05.07.09

Darwin propaganda machine and WHEE

Posted in Evolution, World History and The Eonic Effect at 2:04 pm by nemo

Comment of Reading WHEE

James said,
May 6, 2009 at 6:52 pm ·
“No other book on evolution can compete with this one, which is remarkable, since ‘officially’ it doesn’t exist, and most scholars would be fired from their job if they dared mention it.”

I don’t think this blog “officially” exists either. Both sides seem to be too scared to even mention it.

Afraid to mention it, but not unaware of its existence, book or blog.
The establishment is well aware of my work.
One problem is that the ‘eonic effect’ doesn’t fit into the scenarios of the ‘religionists vs the Darwinists’. It exposes both points of view.

Here’s a cute item: in 2000, almost a month after the first edition came out, the book was immediately cited at the classic History & Theory journal. That was before the book became taboo to mention. Please note that the premier historical theory journal, innocently, plugged the book before getting lambasted by the establishment. That was the last time anyone in academia had the nerve to mention the book!

Somebody behind the scenes was sending a floater, or something. And that was a prelude to an attack on historiography (indirectly) by Darwinian history promoters at that magazine, or elsewhere. The challenge to the Darwinization of historiography was met with counterattack.
I never figured out who was willing to get my work a plug there, they were too scared to identify themselves. Funny, History & Theory has been silenced as a result. I used at least to post on their email list (there are dozens of my posts there on historical theory). Now I can’t even post there. Remarkable.
Two books at least have indirectly tried to coopt WHEE, one by Robert Wilson (didn’t you notice, he doesn’t discuss evolution any more) and Karen Armstrong. I was in retrospect excessive with Wright, perhaps, but he took material in 1999 from my incipient website on WHEE (the book appeared four months later) on the issue of Kant’s Challenge, and reworked that a la Darwin, without any reference to me or my version. Outrageously unkind, and misleading.
Same from Karen Armstrong: she must have read the first edition, then tried to coopt the manner used in my eonic model to explain the Axial Age.
The result in her book is a pitiful distortion of the issue of the Axial Age. Again outrageously unkind and dishonest, not even a footnote referencing my version.
The reason, of course, is that the eonic model connects the Axial Age to issues of evolution. Controversial, guys and gals.
Keep it sugary and sweet, as Armstrong did in her book, threatening to destroy the whole subject of the Axial Age.

So, it is not as if they don’t know who I am! REALLY afraid of me, because I am a non-religious critic of Darwinism.

That’s a very hurtful thing: a celebrity rips off (making sure not to plagiarize, just taking the theme as if from scratch) someone’s work without citation and puts a new propaganda slant on it.

Karen Armstrong is a right thorough media whore. I can’t for the life of me figure out how the media thinks she is a ‘religious expert’.

I once received a very encouraging letter from an academic who wished to plug my book in public, but finally welshed, and confessed he was afraid to. He recommended patience: WHEE is a book that won’t go away.

I rest my case. I am certainly know, two books have tried to squelch me.
In vain, I fear.
And you can see why academics are extremely nervous on the subject.

Permalink