Protest the Facts in 2016: Don’t Let States of Denial Thrive

– By Mike Sutton –

In a recent blog post The States of Denial Spectrum Hypothesis: Does All Biased and Prejudiced Scholarship Cause Darwin Medaland Nurture Hate Crime?, I asked whether Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr    would have been awarded Royal Society Darwin Medals had they published on the topic of the discovery of natural selection by writing the truth they must have known (as the world’s leading experts on the topic) that the naturalist botanist and biologist John Loudon did read Matthew’s (1831) prior published discovery of natural selection before Darwin’s (1858 and 1859) – supposedly independent – replication of it. Loudon – who was well known to Darwin’s best friends – then went on to edit two of Blyth’s influential articles on evolution. Blyth was Darwin’s most prolific informant. Moreover, Darwin knew Loudon’s work well and his personal copies of Loudon’s books are heavily annotated with Darwin’s scribblings.

Instead, of writing the truth, de Beer and Mayr simply parrotted Darwin’s blatant lie that none read Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection before Darwin replicated them.

Furthermore, in that last blog post on this topic, I asked also why it is that Mike Weale (2015)    in his Linnean Society article elected to steer away from any critical discussion of the significance of the New Data (that pe-1858, in addition to Loudon three more of Darwin’s and Wallace’s, associates friends, facilitators and influencers had read and cited Matthew’s book and original ideas on natural selection). Weale was fully aware of the New Data (data which I uniquely discovered) because we had corresponded at length on the topic. And yet Weale wrote no more than a simple and completely unevidenced evasive statement that – in his mere opinion – the evidence is weak that Darwin was influenced by Matthew. How such a weak statement was permitted to pass unchecked in a peer reviewed science journal should beggar belief. The fact that many Darwinists no doubt would not agree with me on that point is pertinent to the topic of ‘states of denial’, in my mere opinion. Would the Editor and peer reviewers for the Linnean Journal have ever allowed Weale to reveal the facts of the New Data about Darwin’s lies about Matthew’s readership in their publication? Would any biologist dare try?


Stanley Cohen’s (2001) book ‘States of Denial’ provides us with some interesting observations, which might provide sound explanations for the behaviour of the above biologists and their peer reviewers.

When considering the applicability of Cohen’s explanations for why the significance of important uncomfortable facts are ignored or treated with ‘canny unresponsiveness’ (Cohen, 2001 p.41), readers should perhaps bear in mind the fact that Darwin is considered ‘scientific royalty’ by both the Royal Society and the Linnean Society organisations and that he was an multiple award winning member of both. Darwin’s grandfather and father before him and his close friends and admirers were all members – as were his and their relatives after his death.

Cohen (2001, p.45):

‘…distortions and and self-delusions are most often synchronized – within families, intimate relations or organizations. Whole societies have unmentioned and unmentionable rules about what should not be openly talked about. You are subject to a rule about obeying these rules, but bound also by a meta-rule which dictates that you deny your knowledge of the original rule.’

There is a difference between synchronised states of denial and conspiracy theories.


The leading Darwinists who have written – in confidence – warning me that my bold criticism of Darwin and his Darwinists will seriously harm my academic career and that no peer reviewed biology or history of biology Journal would ever publish the New Data about who we now newly know did read Matthew’s ideas before Darwin and Wallace replicated them- will most certainly know exactly what Cohen meant when he wrote (Cohen, 2001, p. 45) generally on such synchronization of individual and organisational ‘states of denial’:

‘They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play the game, of not seeing that I see the game.’

Cohen’s work allows us to speculate that no Royal Society Darwin Medal is ever going to be awarded to anyone who publishes the truth about how Darwin lied and cheated Matthew out of the glory due to him for discovering natural selection and influencing other scientists on the topic – who went on to influence Darwin on it. Moreover, the unstated rules of the painful disconfirming facts ‘denial game’ will dictate that no peer reviewed biology journal will ever publish and allow critical discussion of the dreadfully embarrassing New Data, which punctures all the myths supporting the debunked old premise of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent discoveries of Matthew’s original prior-published discovery, and his explanatory examples.

imageNullius in Verba

In 2014, in Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret    , I revealed that several of Darwin’s and Wallace’s friends and influencers did read Matthew’s original ideas and explanatory examples before Darwin and Wallace replicated them and then claimed in their fallacious defence that no one read them before they did so.

I don’t expect the dreadfully biased Royal Society will award me with a Darwin Medal for proving that its namesake was a plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft and that its past recipients were in a ‘state of denial’ that enabled them to parrot Darwin’s lies in order to continue his corruption of the history of discovery of natural selection from beyond the grave. Neither do I expect any biology journal to publish the facts I originally discovered that so embarrass the published work of its editor/s, peer reviewers and esteemed collected ‘expert’ authors.

Sad Conclusion for Science

Cohen’s States of Denial confirms the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis    where the Darwin Industry and all its deluded servants are concerned. Shame on them all! History will not treat them well for their cowardly and pseudo-scholarly dysology.

I am posting 366 Identical tweets to protest the truth for those who know its import:   

Twitter No 1,    


366 protest for truth no.1


What Next?

Related Articles