Charles Darwin paper 4 – Mathis “I had no idea of the depth of the cesspool”

“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

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. ”

Above is the first 2 pages of his paper which is 23 pages long


Below are the final 3 paragraphs on page 23

“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.”


Get the latest Tap posts emailed to you daily

2 Responses to “Charles Darwin paper 4 – Mathis “I had no idea of the depth of the cesspool””

  1. ian says:

    I’m not a great fan of Mathis, and I don’t mean to be disrespectful to those who are, he just doesn’t appeal to me, very likely that says more about me than him, but I think this piece is excellent. I never thought much of Darwin, as he said what most people knew anyway, ie that plants and animals evolve depending on circumstances. It wasn’t much more than that. He ruled out any divine creation too, which ruffled feathers. I don’t know the answer of how the earth started, but neither does Darwin.

    • pete fairhurst 2 says:

      Yes Ian I know that you aren’t a fan. I’m not a fan myself I just take each paper on merit, some good, some not so…

      But he is a very good writer, sometimes very funny too, and he often hits the nail on the head for me. The introduction to this paper certainly did that which is why I posted it

      Btw he starts to examines the dinosaur BS on page 11 of this paper and promptly opens a can of worms. My bet is that will lead to a longer paper in future, certainly hope so