Copyright © 1998 by TL
Posted by permission of TL

Scroll back to end of previous segment

Another  point  I  wish  to  make  is  on  Khrushchev  which even
Communists  who  hate  him  never bring up.  He had to have known
there  is no corn belt in the USSR since he was a farmer himself.
He  had  to  have  known  what  Lysenko  knew when Lysenko was so
fanatically  against planting corn in the USSR: any kind of corn.
He had to have known that he was threatening the USA with nuclear
war  and  big  talk.  So why did he trust the USA and do what the
USA  told  him  to  do:   plant corn?  Was Khrushchev stupid?  Or
part  of  the  CIA!?   Does  it matter?  He did just what the CIA
would  have  wanted  to  do  to wreck not only agriculture in the
USSR,  but  eventually  wreck  the  very  land  itself.   Corn is
anathema  to  land,  it is a land destroyer and, even in the corn
belt,  it's  not  all  that  good  to intensively plant it.  Corn
is  also  one  of  those crops that manages to produce stupid and
often  crazy  people:   strong corn diet can produce pellagra due
to  what  corn  lacks in nutrition.  It was well within the USA's
experts  to  know what a corn diet can do since they have studied
it.   The  regulation  of what you eat (and you ARE what you eat)
is  a  type  of  biological  warfare.  It is a type of biological
warfare  that  can  easily  pass  as  "beneficial  help  to other
people."   But  who  would  accept  and/or expect beneficial help
or  any  kind of good advice from Americans after they threatened
to  nuclear  bomb  the  USA during a Cold War?  I find it amazing
that  no one else, not even Communists, ever wondered about this.
The  fact  is  that  Lysenko wrote to Khrushchev when the "virgin
soil"  corn  project  was thought up by Khrushchev.  Lysenko told
him  that  this advernturism would lead to  a few crops at first,
but  then  land  erosion  and dust storms.  It is for this reason
that  Lysenko  was  dismissed  in  1956.  But who were the allies
of  Khrushchev  in  this  fiasco?  Why, none other than Vavilov's
old friends:  Shmalthausen, Zavadovski and Zhukovski!

Everyone  loves  to  link  Khrushchev's  fall  with Lysenko.  Not
so.   Lysenko  never  lost  his  position  of Head of Lenin Hills
laboratory  and  he  retired,  at  the  age  of  67, from Head of
Genetics  Institute.   He never lost his position or his degrees,
but  he  was  old,  he  was retirement age.  He kept his position
at  the  Lenin  Hills  lab  until his death.  His son Oleg worked
there when Soyfer wrote his book in 1989.  Soyfer, without having
ever  met  Mrs. Lysenko, and who seems to not know his 3 children
well  at  all,  also  has much of his own Watsonian deductions to
make  against  them  as  he  calls them bland, vain, arrogant and
whatever.

I  have  heard  that Sergo Beria, Beria's son, wrote a book about
his  father  with  a  very  original title:  "My Father, Lavrenty
Beria."  :-)   It's  not  translated  into English to date.  Much
slander  was  heaped  upon Beria, too, especially the sexual kind
which only has meaning to certain types of prurient/prude people.
I  have  no  idea  what,  if  anything, Sergo said in the matters
regarding  Vavilov  and  Lysenko and his father.  If he is "going
along  with  the  times,"  then  he'd  try to show how his father
was  in  favor of Vavilov.  Well, archival information shows that
Beria  personally  labeled  and  handled one of the files against
Vavilov  involving  charges that Vavilov and his gang were trying
to  ruin  Lysenko.   Theories  be  damned:   why  would ANYONE go
against  a  man  who fed the people so well?  Analogy:  WHO would
be against making the Volkswagen in Germany?

Is it really all that impossible to believe that the NKVD, called
the  best  organization  of  its  kind by our own Allen Dulles of
the  CIA,  might  have  been  right about Vavilov?  Gasp!  Shock!
"The  mere  suggestion  that that distinguished gentleman," ...oh
gimme  a  break!   In  this  country  the FBI taps phones; so the
NKVD  did  this  too.   But in this country, a taped conversation
from  phone  tapping is not allowed as evidence against a person,
even  if  the  FBI  knows  the  person is absolutely guilty.  The
NKVD  and  Soviet  laws  didn't  operate  as our laws do.  We, in
America, present the evidence against the accused to both defense
and  prosecution  lawyers.   Much  evidence, often a gun with the
accused's  fingerprints  on  it, is thrown out of court and can't
be  used  to  convict  the  person.   The NKVD method and law was
very     different.      They     would     accuse     you    but
they'd  NOT  show  you  what  evidence  they  had  which kept you
guessing,  or  they'd  show  you  a little piece of the evidence,
or  even  a fabricated piece of it, a distortion of what evidence
they  really  did have!  They'd often use the tactic of confusion
and  claim  they  have  evidence that the accused must have known
was  wrong:  for  instance  if  a murder was committed with a .45
gun  that  Ivan  gave the accused, the NKVD might claim that they
know Boris gave him a .22 gun.  This serves many purposes because
the  accused,  if  guilty,  knows  that  Ivan gave him a .45.  He
then  begins  to  wonder  who Boris is: does he know anyone named
Boris,  does  someone  named  Boris  know him,  did someone named
Boris  claim  to  give  him a .22 to commit a murder?  And so on.
There  is  a  method  to  this.  In the American system, the mere
showing  of  the  real  evidence  against  a person the police or
FBI  know  is  guilty,  gives the person and his defense attorney
a  way  to  get  out  of the charge either by having the evidence
thrown  out  of  court  or  finding  some other way to squirm out
of  it.   With  the  NKVD  method, whatever lie you think to tell
might  get  you  into  more  trouble.   Allen  Dulles  of the CIA
wouldn't  have  said  they were the best at this if they weren't.
Meanwhile, the critics of Lysenko didn't even have the "detective
ability"  to  dig  as  far as Marsh dug to get at the truth about
something  they  should  know  about.   So  who  are  they to say
anything?

The  same  kind of crap goes on right now, right here, with gangs
of  Dr.  Shlockmeister  Herrensteins  heaping  abuse on the likes
of  Professors   S.  J.  Gould  and R. Lewontin for being against
the  spooge-fantasies  written  up in "The Bell Curve."  And what
do  the  talking  heads  call  those  who  expose  their  frauds?
Lysenko-ites!   Nothing  changes.  But the earth manages to throw
out her secrets if one wishes to dig deep enough.

For  those  who  will  know  what I'm saying here, I have this to
add.   What  comes  out  loud  and  clear, from the mouths of the
elegant  and bourgeois defenders of Vavilov, those who personally
knew  him,  and  those who speak for him later:  it is clear that
Vavilov,  a  man,  was  like  some  kind of Muse to his circle of
followers  and  friends.   Popovsky  paints  a  revealing picture
of  Vavilov  for  those  who  recognize  this:  he didn't express
his  emotions,  not  even  those  of  love for his woman;  he hid
his  deep  pain  behind an affable face (how akathartic of him!);
he  loved  the  Hollywood  American  idea of "keep smiling," even
if  he  didn't  feel  like  smiling.   He'd never "stoop down" to
insult  back  his  insulters  (he  being  so above all that).  He
was  a  definite  Muse  of  some  kind to his circle of bourgeois
friends.   What  females among his circle have to say has nothing
to  do  with anything objective:  they focus on how distinguished
he  looked,  how  handsome  (he  looked  quite Western), how well
dressed,  his  deep  baritone voice.  They also tend to fawn over
the  Monk  Mendel,  the  total, all-round fraud.  Lysenko, on the
other  hand,  was  a peasant, a down-to-earth, brutally blunt and
even  rude  person.   He  was  often ungrammatical and spoke with
heavy  metaphor, creatively; he also cursed and made vulgar puns,
example:   "How  can  those  fruit  flies  be virgins if they are
ebony?"  Pronounce  the  word  "ebony"  with  a  Russian  accent:
"ye-BON-i,"  it  means  "How  can those fruit flies be virgins if
they  are  fucked."   As  Soyfer  points out to mock him, Lysenko
cared  nothing  about how he dressed or looked.  He had deep set,
slitted  eyes  and  big  cheekbones,  a  Muzhik face - contra the
very  Western  look  of Vavilov. Things like this are said in the
middle  of  books  supposedly  about  science,  e.g.  by  Eleanor
Manevich  who  speaks  of  Vavilov  as if he's a Hollywood actor.
It  never  occurs  to these female adulators of Vavilov that some
women  might  think  Lysenko  is  cute  or  a  hunk, and consider
Vavilov's  looks  as  bland  or  stoical.   They  consider  their
standards  to be "THE standards" not to mention that how a person
looks  has  nothing to do with science!  Some of Vavilov's female
fans  went  overboard to try to save Vavilov but at the same time
put  Lysenko down, such as Nina Bazilevskaya and Maria Shebalina.
Shebalina  visited  Vavilov's  own brother Sergei who said to her
"There is no misunderstanding here.  My brother has been arrested
on  the  orders,  or  at  least  with the knowledge, of the first
person  in  the land (Stalin).  We can hardly hope to do anything
about  it."   Nina  Bazilevskaya  called  Sergei  Vavilov to help
her  meet  someone  in  the  Central  Committee.   Sergei Vavilov
promised  her  a  meeting  with  Andrei Andreyev, a member of the
committee  and  the  person  in  charge  of agricultural matters.
Andreyev  was  in  a  position  to  know what was happening.  She
met  him  and  went  on  about  "Lysenko this and that; Vavilov's
arrest  is  a  mistake,  etc."  as if this was some valid defense
of  the  accused Vavilov who had been suspected since 1931 before
Lysenko was involved.  Andreyev cut her off and told her:  "There
could  be  no  fatal  mistake  (in  the arrest of Vavilov); there
are  facts  of  which  you are not aware."  That should have been
the  end  of it.  Are Vavilov's own brother and this man Andreyev
also  in  cahoots  with  Lysenko  in  some  paranoid plot-fantasy
against Vavilov?  Lysenko spoke with passion and often criticized
his  opponents  for  being passionless.  He spoke from his heart,
even  to  Stalin,  which  took guts.  He was not any kind of Muse
to  people  who  liked  his views or his practical results and he
never  tried  to  be.   The  earth itself and the plants were his
Muse:  that  almost  mystical  quality  comes  out clearly in his
writings even though he kept it on a purely materialistic footing
and  said  he  cared  nothing  about  theory.   He  said  to  his
opponents:   "One  needs  hands, not just the head," i.e, to know
things.  For  those  who  recognize  what  I'm saying here: grasp
what  the  enmity  was about.  Vavilov tried to befriend Lysenko,
even  invited  him  to  come  to the USA with him, always praised
his  work.   Lysenko  was  cold  toward  Vavilov - utterly turned
off.   Apparently  many  other people were turned off by Vavilov;
some  hated  his  guts.  Yet there is no reason anyone can really
point  to,  to  say  exactly  why.  Those who understand what I'm
saying  will  know  why.   Those  who  do not?  This shall remain
mysterious.

But  gossipers  had  to  keep insisting that Vavilov was arrested
merely  because  he  had  the  courage not to agree with Lysenko.
Oh?   Vavilov  was  agreeing  with and praising Lysenko for years
and  none  of  that  changed the fact that the NKVD had a file on
him  from  1931!   It  never  occurs  to  them  that the NKVD had
information  they didn't know about and the NKVD obviously didn't
feel  they  owed  these  fools  any kind of explanation.  Imagine
expecting  the  FBI  to  tell you the information in a file of an
investigation  or,  when  the  guilty  party  is  finally caught,
imagine  that  you  know more than the FBI does.  And if the case
is  expunged  or  otherwise  sealed,  such  as when the FBI gives
you  a  whole  false/new  identity  because  you informed to them
against  a  suspect,  then  no one would be able to look into the
file.   Vavilov  was  surrounded  by, or surrounded himself with,
the  sons  of  millionaires,  sons  of  clergy and people in Holy
Orders,  honored  Czarists  and  titled families.  He had friends
among  such  people  overseas,  overtly anti-Soviet people.  Does
anyone  imagine that a person in a similar but opposite situation
in  the  USA  would  not be suspected by the FBI or even arrested
during  a  time  of  possible  war  if  they worked for something
similar  to  the  Academy of Science or the Institute of Genetics
in  the  USA?   Not  only  that, but the USA's workers were never
in the same situation as the Soviet ones with regards to planting
things  and  eating;  we  have  choice  land here and many things
to  eat.   We  see  Vavilov  running  around  to  study Lysenko's
produced  varieties  and  then theorizing on the results, passing
judgments  or  not  being  fully satisfied with more proofs while
Lysenko  and  his  farmers are planting it and eating the results
in  vast  amounts!   The  American  scientist  Richard Lewontin's
honest  statistics  prove  this, but Lewontin is ignored by those
who  hate  Lysenko.   Vavilov  approved  of this or that, but was
not  happy  about  it?   Why  not?   Did he eat any of the bread?
Are  the people writing against Lysenko living in the real world?
Even  if  Lysenko's  wheat  wasn't  "perfect as bread" the people
surely  ate  it  during a time when Stalin knew and demanded that
the  Soviet  people  needed  food immediately.  The Soviet people
had to build up a country, they had to industrialize, they needed
food  to  feed  workers  and  peasants  had to have a way to grow
lots  of it in one of the most hostile environments.  They didn't
have  time  for  theories!     To  quote from the Economic Division
of  the  OGPU  (former  NKVD)  who wrote a 10 page memorandum and
concluded  with these remarks: "For a number of years since 1924,
the  All-Union  Institute  of  Plant Breeding, headed by Vavilov,
has  sent  numerous  expeditions to different parts of the world,
including  America.   It has gathered an international collection
of  seeds  and plants.  The collected material has still not been
studied,  and  almost  no  practical conclusions and achievements
have  been introduced into the national economy - this work never
went  beyond  the  institutes  walls.   The  OGPU  considers  the
organization of any botanical expedition to America inexpedient."
(Krementsov,  "Stalinist  Science," p. 11)  They also didn't have
tolerance  for  Kulaks  (plantation  owners)  that would withhold
food  that  their  peasants worked for (on the Kulak owned plots)
for  a  higher  price!   And  plainly  speaking, anyone who sides
with Kulaks is siding with slave owners.

Return to CSU charter page.