You can PROVE Anything About Boys Without Fathers

August 10, 2011
Why are we playing Lysenkoism with children?

Lashawn Barber
From fatherlessness flows many things…

Fatherless children are more likely to be poor, perform poorly in school, engage in premarital sex, become teen parents, abuse drugs, and commit crimes than children from intact families. Black children are significantly less likely than other children to be raised in intact families. In 2004, a mere 35 percent of black children were living with two parents, compared to 83 percent of Asian children, 77 percent of white children, and 65 percent of Hispanic children.
Despite decades worth of research on the damage wrought by illegitimacy, a research psychologist named Peggy Drexler attempts to argue that lesbian couples and “single by choice” mothers do a better job of raising boys than married couples in Raising Boys without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men.
Drexler, a mother of two and married for 36 years, interviewed a small and limited number of lesbian couples, heterosexual women who volunteered to deprive their sons of fathers, divorced mothers, and their sons. Her “maverick moms” reject “social judgments” and stress “communication, community, and love” in their roles as mothers.
In one form or another throughout the book, Drexler sets up the strawman, “Mother love doesn’t hurt our boys.” I have never heard reasonable people make such a claim. Unlike Drexler, most people believe that “mother love” and “father love” need to balance each other, which is why intact families are best for children. Drexler often exaggerates and uses the most extreme examples throughout the book to support her biases.
Raising Boys Without Men will give aid and comfort to single mothers, but a house full of them, no matter how well off, won’t ever change the fact that boys want and need fathers. Considering the utter devastation fatherlessness has caused in black communities, it would be easy to go off on Drexler, but she makes clear that she focused on mostly white, affluent lesbians and single mothers.

Time Magazine: The data that Gartrell and Bos analyzed came from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), begun in 1986. The authors included 154 women in 84 families who underwent artificial insemination to start a family; the parents agreed to answer questions about their children’s social skills, academic performance and behavior at five follow-up times over the 17-year study period. Children in the families were interviewed by researchers at age 10 and were then asked at age 17 to complete an online questionnaire, which included queries about the teens’ activities, social lives, feelings of anxiety or depression, and behavior.

Why didn’t she interview black single mothers and fatherless boys in inner cities, mothers whose fatherless sons are in and out of the criminal justice system, and boys who are fathers themselves by the time they’re teenagers? Drexler writes:

Like mine, most research in this area has concerned a primarily White and privileged population. Lesbian identity among socioeconomically subordinate groups is generally less visible or less affirmed than it is among more prosperous, White, educated, urban populations. Ethnographic evidence suggests that closeted lesbian and gay people of color often value racial solidarity over sexual adhesiveness. Racial/ethnic allegiances may deter disproportionate numbers of people of color from coming out.

In other words, interviewing poor or economically disadvantaged, black heterosexual or closeted lesbian mothers would not have yielded the results that Drexler, an advocate for white, affluent, lesbian-headed households, was seeking.
Incidentally, the feminist movement traditionally has been a white and affluent phenomenon, although its effects have reverberated through all levels of society. The late Betty Friedan was a suburban homemaker who likened her home life to a concentration camp. For whatever reason, she was unhappy being married and trying to raise decent human beings. It sounded like a personal problem to me, but her book, The Feminine Mystique, marked the unofficial beginning of the feminist movement and sparked a revolution.
Although women had legitimate claims, especially when it came to equal wages for equal work, feminism went much further by waging war against the last standing pillar of society: the traditional family.
Feminists argued that women should be free to work outside the home and to be sexually promiscuous (and irresponsible). Chasteness until marriage was Victorian and repressive, and marriage was stifling and demeaning. A new crop of young women became sexually available to men without the shackles of commitment. The archaic idea of marrying the woman you impregnate was thrown out with the rest of the garbage.
Women from affluent, intact families were able to bounce back from sexual irresponsibility (oh, the irony!) in ways that women from lower-classes, especially those who grew up without fathers, were not. In 1964, a year after Friedan’s book hit the streets and a year before Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued a report that warned of the increase of female-headed households in low-income urban areas and associated social pathologies, close to 25 percent of black babies were born to unmarried women. In 2006, the rate is 70 percent.
The irony of ironies is that despite the “independent woman” meme pushed by feminists, too many of their inner city and low-income “sisters” are not independent nor are they dependent on husbands-oppressors, either. They are dependent on the government. The state is the provider. The children grow up mired in a cycle of poverty that is passed from one generation of fatherless children to the next.
A recurring theme in Raising Boys Without Men, despite Drexler’s best efforts to downplay it, is the boys’ desire for fathers. They wanted men — masculine men — in their lives. The clear message of the book is that the boys’ hunger for fathers was trumped by the desires of their progressive “maverick moms.”
The feminist movement spawned generations of selfish women, absentee fathers, and shattered families. Some women may want to be free of husbands, but children certainly don’t want to be free of fathers. And no study will ever prove otherwise.

So what does this prove? If you want to you can prove anything with a study!

Image via Study Shows that Children of Lesbian Parents Are More Well-Adjusted Than “Normal” Kids – Zelda Lily, Feminism in a Bra @ zeldalily.com
Our daughter switches back and forth between Mommy and MamaMama or Mommy. To bypass the mayhem, Nora sometimes just calls us by name. “Don’t call me Erika!” I plead. “I like being called Mommy. You’re the only one on this planet who can call me Mommy.” But I’m not the only person on this planet she can call Mommy. Says, A lesbian mother wants to be the only mommy on Mother’s Day.

The Decline of Men or Just the Rise of Women?


EPA will Ban Rat and Mouse Toxic Poisons: For professional use only

June 7, 2011

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko or the great sparrow hunt all over again

Remember when they banned DDT almost 40 year prior because it claimed responsibility for the degeneration of eagles and other birds? Rachel Carson,  made it known through her book called “Silent Spring, a falsification of the effects of DDT.  Thus, the creation of the EPA.   DDT had earlier been hailed as a “miracle” chemical that repelled and killed mosquitoes that carry malaria, a disease that can be fatal to humans. The results from the ban were disastrous: at least 1-2 million people continue to die from malaria each year.  The USA is still plagued by Bed Bugs epidemic because of this ban today.  
Now, present the EPA as of Tuesday creating better and healthier living, for children, pets and wildlife will ban the rat and mouse poisons, as well as most loose bait and pellet products  in residential form. 
Only a licensed pest control professional will be able to use those poisons that are available for use in residential setting.  In other words, not obtainable to the public any longer.
The pest control lobbyists in Washington made a comeback.
But the EPA has issued a media release with other tips how to stop the invasion of rat and mice.


Now, the inner city children can get bit by rats and mice that plague their dwellings. Let us see what diseases will occur from a new infestation of these rodents.


Engineering Biological Change @NYTimes. Planting Foreign Species for Global Warming. How Colonialist!

May 23, 2011
CHICAGO — The Windy City is preparing for a heat wave —
a permanent one,,,

City planners in Chicago have been told that as temperatures rise, some plants native to the region will die out.Climate scientists have told city planners that based on current trends, Chicago will feel more like Baton Rouge than a Northern metropolis before the end of this century.  So, Chicago is getting ready for a wetter, steamier future. Public alleyways are being repaved with materials that are permeable to water. The white oak, the state tree of Illinois, has been banned from city planting lists, and swamp oaks and sweet gum trees from the South have been given new priority. Thermal radar is being used to map the city’s hottest spots, which are then targets for pavement removal and the addition of vegetation to roofs. And air-conditioners are being considered for all 750 public schools, which until now have been heated but rarely cooled. via nytimes.com

this is how you make an environment unbalanced… by futzing with it. who knows what the long term effect will be of planting species that are not native… hey that sounds very liberal… but Environmentalists know this as textbook 101. Saving the environment is best done through NON INTERVENTION. It is as if we learned nothing from Lysenkoism and MAO

So Chicago is turning to swamp white oaks and bald cypress. It is like the rest of adaptation strategy, Ms. Malec-McKenna explains: “A constant ongoing process to make sure we are as resilient as we can be in facing the future.”

The Great sparrow campaign (Chinese: ; pinyin: què Media_httpuploadwikim_gqcuwYùndòng) also known as the Kill a sparrow campaign (Chinese: 消灭麻雀运动; pinyin: Xiāomiè què Yùndòng), and officially, the Four Pests campaign was one of the first actions taken in the Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1962. The four pests to be eliminated were rats, flies, mosquitoes, and sparrows.[1] The extermination of the latter upset the ecological balance, and enabled crop-eating insects to proliferate. 

The campaign against the ‘Four Pests’ was initiated in 1958 as a hygiene campaign by Mao Zedong, who identified the need to exterminate mosquitoes, flies, rats, and sparrows. Sparrows – mainly the Eurasian Tree Sparrow[1][2] – were included on the list because they ate grain seeds, robbing the people of the fruits of their labour. The masses of China were mobilized to eradicate the birds, and citizens took to banging pots and pans or beating drums to scare the birds from landing, forcing them to fly until they fell from the sky in exhaustion. Sparrow nests were torn down, eggs were broken, and nestlings were killed.[3] Sparrows and other birds were shot down from the sky, resulting in the near-extinction of the birds in China.[4] Non-material rewards and recognition were offered to schools, work units and government agencies in accordance with the volume of pests they had killed.
By April 1960, Chinese leaders realized that sparrows ate more insects than grains. Mao ordered the end of the campaign against sparrows, replacing them with bedbugs in the ongoing campaign against the Four Pests.[3] By this time, however, it was too late. With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and compounding the ecological problems already caused by the Great Leap Forward, including widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides. Ecological imbalance is credited with exacerbating the Great Chinese Famine in which upwards of 30 million people died of starvation. via en.wikipedia.org

“Cities adapt or they go away,” said Aaron N. Durnbaugh, deputy commissioner of Chicago’s Department of Environment. “Climate change is happening in both real and dramatic ways, but also in slow, pervasive ways. We can handle it, but we do need to acknowledge it. We are on a 50-year cycle, but we need to get going.”
Across America and in Congress, the very existence of climate change continues to be challenged — especially by conservatives. The skeptics are supported by constituents wary of science and concerned about the economic impacts of stronger regulation. Yet even as the debate rages on, city and state planners are beginning to prepare.
The precise consequences of the increase of man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are hard to determine, but scientists are predicting significant sea level rise; more extreme weather events like storms, tornadoes and blizzards; and, of course, much more heat. New York City, which is doing its own adaptation planning, is worried about flooding from the rising ocean. The Navy has a task force on climate change that says it should be preparing to police the equivalent of an extra sea as the Arctic ice melts.
Some of these events will occur in the near-enough term that local governments are under pressure to act. Insurance companies are applying pressure in high-risk areas, essentially saying adapt or pay higher premiums — especially in urban and commercial areas.
The reinsurance giant Swiss Re, for example, has said that if the shore communities of four Gulf Coast states choose not to implement adaptation strategies, they could see annual climate-change related damages jump 65 percent a year to $23 billion by 2030.
“Society needs to reduce its vulnerability to climate risks, and as long as they remain manageable, they remain insurable, which is our interest as well,” said Mark D. Way, head of Swiss Re’s sustainable development for the Americas.
Melissa Stults, the climate director for ICLEI USA, an association of local governments, said that many of the administrations she was dealing with were following a strategy of “discreetly integrating preparedness into traditional planning efforts.”
Second City First
Chicago is often called the Second City, but it is way out in front of most in terms of adaptation.
The effort began in 2006, under the mayor at the time, Richard M. Daley. He said he was inspired in part by the Kyoto international treaty for reducing carbon emissions, which took effect in 2005, and also by an aspiration to raise Chicago’s profile as an environmentally friendly town.
As a first step, the city wanted to model how global warming might play out locally. Foundations, eager to get local governments moving, put up some money.
“There was real assumption that Chicago could be a model for other places,” said Adele Simmons, president of Global Philanthropy Partnership, a nonprofit group based in Chicago that helped bring in $700,000 at the early stages.
Climatologists took into account a century’s worth of historical observations of daily temperatures and precipitation from 15 Chicago-area weather stations as well as the effect of Lake Michigan in moderating extreme heat and cold to come up with a range of possibilities based on a higher and lower range of worldwide carbon emissions.
The forecasts, while not out of line with global predictions, shocked city planners.
If world carbon emissions continued apace, the scientists said, Chicago would have summers like the Deep South, with as many as 72 days over 90 degrees before the end of the century. For most of the 20th century, the city averaged fewer than 15.
By 2070, Chicago could expect 35 percent more precipitation in winter and spring, but 20 percent less in summer and fall. By then, the conditions would have changed enough to make the area’s plant hardiness zone akin to Birmingham, Ala.
But what would that mean in real-life consequences? A private risk assessment firm was hired, and the resulting report read like an urban disaster film minus Godzilla.

The city could see heat-related deaths reaching 1,200 a year. The increasing occurrences of freezes and thaws (the root of potholes) would cause billions of dollars’ worth of deterioration to building facades, bridges and roads. Termites, never previously able to withstand Chicago’s winters, would start gorging on wooden frames.

Armed with the forecasts, the city prioritized which adaptations would save the most money and would be the most feasible in the light of tight budgets and public skepticism.
“We put each of the priorities through a lens of political, economic and technical,” said Suzanne Malec-McKenna, the commissioner of Chicago’s Department of Environment. “What is it, if you will, that will pass the laugh test?”
Among the ideas rejected, Ms. Malec-McKenna said, were plans to immediately shut down local coal-powered energy plants — too much cost for too little payback.
For actions the city felt were necessary but not affordable, it got help again from a local institution, the Civic Consulting Alliance, a nonprofit organization that builds pro bono teams of business experts. In this case, the alliance convinced consulting firms to donate $14 million worth of hours to projects like designing an electric car infrastructure and planning how to move the city toward zero waste.
Mr. Daley embraced the project. He convened 20 city departments in 2010 and told them to weigh their planning dollars against the changes experts were predicting. The department heads continued to meet quarterly, and members of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration have said he is committed to moving the goals of the plan forward, albeit with an added emphasis on “projects that accelerate jobs and economic development.”
Updating Infrastructure
Much of Chicago’s adaptation work is about transforming paved spaces. “Cities are hard spaces that trap water and heat,” said Janet L. Attarian, a director of streetscapes at the city’s Department of Transportation. “Alleys and streets account for 25 percent of groundcover, and closer to 40 percent when parking lots are included.”
The city’s 13,000 concrete alleyways were originally built without drainage and are a nightmare every time it rains. Storm water pours off the hard surfaces and routinely floods basements and renders low-lying roads and underpasses unusable.
To make matters worse, many of the pipes that handle storm overflow also handle raw sewage. After a very heavy rain, if overflow pipes become congested, sewage backs up into basements or is released with the rainwater into the Chicago River — an emergency response that has attracted the scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency.
As the region warms,

Sally Ryan for The New York Times

Chicago is expecting more frequent and extreme storms. In the last three years, the city has had two intense storms classified as 100-year events.
So the work planned for a six-point intersection on the South Side with flooding and other issues is a prototype. The sidewalk in front of the high school on Cermak Road has been widened to include planting areas that are lower than the street surface. This not only encourages more pedestrian traffic, but also provides shade and landscaping. These will be filled with drought-resistant plants like butterfly weed and spartina grasses that sponge up excess water and help filter pollutants like de-icing salts. In some places, unabsorbed water will seep into storage tanks beneath the streets so it can be used later for watering plants or in new decorative fountains in front of the high school.
The bike lanes and parking spaces being added along the street are covered with permeable pavers, a weave of pavement that allows 80 percent of rainwater to filter through it to the ground below. Already 150 alleyways have been remade in this way.
The light-reflecting pavement is Chicago’s own mix and includes recycled tires. Rubbery additives help the asphalt expand in heat without buckling and to contract without cracking.
The new streets bring new challenges, of course. The permeable pavers have to be specially cleaned or they eventually become clogged with silt and lose effectiveness.
Still, the new construction is no more expensive than traditional costs, Ms. Attarian said. Transforming one alleyway costs about $150,000. But now, she said, “We can put a fire hose on it full blast and the water seeps right in.”
Reconsidering the Trees
Awareness of climate change has filled Chicago city planners with deep concern for the trees.
Not only are they beautiful, said Ms. Malec-McKenna, herself trained as a horticulturalist, but their shade also provides immediate relief to urban heat islands. Trees improve air quality by absorbing carbon dioxide, and their leaves can keep 20 percent of an average rain from hitting the pavement.
Chicago spends over $10 million a year planting roughly 2,200 trees. From 1991 to 2008, the city added so many that officials estimate tree cover increased to 17.6 percent from 11 percent. The goal is to exceed 23 percent this decade.
The problem is that for trees to reach their expected lifespan — up to 90 years — they have to be able to endure hotter conditions. Chicago has already changed from one growing zone to another in the last 30 years, and it expects to change several times again by 2070.
Knowing this, planners asked experts at the city’s botanical garden and Morton Arboretum to evaluate their planting list. They were told to remove six of the most common tree species.
Off came the ash trees that account for 17 percent of Chicago tree cover, or more than any other tree. Gone, too, are the enormous Norway maples, which provide the most amount of shade.
A warming climate will make them more susceptible to plagues like emerald ash disease. Already white oak, the state tree of Illinois, is on the decline and, like several species of conifer, is expected to be extinct from the region within decades.via nytimes.com

Lysenko studying wheat
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко, Ukrainian: Трохим Денисович Лисенко, Trofym Denysovych Lysenko) (September 29 [O.S. September 17] 1898 – November 20, 1976) was a Soviet agronomist of Ukrainian origin, who was director of Soviet biology under Joseph Stalin. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of the hybridization theories of Russian horticulturist Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, and adopted them into a powerful political-scientific movement termed Lysenkoism. Today much of Lysenko’s agricultural experimentation and research is largely viewed as fraudulent.

His unorthodox experimental research in improved crop yields earned the support of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, especially following the famine and loss of productivity resulting from forced collectivization in several regions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. In 1940 he became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR’s Academy of Sciences, and Lysenko’s anti-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko’s theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned. Lysenko’s work was officially discredited in the Soviet Union in 1964, leading to a renewed emphasis there to re-institute Mendelian genetics and orthodox science.
Though Lysenko remained at his post in the Institute of Genetics until 1965,[1] his influence on Soviet agricultural practice declined by the 1950s. The Soviet Union quietly abandoned Lysenko’s agricultural practices in favor of modern agricultural practices after the crop yields he promised failed to materialize. via en.wikipedia.org


Islam is not a Religion, but it appears Leftism is

January 7, 2010


http://www.applet-magic.com/lysenkoism.htm“Jasper Becker in Hungry Ghosts traces the foolishness of close planting to the fraudulent science of the Soviet Union. T.D. Lysenko was a quack who got the support of Joseph Stalin and ruled over Soviet genetics for twenty five years. Among the many erroneous notions promoted by Lysenko and which had to be accepted in Marxist countries was his Law of the life of species which said that plants of the same species do not compete with each other but instead help each other to survive. This was linked to the Marxist notion of classes in which members of the same class do not compete but instead help each other survive. So Marxist ideology seemed to support the notion that the denser grain is planted the better it is for the grain. But in reality this close planting led to whithering of the plants after the initial germination phase. Lysenko was responsible for many other foolish notions most based upon the precept that environment not genetics determine plant characteristics. Lysenko argued that if you grew plants a little farther north each year they would adapt to the climate and eventually you would be able to grow oranges in the arctic. All of the Lysenko nonsense had to be accepted in the Soviet Union and promoted in propaganda as scientific truth. The Marxists in China apparently believed it was the truth. The reality was that this nonsense resulted in diminished production of food under conditions of bare survival.”


Agriculture Without Fertilizer: Following Lysenko’s recommendations, Chinese Communists stopped using chemical fertilizer. (It was imagined that when seeds were deprived of fertilizer, they would “evolve” by adapting to this new situation thus ensuring the same yield without the use of fertilizing additives.) This experiment caused yet another great loss in agricultural production.

All these initiatives, relying as they did on Lysenko’s myth of evolution, caused the greatest famine in history. But although millions were dying of starvation, no one dared criticize the regime or the calamity it caused. One individual, General Peng Dehuai, the defense minister, wrote Mao a letter in which he tried to describe this disastrous famine. Later he was accused of being a “rightist” and was eliminated. During the famine, official reports all falsified the situation by saying that brilliant results had been achieved in agricultural production. Moreover, in order to convince the world of this lie, China exported vast amounts of grain. While people were dying of starvation in some areas of the country, grain and rice were being kept in warehouses, later to be exported.

In 1927, less than ten years after the 1917 Revolution within in the old Czarist Russian Empire that led to the formation of the Soviet Union, Lysenko observed that pea seeds germinated faster when the seeds were maintained at low temperatures. Lysenko mistakenly concluded that the low temperature forced analteration in seed species. In fact, what was occurring was simply the result of the natural variation in the ability of seeds to grow and thrive in colder temperatures.

Lysenko’s conclusions were based upon the teachings of Russian horticulturist I. V. Michurin (1855-1935), who was a proponent of the widely discredited Larmarckian theory that organisms evolved through the acquisition of traits that best adapted them to their environments (evolution by acquired characteristics). During the 19th century, French anatomist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) had attempted to explain why giraffes had long necks. Lamarck had reasoned that a giraffe, by exercising its neck muscles (e.g., during the act of stretching to get leaves), acquired the ability to pass on morphological changes to their offspring.

Lamarck’s theory of evolution by acquired characteristics was, however, incorrect. Individual traits are, for the most part, determined by an inherited code contained in the DNA of each cell and are not affected by use or disuse. In contrast, Darwinian natural selection accurately explains the long necks of the giraffe as a physical adaptation that enabled a greater exploitation of a readily available food supply. The increased availability of a food supply resulted in enhanced reproductive success carriers of genes that allowed the development of long necks.

Despite the fact the theory of evolution by acquired characteristics was widely discarded as pseudoscience (science based upon false premises or theories), the political patronage and terror under Soviet dictator Joseph Statlin allowed Lysenko to implement a series of “politically correct” agricultural plans that, although in tune with communist ideology, drastically reduced Soviet crop production.

Lysenkoism, the environmental movement is built on bad science created around an ideology. It is not scientific, it is inherently anti-scientific because it transforms science into a tool of dogma and then suppresses the views of everyone who disagrees. When liberals insist that their opponents are anti-science, they mean that in the same way that they mean their opponents are anti-democratic– because in their minds once they have appropriated an institution, be it scientific or political, they also feel that they now own its name as well. Accordingly when liberals denounce their political opponents as anti-science or anti-education or anti-democratic, or for that matter racist or misogynist, they are not only accusing others of their own sins, but treating entire fields, ideas and billions of people as their wholly owned property in whose name they alone can speak.

But the reactionary nature of liberalism does not begin or end with its quasi-mystical faith in Gaia. Liberalism does not simply demand that we cast aside modern technology, it also demands that we cast aside modern ideas of individualism, nationalism and economic freedom… in favor of submitting to the power of an overriding state that will care for us for our own good.

When liberal pundits accuse tea party protesters of longing for the good old days, it is in fact the pundits themselves who in true reactionary fashion long for the good old days. Not just the good old days of the USSR, but the good old days when the common people kept their heads down and listened to their betters. To hear the MSNBC talking heads bewail the danger of the armed mobs at Town Halls, you might think that you were listening to royalists bemoaning the French Revolution. But theirs is an equally elitist worldview in which power comes not from the voice of the people telling their representatives, but from the people listening to their representatives telling them what to do.


Islam is not a Religion, but it appears Leftism is

January 7, 2010


http://www.applet-magic.com/lysenkoism.htm“Jasper Becker in Hungry Ghosts traces the foolishness of close planting to the fraudulent science of the Soviet Union. T.D. Lysenko was a quack who got the support of Joseph Stalin and ruled over Soviet genetics for twenty five years. Among the many erroneous notions promoted by Lysenko and which had to be accepted in Marxist countries was his Law of the life of species which said that plants of the same species do not compete with each other but instead help each other to survive. This was linked to the Marxist notion of classes in which members of the same class do not compete but instead help each other survive. So Marxist ideology seemed to support the notion that the denser grain is planted the better it is for the grain. But in reality this close planting led to whithering of the plants after the initial germination phase. Lysenko was responsible for many other foolish notions most based upon the precept that environment not genetics determine plant characteristics. Lysenko argued that if you grew plants a little farther north each year they would adapt to the climate and eventually you would be able to grow oranges in the arctic. All of the Lysenko nonsense had to be accepted in the Soviet Union and promoted in propaganda as scientific truth. The Marxists in China apparently believed it was the truth. The reality was that this nonsense resulted in diminished production of food under conditions of bare survival.”


Agriculture Without Fertilizer: Following Lysenko’s recommendations, Chinese Communists stopped using chemical fertilizer. (It was imagined that when seeds were deprived of fertilizer, they would “evolve” by adapting to this new situation thus ensuring the same yield without the use of fertilizing additives.) This experiment caused yet another great loss in agricultural production.

All these initiatives, relying as they did on Lysenko’s myth of evolution, caused the greatest famine in history. But although millions were dying of starvation, no one dared criticize the regime or the calamity it caused. One individual, General Peng Dehuai, the defense minister, wrote Mao a letter in which he tried to describe this disastrous famine. Later he was accused of being a “rightist” and was eliminated. During the famine, official reports all falsified the situation by saying that brilliant results had been achieved in agricultural production. Moreover, in order to convince the world of this lie, China exported vast amounts of grain. While people were dying of starvation in some areas of the country, grain and rice were being kept in warehouses, later to be exported.

In 1927, less than ten years after the 1917 Revolution within in the old Czarist Russian Empire that led to the formation of the Soviet Union, Lysenko observed that pea seeds germinated faster when the seeds were maintained at low temperatures. Lysenko mistakenly concluded that the low temperature forced analteration in seed species. In fact, what was occurring was simply the result of the natural variation in the ability of seeds to grow and thrive in colder temperatures.

Lysenko’s conclusions were based upon the teachings of Russian horticulturist I. V. Michurin (1855-1935), who was a proponent of the widely discredited Larmarckian theory that organisms evolved through the acquisition of traits that best adapted them to their environments (evolution by acquired characteristics). During the 19th century, French anatomist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) had attempted to explain why giraffes had long necks. Lamarck had reasoned that a giraffe, by exercising its neck muscles (e.g., during the act of stretching to get leaves), acquired the ability to pass on morphological changes to their offspring.

Lamarck’s theory of evolution by acquired characteristics was, however, incorrect. Individual traits are, for the most part, determined by an inherited code contained in the DNA of each cell and are not affected by use or disuse. In contrast, Darwinian natural selection accurately explains the long necks of the giraffe as a physical adaptation that enabled a greater exploitation of a readily available food supply. The increased availability of a food supply resulted in enhanced reproductive success carriers of genes that allowed the development of long necks.

Despite the fact the theory of evolution by acquired characteristics was widely discarded as pseudoscience (science based upon false premises or theories), the political patronage and terror under Soviet dictator Joseph Statlin allowed Lysenko to implement a series of “politically correct” agricultural plans that, although in tune with communist ideology, drastically reduced Soviet crop production.

Lysenkoism, the environmental movement is built on bad science created around an ideology. It is not scientific, it is inherently anti-scientific because it transforms science into a tool of dogma and then suppresses the views of everyone who disagrees. When liberals insist that their opponents are anti-science, they mean that in the same way that they mean their opponents are anti-democratic– because in their minds once they have appropriated an institution, be it scientific or political, they also feel that they now own its name as well. Accordingly when liberals denounce their political opponents as anti-science or anti-education or anti-democratic, or for that matter racist or misogynist, they are not only accusing others of their own sins, but treating entire fields, ideas and billions of people as their wholly owned property in whose name they alone can speak.

But the reactionary nature of liberalism does not begin or end with its quasi-mystical faith in Gaia. Liberalism does not simply demand that we cast aside modern technology, it also demands that we cast aside modern ideas of individualism, nationalism and economic freedom… in favor of submitting to the power of an overriding state that will care for us for our own good.

When liberal pundits accuse tea party protesters of longing for the good old days, it is in fact the pundits themselves who in true reactionary fashion long for the good old days. Not just the good old days of the USSR, but the good old days when the common people kept their heads down and listened to their betters. To hear the MSNBC talking heads bewail the danger of the armed mobs at Town Halls, you might think that you were listening to royalists bemoaning the French Revolution. But theirs is an equally elitist worldview in which power comes not from the voice of the people telling their representatives, but from the people listening to their representatives telling them what to do.