Address E-mail inquiries to Comrade TL at
nakived@juno.com

TL invites comments and information from others who know about either T.D. Lysenko's career or his personal life. Again, the E-mail address is
nakived@juno.com

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 main Lysenko page.

link to other articles by TL

Return to CSU charter page.