Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and other agents
Wed 9:57 am +00:00, 16 Jul 2025
Part IV of a long series on the fraud Charles Darwin
He rips the official story to shreds, including the Beagle…
Source for below, first 2 pages here: https://mileswmathis.com/huxley.pdf
Part I: https://mileswmathis.com/darwin.pdf
Part II: https://mileswmathis.com/darw2.pdf
Part II: https://mileswmathis.com/wallace.pdf
Part IV: as above
Part V: https://mileswmathis.com/darw5.pdf
In total it is a very long read, but it is well worth the effort
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.
