by Eric Striker
While it can be tempting to laugh at Soviet scientists under the command of Trofim Lysenko desperately trying to protect vulnerable Marxist dogma by putting grain in freezers in preparation for a magical winter harvest, the real world consequences (exacerbated food shortages) were not so funny. Soviet policy throughout the 1930’s was to disprove the “Fascist” science of genetics pioneered by Gregor Mendel at any cost, and all those who held a different opinion were ruthlessly suppressed and publicly shamed (remember James Watson?). For charlatans like Lysenko, who had nominal training and experience in agricultural sciences that fell quite short of meriting authoritativeness, the dictatorship of turgid Jewish ideology over stark reality in the Soviet establishment paved a clear road for fame and fortune in packaging 20th century alchemy as a “materialist response” to Mendellian “idealism”.
While there are objective problems with various assertions of Darwinism, the existence of heritability has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, social conditioning and individual variables, while absolutely important in determining how genes are expressed, does not mean genetics are a “social construct” or merely “skin deep” externalities.
Fast forward eight decades, and the spirit of Lysenko looms large in America’s most prestigious academic institutions. The intent of this monopolization of the bullhorn is so that lies reverberate throughout all other aspects of society for the purpose of engineering it to fit a higher political conspiracy. Today, an army of virtually wholly Jewish race-deniers–Stephen Jay Gould, Barry Mehler, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, et al– have conquered our best universities and installed electrified boundaries around public discourse, with “interdisciplinary” (codeword for the Jewing of serious sciences through excessive pilpul) books like 1984’s Not In Our Genes and the award-winning The Mismeasure of Man (1981), which basically posit that IQ tests and the findings yielded by Galtonian methodology must be dismissed right off the bat because they’re racist tools to protect the social privileges of the architects.
The pioneer of bacterial genetics, Harvard Medical School’s Bernard D. Davis, dubbed the Jews denying the relationship between race and intelligence as “Neo-Lysenkoists“. Davis was stumped as to why the theories of Gould and others like him were being hyped up by the mass media and political establishment as works of pure and empirical brilliance, even though these same papers and books were completely debunked as ideologically motivated frauds by other fellow academics in the very same years they were published:
” In effect, see here [Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasurement of Man] Lysenkoism risen again: an effort to outlaw a field of science because it conflicts with a political dogma. To be sure, the new version is more limited in scope, and it does not use the punitive powers of a totalitarian state, as Trofim Lysenko did in the Soviet Union to suppress all of genetics between 1935 and 1965. But that is not necessary in our system: A chilling atmosphere is quite sufficient to prevent funding agencies, investigators, and graduate students from exploring a taboo area. And such Neo-Lysenkoist politicization of science, from both the left and the right, is likely to grow, as biology increasingly affects our lives–probing the secrets of our genes and our brain, reshaping our image of our origins and nature, and adding new dimensions to our understanding of social behavior. When ideologically-committed scientists try to suppress this knowledge they jeopardize a great deal, for without the ideal of objectivity science loses its strength” (Pg 58-59, Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the Press)
Writing at the tail end of an era of relative academic freedom (the early 1980’s) and bolstered by his fame as a mankind changing scientific genius, Davis is genuinely confused about the massive gulf between the Jew Gould’s genuine scientific merit and the promotion he was enjoying everywhere else. Of course, we know better, because once you realize the only thing Gould has in common with New York Times cheerleader June Goodfield, and The New Yorker’s Jeremy Bernstein, the Saw-like epiphany-ending where it all begins to make perfect sense, and this flood hits you like seeing the glistening puzzle piece hanging off the neck of the kid who just won’t stop eating Elmer’s glue.
Study Finds Affluent Blacks More Likely To Commit Crime Than Poor Whites
Judeo-Lysenkoism is the only explanation allowed when discussion of the relationship between race and crime is involved. The adage is that people who are poor are compelled to rape, murder and brutally assault others, and that is why 37% of prison inmates are “African-American”. A genuine scientific and social inquiry into the matter would obviously find that this is nonsense, but until we can restore academic freedom, we’ll just have to look at the occasional trickle of truth that gets through the cracks in the wall.
A new study by Khaing Zaw, William Darity, et al has completely refuted the relationship between race, poverty and crime. To preface these findings, I personally agree with the notion that justice in America is sometimes unfair, but the bias is in favor of those who can purchase justice (including blacks, e.g., OJ Simpson) and a problem intrinistic in the Anglo-capitalist legal philosophy. While everyone knows blacks on average are dumber and far more senselessly violent than whites, “sociologists” could technically cling to the straw of income inequality in possibly influencing black vs white conviction rates.
In practice, the opposite is true, and millions of violent negroes are released earlier and earlier in order to avoid political problems. Never the less, the data from a National Longitudinal Survey of Youth that has been tracked since 1979 found that 2.7% of America’s poorest young white people have been to prison, while 10% of upper class black youth have been to prison. When we factor in the bias towards the wealthy, there’s a good chance the number of wealthy black criminals is much higher, but either they or their parents use their money and clout to get them off the hook.
The cultural Marxist Lysenkoists try to put a spin on this data by claiming that racism is to blame. Little to no evidence is given to back this up, however. This phenomenon that transcends class and income inequality can be seen in other fields, such as SAT scores, where poor whites often do better than rich blacks.
The explanation for this is quite obvious: intelligence and character are inherited, and there are racial clusters in these traits. While there is certainly no shortage of white dirtbags and there are plenty of blacks that go out and do the right thing, the medians of both show that trying to force large numbers of these two groups to live in the same space is impossible.
This was taken for granted by both blacks and whites until very recently in history, and the relative (compared to now) racial harmony we had in the past has been disturbed by a group of “Neo-Lysenkoists”, “Hollywood Directors”, “Big Capitalists”, “Shifty Dishonest Types”. It’s likely Bernard Davis, a man of extraordinary capacity for observation and reasoning, saw the pattern in the people promoting lies as indisputable facts, but he was just too cowardly to come right out and say it.