>One other thing, those MORON genetics advocates would accuse TD Lysenko of imagining that "if you train a horse to run, it's offspring will be able to also run," as if to imply that Lysenko thought that the mere training of the horse would be passed down to its offspring. They make it sound that way. Then, as if we are all morons too, they go on to tell us that you have to "breed" horses that run good. DUH, that's exactly what Lysenko WAS DOING, eg, with cows, and mostly with plants. In case no one noticed: this IS manipulation of the ENVIRONMENT and of nature. It is DIRECTLY manipulating it. It doesn't matter if the "technical explanation" of what you are doing is genetic or not. Two plants that normally would NOT be in the same environment or breed with each other: TAKE THEM and BREED THEM. This IS manipulation of the environment: trying to get a result that is beneficial to man. That is what Lysenko was DOing, it was what Michurin SAID to do: practical things like this. Vernalization was also a direct manipulation of the environment - but the genetic theorists demanded that Lysenko provide them with a THEORY about why and how vernalization works. UGH. It turns out that the explanation involves EPI-genetic inheritance which was only JUST RECENTLY discovered. Today, geneticists would try to deceive people into believing that "crossing genes of a cat with those of a dog" is the same as animal breeding since both involve "genes blending." HOLD ON. It's NOT the same. The products of such genetic manipulation, not having evolved thru a long series of mutations in nature and BY NATURAL MEANS, would not be FIT to exist in ANY environment: because if they were fit or NATURALLY able to blend or be blended directly by animal breeders, we'd SEE cat/dogs as a type of animal right now. Dogs and cats are NOT cross-fertile. But they can be MADE to cross thru genetic manipulation and bioengineering. So what good is this for man?
>One of the most IMPORTANT things PRO MAN is Preventive Medicine which is only a baby science in the capitalist countries. Preventive Medicine threatens PROFITS made by doctors and hospitals (including the American Cancer Society) from the SICKNESSES of people. They'd be out of business if people were able to PREVENT most sicknesses! That's what the Marxists have said. MORONS don't seem to grasp it. WHY NOT? What do THEY PAY for health insurance or for doctor's visits or visits to specialists, or a hospital stay of one day? That should give them an "in the flesh" clue, but it doesn't.
>Lysenko, prior to 1936, never contrived for power. But in 1936 he arose against the geneticists, and they rose up against him also, even trying to involve the Central Committee when Vavilov was the pet of the party. This was due exclusively to the Lysenko group GETTING practical results and needing funding for practical tools coming up against the genetic or Vavilov group that was trying to divert funding to their side for theoretical research, Vavilov himself having written so huge an amount of literature that NO ONE in one lifetime could have read it - with NOT ONE THING in there being put to practical use. Vavilov was criticized by the OGPU in the late 1920's for doing this, collecting seeds and doing NOTHING with them; it is also known that some of the samples Vavilov paid for in Soviet gold and brought back were samples that the Czarist Russians sold TO foreigners from whom Vavilov got these "new" samples. He was criticized for this, but not jailed or put on trial. This was never disputed, not even in 1948. It was also well known in the USSR! Lysenko's group had RESULTS, the geneticists had nothing but theories. In the TDL-NKVD expose we tried to show just what it is genetics HAS given us (nothing), but herein is another bombshell.
>First off: Yarovizatsya (Lysenko's own journal), 1937, No 2, p. 15 states: "The discussion here is about securing the further development of geneticists from the point of view of development, securing the development of genetics as a science in place of converting genetics into a service of Goebbles. Only this will make it possible to convert such science into the highest stage which, at the moment, is in its primary stages of development. Only this will make is possible for our geneticists to earn respect of all the progressive scientists in the world. For the sake of clarity we repeat that Darwinism is not against genetics. Darwinism is for genetics. Darwinism is not against genetics but Darwinism is against fascist distortion of genetics and the fascist utilization of genetics in its political aims that are detrimental to the progress of humanity."
>There is it, from the horse's mouth. It refutes the LIES told about Lysenko.
>Now, for the bombshell: during Khrushchev's time Lysenko proposed that the funds allotted for the development of the virgin soil be used instead in the traditional Russian regions towards the fertilization of soil and thus the increase of crop production; the development of the virgin soil was to be left for grazing purposes of livestock until such time as concrete agrotechnical methods could be developed for these regions. HE WARNED that the Khrushchev adventurism would yield several crops and then would result in soil erosion and dust storms! It was precisely for this reason that he was dismissed from his office as president of VASHKhNIL. And what he said would happen to the virgin soil - is exactly what happened! Letter to Khrushchev from Lysenko was gotten from archives tho it is well known that Lysenko was always dead set against any kind of corn crops. There is no corn belt in the USSR.
>Zhores Medvedev, however, in his scathing book of bullshit, wrote that geneticists began an open struggle against Lysenko and that they wrote about 300 letters against him. There is no mention in Medvedev's book about Lysenko being against Khrushchev's adventures to upturn the virgin soil and that it was precisely this that had predetermined the "courage" of the geneticists, as Medvedev would have it. He lies by omission of VITAL information. And just WHO was it that was in favor of Khrushchev's virgin soil adventure that ruined the land? Why, one of them is well known for it! Shmalthausen, together with Zavadovski, Zhukovsky and others - notably those that got into trouble after Lysenko was given power to do his practical works in 1948! So then, as soon as these formerly denounced geneticists got the upper hand, they went in with Khrushchev on the virgin soil and corn and popcorn program that ruined the land! Medvedev DOES NOT mention this, or, ha ha ha, GIVE THEM CREDIT for it.
>There are those who call themselves scientists that produce nothing and that come up with bogus adventures (such as the cytoplasmic sterility corn fiasco in Texas for which not one geneticist got punished but for which many farmers and their children lost their homes and livelihoods). These types of scientists do NOT produce material wealth or betterment of material being. Instead, they loot it and stick it in their heads and in their books and publications for others of their kind, lice, to read and fawn over. Before Stalin's death, before Beria's assassination, before Lysenko's dismissal and later retirement, the government undertook measures of sorts to FORCE this army of lice to mentally create some kind of wealth to compensate for people's losses. The Vavilov victory (of sorts) only freed the "scholars" from performing practical undertakings. Yes, the "world" agrees (including the capitalist world which was out to bury the USSR from the start), they all agree that these parasites are "scholars" "promoting science." And it appears that there are many FOOLS that were in government after Stalin. The government gave them a livelihood but did they really serve science? Well, they surely determined "what science is supposed to be." Ahem.
>You see, the kolkhoz director would be punished if he produced roses instead of wheat. The worker was punished if he produced waste and not a working product. But these scientific scholarly parasites insisted that, in science, negative results are results nonetheless, despite being of NO benefit to anyone! But was it a LOSS to anyone? YES! It costs a LOT to produce such experiments, negative or not! The titles were awarded NOT to those who benefitted from the scientist's results (which would make sense) but on the scientists themselves. Another masterpiece of state idiocy. That's like paying a fortune for a car that doesn't work: oh, it's STILL a car, duh.
>Why did Lysenko rise? It's easy to explain: he produced EATABLE results, lots and lots of it. Why did he fall in 1956? Because he was dead set against Khrushchev's corn/popcorn-virgin soil idiocy. Sure, Khrushchev ran to him again later when the disaster was obvious, but it was too late. One can not, no one has figured out how to, FIX destroyed, eroded land.
>Lysenko's problem was that he had to increase numbers as well as meet deadlines. This was a problem that seemed unachievable to the petrified Vavilov. Lysenko tried to solve the problem because its solution was essential to the people. No one was able to fulfill quotas 100%, but agricultural productivity under Lysenko grew steadily and these were his priorities: to increase production of grain and livestock. His priorities were NOT to simultaneously increase scientific accountability and conferences. Because he DID do what he set out to do (as shown by Richard Lewontin's statistics) he rose.
>One must remember also, the theory of genetics back then, the fact that the "gene" was almost a hypnotic entity like the soul. "Something" may carry heredity forth, but the exactness and methods were unknown and there is STILL debate on this today with L. Margulies turning the whole Darwinian paradigm on its head with her proofs. One must remember the hysteria over the concept of pure lines (read pure races) and this was not just in Hitler's Germany. The only things that really DO work along Mendelian lines of 3:1 are DISEASES! Genes that are deleterious work that way. Technically, there IS a gene for a smooth pea; but there is NO gene for a wrinkled pea. What produces the wrinkled pea is a MISSING GENE. Mendel set out to disprove Darwin; few know this tho there is LOTS of literature about it in technical journals. It should be obvious to anyone that GRASPS what evolution really IS that nothing is immutable - if it were, there'd be no evolution (which is what Mendel tried to prove). Botanists, above all, know that this 3:1 doesn't work out. Kamin, among others, proved Mendel was a fraud!
>Most recent rehash of the whole Mendel fiasco (only Mendel, no one else) can be found in the article: "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin" by B. E. Bishop in the JOURNAL OF HEREDITY, 1996; 87; 205-213. 0022-1503/96/$5.00 Return to index of pro-Lysenko articles.