Academic politics and culture distortion: Italian population geneticist L. L. Cavalli-Sforza
1,250 words
French translation here
Academia is a key pillar of the contemporary ruling class. It is a “synagogue” in which a privileged, carefully selected Left-wing “rabbinate” works out the content and parameters of the Permanent Revolution subsequently implemented by the centralized state.
Academia socializes for ideological conformity and ruthlessly attacks, purges or marginalizes intellectual non-conformists.
Academics are particularly obsessed with race. Race denial, the absurd claim that biological races do not exist and that race is a “social construct,” is a major tool for enforcing acceptable dogma on the subject, in science as well as the humanities. Of course, no one really believes it, including the academics who mouth it. But it is a useful fiction, an effective method of social control and justification for politically correct racial discrimination, supremacy, oppression, and genocide.
Canadian anthropologist and independent scholar Peter Frost has published a paper examining how this ideological process played out in the career and work of the Italian-born “dean of population geneticists” L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. Peter Frost, “L. L. Cavalli-Sforza: A Bird in a Gilded Cage,” Open Behavioral Genetics (March 2014), 39 pp. (Click on “Download booklet” to read the PDF.)
Frost maintains a blog, Evo and Proud, to which he contributes a new article every Saturday. His scholarly work focuses primarily on the evolutionary basis of European hair, eye, and skin color, which he believes originated by sexual selection. Less conformist than his peers, Frost strongly opposes censorship, a heretical position.
Stanford University-based Cavalli-Sforza, a prominent race denier, is best-known for his major work The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), co-authored with Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza. Race denial gained a sheen of respectability in no small part because of Cavalli-Sforza’s public adoption of the claim that human races do not exist.
The book had this effect thanks to his enormous reputation and academic prestige. Frost recalls the only time he met the man, when Cavalli-Sforza sat in on his thesis committee. “Of the three other professors present, only one seemed to know how important he was. Afterwards, that one professor was dumbfounded by our ignorance: ‘You think [Jewish anthropologist] Claude Lévi-Strauss is important? This is the Lévi-Strauss of human genetics!’”
Yet, as Frost notes:
On the one hand, he has publicly backed those who assert that human races do not exist. On the other hand, by aggregating large volumes of genetic data, he has proven the existence of large continental races, as well as smaller regional and micro ones. By developing the theory of gene-culture co-evolution, he has also shown that humans did not stop evolving genetically when they began to evolve culturally. In fact, the two processes have fed into each other, with humans having to adapt not only to the natural portion of their environment (climate, vegetation, wildlife, etc.) but also to the portion they themselves have created (mode of subsistence, behavioral norms, gender roles, class structure, belief system, etc.). (Hyperlink added. — A.H.)
Frost points out that Cavalli-Sforza did not abandon racial science until the 1990s. Previously he had no problem with it, and continued to employ race terminology as late as 1988. In the 1970s Cavalli-Sforza had written:
The differences that exist between the major racial groups are such that races could be called subspecies if we adopted for man a criterion suggested by [Jewish evolutionary biologist Ernst] Mayr (1963) for systematic zoology. Mayr’s criterion is that two or more groups become subspecies when 75 percent or more of all the individuals constituting the groups can be unequivocally classified as belonging to a particular group. As a matter of fact, when human races are defined fairly broadly, we could achieve a much lower error of classification than 25 percent, implying, according to Mayr, the existence of human subspecies.
Cavalli-Sforza was born in 1922 and is now 92 years old. He was a young academic in Fascist Italy and did genetic work in wartime Nazi Germany. Frost outlines this little-known background using some comparatively inaccessible sources, including the geneticist’s wartime papers published under his birth name of L. L. Cavalli, his autobiography available only in Italian and French, and Frost’s personal knowledge of an abandoned project on gene-culture co-evolution.
In his 2008 autobiography, Cavalli-Sforza wrote of Germany during the war:
[W]e spoke of the government with much precaution, whereas in Italy the criticisms against fascism were frequent and overt. Among all the people we met in Germany, none had heard about the Shoah or the concentration camps. We learned about their existence, in Italy, only after the war.
The same was true of the German leaders tried and hanged at Nuremberg, whose members also learned of the “Holocaust” only after their Jewish-Allied-Communist captors told them about it.
Frost exhibits less naïveté than most. Though he doubts that Cavalli-Sforza actually altered his views on race, he emphasizes the opportunism involved, adding, “Or perhaps he received a letter one day, detailing his wartime record, the people he worked with . . .”
Certainly Cavalli-Sforza realized that his wartime associations were a stain on his record given the post-war Zeitgeist, and minimized them as much as possible. They made him vulnerable to both blackmail and a chronic fear of blackmail.
Cavalli-Sforza stopped citing his wartime publications after 1947, and in 1950, at age 28, took the unusual step of legally changing his name from L. L. Cavalli to L. L. Cavalli-Sforza through the process of having himself adopted. Frost compares his situation to that of other post-war figures in comparable ideologically compromising positions: UN Secretary-General and Austrian President Kurt Waldheim, French Socialist President François Mitterrand, and Left-wing Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
Jewish academics also played a role in the Cavalli-Sforza story. When he came to California’s Stanford University from Italy in 1968, he had no tenure, and his only friends were Stanford’s leading geneticist, Jewish molecular biologist Joshua Lederberg, the 1958 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology and Medicine, and Lederberg’s protégé, half-Jewish geneticist Walter Bodmer (Jewish father, German mother).
Frost refers to their “triangular relationship.” Lederberg helped Cavalli-Sforza rebuild his career after the war, got him the position at Stanford, and, together with Bodmer, guided him through the ins and outs of US academia and textbook publishing.
During this period Lederberg and Bodmer were preoccupied with attacking and discrediting psychologist Arthur Jensen’s landmark paper “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Academic Achievement?” (1969), which demonstrated that intelligence was heritable and contained a racial component. (Jensen was a quarter-Jew.) The two men wanted to shut down research on race and IQ, and block all government funding for it. They enlisted Cavalli-Sforza in their scheme, and he obliged.
“There was thus an implicit exchange of services,” Frost writes. “In return for past and future favors, Cavalli-Sforza lent [scientific] credibility to an article [and subsequent book] that might otherwise never have been published.” The article by Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza, “Intelligence and Race,” appeared in Scientific American in 1970. By co-authoring the article, “Cavalli-Sforza helped legitimize an unofficial system of censorship [about race] that would take on a life of its own.”
If you check Cavalli-Sforza’s biographical entry on Wikipedia you will be struck by how brief, evasive, and uninformative it is given his substantial reputation and body of work. Anyone familiar with the history of Communism will be reminded of former Party dignitaries quietly airbrushed out of the picture.
Peter Frost’s paper sheds useful light on L. L. Cavalli-Sforza’s academic career and the ideological compromises made by one of the 20th century’s leading population geneticists.
12 Comments
“Jewish academics also played a role in the Cavalli-Sforza story. When he came to California’s Stanford University from Italy in 1968, he had no tenure, and his only friends were Stanford’s leading geneticist, Jewish molecular biologist Joshua Lederberg, the 1958 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology and Medicine, and Lederberg’s protégé, half-Jewish geneticist Walter Bodmer (Jewish father, German mother).”
You won’t go very far in the US or the Anglosphere in general if you don’t go with the jewish approved narrative, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s last book ‘Two Hundred Years Together’ will never be published into english.
Lets be honest, the “NWO/Illuminati” is nothing more than the Anglo-American-Jewish Axis. Can this Axis of Evil be broken?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Hundred_Years_Together
Could you provide some reference that Ernst Mayr was Jewish? I don’t think he was.
Sharp-eyed readers!
On the race of Ernst Mayr:
Separating Jews from non-Jews can be a difficult task. Sometimes it is necessary to tentatively assign individuals to one category and later switch them to the other when new, more persuasive evidence turns up. It may even be necessary to switch them back again! That happens only rarely, but it does happen.
I’d made a note about Mayr—I copied a quotation by him—that when he came to the US in 1931 “the Communists and Nazis were fighting” and the Weimar regime was trying to hang on. Then, after the NS came to power, “I was very anti-Nazi. So there was no way I could return.”
Now, there is no question he said this, because I have it in quotes. Unfortunately, I neglected to source it!
Also, his presence in the US at the time was due to the financial and institutional patronage of Walter Rothschild, scion of the Jewish banking family.
In addition to this, Mayr was identified as Jewish in an article by a Jew, Gerhard D. Wasserman, “Wittgenstein on Jews: Some Counter-Examples,” Philosophy 65 (July 1990): 355-65.
So those were the reasons I’d tentatively classified Mayr as Jewish.
Checking online now, I found two separate oral history interviews with Mayr conducted when he was an old man. In both of them he flatly denies being Jewish. In one he states that his wife wasn’t Jewish, either. (That’s another situation you often run into: a white man with a Jewish wife and children—e.g., US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D.-Nev.]. Many Gentiles among the Communist leadership in the USSR had such family arrangements also.)
Mayr describes applying for American citizenship, and denies being Jewish, here: http://www.webofstories.com/play/ernst.mayr/79;jsessionid=6BAC6FC05ECA5A3E970B3685C48C1C20 He mentions that many people mistakenly assumed he was Jewish because of the period when he came to the US. In that clip, and the following one on the same page, he talks about being discriminated against during WWII because he was German.
In a second interview, from the Cold Spring Harbor Oral History Collection, March 2002, Mayr states the following in a video excerpt (the transcript is next to the video):
“My family was rather badly treated by the Nazis, so I don’t want to have anything to do with the Nazis and their history. I’m not Jewish but my younger brother for instance immediately lost his job when the Nazis came to power because he refused to join the party and so forth.” http://library.cshl.edu/oralhistory/interview/cshl/memories/non-scientific-interests/
To my knowledge, no one was ever forced to join the party. Hitler only wanted committed people. If such was the case, what Mayr says about his brother is presumably untrue.
On the basis of these oral history interviews, I have to reclassify him as a German with a German spouse, despite the key Rothschild connection. If more information turns up in the future, I’ll revisit the classification if necessary.
So, for now I’ll go with anti-Nazi German expatriate, like Marlene Dietrich, Erich Maria Remarque, and many others.
The thing that amazes me is the glaring hypocrisy about censorship. I recall when I was growing up, especially in the 1970’s the endless stream of hate filled documentaries, shows and movies directed at the Germans. In particular I recall a documentary (probably seeing this same scene in many different productions) in which young Germans were throwing books described as Jewish books (Einstein, Freud, Marx and others onto a fire). Only recently did I learn that this censorship was imposed because the National Socialists genuinely believed the writings of Jews and others of the same mind were detrimental to Germany and if you become aware of the prostitution, homosexuality and liberal writings that made Berlin the filth capital of the world, you can see why they thought that way.
But we were told of Einstein’s and Freuds greatness repeatedly and then often told to consider how many Freud’s and Einsteins might have lived if not for the holocaust, which of course is presented as an undeniable fact. Although they condemned the National Socialists idea of a Master Race, they were clearly saying Jews were superior (more hypocrisy). But one of the key points was that the Germans were “book burners” and this was so evil. Now, many people like this author are pointing out the censorship imposed by Jews and others against “Holocaust Denial” and a whole laundry list of things. Much of this censorship (but not all) is done by instilling political correctness into how people think. Thanks to this website and others (Occidental Observer) I have become aware of this. But the thing that amazes me the outright hypocrisy of Jews and their supporters.
How white house correspondent Helen Thomas was fired instantly for criticism of Jews, or Mel Gibson or Rick Sanchez shows that censorship is perfectly alright with Jews, as long as it’s used to further their cause and not against it.
Indeed, the hypocrisy with which glaring, obvious facts are manufactured into one thing or another, or both at the same time, with one being good, the other bad, depending on the also manufactured moral level on which it is done, respectively, is measure of the worthlessness of this time of our envelopment by ideas inimical to our happiness and physical, as well as mental well-being. The censorship you mention is an outstanding example of this hypocrisy.
As far as I know, the famous book burning occurred as a symbolic act in several places in Germany, and yet all the books thrown into the fire in this symbolic act of rejection of the destructive ideas given coinage by being printed and sold in book form, afterwards were still on the shelves and available in bookstores. Compare that with today’s censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany where books with undesirable tendencies are ordered to be withdrawn from sale, production and advertising, and existing stocks are ordered to be incinerated; publishers and authors are fined or imprisoned for undesirable statements. In addition, in 1945, about 40000 titles were on Allied Control Council orders to be destroyed completely, and that was probably successful with quite a few, even if many of these titles were hidden away during the difficult years in private quarters. In the 1950s there were Jewish agents travelling through German lands, buying up books from private libraries, sending them back to Israel for incineration – everything paid for by German tax payers. This is according to Roland Bohlinger who reprinted in his Freie Republik Uhlenhof many such books. I am not an expert in the law contortions necessary to maintain the principle of prohibition of censorship while at the same time exercising it, so I cannot explain how this worked; but Roland Bohlinger was many times in court and lost a lot of money to fines for having his own opinion in a public manner. Try to check out Mein Kampf or Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts in a public library and you might be led to the poison cabinet with the forbidden books, if they even have these books.
In the US censorship cannot be introduced directly through the highly intelligent formulation in the Constitution “Congress shall make no law to abridge freedom of speech”; no amount of weaseling can undo the meaning of these simple words. Hence, political correctness, speech codes, social ostracism sidelining and blacklisting, pressure on hotels and private individuals not to rent space to people with the unallowed opinion, as well as threats of lawsuits, along with the state endorsement of a Judeo-centered historic narrative are resorted to. Due to a self-serving and self-selecting academic sytem no historical revisionist will teach in a university in the near future, and university libraries make careful selections of the proper books on their shelves.
You wrote:
“… In addition, in 1945, about 40000 titles were on Allied Control Council orders to be destroyed completely, and that was probably successful with quite a few, even if many of these titles were hidden away during the difficult years in private quarters. In the 1950s there were Jewish agents travelling through German lands, buying up books from private libraries, sending them back to Israel for incineration…”
This is very interesting and I have no doubts here. Can you point me to any published sources detailing these actions by Israel and Jewish agents, and re the ACC’s list of works to be incinerated and related actions?
Try this page in Metapedia:
http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Alliierte_Zensur.
This (private) address below lists books and the like forbidden by the German censorship office:
http://www.bpjm.com/bpjmdotcom/
I was citing from memory, and found only these pages quickly as sources. I’ll look for more, and also whether I can find something in English.
I know of the book-buying and shipping to Israel for incineration-actions of Jewish agents in Germany in the 1950s and early 60s from Roland Bohlinger, a German publisher and re-publisher of such eradicated books, but I cannot right now remember where he wrote it. He died about year ago.
I’ll go through my files, hopefully finding more.
One simple trick is to simply put the good books in reserve stacks where they can’t be taken out or found by casual browsers. You don’t have to ban or burn books as long as very, very few know they even exist.
This a very interesting article. The function of universities has undergone an existential change in the last few decades. This function was to provide an intelligent, penetrating examination and interpretation of our world by capable intellects, with the participation of students as apprentices to that method of examination, and has now changed to forcing inquisitive minds onto rigid tracks of conformity to pre-approved ideas. I was just recently thinking of the English physicist Crookes after whom the Crookes tube is named, an electrical discharge device of importance in physics in the late 19th century. He was also interested in psychic research and partook in seances, and that was quite alright for an academic at that time. It did not tarnish his reputation. It is totally unthinkable today that an academic could publicly acknowledge that and keep his position; he would somehow be made to resign. It also seems to be dangerous to have problems with Einstein’s theory of relativity; papers critical of it are not published, measurements not in conformity with it lead to the forced resignation of the perpetrator (Antonio Ereditato in 2012, who found the speed of neutrinos to exceed the speed of light), university space is being denied for critics to give talks. (“Deniers” they are, I suppose). A man such as Hans F.K.Günther would be unthinkable in a university today. This conformity to an ideological program explains why there is a standstill in intellectual development in today’s world. No more new theories are being formulated, and all the news about the latest miracles of science we are bombarded with are about engineering feats, not new theories. In all the sciences, theories at least 100 years old are used to order and interpret the results. Einstein’s theory which as recently as 1968 Nordensen called “not a theory but bad philosophy” is the Procrustes bed of physics, even if this theory does not provide any useful information; no field of engineering has emerged from it, as did happen for thermodynamics, mechanics, optics or electricity.
Cavalli-Sforza is in no way unusual in being an intelligent, but intellectually arid representative of the modern elite. It seems that he had a price. I did not know about his background but his apparently very different opinions in his earlier years when eugenics and racial sciences were the subject of research at universities were used later, as Andrew Hamilton suggests, to make him have “a proper opinion”. He reminds me here of Günther Grass, Walter Jens (a professor of Rhetorics in Tübingen) and Rudolf Augstein (editor of the “Spiegel” the equivalent of a tabloid for the intelligenca in Germany since 1946), members of the Waffen-SS who afterwards assumed a position 180 degrees opposite. Our current university system seems to be based on people who are certainly intelligent but morally bankrupt; they have to choose between a career with glamour but compromised by selling any convictions they might have and an ordinary life which would allow them to be who they are. Who knows how many brilliant people choose the latter life. The thought that people elect a life that is not a success in material pay and glamour over wordly success that would degrade them to an intellectual and moral nothing is comforting.
So when the time comes to investigate the parties responsible for White genocide and pushing the world into global government (aka the NWO) are you saying that you won’t support bringing non-Jews to justice for these crimes?
“He reminds me here of Günther Grass, Walter Jens (a professor of Rhetorics in Tübingen) and Rudolf Augstein (editor of the “Spiegel” the equivalent of a tabloid for the intelligenca in Germany since 1946), members of the Waffen-SS ”
Untrue, among those only GG was in the Waffen-SS. Jens was a simple party member. Augstein had a minor position in the Wehrmacht, like millions of others. Georg Wolff of the early Spiegel decades was in the “black” SS however (he conducted the famous Heidegger interview in 1966, together with Augstein.)
After I sent the comment, I thought about Jens and remembered only clearly that he claimed some ten years ago that he couldn’t remember that he was a Party member, he said something to the effect that he was given some piece of paper to sign the meaning of which he didn’t remember, and that he had forgotten it all. In reality, Party membership was selective and was only possible by assent of both parties-applicant and Party. So I was wrong about his membership in the Black Corps.
Nonetheless, Cavalli-Sforza seems to fit well in the line of of people who made extreme adjustments to their philosophical principles in order to be on the crest of success, something people with Bolshecist-Communist backgrounds were never in need of.