I would like to hear Neil Young and Joni Mitchell attempt to discourse on Lysenkoism and its state support and accepted position in mid-century Soviet thought.

I’m curious how these two old cranks would distance themselves from the dogmas of Lysenko, especially how they would defend themselves from any charge related to this startling notion: that today’s scientists that they think spread “harmful misinformation” are in fact parallel to the geneticists and botanists whose thought was suppressed (and who were even executed) by Stalin’s government.

What if the tragedy of Lysenkoism were being repeated now, by our governments? How would they know?

The fact that our governments, like Stalin’s, use marginalization to settle debates — and that Young and Mitchell seek to add on their own boycott power — should give a person pause, no?

I do not know, but suspect, that the mRNA vaxx craze will actually end up with a higher body count than Lysenkoism — which ended up killing millions. Just not right away. Which is how bad policies usually work. The early, fun period of advocacy and repression only leads to mass death later on.It’s possible that this will be the case with the COVID “vaccines.” It should be chilling how rarely anyone talks about the VAERS cases, for instance. The “belief in science” is so strong now that it is trendy to believe proven liars like Fauci. . . .

Though it is not true that The Truth wins all debates, it seems clear that really bad ideas require the suppression of better notions. It also sure seems to be the case that one way to tell who is on the wrong side of an issue is whether they resort to marginalization (or worse) to win arguments. If all you’ve got is marginalization — ridicule, shunning, boycotts, cancellation pressure, censorship, de-platforming, etc. — then you probably lack the truth. Call it a rule of thumb.

This makes Young and Mitchell deleterious to their own cause.

twv

NB Image at top nabbed from ThisIsCommonSense.org. Used without explicit permission.