Monday, 12 October 2020

Am I Really the 24th Most Influential Criminologist of all time?

 So - in 2020 I've been ranked the 25th most influential criminal justice (AKA criminal justice discipline) expert in the world - of all time. (archived). 

But why? 

I'm ranked even higher in Criminology as my supposed sub-discipline!


Whilst flattered I wonder just how accurate that really is: https://academicinfluence.com/people?text=&gender=&country=&discipline=criminal-justice&subdiscipline=&min-year=1200&max-year=2020

Friday, 9 October 2020

Pandemics and the Old University Model: Time to embrace new - green - technology properly

 

The times should be -"a changin"

The Pocket University 1 

Here: https://dysology.blogspot.com/2017/12/pocket-university.html

The pocket University II

Tuesday, 6 October 2020

Brian J. Ford on Charles Darwin's Sly Plagiarism of the Theory of Natural Selection

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

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

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

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

In that article Ford wrote:

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

And:

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


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

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

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

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


Meanwhile the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society - the very same journal that by descent published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarising articles in 1858 is involved in publishing a series of articles by Weale (who wrote malicious poison pen correspondence to the VC of Nottingham Trent University to try to get me fired for defending my original research) Dagg (who like Weale has plagiarised my research in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society) and Derry, (a malicious and obscene cyberstalking harasser) to try to argue - ludicrously - that Darwin did not plagiarise Matthew because each had a different theory. Why is this Linnean Society project ludicrous? Read this blog post to see: https://patrickmathew.blogspot.com/2020/10/biological-journal-of-linnean-society.html





Friday, 2 October 2020

Charles Darwin was an idiot White supremacist racist who thought Black people have smaller brains than white folk

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View all my reviews

Monday, 31 August 2020

Darwin the Science Fraudster by Plagiarism and Lies

 Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by plagiarism and serial lies


Wednesday, 19 August 2020

Wikipedia: The World's Worst Encyclopedia

 Anyone can write any rubbish they like and publish it for a day or night, or longer on Wikipedia. This makes it the worlds worst encyclopedia.



Monday, 17 August 2020

An Open Letter to the Royal Society and Linnean Society on Priority in Science and the Arago Rule

 

Do You Really Believe You Can Magically Change the Rules on Scientific Priority?

Charles Darwin (FRS), Alfred Russel Wallace, and Richard Dawkins (FRS) and many others, deceased or alive, amongst whom I include myself, such as Samuel Butler, Raphael Zon, James Dempster, Brian J. Ford, Michael Rampino, Milton Wainwright, Hugh Dower, Loren Eiseley, Ton Munnich, and the Royal Society Darwin Medal Winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, have published our full acknowledgement, and the independently verifiable evidence to support it, that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - published the full theory of natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private notepaper on the topic and 28 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society.

Matthew uniquely coined his discovery the 'natural process of selection' and 29 years later Darwin uniquely shuffled Matthew's term into his own unique re-coinage the 'process of natural selection'. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have arrived at the same theory, used the same terminology and the same unique explanatory examples, independently of Matthew and independently of one another.

The purpose of my open letter, therefore, is to request the Royal Society publish an official statement to explain whether the Royal Society will affirm that Patrick Matthew, by dint of his achievement at publishing first one of the greatest discoveries in science, should be officially awarded full priority over both Darwin and Wallace for his great unique breakthrough?

In this regard, I presume the Royal Society has not unofficially changed its views on the rules of priority? Perhaps it is necessary to remind the Royal Society of the Arago Effect to which it has adhered in all other disputes over priority for discovery in science - which is that being first into published print with a discovery is everything.

Maybe you have uniquely re-written the rules on priority for scientific discovery, but are keeping that a secret whilst facilitating plagiarism? If so, does that explain why the Royal Society has now plagiarised the unique scientific discoveries of Brian J. Ford? Here are the fully evidenced and independently verifiable toe-curlingly guilty facts on that new debacle. It is called “Watching Integrity Die” and the Royal Society plays a shameless leading role in doing just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWA1tLKQ2L4&feature=youtu.be

Ignoring the convention of priority - specifically ignoring the Arago Effect - Richard Dawkins and others have created a new, unique in the history of scientific discovery - "Dawkins' Demand" that Matthew should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace because it was previously their 'knowledge belief' that Matthew's unique views went unnoticed. However, newly available Big Data research techniques reveal that Matthew's (1831) book was in fact (all pre 1858) cited by other naturalists known to Darwin/Wallace - including Loudon (who edited and published two of Blyth's influential papers), Robert Chambers (who wrote the highly influential book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation) and Prideaux John Selby (who edited and published Wallace's Sarawak paper). (see: my peer reviewed papers for this new evidence:  http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf and https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42392608.pdf).

As for Brian J. Ford, he has published hundreds of articles on the research the Royal Society plagiarised!

So, please explain, what is your excuse in his case? Surely the Royal Society is not plagiarising Brian J. Ford because he has acknowledged (here) your precious plagiarist Charles Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew are you? No, surely not!

In sum, would the Royal Society please make an official statement regarding whether it has abandoned its former acceptance of the Arago Ruling? Here is a reminder, just in case you have forgotten it: http://www.strevens.org/research/scistruc/Prioritas.pdf

If the Royal Society is making an exception to the rule of priority in the cases of Patrick Matthew and Brian J. Ford could it be so good to please explain why and make an official statement to the effect that this is not simply a biased Darwinist 'made for Matthew' and Royal Society ‘Made for Ford’ rule?

Now, perhaps also because I have published new bombshell research on the fully evidenced heresy that Darwin and Wallace knowingly plagiarised Matthew's theory, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is repeat victimising me by multiply plagiarising my original research and, whilst using it to fraudulently mislead its readership, refusing to do anything about that. The fully evidenced verifiable facts on that disgraceful nonscience behaviour, with proof that plagiarism is malicious, can be found here: https://patrickmathew.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-worlds-most-ironic-story-of.html

Yours sincerely

Dr Mike Sutton (Author of Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret)