehoods, Click here and post your comment. You can then tell your grandchildren about it.

    Comments Off on Now you too can change the course of history of scientific discovery

    Mark Griffiths, A Leading Psychologist, Deems “Matthew Denial” an Untenable Position

    July 14th, 2016

    Darwin's Train

    – By Dr Mike Sutton – 

    Leading psychologist, professor Mark Griffith’s of Nottingham Trent University in England, weighs in on the hot topic of newly discovered data in the story of Charles Darwin’s (1858; 1859) replication of Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior published hypothesis (see Sutton 2016).

    “Over the last few years, I have read over a dozen of Sutton’s online articles about Darwin and Matthew, and I was also one of the first people to read Sutton’s book before it was published. Sutton’s work is meticulous, rigorous, and fully referenced. Most of his critics have never read (or simply don’t want to read) his book. Instead they appear to take potshots at his research and reputation without bothering to read the original source.”

    On Griffiths’s blog – which has received over 4 million hits – the Sociologist Dr Andrew Wilson, of Nottingham Trent University supports Griffith’s conclusions:

    “Now the truth is out of the bag it is only a matter of time before enough of it seeps into the public domain to make Matthew denial look as absurd as any other attempt to protect a precious but untenable position.”

    Prof. Mark Griffiths

    Read the full story and comments:

    Selective memories: Charles Darwin, obsession, and Internet dating HERE

    Read Sutton’s (2016) latest peer reviewed science paper on the topic HERE

    Comments Off on Mark Griffiths, A Leading Psychologist, Deems “Matthew Denial” an Untenable Position

    Possibly The Most Ironic Myth Ever

    May 17th, 2016

    – By Mike Sutton –

    Possibly the most #ironic    thing in the history of the world is also about iron. Just how ironic is that?


    Possibly the World's most ironic myth


    I am most delighted that the esteemed HealthWatch    organisation, which is an independent charity for science and integrity in medicine, invited me to write an article on the myth that was first bust here on BestThinking, and has since been read by over 50,000 people.

    My HealthWatch article can be read here (Sutton 2016)   .

    I am hoping now to spread the word further about the SPIDES supermyth, in the hope – and it is only hope – because we can only hope without further research into what works in nutritional attitude change that my attempts will not back-fire and make things worse – that the humour and the irony of it all will help people make informed nutritional choices about iron.


    The World Health Organisation (WHO) on Iron

    I wonder, Will Professor Steve Jones (FRS) now be “knowledge contaminated” about Supermyths   ?

    There has been a “state of denial” canny indifference amongst most of the World’s top Darwin scholars to the Supermyth busting “New Data” facts (e.g.Sutton 2016   ), which puncture the premise underpinning the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew’s prior-published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection.


    Nullius in Verba

    I wonder, now, will the leading Darwinist Professor Steve Jones    (FRS) be “knowledge contaminated” on the topic of Supermyths and Charles Darwin – given that he is a notable patron of HealthWatch, which introduces the supermyth concept in its quarterly newsletter (newsletter 101) this month and given that ,along with Dr Mike Weale, last year revealing – most unfortunately for the veracious history of scientific discovery – just how little he and Weale understood – or cared to share with the public – about 100 per cent proven prior-readership of Patrick Matthew’s original conception of macroevolution by natural selection by Darwin’s and Wallace’s associates, influencers and their influencer’s influencers and Darwin’s 100 per cent proven lies on that very topic (see Sutton 2014    for the Darwin and Wallace Immaculate Conception Supermyth bust).

    Interestingly, Dr Mike Weale – Professor Stephen Jones’s Radio 4 Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin programme associate – is well aware of my work on supermyths. WhenWeale publically accused me on his website of creating my own supermyth on the story of Darwin, Wallace, and Matthew and the history of discovery of natural selection    I sent him a published challenge to debate the issue with me in any prestigious university setting of his choice, time and place, with as many supporters as he needed, before an academic audience and on camera. Despite several attempts to get him to change his mind, Weale refused on the stated grounds that he feared I would mock him and “sling mud” at him for the world to see. See my recent article on the de facto “MacDarwin Industry” regarding how Dr Mike Weale’s unevidenced accusation, and refusal to defend it in public, on camera, can be understood in context of wider pseudo scholarly Darwin scholar uncomfortable “New data” fact denial behaviour. Moreover, even Wikipedia editors are systematically deleting the facts of the published historical record on this topic and pretending to the public that they do not exist. See how I caught them in an online public encyclopedia fraud sting operation – here.


    (c) Darwin and WallaceAttribution

    Miracle Double Immaculate Conceptions of the Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace of Matthew’s prior published hypothesis of natural selection

    Comments Off on Possibly The Most Ironic Myth Ever

    Criminologist Calls For the FBI to Investgate Wikipedia

    May 4th, 2016

     – By Dr Mike Sutton (criminologist) –

    wikipusI am relieved to learn that my prior observations (see also Sutton 2016) that Wikipedia’s paid personal agenda editors are operating throughout the entire Wikipedia encyclopaedia to subvert the truth and bury annoying and uncomfortable dis-confirming facts for the “majority view” has been firmly confirmed by the research of other academics. Click here for an overview of my personal experiences with Wikipedia editors engaging in systematic fact deletion.

    Please view Sharyl Attkisson’s “Bombshell” Ted Talk on “Astroturf and manipulation of media messages”

     “But no matter how hard he tried, Wikipedia’s editors wouldn’t allow it. They kept reverting the edits back to the false information.”

                                                                                               Sharyl Attkisson 

    Wikipedia needs investigation by the FBI. Because its owners claim it is an objective encyclopaedia edited by the general public. On those grounds it seeks sponsorship via the public for donations to keep it going. In reality it is secretly earning money on a “fact deleting paid-to-lobby” basis.

    This corporate activity stinks to high heaven of corruption, fraud and organised crime. Wikipedia editors are gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. I am prepared to testify!

    Comments Off on Criminologist Calls For the FBI to Investgate Wikipedia

    Interestingly or not, As the Case May Be, Expert Darwin Advisor Resigns Following New Revelations of Darwin’s Proven Lies

    April 21st, 2016

    – By Mike Sutton –

    Darwin id proven to have lied about Matthew's influence on those who influenced him

    The peer reviewed article in question is here:   

    So for the history of science record, the known public facts of the matter are simply this

    The 100 per cent proven facts in my peer reviewed paper, are published in a Polish science journal Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy, Philosophical Aspects of Origin. Moreover, the esteemed Darwinist Senior Lecturer on the history of science, Dr John van Wyhe, who has been a member of the Polish science journal’s expert advisory team since at least 2014, was on the journal’s academic expert advisory board before, at the time this paper was submitted, during its peer review process, and also immediately after it was published. Soon after publication, for some reason unknown to me, Dr van Wyhe resigned that position.

    In light of the “New Facts”, these are interesting times to be a Darwin scholar.

    Comments Off on Interestingly or not, As the Case May Be, Expert Darwin Advisor Resigns Following New Revelations of Darwin’s Proven Lies

    Is that Horse or Zebra Hooves I Hear Behind Me?

    April 12th, 2016

    – By Mike Sutton –

    On Sutton’s Law: First consider the obvious

    Sutton’s Law:

    “When diagnosing, one should first consider the obvious. Therefore, one should first conduct tests that could either confirm, or else dis-confirm, the most likely diagnosis.”


    Ironically, Sutton’s Law – coined around 1960 by the eminent physician William Dock    – comes from a fixed-false belief that the bank robber Willie Sutton explained why he robbed banks    because “That’s where the money is“. In reality, Willie said he robbed banks for the fun of it and the money was just “chips” (   ).

    Regardless of the ironically high and arguably always most obvious likelihood that the story behind it was bunkum, because no one at the time thought to confirm with Sutton the veracity of the story that is source of his mythical line, Sutton’s Law is still logically and practicably useful in many fields – such as clinical medicine, computer program debugging and mechanical problem diagnosis.

    I applied Sutton’s Law when studying Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s (1858, 1859 and 1860) claims to have each discovered the complex theory of macroevolution by natural selection, and the original associated artificial versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences, independently of one another and independently of Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior publication.

    In considering the obvious, I was most certainly unable to disconfirm the high likelihood of some kind of significant pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of both Darwin and Wallace. In fact, my research confirmed the most obvious – with newly discovered hard facts – that Darwin’s and Wallace’s friends, influencers and facilitators, and their influencer’s influencers, read and cited Matthew’s book and the ideas in it before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Consequently, it is far more likely than not, that this fact explains their replications of Matthew’s original ideas.

    You can read the latest peer reviewed evidence to support the conclusion that Darwin and Wallace did not discover natural selection independently of its originator: Here.   

    imageNullius in Verba

    The full details of my bombshell discovery are in my Thinker Media Book: Here


    Comments Off on Is that Horse or Zebra Hooves I Hear Behind Me?

    Is Wikipedia Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak Dictionary?: A proof in the Spanish entry dedicated to Antidarwinism in 2009 and the evolution of this concept 

    April 12th, 2016


    – A guest article presented by Mike Sutton – 

    The following article is written by Emilio Cervantes (IRNASA-CSIC. Salamanca Spain)

    I was asked to assist in getting this information into the public domain so that it might be discussed by a wider audience. Doing so does not mean that I agree in any way whatsoever with its content, views or conclusions. Dr Mike Sutton


    Emilio Cervantes

    The following is an updated version of an article Published in the blog Biologia y Pensamiento in March 9, 2009.

    The idea then proposed was that Wikipedia is the Newspeak Dictionary, predicted by Orwell in his novel 1984. This was supported by the facts related in 2009, and it is now confirmed by the changes done in the Wikipedia articles mentioned here (see at the end)

    Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,’ he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?

    Orwell, 1984.

    Might Wikipedia, the free and democratic encyclopedia, respond to an interest of indoctrination or manipulation? , could it include, between so much information, some with tendentious and manipulative intention in key questions? May we be confronting a wolf dressed with the skin of a lamb?

    It seems that the answer to all these questions is going to be yes. That the popular and democratic encyclopaedia might contain here and there, between its entries, some written, corrected and supported, with the main intention of indoctrinating to the masses as propheticallly described Orwell in his novel 1984.

    From some time now we find certain similarity between Wikipedia and Orwell’s Newspeak Dictionary. Now and then, an example comes to confirm it, but before entering in the matter, let’s see some fingerprints of newspeak in so popular encyclopaedia. Months ago we saw that the Wikipedia correctors, which are Darwinians, made a censorship to non-Darwinian interpretations of evolution. In the discussion of the article entitled “Biological evolution” this censorship was openly denounced by one of the participants:

    La esperanza de que Wiki pudiese ser una fuente de información neutral y plural ha sido arrojada al basurero. La esperanza de que la Internet pudiese ser un medio de democratización del conocimiento está siendo asesinada en este sitio.

    (The hope that Wiki could be a source of neutral and plural information has been thrown to the bin. The hope that Internet could be a way of democratization of knowledge is being murdered in this site.)

    Another example came when I wanted to include an article commenting on the book of Fernando Vallejo entitled La Tautología Darwinista “The Darwinian Tautology” and Varano (big lizard) erased it, indicating that the comment of the book was a literary critique.

    Also it was surprising to verify then that the same authors who write the articles of Biological Evolution in Spanish are those writing on Creationism (in Spanish, creacionismo), supporting the thesis that Creationism is a Darwinian invention. In fact, the word Creationism first appears in Darwin and Huxley’s correspondence.  But… Your attention please!: Faith or religion are not Darwinian inventions, … Creationism is. It departs from the basis that religious beliefs, opinions, or ideas can, in some moment, be confronted with scientific points of view. Something that was already discarded in the times of Galileo.

    But there are more examples of manipulative zeal in Wikipedia. For example in the Spanish entry dedicated to Antidarwinism (2009).

    The anonymous author, participant in the draft of other entries in Spanish related to education for the citizenship, the laic left, the European citizenship, the separation between Church and State, the Spanish exile in Mexico or the historical memory and others, almost all of them very far away from Science fields, dares he himself alone with Antidarwinism, a concept that would need a solid scientific formation not guaranteed in this author.
    This way, the entry offers a notably antiscientific description. To such an end, once Antidarwinism was defined as the position opposite to Darwinism and therefore contrary to the general postulates of the theory of evolution by natural selection; then, instead of indicate which are such postulates and whether or not, they may admit perfectly opposite positions, we enter difficult areas. We continue reading:

    Las posiciones antidarwinistas no son uniformes (se puede ser evolucionista pero no darwinista) y se apoyan en variados principios de la religión, el diseño inteligente, el creacionismo, el escepticismo, la magia, lo paranormal, la brujería, la ufología y otras pseudociencias de carácter sobrenatural

    The antidarwinian positions are not uniform (it is possible to be an evolutionist but not Darwinist) and they are supported by diverse principles of religion, intelligent design, Creationism, skepticism, magics, paranormal, witchcraft, ufology and other pseudosciences of supernatural character

    It is fascinating how fast Darwinian writers find a connexion between antidarwinism and witchcraft, ufology and other pseudosciences of supernatural character. It makes think that they are really worried by their own position close to all these aspects and situated in the middle of the pseudoscience.

    But to these confusion we answered, when all this was still visible in 2009:

    Not, anonymous author, you are wrong. The only lawful antidarwinism consists of a scientific position that denounces the deficiencies of the Darwinian postulates.

    The scientific uselessness of those postulates that you did not want to indicate before but that anyone can read in Wikipedia’s corresponding entry consists in that they are full of mistakes. Therefore, please copy if you want to contribute to make this entry more precise:

    Antidarwinism like a fully scientific position rests on two firm fundaments:

    1- The poor scientific basis of the Darwinian postulates (Natural selection is a tautology).

    2- The historical analysis of contemporary science discovers the predominance of social and economic interests on the scientific presentations and defense of Darwinism.

    Everything else is in exceeds. Only serves to create confusion.

    It ends here the article published in 2009. Now the entry dedicated to Antidarwinism has disappeared from Spanish Wikipedia and the reader is directed to Historia de las objeciones y críticas a la teoría de la evolución (History of the objections and critics to the evolutionary theory) where some of the Darwinist topics can be read again. For a page dedicated to objections and critics to the evolutionary theory it is surprising to find three illustrations: a phylogenetic tree and two images of Darwin. This demonstrating that even when we don’t want to read about Darwin we are obliged to, or… Do you remember?:

    Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller…

    ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?

    Comments Off on Is Wikipedia Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak Dictionary?: A proof in the Spanish entry dedicated to Antidarwinism in 2009 and the evolution of this concept 

    Follow the Data: Wikipedia is being run by a weird cult called “Wikipedia Editors”

    April 8th, 2016



    – By Mike Sutton –

    Readers of my research might know I have a rather long-term issue with the fact that a number of Wikipedia editors are actively and “tautologically” engaged in their own pseudo-scholarly personal agenda bias-driven campaigns to delete significant facts that do not fit those personal fact-deleting agendas. (e.g here and :here and here). And, best of the lot:Here.

    A video caught in video

    This video shows us one of these petty martinet-types being consensually caught in a video net of his own making. An aggrieved maker of his own YouTube video, which captures this Wikipedia editor’s video that depicts the “editor’s” apparently weirdly self-satisfied celebration of his undereducated, proudly inexpert, arrogant and illogical ne’erdowell self, is rightfully aggrieved in my opinion. The Wikipedia editor also reveals in his video that Wikipedia is effectively a weird cult with a labyrinthine set of unintuitive rules, which include – apparently – denying Americans their constitutional rights to assert their rights to seek redress when those rights are being denied.

    Stick with the whole thing. You might need a stiff drink to endure it to the bitter end, but I think it is well worth watching and thinking about – for the next time you wonder why someone weirdly deleted your own significant and evidence-based veracious entry on a Wikipedia page.

    Bob Butler CEO of Thinker Media Inc. USA

    WARNING: In my opinion, this video of a Wikipedia, daft as a brush, woolly-headed, crack-pot who can’t think straight, editor, is toe-curlingly excruciating. Click to view it Here   

    The same aggrieved YouTube video maker “Gary” has more fact-based evidence ofWikipediapropaganda for us. WARNING: Gary asserts his constitutional right to use the obscene four letter female genitalia “C” word in his video. My link to it does not represent approval of such language to abuse others. In fact, my opinion is that I greatly disapprove of such language being used in such a way. But, just like Gary, I hate brute censorship based on mere opinions. So here it is. Right: Here   

    If you wish to see Gary’s website that Wikipedia editors deleted the Wikipedia link to. It is here   .

    Comments Off on Follow the Data: Wikipedia is being run by a weird cult called “Wikipedia Editors”

    Human Organ Transplant Pioneer Despised Darwin’s Dishonesty

    March 30th, 2016


    Jim Dempster
    – By Mike Sutton –
    Dempster (1985) reasoned with a multitude of his own evidence that Patrick Matthew should be hailed as the true discoverer of natural selection, simply because he most certainly did more than merely enunciate it, he worked it out and published it in detail as a complex and fully comprehensive law of nature. Moreover, Matthew got it right and Darwin wrong when it came to comprehending the impact of geological disasters on species extinction and emergence. Yet, from the third edition of the Origin onwards, Darwin (1861), a follower of Lyell’s erroneous uniformitarianism, jumped at the chance to denigrate Matthew by slyly inferring that he was a (then to be fashionably ridiculed) catastrophist. The following is from Darwin’s 1861 Third Edition of the Origin of Species (p. xv):
    The differences of Mr. Matthew’s view from mine are not of much importance: he seems to consider that the world was nearly depopulated at successive periods, and then re stocked; and he gives, as an alternative, that new forms may be generated “without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates,” I am not sure that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly saw however the full force of the principle of natural selection.’
    Dempster (1996) made this part of Darwin’s cleverly subtle muck slinging injustice abundantly clear, but if you can find a Darwinist, or any other biologist, admitting as much and citing Dempster then you’ve found one more than I have. In effect, Darwin was signifying Matthew as among all the outdated believers in the miracle of Noah’s Ark! And yet Matthew believed in no such thing. Matthew simply explained natural selection in terms of what is today called ‘Punctuated Equilibrium’ – which is, then, essentially Matthew’s discovery. Punctuated Equilibrium is accepted science today. However, Dempster (1995; 2005) noted that its Darwinist purveyors sought to keep the originator of that theory buried in footnote oblivion. Rampino (2011) explains some of the detail.
    Dempster wrote that there is no need to accuse Darwin of plagiarising the work of Patrick Matthew because it is already well established that he acted badly in not citing his influencers in the first edition and other editions of the Origin of Species (Dempster, 1983 p. 64):
    ‘Patrick Matthew and Robert Chambers carried out their great tasks single- handed. Without the help on the one hand of his great wealth and on the other of Hooker, Lyell, Lubbock, Blyth, Wallace and many others, it is doubtful whether Darwin, single-handed, could have avoided making a botch of his theory or even whether he could have, had the Origin published. Even so, in spite of all the outside help, he retreated more and more towards Lamarckism.
    There is no need to charge Darwin with plagiarism. His scholarship and integrity were at fault in not providing all his references in the Origin: he had after 1859 another twenty years in which to do so. What one can say is that denigration of Patrick Matthew was unwarrantable and inexcusable.’

    Darwinist muck-slinging began after Darwin capitulated to Matthew in the Gardener’s Chronicle of 1860

    The image below was kindly sent to me by Jim Dempster’s daughter Soula Dempster. The red handwriting is her father’s. He annotated a copy of the historical sketch in Darwin’s Origin of Species, Dempster’s copy of the sketch is from the 1872 edition but its the same as that fistpubihed in 1861 from the third edition of the Origin onwards:


    Dempster’s notes on Darwin’s sly Deceptions in the Origin of Species
    Note where Dempster writes “½ sentence missing!”. Dempster has spotted that Darwin slyly misled his readers that Matthew believed something, which the facts prove Matthew clearly did not. Note that Dempster writes: “Matthew rejects this in the missing part!
    Because Darwin slyy concealed the context and completeness of Matthew’s work, I respectfully disagree with Dempster’s view that there is no need to accuse of Darwin of plagiarism. I think that there most certainly is a need to directly name Darwin as a plagiariser, and to do so in no uncertain terms, because, by lying, wriggling, plagiarising  science fraudby glory theft necessity after 1860 (see Sutton 2016)- Darwin showed only a half a sentence of Matthew’s work in order to so deliberately mislead his readership into thinking Matthew simply believed that the population of life was somehow miraculously “re-stocked”.
    What matthew actually wrote:
    Page 383 of  Matthew (1831) ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’
    Note – most importantly – Matthew’s entire first paragraph on page 383 of his book is one long sentence. The first eight words that darwin left out of his explanation of Matthew’s original conception of natural selection are crucial to Darwin’s devious dishonest portrayal of Matthew as believing only that some form of complex species creation occurred on Earth after a catastrophic extinction event.
    Matthew wrote:
    So what was the “above” that Darwin concealed in his dishonest portrayal? Amongst a great wealth of additional text, but immediately above page 383, –  it is this:
    Matthew (1831) p. 381
    Readers should note also that Dempster’s red ink annotations note that it is very important how Matthew’s ideas are different to those of Darwin “Oh yes they are!”  also that  Dempster notes that it is untrue “Not true” that Matthew’s original conception of natural selection was contained in a book of an unrelated title and solely in the scattered pages of the book’s appendix.  Those Darwinist myths are completely burst – with hard disconfirming evidence – in  my 2014 book “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret“, which – in addition – contains a wealth of original and newly discovered hard and independently verifiable facts that overturn the old paradigm that no one known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew’s original ideas before each replicated them, without citing Matthew – and then excused that unscholarly behaviour by claiming (fallaciously) – and by outright proven lying in Darwin’s case – that none read those ideas before 1860. My book is dedicated to Jim Dempster.
    You can read more about the work and life of the pioneering surgeon and human organ transplant scientist Jim Dempster Here.

    Comments Off on Human Organ Transplant Pioneer Despised Darwin’s Dishonesty

    Uncomfortable New Facts Discovered With Google Cause Upset

    March 23rd, 2016

    – By Mike Sutton –


    Dr Mike Sutton

    On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis   

    My latest peer reviewed paper on the the New Data can be read by clicking this link:


    The 100 per cent proven facts in this peer reviewed paper, are published in a polish philosophy journal Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy: Philosophical Aspects of Origin. Moreover, the esteemed Darwinist professor of the history of science, Dr John van Wyhe, is on the journal’s academic expert advisory board.

    My peer-reviewed paper

    (1) 100 per cent proves that the world’s leading Darwin Scholars – and others – were 100 per cent wrong to write that the original ideas in Matthew’s book went unread by biologists and anyone else before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Because it is newly 100 per cent proven that – as opposed to the prior-Darwinist myth that none – seven other naturalists in fact did cite, in the published 19th century literature, Matthew’s book and the original ideas in it pre-1858.

    (2) 100 per cent proves that after 1860 Darwin lied by writing the very opposite to what Matthew had already informed him about the readership of his book.

    Illogical and irrational pseudo scholars might think that it is unscientific for me to write that it is 100 proven that something is true. But any making such a claim as to the unscientific nature of my claims are confusing two very distinctly different things. Quite rightly, it is not the language of scientists to write that a hypothesis is 100 per cent proven or not. However, no rational scientist would deny that it is 100 proven that the New Data – which is the published words inside newly re-discovered published 19th century books and journals – is 100 per cent proven to exist.

    In the Carse of Gowrie Scotland

    Last week I delivered the results of my latest research paper at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland. The Dundee Courier reported on the event.

    ‘English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory’


    A Mr Derry, who claims to represent Edinburgh University, wrote what he calls an “open letter” to several of my associates in Scotland and to the Dundee Courier.

    Darwin academic accused of ‘poor and lazy research’


    I responded to Derry’s claims with a letter to the courier that included a link to the page on this blog where Mr Derry’s use of the foulest of foul language in published social media communications can be read. The Courier responded appropriately.

    Academic accused of ‘weirdly closed mind’ as Perthshire Charles Darwin row continues


    I was later compelled, in the public interest, to respond to Mr Derry’s and other allegations against my expert, independently, and anonymously, peer reviewed, science journal, published research findings by way of a professionally reviewed and moderated article on the Thinker Media Best Thinking Site. Here. (Sutton 2016).


    Comments Off on Uncomfortable New Facts Discovered With Google Cause Upset

    Why the Dundee Courier is the ideal newspaper to print the truth about Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin

    March 15th, 2016

    – By Mike Sutton –

    Today the Scottish newspaper the Dundee Courier reports on the discovery of Charles Darwin’s plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s prior-published discovery – and cites my BestThinking book that first broke the news to the World: Read the story in the Dundee Courier here   .

    Mike Alexander is the first journalist I’ve encountered who actually admits it is a complex topic, which journalists need to get to grips with in order to get the “real facts” straight. He kept asking me (several emails between us and a long phone call) for loads of cast iron proof from the actual published 19th century publication record, and so I just kept on sending it. Now that’s old-school journalistic integrity. I hope Michael Alexander goes far. I expect he will.
    Most Interestingly, Alexander informed me that the Dundee Courier swallowed up the old Dundee Advertiser. Notably, it was in the latter newspaper that published many of Matthew’s important letters in the 19th century.

    Comments Off on Why the Dundee Courier is the ideal newspaper to print the truth about Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin

    Canny Failure of the English to Engage with the New Data Amounts to Anti-Scottish Discrimination in Science

    March 13th, 2016

    – By Mike Sutton –

    Building on the New Data first revealed in my Best Thinking book, Nullius in Verba    and further ideas first formulated in a Best Thinking blog post in Jan 2015, my very latest peer reviewed journal article was published on the topic yesterday.

    On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Here.   


    In this new article, in the philosophy of science journal: Philosophy Aspects of Origin, I prove, amongst many other things, that rather than prove his independent conception of Matthew’s original ideas and examples, Darwin’s private correspondence, notebooks and private essays all serve to incriminate him as a lying plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft of Patrick Matthew’s prior published hypothesis of the “natural process of selection”.

    I am presenting this paper on thursday 17th March 2016, next week, at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland. Details here.   

    My hammering conclusion – which is to be reported in the Scottish press next week – is that Scotland has been punterized by 155 years of English lies, fallacies and myths that underpin the current paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent conceptions of Matthew’s prior-published hypothesis.

    Scotland has an unrecognised science hero.


    Matthew, like many influential and original thinking Scots, hailed from the fertile lands of the beautiful Carse of Gowrie.

    Punterised by Darwin’s 100 per cent proven lies    into believing Matthew is relatively insignificant in the story of the discovery of natural selection, the Scots demolished his manor house in the 1980s.


    That act of unintentional cultural vandalism raised to the ground their opportunity to use it and its ancient orchards as a major heritage site for cultural and economic sustainability. However, Matthew’s monumental giant redwood trees    remain in the area. Today, in the interests of economic and cultural sustainability, it is essential that Scotland places protection orders on these historic Matthew Trees.

    Scots need to read the new data and weigh its significance for themselves.

    Fiona Ross, chair of The Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group which has organised next Thursday’s lecture informs Scotland that a dream of Matthew’s descendants would be to see his portrait on the back of a Scottish £10 note.


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

    Comments Off on Canny Failure of the English to Engage with the New Data Amounts to Anti-Scottish Discrimination in Science

    Shocking Fact: Wikipedia Administrators in Disgraceful Revisionist Cover-up of Darwin’s Lies About Matthew

    February 27th, 2016

    By Mike Sutton.


    MikeSuttonAsks Wikiepadia


    In this blog post, I stand boldly in the field to ask Wikipedia to explain why, when it is forever fund-begging form the general public, it pays administrators to hide behind pseudonyms to gleefully and systematically delete significant, embarrassing, 100 per cent proven, facts regarding Charles Darwin’s dishonesty about who really did read Patrick Matthew’s book before he replicated the original ideas in it without citing Matthew.

    Unless they are writing about bias and errors in the Wikipedia encyclopaedia, the reason university students worldwide are forbidden from citing Wikipedia in their coursework, dissertations and other assessments as a source for facts is because its content is consistently plain wrong, or else fails to include the most important facts.

    This blog post reveals the absolute proof that Wikipedia’s paid employees are dishonestly and systematically hiding from the wider public the 100 per cent verifiable fact that Charles Darwin lied    about the readership of Patrick Matthew’s original conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection.

    Anyone trying to put the facts – with references to their validity in the publication record – on Wikipedia will be blocked by its paid employees. As a money-making organization, Wikipedia is punterizing us all by fund-begging from the general public for its so called encyclopedia. The following sorry tale reveals all.

    On September 7th 2015, here on my Best Thinking blog, I wrote:

    I challenge anyone to get the biased Darwinist Wikipedia editors to allow them to include on the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page the hard fact led 100 per cent proof that Darwin lied about the reality of who really did read Matthew’s book pre-1860. Try it. I double-Darwin- dare you!

    The challenge was repeated on my Patrick Matthew blog under the title The Double-Darwin Dare    

    Yesterday, someone tried.Then they showed me what happened. I’m reliably informed that the entire incident has been filmed for a TV documentary on the subject of Wikipedia administrators engaging in systematic fact-deletion on particular hobby-horse topics to which they have assigned themselves custodians of public knowledge.

    In this particular incident, a Wikipedia administrator calling themselves “Dave Souza” fact-deleted the independently verifiable knowledge that Charles Darwin is 100 per cent proven to have published falsehoods about the readership of Patrick Matthew’s original ideas before he and Wallace replicated them without citing Matthew.

    On the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page, references to Darwin’s actions were supported by my scholarly, peer reviewed British Society of Criminology journal article (Sutton 2014   ). On the “Revisions history” page of Wikipedia’s Patrick Matthew page, Souza excused his historical revisionist behaviour – whereby he deleted the recorded and referenced facts of Darwin’s behaviour – with the falsehood that my journal article is self-published!

    When Souzas revisionist edits were reversed, a battle of deletion and undoing of his deletion ensued. In the “Revisions history” page, reasons were given for restoring the facts and Souza was informed in writing that he was publishing falsehoods on Wikipedia about my British Society of Criminology journal article. Only when Souza was informed in writing on the “Revisions history” page that his historical revisionist behaviour was actually being filmed for a TV documentary did he cease his fact-deleting behaviour!

    At the time of writing (8.51 am GMT 25/02/2016), the real facts of Charles Darwin’s dishonesty have finally been allowed to stand on the Patrick Matthew page. However, readers might be interested to learn that Wikipedia has currently deleted its entire “Revision history” page    for the Patrick Matthew page by three months back to November 2015!

    I think it is pretty clear that they have something to hide, simply because because they’ve currently gone and hidden it!

    The telling question now is: what will they do next with the Patrick Matthew page?

    Rest assured dear readers, whatever it is, I’m reliably informed that it will be filmed in the public interest and then broadcast.

    Wikipedia’s employment and empowerment of personal hobby-horse fact censoring petty martinet administrators such as Dave Souza is what makes it so untrustworthy.


    Wikipedia is ultimately controlled and edited by its paid “hobby-horse” unqualified, biased and gleefully under-educated chip-shouldered administrators.

    PLEASE NOTE: The facts that Wikipedia does not want you to know about Darwin’s lies about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew’s book can be found on my RationalWiki page on Patrick Matthew.

    The text Dave Souza was systematically deleting before being ethically informed his activities were being filmed for a TV documentary on Wikipedia bias.

    On Wikipedia’s Patrick Matthew Page   :

    ‘However, there is no direct evidence that Darwin had read the book, and the fact that he wrote that he sent out for a copy after Matthew’s complaint, only if true, meant that he did not have a copy in his extensive library or access to it elsewhere. In subsequent editions of The Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledged Matthew’s earlier work, stating that Matthew “clearly saw…the full force of the principle of natural selection”. From 1860 onward, Matthew would claim credit for natural selection and even had calling cards printed with “Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection”. Significantly, new analysis of the literature has called Darwin’s legendary honesty into question. Sutton (2014) “[21]    presents published evidence from Matthew’s and Darwin’s 1860 letters in the Gardener’s Chronicle that Darwin published a falsehood by claiming in the Gardener’s Chronicle and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Matthew’s original ideas went unread, because Matthew had already informed Darwin in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle in 1860 that his original ideas on natural selection were read by the naturalist John Loudon, who reviewed his book in 1831, by an unnamed naturalist who feared pillory punishment if he were he to teach Matthew’s ideas on natural selection, and that his book was banned by the public Library of Perth, referred to by Matthew by its nickname in Scotland: “the Fair City”. Darwin’s citation after 1860, and his published fallacy that Matthew’s ideas went unread before 1860 has done little to garner recognition for Matthew, since he is still generally unknown.’

    Please Note: Further details and updates on this sorry saga are available on the Patrick Matthew Blog   

    Postscript 11.29 am GMT 25/02/2016

    At the time of writing, Wikipedia has, currently, restored the incriminating Wikipedia revision history page on Patrick Matthew. This is what it currently looks like:

    Patrick Matthew: (Wikipedia) Revision history page

    (cur | prev) 19:22, 24 February 2016‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,387 bytes) (+1,172)‎ . . (This fact deletion session by Souza is being filmed for a TV documentary on Wikipedian editor bias. Undid revision 706690883 by Dave souza (talk)) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 19:19, 24 February 2016‎ Dave souza (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,215 bytes) (-1,172)‎ . . (Undid revision 706690259 by BiasMonitor (talk) nope, ungrammatical and its in the wrong paragraph: take it to talk, or try adding it to the Sutton claims) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 19:15, 24 February 2016‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,387 bytes) (+1,172)‎ . . (Souza is deleting significant verifiable facts from Sutton peer reviewed article. This serious and unwarranted verifiable fact deletion will be reported. Undid 706679280 by Dave souza (talk)) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 18:45, 24 February 2016‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,215 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Souza writing fallacious excuses. He is fact deleting a information from Sutton peer reviewed article Extreme bis displayed. Vandalism of facts. Undid revision 706680142 by Dave souza (talk)) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 18:42, 24 February 2016‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,216 bytes) (+1)‎ . .(Sutton’s is a peer reviewed article not self published. Souza is seriously vandalising verified valid facts..Undid revision 706681665 by Dave souza (talk)) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 18:13, 24 February 2016‎ Dave souza (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,215 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (null edit: on review, better summary is that the edits were changing the response to Sutton’s views into a reiteration of his dubious claims, thus undue weight.) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 18:02, 24 February 2016‎ Dave souza (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,216 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (null edit to note removed undue weight to self published “big data analysis” which hasn’t gained credence from historians) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 17:56, 24 February 2016‎ Dave souza (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,215 bytes) (-1,172)‎ . . (imd) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 16:00, 24 February 2016‎ Bustermythmonger (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (33,387 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Deleted a stray inverted comma) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 15:59, 24 February 2016‎ Bustermythmonger (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (33,388 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Corrected typo “form” to “from”. “From 160 onwards…”) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 14:57, 24 February 2016‎ Bustermythmonger (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,388 bytes) (+1,173)‎ . . (Added independently verifiable factual information with reference to peer reviewed journal article by Sutton that Darwin published fallacies in both the Gardener’s Chronicle and from the third edit of the Origin of Species onwards’) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 03:59, 24 February 2016‎ Donner60 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,215 bytes) (-65)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by (talk): Spoiled link. (TW)) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 03:33, 24 February 2016‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,280 bytes) (+65)‎ . . (→‎Life) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 00:16, 8 February 2016‎ KasparBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,215 bytes) (-233)‎ . . (migrating Persondata to Wikidata, please help, see challenges for this article) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 11:51, 28 January 2016‎ Magioladitis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,448 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Further reading: fix) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 16:40, 27 January 2016‎ Bender235 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (32,445 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (clean up; http->https (see this RfC) using AWB) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 11:58, 1 January 2016‎ Dave souza (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,444 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions: put in date sequence) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 11:43, 1 January 2016‎ Dave souza (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,435 bytes) (-102)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions: ce) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 09:47, 1 January 2016‎ BG19bot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (32,537 bytes) (-123)‎ . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #61. Punctuation goes before References. Do general fixes if a problem exists. – using AWB (11756)) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 09:43, 1 January 2016‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,660 bytes) (+222)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 21:16, 31 December 2015‎ Dave souza (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,438 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions: remove unsourced and anachronistic speculation: CD had already written out his theory before Vestiges was published, and no nat selection in Vestiges) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 19:52, 31 December 2015‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,037 bytes) (+212)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions: added further text on Darwin’s relationships with those who had pre 1858 knowledge of the ideas in Matthew’s book – because they cited it.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

    (cur | prev) 19:44, 31 December 2015‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,825 bytes) (+171)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 18:52, 31 December 2015‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (32,654 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions: improved grammar and punctuation of my entry.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

    (cur | prev) 18:48, 31 December 2015‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (32,636 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions: deleted a rogue punctuation mark in my text entry) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

    (cur | prev) 18:46, 31 December 2015‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (32,637 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions: tidied up some grammar from my earlier entry) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

    (cur | prev) 18:43, 31 December 2015‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (32,639 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions: deleted typo “>”) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

    (cur | prev) 18:42, 31 December 2015‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,640 bytes) (+980)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions: Added references in support.) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 18:27, 31 December 2015‎ BiasMonitor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,660 bytes) (+694)‎ . . (added information about what Sutton originally discovered) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

    (cur | prev) 02:57, 31 December 2015‎ Rjccumbria (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,966 bytes) (-170)‎ . . (→‎Naval Timber: rejig to remove recent POVvy spin-edits and to give the defence the last word) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 02:34, 31 December 2015‎ Rjccumbria (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,136 bytes) (-908)‎ . . (→‎Life: remove duplication, depurple Slesvig-Holstein) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 02:03, 31 December 2015‎ Rjccumbria (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,044 bytes) (-106)‎ . . (rejig to undo series of recent POVvy edits) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 01:38, 31 December 2015‎ Rjccumbria (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,150 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (Undid revision 697484378 by (talk) one of a series of POVvy edits by (undo)

    (cur | prev) 01:37, 31 December 2015‎ Rjccumbria (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,203 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Undid revision 697485068 by (talk) added non-grammatical comma) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 01:35, 31 December 2015‎ Rjccumbria (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,204 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (Undid revision 697485675 by (talk) added ‘and’ adds ambiguity) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 01:32, 31 December 2015‎ Rjccumbria (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,208 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (Undid revision 697489000 by (talk) one of a series of POVvy edits by (undo)

    (cur | prev) 21:20, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,218 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 21:04, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,208 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (undo)

    (cur | prev) 20:55, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,200 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Life) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 20:51, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,196 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo)

    (cur | prev) 20:47, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,195 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (undo)

    (cur | prev) 20:46, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,193 bytes) (+53)‎ . . (undo)

    (cur | prev) 20:42, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,140 bytes) (+24)‎ . . (undo)

    (cur | prev) 20:38, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,116 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (undo)

    (cur | prev) 20:36, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,085 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo)

    (cur | prev) 20:35, 30 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (32,084 bytes) (+203)‎ . . (undo)

    (cur | prev) 21:44, 29 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (31,881 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Naval Timber) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 21:40, 29 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (31,881 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (→‎Naval Timber) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 19:33, 29 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (31,884 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (→‎Life) (undo)

    (cur | prev) 19:24, 29 December 2015‎ (talk)‎ . . (31,874 bytes) (+33)‎ . . (→‎Later opinions) (undo)

    Comments Off on Shocking Fact: Wikipedia Administrators in Disgraceful Revisionist Cover-up of Darwin’s Lies About Matthew

    Encyclopaedia Britannica Forced by New Facts Discovered with Google to Re-Write Page on Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin

    February 24th, 2016

    By Mike Sutton.

    I was  quite heartened to learn by private correspondence today that, following correspondence from Jim Dempster‘s

    daughter – Soula Dempster – the Encyclopaedia Britannica has entirely re-written its Patrick Matthew page to reflect many of the “real facts” as opposed to the old Darwinist “false facts” that Matthew’s original publication of the full hypothesis of macroevolution by natural slection was read by others before Darwin and Wallace replicated it without citing Matthew.  Nevertheless, at the time of writing they do, unfortunately for veracity, continue with the old “Appendix Myth” and they fail to mention that Darwin’s and Wallace’s friend Professor John Lindley cheated Matthew – for 13 years – from his right to be proclaimed as the first to introduce and propagate much admired giant redwood trees into Britain.

    Click to view the page in question. 

    Historically, this is an interesting development because in my book Nullius I originally revealed that Matthew’s (1831) book was advertised on 3/4 of a prominent page of  Part 5, Volume 2 of the Encyclopedia Britannica 1842.

    An advert for Matthew’s (1831) book in the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1842

    Significantly, the above advert had in fact been in the published literature since 1832 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Because, as Dr Mike Weale usefully points out on his Patrick Matthew Project website:
    ‘Note that although the official publication date for the 7th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was 1842, in reality it was published in instalments starting in 1827.  Volume 4 was available in bound form in 1832, which explains why all the books in the publishers’ advertising insert (“lately published by Adam Black, Edinburgh, and Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London“) are from 1831-2 (for example, Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, Vol 6).  Coincidentally, Volume 21 (the last volume, which really was published in 1842) contains a citation of Matthew’s book in its article on “Timber”.  The advert is very similar to the Edinburgh Literary Journal (1831) advert, except the quotes from reviews have been updated. Even the aggressively negative review from the Edinburgh Literary Journal is quoted as a “Sample of Venom”, perhaps to pique the reader’s interest!”

    In 2015 Dr Mike Weale discovered an additional individual  – who read Matthew’s book and cited it in the literature before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original ideas in it without citing Matthew – bringing the known total to 26.  Weale writes on his Patrick Matthew Project website: 

    Selected citation #4. Augustin Francis Bullock Creuze. Article on “Timber” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 7th Edition (1842), Vol. 21, p.291

    This brief citation is noteworthy for confirming that Matthew’s book was regarded as “valuable” by the author of the 1842 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on “Timber”. Note that Volume 21 really was published in 1842, unlike the other volumes which although they stated “1842” on their title pages were in reality published in earlier years. The article is signed “(B.Z.)”, identifiable as Augustin F. B. Creuze (1800-1852) via the Table of Signatures in Volume 1. Creuze also authored other articles for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, including a lengthy one on “Ship-building” that was published as a separate treatise, but Matthew is not cited in it. The article reproduces a table from Matthew’s book on the “number of concentric layers of sap-wood”. The citation is also noteworthy for making a reference to the “many things irrelevant to its subject” in the book. A similar opinion was expressed in the 1860 review of the book, likely by James Brown.
    The following table of the number of concentric layers of sap-wood observed in various species of timber trees is extracted from a valuable work on Naval Timber by Patrick Matthew; a work which abounds in much sound practical information, though mixed up with many things irrelevant to its subject.’

    More on the significance of what was written in the Encyclopedia Britannica advert for Matthew’s (1831) book  can be read here.

    Comments Off on Encyclopaedia Britannica Forced by New Facts Discovered with Google to Re-Write Page on Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin

    The Rifkin Imperative

    February 11th, 2016

    By Mike Sutton.

    Superhighway Robbery is a superb classic crime documentary, which is currently available for viewing on YouTube.   

    Mike Sutton

    There are many lessons to be learned from the cases explored in this high quality TV programme about how offenders exploit new technology and how industry, governments and police services respond in a virtual arms race (See Sutton 2012).

    Most importantly, in this superb documentary we can see evidence of a human characteristic that we might name the: “Rifkin Imperative“.

    The story very early told in the documentary is that that despite Professor Stanley Mark Rifkin getting away with committing a $10 million computer fraud, and despite then laundering the stolen money successfully into “clean” diamonds, he just had to let someone know what he had done. Over the years, I’ve seen this apparent human characteristic lead to the detection of many serious offenders.

    The “Rifkin Imperative” is essentially that many people – having gotten away with something they think defines them as very clever or very successful – feel that their clever deviant accomplishment is incomplete unless someone appreciates their greatness. After all, how can you feel complete as a “great and smart achiever” if no one in the world knows it was uniquely your personal great achievement?

    More research is needed. For now, I think we should think of the “Rifkin Imperative” as a hypothesis in need of further criminological research. If confirmatory evidence is found for its universality, then law enforcement agencies – with a little lateral thinking – will know what to do when they have a suspect; or perhaps, even how to go fishing for one!

    That said, my thinking here is far from original, because police officers are well aware of the potential for offenders to brag about serious crimes that they “got away with”. For example, we know from recent history the dangers of police honey traps, such as that used in theColin Stagg case   , where Stagg was fingered as a likely offender by criminal profiling.

    With Stagg in their sights, as the local weirdo, the Metropolitan Police sought out his criminal bragging to a murder. To be precise, they surreptitiously sought from Stagg – in exchange for the promise of sex with an attractive undercover police officer – a confessional bragging that he had committed the 1992 Wimbledon Common murder of Rachel Nickell.

    But Stagg never bragged, because he never did it.

    The case was thrown out in court and police officers involved in the Stagg Case were admonished by the judge for what they did. Nonetheless, and most convolutely, the “Rifkn Imperative” is actually confirmed in this case. The reason being, whilst Stagg was innocent, the real killer – Robert Napper – had years before he confessed to being Rachel Nickell’s killer – bragged to his mother in 1989 that he had raped a woman   ! Police failed to follow up when Napper’s mother informed on him. Had they done so, then most surely, Rachel Nickell would not have been murdered and Colin Stagg would not have served 13 months in prison.

    There will always be the problem to deal with of of those telling fantasy tales and feeling compelled to make false confessions.Meanwhile, to say it’s early days in the research process is a massive understatement. Nevertheless, the Colin Stagg case sets the current score at 1–0 for The Rifkin Imperative versus offender profiling.

    Further Reading

    More on Stanley Rifkin here    .

    More on Colin Stagg here   


    Comments Off on The Rifkin Imperative

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

    February 7th, 2016

    By Mike Sutton.

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

    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.


    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.’

    Comments Off on Scotland: This Is Your Fight! End Darwin’s 155 Years of Punterization of All Our People