DARWIN 

part IV 
Mill, Huxley and others 

by Miles Mathis 
First published March 6, 2024 
I had to take a break from this, I found it so disgusting. As my regular readers know, I didn't come to this as a Christian or conservative. I came to it as a truther. I just want to know the truth. I knew there was dirt here, but I had no idea the depth of the cesspool.  As with my research on the Titanic and many other things, I find this as shocking as you do, and really had no conception what I would find when I began digging. So after a while I had to stop and hose myself down, which I did by playing with my kittens and bicycles for a few days, staying away from the computer altogether.  
When I say I didn't come to this as a Christian, I mean evolution never offended me on those terms. I knew it was embryonic, but thought it was a step more scientific than “God created the Earth in six days”. I was never too attached to the creation myth in the Bible, or any other creation myths for that matter. My mind was open and still is. I don't think anyone knows how anything was created. I don't think we are even close to being able to know.  Our understanding of such things is about a half-step up from that of a dog (notice I don't say of an ape). Plus, I never understood how evolution and Christianity were in opposition. I didn't understand it from the beginning, when I first learned of it as a kid, and I am no better off now. Science and religion don't seem to me to have much cross-over. They don't compete. As I said in a previous paper, even if Evolution were completely true, it wouldn't explain anything about creation. It isn't a theory of creation. It has nothing to say about how the Earth or Heavens were created.  You could easily have both God (including Jesus, if you like) and evolution, since God could have chosen to create things that way. We just don't know. We didn't know in 1850 and we are no closer to knowing now, after 174 years of natural selection. So all the bickering and division seemed manufactured to me back then, and it seems ten times as manufactured to me now, knowing what I now know. 
And what do I know? I know that these people we have been uncloaking are masters of manufacturing division and always have been. It is their modus operandi, and they are doing it on purpose across the board, not just here. They want us fighting and spend half their time making up new factions. The other half of the time they are lying.  
I have also discovered the Christians are not wrong: the Phoenicians really ARE trying to wipe them out, though maybe not for the reasons they think. Before we ever got to this question of Darwin and Evolution, we have seen piles of evidence over centuries that the rulers had decided to phase out all religions, not just Christianity, first because they were getting in the way of trade (with rules against usury, etc.), and later because it had been consciously decided to secularize all government. The State wanted the Church's tithe, for one thing, but it also wanted to streamline world governance, turning the old State/Church duopoly into the new State monopoly. It would start by stealing all Church property, as with Henry VIII taking all the monasteries and the French Revolution absorbing the First Estate (the Church) into the Second (the bankers/merchants). But it would end where we are now, nearing a totally secularized and propagandized world, of the Orwell sort, where the State brooks no opposition and takes everything for itself.  
This is why we see Evolution rising in such unnecessary conflict. These scientists in 1850 could have tried to promote their ideas diplomatically, avoiding as far as possible attacking the Church head-on, but for some reason they did the opposite. They manufactured schism even where it didn't exist, as in this idea that Evolution was a competing theory of creation. We saw them do it later with DNA, implying that DNA was somehow a replacement for God or religion. When it is no such thing. I definitely believe in DNA. What I don't believe is that it explains how things are. It is nothing more than a genetic code, and that doesn't tell us much about anything, such as how it got there or how we got here. It is the same with Evolution, which—even if true—is extremely limited in its explanatory power. Evolution, DNA, and all the rest of contemporary science put together are only the first steps to understanding who we are and why we are here (supposing there is an answer to that question beyond IT IS).        
So I am now able to fit Darwin and Evolution into this greater and older scheme. If you still don't see it, let's go back before Darwin. The field had already been planted and fertilized before Darwin the Stuart even arrived. You may not know about a book called Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, by Robert Chambers, but it came out in 1844—after Darwin got back but before he published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Notice for a start that Chambers proves what I just said: he is promoting Evolution in his title as a competing theory of creation. But its not a theory of creation, is it? It never was. You can tell by the name. It is a theory of how things evolve after they have been created.  Did the species create themselves?  Did the first protozoan in the slime create itself? 
Darwin's title does the same thing, doesn't it? With that word “Origin” in the title. But if you have read the book, you know it doesn't say the first word about the Origin of Species. It doesn't say anything about the origin of anything. It is about later species coming from earlier species. So we still have the question where the earlier species came from, which Evolution never addresses.  
Chambers was the same sort of creep as the rest of these people, and his bio the same sort of transparent fraud. He was a cloaked peer sold as working class, but his son-in-law just happened to be Augustus Lehmann, whose name tells us everything we need to know. These are the Jewish Lehmann bankers, rabbis and silk traders of Hamburg, related to the Oppenheims, Levis, and Freuds. Chambers' granddaughter married the Baronet Campbell. His daughter married a Priestley, of the Priestleys we saw in part I. Like the rest of these people, Chambers married his first cousin, Anne Chambers. They were also Gibsons and Grieves.  
Chambers came out of nowhere to publish the Kaleidoscope magazine at age 19. As you do. In the same year he was working with Sir Walter Scott. When he published Vestiges, most Christians ignored it or hated it, but the Quakers and Unitarians loved it, proving again who they were.  
We can dig a bit deeper to see who was funding Chambers, and we find it was places like the Westminster Review, the old organ of the Philosophical Radicals. And who were they? They were yet another group of cloaked Jews and billionaires causing trouble. You have probably heard of some of them, like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, but you may not know where they came from. In school they don't put John Stuarts Mill's middle name in purple for you, as I just did, or tell you his father James was a colonial administrator of the East India Company.  

That is James Mill's very funny little portrait. I guess he was about 5 feet tall, like Fauci. James Mill was really James Milne, of the Milnes/Milners we have seen many times. Milne got his start as the “companion” and likely kissing cousin of John Stuart, 4th baronet, 

with whom he went to London in his 20s. Stuart links us immediately to the Melville earls through his wife and the Forbes through his daughter. As soon as they got to London, Stuart set Milne up as the editor of two magazines. Milne soon became a disciple of the older Jeremy Bentham, an especially loathsome character who is famous for mocking the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  He is in the peerage but well scrubbed, though they admit he was from Farrs.  Wiki also admits he was from great wealth, that wealth coming from drapery. So, another cloaked Jew. Wiki says his mother was a Woodward while thepeerage.com says she was a Farr. So someone is lying. Or maybe both of them are lying. The Farrs likely link us to the Abbot barons of Colchester and the Gibbs baronets.  
Bentham hated our Constitution because his family were big tories. This is how big: his brother Samuel was Prince Potemkin's personal business manager. Potemkin was the consort of Catherine the Great of Russia, of course. Amazingly, they try to sell even Potemkin as “middle-income” at Wikipedia: 

You have to laugh.  


That's the noble crest of his mother Kondryeva. Note the sea serpent with barbed tongue and tail. Not a good sign, is it? 
Anyway, to show you what kind of ghoul Bentham was, one of his early projects was a panopticon prison, which idea he borrowed from his brother in Russia. He begged Parliament to let him build this prison and make him its chief gaoler. Touching. So this father of Utilitarianism's personal greatest happiness would have been to lord it over a bunch of prisoners. Typical. A bit later he was friends with the swine Mirabeau and the rest of the French Revolutionaries, and they made him an honorary citizen. This despite being against the whole idea of natural rights of man. How does that work? So we may assume he was in favor of the revolution for its real purpose: to gut the French Catholic Church. 
James Mill/Milne got his job as East India Company administrator as thanks for years of promoting them as the good guys in magazine articles and books, including the famous History of British India (1818).  
Mill was a proponent of British imperialism, justifying it on utilitarian grounds.[11] He considered it part of a civilising mission for Britain to impose its rule on India.[11] Mill saw his own work for the East India Company as important for the improvement of Indian society.[11] Mill portrayed Indian society as morally degraded and argued that Hindus had never possessed "a high state of civilisation". 
Same argument we used against our Natives. But there were too many Indians in India to talk of wiping them out. Or almost too many: the soft-hearted Charles Dickens did talk about wiping them out after the revolt of 1857. Mill's book didn't sell many copies in India you can be sure, at least not outside the BEIC offices. In the controversy over renewing the Company's charter in 1833, Mill was the BEIC spokesman before Parliament. At the same time he was attacking the Anglican Church, and in an article on reforming the Church for the London Review in 1834 he went too far, prompting a backlash against the Westminster Review. They admit Mill was an atheist, meaning the only reform he wanted for the Church was its death.  
So these were the people working on the Evolution project before Darwin took over. Another one was the man who owned the Westminster Review and the London Review after the death of James Mill: Sir William Molesworth, 8th baronet. He was Secretary of State under Palmerston in 1855, so very high up in government. His grandmother was a Smyth, so she may link us to the Smith/Smyth bankers we looked at in part III. Through the Ourrys, Molesworth descends directly from a previous Secretary of State, George Treby, d. 1742.  Molesworth also links us to his cousin Sir William Salusbury-Trelawney, 
8th
 baronet, another major player in this project. He links us back to the Seymour Dukes we have seen many times, and forward to Edward Trelawney, another of the Philosophical Radicals of the Westminster Review. 

That is the Molesworth coat of arms, which is of interest here since it allows me to tell you something I haven't hit before. You may wonder what those circles are. Wiki tells us they are bezants, or old Byzantine coins. But though that is suggestive, since the Phoenicians did own Byzantium, I don't think that is what they are.  

There is the coat of arms of William Pitt.  Notice the horseshoe shape between the bezants.  We already saw that in this series, didn't we? It isn't a horseshoe, it is the Hebrew letter Teth, standing for the goddess Tanit or Astarte.  Which must mean the gold circle is a similar symbol with similar origins.  

That's Ra with his Sun-disk on his head. Although Astarte was a Phoenician goddess, she was also the Semitic Ishtar, and they liked her in Egypt, too, especially in the time of Ramses (of the Bible), where they thought she was the daughter of. . . Ra. So this is all tying together beautifully, isn't it? The gold circle isn't a bezant, it is the Sun-disk of Ra. 
So again, that tells us who these people were, back to the beginning. Molesworth not only promoted Mill and Bentham, he is the one who put Thomas Hobbes' books in all the English university and provincial libraries, in fancy leather editions. Sort of like what the government did for F. Scott Fitzgerald and Hemingway over here a bit later.  Except that our government actually bought thousands of copies and handed them out to free to soldiers and others, and then claimed the books were bestsellers. Molesworth didn't go that far, since propaganda was in its infancy back then, compared to now.  
It was in Molesworth's Westminster Review that the mainstream promotion of Darwin hit high gear, when in 1860 Thomas Huxley coined the term Darwinism on its pages. Huxley had already been working for the magazine for seven years, where he ran the science section with John Tyndall. Together they had been priming the pump for Darwin since 1853.  
Also of interest is that the Westminster Review published Karl Marx's daughter Eleanor Marx. See her 1886 article The Woman Question: From A Socialist Point of View. It all ties together. 

So let's hit Huxley next. That photo says it all, with the repellent Phoenician face and the hand in the 
vest. If you are with me, that should be all you need. But if you can't read all that is there at a glance, 
like I can, I will give you so much more to go on. Wikipedia does the usual scrub on Huxley, selling 

him as from 
a literate middle-class family which had fallen on hard times. His father was a mathematics teacher at Great Ealing School until it closed,[10] putting the family into financial difficulties. As a result, Thomas left school at the age of 10, after only two years of formal schooling. 
The usual load of manure.  What does thepeerage.com tell us? 
He was appointed Fellow, Royal Society (F.R.S.) in 1851.1 He was awarded the Royal Medal of the Royal Society in 1852.2 He was awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1876 of the Royal Geological Society.2 He was appointed Privy Counsellor (P.C.)1 He held the office of President of the Royal Society between 1883 and 1885.2 He was awarded the Copley Medal in 1888.2 He was awarded the Linnean Medal in 1890.2 He was awarded the Darwin Medal in 1894. 
What they forget to tell us is why he is listed in the peerage. He was not raised to the peerage. No parents are listed and his wife is not a peer. None of his children are peers. So something is being hidden. He was made a fellow of the Royal Society at age 24, but they neglect to tell us for what. Even Darwin the Stuart wasn't a fellow until age 29. Like Darwin, Huxley's education appears fake, since although he left school at ten,  
At twenty he passed his First M.B. examination at the University of London, winning the gold medal for anatomy and physiology. However, he did not present himself for the final (Second M.B.) exams and consequently did not qualify for a university degree. His apprenticeships and exam results formed a sufficient basis for his application to the Royal Navy 
Notice they don't tell us how he qualified to attend the University of London in the first place. The old Stuart bye? Still at 20, he alleged sailed on the HMS Rattlesnake as surgeon's assistant. . . except that Wiki admits he wasn't really surgeon's assistant ('surgeon's mate', but in practice marine naturalist), since he didn't have any medical degree or qualifications. Maybe he was the surgeon's “companion”? Would you believe surgeon's cabana boy? Actually, they admit Huxley was the flamer Edward Forbes' protege in those years, Forbes publishing accounts Huxley sent back to him. It was allegedly based on those accounts that Huxley was made a Fellow at age 24.  

That's Forbes. Or I should say a marble sculpture of him. Wiki admits he was from a family of rich bankers from Isle of Man, but doesn't mention any parents. Thepeerage.com also scrubs him, a big red flag. So we may assume he was from one of the top Forbes lines, like the Earls of Granard, making him indeed a Stuart. He wanted to be an artist, but didn't have any talent. Back then it was a requirement, even among peers, and the Royal Academy told him to get lost. 

You can see why.  
But back to Huxley. The Huxleys are extraordinarily well scrubbed at thepeerage, but we do find they were related to the Dalston baronets, and through them to the Ramsdens. The Ramsdens take us directly to another Duke, that being the Powletts, Dukes of Bolton, whom I have never heard of until today. They are related to the Scotts, Dukes of Monmouth; the Coventry barons; the Scropes, Earls of Sunderland; and the Paulets, Marquesses of Winchester. Forward they link us to the Montagus (think George Washington) and the Vanes, Dukes of Cleveland. So all those Dukes and Earls are hiding behind Huxley, with him front and center pretending to be from nowhere. We got all that because Darryl Lundy forgot to scrub George Huxley, Commissary-General of the Musters.  
The Admiralty offered to let Huxley stay on as a “nominal” surgeon's assistant, whatever that is, but Huxley preferred to be a nominal professor of natural history at age 28 at the Royal School of Mines— no doubt another government sinecure and fake position for spooks. 
So, let's remind ourselves: Huxley, who quit school at age ten after two years of schooling, was given a bye into the Navy, was given a bye into his professorship, and then somehow became President of the Royal Society and Privy Councillor.    

So another complete and total fraud, who advanced only on his Stuart connections and his loud mouth. Like the rest of these people, he actually knew nothing about nothing, but thought he knew everything about everything. The sort of person you avoid like the plague if you have a spot of sense. The fact he was chosen to defend Darwin by itself proves Darwin was indefensible.  
You may know of the famous “debate” on Evolution between Huxley and the bishop Samuel Wilberforce, which Huxley allegedly won. Except that the whole thing is a myth. There was no debate, and if anything happened it was only some brief cross comments from the audience after a lecture by American John Draper. Historians now admit there was no record made of the comments at the time, the story arising later, and that the quotes were likely made up. This tells me that Wilberforce likely won the exchange, not Huxley, for if Huxley had really won, there would be no reason to falsify the whole thing. 
A Stewart who was there was even nice enough to admit that, though his report has been buried. Balfour Stewart, a prominent astronomer and head of the Kew observatory, claimed Wilberforce won the exchange.  
This is even more damning: in a letter to Darwin afterwards, his friend Joseph Dalton Hooker reported that Huxley had been “largely inaudible in the hall”. The man they hired for his big mouth, the bulldog Huxley, was actually inaudible.  Not what you expected, I bet.   
And this may interest you: do you know who else was there in the audience? Not Darwin, since Darwin liked to hide. Fitzroy, our top Stuart and fake captain of the Beagle was there. You may think Fitzroy was there to defend Darwin, but nope: 
FitzRoy denounced Darwin's book and, "lifting an immense Bible first with both hands and afterwards with one hand over his head, solemnly implored the audience to believe God rather than man". He was believed to have said: "I believe that this is the Truth, and had I known then what I know now, I would not have taken him [Darwin] aboard the Beagle." 
So Fitzroy had jumped the ship for some reason, and my guess is he didn't like being upstaged by Darwin, whom he outranked. As an almost-Duke, Fitzroy probably thought it was his birthright to front this project, and we can guess that he must have been a real moron to have been passed over. A Leslie Groves sort, too dense to be trusted even as a figurehead.  
At any rate, unlike now, there was no invective at this “debate” and most of the small amount of rancor appears to have been staged, since it was reported that everyone had a good time and retired to dine together. This was Oxford after all, where all learning was always a put-on. These were all peers, so nothing was really at stake for them: they would win no matter what, and knew it.  
Another one who surprisingly spoke against Darwin at Oxford was Richard Owen, most famous for coining the work “dinosaur”. His bio at Wikipedia is the usual fudge, but even worse than usual. No parents are given and the bio starts at age 16: 
Owen became a surgeon's apprentice in 1820 and was appointed to the Royal College of Surgeons in 1826.[9] 
No mention of schooling, so we may assume he skipped it all, being an Owen.   

Looks eminently trustworthy, don't he? Not at all like a cousin of Dracula. He is not listed in the peerage, but we can be sure he was a close cousin of the Baronet Sir Hugh Owen, whose mother was a Philipps painted by Thomas Lawrence.    

These are the Philipps baronets related to the Perrots and Darcys. Think H. Ross Perot. These Owens come from Anglesey, so we may assume they are Owens who spawned the Tudor kings. Nothing else would explain the preference of this Richard Owen, or his complete family scrubbing.  
I am not going to get into dinosaurs here, but I will give you a little teaser. At Wikipedia on the page for dinosaurs, they tell us the Chinese have been using dinosaurs bones for traditional medicines for “millennia” , thinking they were dragon bones. Do you see a problem there? Think about it and get back to me. 
OK, you are back. Did you spot it? Dinosaurs lived 240 million years ago and bones don't last that long, even buried deep. Bones are organic material, which last longer than flesh after death but not indefinitely. Certainly not 240 million years. Dinosaur bones are actually fossils, which means they are not bone, they are rock. The bones were mineralized long ago, being replaced by rock. So are we expected to believe these Chinese people were using rocks in their traditional medicines? Bones in traditional medicines makes sense, but rocks? They were eating rocks? If we do a search on that, we are taken to this 2007 article from NBCnews.com, telling us that they did indeed eat rocks.  
Parts of the 18-meter dinosaur were dug up and eaten by locals as traditional medicine, scientists said Tuesday. 
Is that right?  Hmmm.  But it gets better: 
Until last year, the fossils were being sold in Henan province as “dragon bones” at about 25 cents a pound [what, not 33 cents a pound?], scientist Dong Zhiming said Wednesday. Thecalcium-rich bones were sometimes boiled with other ingredients and fed to children to treat dizziness and leg cramps. Other times they were ground up and turned into a paste applied directly to fractures and other injuries, he said. 
Wow. So it looks like neither NBC nor this “scientist” Dong Zhiming realize dinosaur bones are not really bones. The give-away is the “calcium-rich” thing, isn't it? Bones are calcium-rich, but rocks often aren't. Chickens aren't going to eat rocks. And it is difficult to grind rocks up into paste for fractures. 
You will say that rocks do contain calcium, as in calcite or dolomite. But that clearly isn't what they are talking about here, since although you can boil bones to easily get calcium from the broth, if you boil rocks you are going to get almost no calcium. If these people were wanting calcium to treat leg cramps, they would be using real bones, not marble rocks or something.    
So we have to ask why Wikipedia and NBC are lying to us so egregiously, treating us like ignorant children who think dinosaur bones are actually bones.  
Then there is this problem with this China story. Do you have any idea how much stirring of the crust there has been in the past 240 million years? How much vulcanism? How much continental change? Current mountain ranges are only about 50 million years old, so we have had entire mountain ranges rise and fall several times since the dinosaur bones would have been deposited. So the odds of some Chinese farmers finding dinosaur bones in topsoil are vanishing. Dinosaurs fossils, if they exist, should either be buried hundreds or thousands of feet deep or they should be on the tops of mountains, having been pushed up much later.  
And another problem: if you go here, you can see what the world looked like 240 million years ago. As you see, China hardly existed at all. Most of it was under water at the time, so no land dinos in those areas. About 3/4s of China was mountainous back then, since there was a sort of pre-Tibetan plateau even then. Dinos don't live in mountains—being lousy hill climbers—so no dinos there. So, again, the odds of modern Chinese farmers finding dino bones on the ground or upper layer of topsoil are vanishing. In the very small chance dinosaur bones were in those layers, it would be on the tops of the mountains, but that is not where these Chinese peasants in the story were. They were in Ruyang country, which is south of Luoyang. There are no mountains there. So these mainstream scientists can't seem to keep their stories straight. No continuity, as usual. Just a huge mass of bald contradictions.    
Back to Owen. He argued against Darwin in the 1860s not because he was against Evolution, but because he was against transmutation of species as the main driver. Outside the halls of Oxford, he was glad to promote the basic Evolution project, and did so as early as 1849, claiming man evolved from fish. But at this lecture in 1860, he was opposed to Huxley's claims that man had evolved directly from the apes. He preferred the idea that man had evolved on a parallel line from ape-like creatures, which of course is closer to the current dogma. I suspect he was mainly opposed to Huxley on political grounds, no doubt feeling that more circumspection and less noise would better drive the project forward. He was the turtle that struck slowly while Huxley was the hare that raced ahead, but they were both on the same page in the long run. 
With that in mind, it is useful to quote what the historians now tell us about the debate at Oxford: 
The anonymous publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, supporting the idea of transmutation of species, in 1844 brought a storm of controversy but attracted wide readership and became a bestseller. The scientific establishment also remained skeptical, but the book had convinced a vast popular audience.[10] 
As you see, the facts were opposite to what Owen had assumed. Owen assumed moving slowly was the way to draw people off the Church, but the popular audience was actually easier to convince than actual scientists. Very odd in so many ways, since it is opposite not only to Owen's assumption, but to any logical expectation. You would expect the top scientists of the day to be pushing the hardest on cutting edge science, but they weren't. Which proves again this project didn't come out of science. It came from the Dukes and the bankers and the merchants and the East India Company. It was a 
government project, not a science project. 

And the government found it easier to “educate” the people than they had feared. Although England remained very Christian, few people on the ground seemed to find Evolution a threat to their faith. Just as I said in the open paragraphs here, the people didn't really see the schism. Which is precisely why the project failed. They quickly sold the people Evolution, but found it didn't affect their religious beliefs much at all. Average people just fit in it all in together, as I did as a boy and as you may have, too. And that was maddening for the governors, because it meant they had to come up with newer projects against the Church, ones that no one in their right mind could synthesize. Which, as we know, they did. In the last 150 years they have continually accelerated the atomizing projects, slowing pulverizing society until nothing was left. But even now, especially in the US, they find Christianity will not die. No matter how many times they infiltrate it, splinter it, libel it, or mock it, it keeps reforming on the old lines, like Deadpool. 
You will say they destroyed my faith, so how can I say the project was a failure? Because Evolution, dinosaurs, DNA, moon landings, and all the rest had nothing to do with my spiritual being.  I didn't quit the church because I lost my faith or because I became a scientist or atheist. I also didn't quit because I thought they were molesting little boys. I never had a real connection to Christianity from the start. It didn't appeal to me because it wasn't telling me anything I wanted to know. And I didn't believe the things it was telling me, for the most part. I felt I would make better progress striking out on my own and learning from the world as I saw it myself. You could say the same for mainstream science, which I also quit early on, for the same reasons. That didn't make me an a-scientist or an anti-scientist. It just made me free and independent. I also wasn't amoral, immoral, or anarchical. I believed in truth, goodness, meaning, laws and so on, but felt I needed to weigh them in my own scales. I wasn't going to let anyone tell me what was right when I had eyes and judgment of my own.   
Besides, I was one of the least suggestible children ever born, and I didn't like being told what to do, even by the Bible.  I wanted to discover things on my own.  I don't see that as atheism or “do what thou wilt”, either. I see it as trusting my own instincts. God or Nature gave me those instincts, and I trusted them over the conclusions of anyone else. I still do. That is why I can write papers like this when no one else can.  I see what is there with no filters.  I am not looking through the eyes of a million teachers and influencers, I am looking only through my own. 
But most surprising is something else we find on the Wiki page for the Oxford “debate”. They admit that although most top scientists of the time were hostile to Darwin, the liberal theologians were his best allies. So it was completely topsy-turvy. The scientists were against him and the theologians were for him. But seeing who these liberal theologians were, we can find even more proof where this came from, and why.   
The publication of Essays and Reviews in 1860 caused a much bigger furore than the Oxford debate. It sold more in two years than Origin of Species sold in it its first two decades. This was seven essays by liberal theologians published by John William Parker, superintendent of Cambridge University Press. His father-in-law was Gideon Algernon Mantell, and Wikipedia scrubs them all, pretending they were all middle-class. They weren't, the Mantells being in the peerage and East India Company. Gideon Mantell allegedly discovered the first fossil teeth of the dinosaur Iguanodon. You may be interested to know that the great French anatomist Georges Cuvier identified these teeth as belonging to a rhinoceros.  So let's return to the Wiki page of Richard Owen, who we looked at above: 
Owen was granted right of first refusal on any freshly dead animal at the London Zoo. His wife once arrived home to find the carcass of a newly deceased rhinoceros in her front hallway.[8] 
Hmmmm.  What could it mean? 
And where did Mandell find these teeth? In Cuckfield.  Is Cuckfield on the top of some high Alp? No, it is off the M23 south of Crawley, on Hayward's Heath, near zero elevation in West Sussex. Is this where one would expect to find dinosaur bones? Let's go back to the map of the Mesozoic, to see. Well, as it turns out, London and Cuckfield were under water in the Jurassic and Cretaceous, so no land dinosaur bones were deposited there then. Oops! Well, you will say, maybe Iguanadon was living in the Triassic, when that area was dry. Nope, we are told Iguanadon lived in the late Jurassic to early Cretaceous.  Houston, we have a problem. 
You will say the landmasses not only rose and fell, they moved around in continental drift. So maybe this area was dry at that time. Maybe, but even if so, this is not where we would expect to find dinosaur bones now. Supposing they avoided passing through one of thousands of volcanos in 240 million years and being melted into lava, you would expect to find them in high elevations, brought back to the surface by rising mountains. You would not expect to find them in island heaths like this. The idea that Mantell's wife just stumbled across Iguanodon teeth while wandering the moor in Cuckfield is beyond ridiculous.  It is like a Monty Python skit.  
Plus, if you continue to search on Wikipedia itself, you find they admit England was underwater at that time. Iguanodon did not live under water, nor did it live in swamps or lagoons, since it had a short neck. At 3.5 tons it would not have lasted a week in a swamp, soon sinking to its death. Like a rhino, it would need to live on hard dry land. They also admit that the area south of London is the youngest part of current England, with the chalks being deposited long after the dinosaurs existed. During the Alpine Orogeny of the Cenozoic, they rose up, being former sea beds. So although it is remotely possible the area of West Sussex could contain very old sea creatures, it could not possibly contain land dinosaurs like the Iguanodon.  
And I remind you that there were known to be some very large animals roaming the Earth much more recently. Think of the mammoths of just 20,000 years ago, now of course long extinct. But they are thought to have existed up to 4000 years ago, which means they were still here in the time of the ancient Egyptians.  But it wasn't just mammoths or mastodons, it was beasts like the Toxodon: 

Remove his hair and he looks like a hornless rhino, but give him scales and he looks like a dinosaur. So why were these guys in the 1800s so keen on putting these teeth in Cuckfield back 240 million years ago, when they had plenty of holes to fill just a few thousand years ago? In fact, Owen and Darwin worked together on Toxodon, though Darwin as usual messed it all up, proposing it was aquatic like a manatee.  

Also see Megatherium, which Darwin and Owen also worked on. This was the giant sloth, weighing 
3.5 tons. . . just like Iguanodon. But wait, if you remove the hair, that looks a lot like Iguanodon, down to the shape of the tail! 

So why was Mantell so sure those were giant reptile teeth his wife found in Cuckfield? Cuvier the expert didn't think so. Iguanas have diamond shaped, pointed teeth, kind of like sharks. Rhinos have curly molars that look absolutely nothing like iguana or reptile teeth. So as usual, none of this makes any sense. There is no way Cuvier could have mistaken reptile teeth for rhino teeth, and there is no way Mantell could have thought something that resembled a rhino tooth also resembled an iguana tooth.  

That's Mantell's own illustration from his 1825 paper, with the teeth he found above and iguana teeth below. It is published on his page at Wiki. He is claiming a match. I see no match at all, even less if I go look at pictures of actual iguana teeth. But I do see why Cuvier thought these were rhino teeth. 3B looks exactly like a rhino tooth.  
But back to the liberal theologians. The first, Frederick Temple, later became archbishop of Canterbury, so not who you would normally think of as liberal. Of course Wiki doesn't bother to tell you, but he was a peer of the Temple baronets and viscounts, and he married extremely well, his wife being the granddaughter of George Howard, 6th Earl of Carlisle, and Dorothy Cavendish, daughter of the 5th Duke of Devonshire. This also linked him immediately to the Egertons, Leveson-Gowers, Spencers, Russells, Powletts, Paulets, Scropes and Byrons, bringing in at least five more dukes. We already saw the Powletts, Paulets and Scropes above. The Temples were also related to the Levesons and Spencers, so he married his cousin. The Temples were also Grenville-Temples, Earls Temple, and through them we link again to the Chambers. See the author of Vestiges, above. We now find with more digging the Chambers were closely related to the Berkeleys and Noels, who then link us to the Villiers.  Who was a Villiers?  Fitzroy, captain of the Beagle. 
Temple's essay, written at age 39 when he was still headmaster of Rugby School, was relatively harmless, but he would have known what the other essays were and should have read them, so it should still seem strange to mainstream historians that he was part of this.  Wilberforce immediately demanded he remove his essay from the collection, but he refused to turn on his colleagues. And again, it is highly suspicious to find a future archbishop of Canterbury getting involved in any of this, at any age. It shows you just how “liberal” the Anglican Church was, even at its center, liberal meaning not liberal, 
but scheming and destructive of not just Catholicism, but Christianity in general.     


I tripped across that in my digging. It isn't Temple, it is Meyrick Goulburn by George Richmond, in black, white and red chalk on tan paper. I had to include it because it is such a fantastic bit of work. Not everything is a fraud. 
One of the two most controversial essays in the collection was by Rowland Williams, vice-principal and professor of Hebrew at St. David's College, Lampeter. He came from the Griffiths/Gruffudds of Cochwillan, Wales, who were also. . . yep, Tudors. This is where Henry VII came from. He was in that direct line, so not a Welsh outsider as he is sold. We are now told his essay seems innocuous by current standards, which unfortunately is true. Christianity has been so watered down by everyone up to the Pope it amazing it floats at all.  But whatever you think of Williams' arguments that large parts of the Bible can be ignored, his essays certainly fits my argument here, that being, again, that Christianity had been infiltrated by these pretend Christians—really from old Phoenician lines—who were purposely blowing it from the inside. You will say, what do I care, I ignore the whole thing, but I care not because I am arguing the Christian side, but because I want to know what happened and why. want to understand the real history here, so that I can share it with you. You and I will then be able to make better decisions. Your decisions may not be the same as mine concerning Christianity, but that is OK: you and I are different people with different needs and goals, and if this paper strengthens your faith that is fine by me. My targeted enemy is not Christianity, science, or any religion or faith. It is these Phoenician fakes and liars who have polluted all of known history.  
Williams and Henry Bristow Wilson were brought up on charges of heresy, at first convicted by the Dean of Arches, but acquitted on appeal by the Privy Council. That is also very strange, since it isn't clear what authority the Privy Council should have had here. The Council invited three bishops to sit with them in judgment, to make the thing look real, but the bishops were guaranteed to be outvoted, so it was all another scam. The seven authors were clearly part of a government project, so there is no way they were going to be convicted of anything. The only thing that is of much interest here is that both the lower clergy and laity (normal people) were strongly against the seven authors and their liberal theology. The archbishops of Canterbury and York voted against the Privy Council and for conviction, and they were supported by letters or signatures from 137,000 parishioners and 11,000 clergy—almost half the clergy in England. That doesn't mean the other half supported the seven, it more likely means they were too timid to sign anything, for fear of reprisals.  
The Convocation of Canterbury, reinstated in 1840 after being crushed by Henry VIII in 1534, met in 1864 and, led by Wilberforce, obtained a synodical condemnation of the seven authors. Given that, it is pretty amazing that one of the seven authors, Temple, ended up being the Archbishop of Canterbury 32 years later.  If you are a Stuart, nothing sticks to you.  

Let's return now to Darwin. As a portraitist and sculptor, I think I am qualified to comment on that, Darwin's 2009 bicentennial portrait by Anthony Smith. It's really not good, is it? It doesn't look like Darwin, to start with. Is it Darwin with a toupee? Darwin always had a much higher forehead, even in his early twenties. The haircut is not period, since they liked it longer on the sides with sideburns. The arm and hand positions are very stiff and odd. Why is Darwin making a circle with the near hand? More Masonic tomfoolery? The thumb is freakishly long, like some alien thumb. And the near foot position is also unnatural. The clothes look sort of sloppy, as if they are made of plastic instead of cloth, and you can tell at a glance how this was formed out of wax, since it looks partly melted. The wrinkles in the cloth are very amateurish. The overall tooling (the chicken scratches all over) is unnecessary, unappealing, and distracting. They could have hired a real sculptor to do this, someone like Alex Stoddart or Philippe Faraut, so why Anthony Smith, who was only 24 when he landed the commission?  They were too cheap?  Maybe, but studying this photo, I can think of other reasons.  

No one is looking at Darwin, are they? The old men seem very enamored of the boy. And again, I am eminently qualified to comment here, because I looked very much like that at 24, so I know what is going on there. I refused to go along with it, but Smith didn't. A sculptor should be chosen for his ability, not for his pretty hair. He was tapped even before that, when, at age 22, he was chosen to sculpt Linnaeus for the Linnean Society, and it is even worse (see below). We have already hit all that about Linnaeus, haven't we? Smith also did the Alfred Russel Wallace statue, which is also not good. So this all looks like another inside job.    

The first guy in the group photo is given as Alan Smith, “benefactor”.  Are the two Smiths related?  We aren't told. I looked them both up at thepeerage.com, but didn't come up with anything. Which doesn't mean they aren't of peerage families. Wikipedia should tell us Anthony Smith's parents, but conspicuously doesn't. Best guess is he comes from the Smith baronets of Crowmallie, who have connections to Glasgow, Cambridge, and Westminster College, since Anthony has all three on his resume. See for example Sir William Gordon Smith of Crowmallie, 2nd baronet, who went to Westminster and Cambridge. His father and grandfather went to Glasgow Academy and Cambridge. His son was a lecturer in physics at Cambridge. These Smiths are related to the Kennedys of Ballycastle, Ireland. 
And guess what, we have already hit these Smiths/Smythes above and in earlier parts, haven't we? That can't be a coincidence.  So it closes another circle finding one of them as the sculptor here.  
We have now gotten Darwin up to age 30, so it is very strange what Wikipedia tells us about this period: 
Darwin now had the framework of his theory of natural selection "by which to work",[105] as his "prime hobby".[111] His research included extensive experimental selective breeding ofplants and animals, fnding evidence that species were not fxed and investigating manydetailed ideas to refne and substantiate his theory.[18] For ffteen years this work was in the background to his main occupation of writing on geology and publishing expert reports onthe Beagle collections, in particular, the barnacles.[112] 
So for fifteen years Darwin neglected Evolution to concentrate of geology and barnacles? I thought his first love was beetles. Why is he writing about geology and barnacles? Because, again, he is just the front for other people. He is like Lennon/McCartney fronting George Martin and the professional songwriters you have never heard of. If you want to know why the early Beatles hits were what they were, don't ask John and Paul. Ask George Martin. Those lyrics are telling you about him and his team, not about John and Paul. That's why most of the hits of the 60s and 70s (not just the Beatles) sound like they were written by people far older than the people singing them: because they were. Same thing here, where we are seeing Lyell, Thompson, Hooker and others, not Darwin. If you don't believe me, see this article on Darwin and barnacles, which all but admits it.   
Hooker became Darwin's main resource regarding evolution, a topic that remained his true love even while he was in the midst of his barnacle research. Hooker's botanical expertise was a useful anchor for Darwin's speculations on the origins of species. Any time he had a question aboutplant distribution or varieties, Hooker could be depended on to find an answer, if there was one. He invited Hooker to spend time at Down, where the two would go on walks around the groundsbefore Darwin, sick as ever, returned to his room to rest. 
Many places claim Darwin discovered barnacles were crustaceans, not mollusks, but Wikipedia admits that isn't true. It was discovered by John Vaughan Thompson in 1830, and they admit Darwin read his book in the 1830s. Thompson was still working on this up to his death in 1847, exactly the same years Darwin was publishing on barnacles. Darwin later admitted he actually hated barnacles, so it is strange he allegedly spent 8 years writing about them.   
From 1836 to 1859, a period of 23 years, Darwin actually published very little. His biographers at Wikipedia are forced to fill these sections with a lot of fluff, and we learn a lot about his marriage and bad health and his “ideas”, but get very little that is tangible. Other than the fake Journal which came out in 1939, which we have already covered, he published a book on coral reefs that is about 200 pages and a book on barnacles that consisted of three monographs of Cirripedes. There were also two geological books on volcanic islands and on South America in general, but I again get no impression he wrote them.  As I showed in part II, he didn't actually go around the world, so he didn't even visit many of these places, and may not have visited any of them. But even if he did write all of these things, it is a slender bibliography for 23 years, especially for a guy who otherwise had no job. He was not in academia or business, so he could devote himself full-time to writing. I write more in one year than Darwin wrote in those 23 years.  
And, it goes without saying, he published absolutely nothing on Evolution in those 23 years. Not one word. Not a magazine article, not a scientific journal article, nothing. We are told he had a “sketch” which became a 230-page essay he was sitting on, but there is no proof of that one way or the other. It is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim, and science doesn't work like that.  
Which brings us up to On the Origin of Species and Darwin's team trumping of Wallace.  But I have hit 21 pages pdf (about 60 book pages), so we will save that for part V. A few hours ago I wasn't sure there would be a part IV, but look at all we have learned.