It's always funny seeing socialists say they "follow the science."
Because when Stalin decided DNA was right-wing propaganda, they shot every scientist who disagreed. The story of how ideology murdered genetics—and millions of people. 🧵
Picture this: You're a brilliant geneticist in 1930s Soviet Union.
You've spent years studying how traits pass from parents to offspring.
Your research could help feed millions. But there's a problem. Your science contradicts the party line.
Stalin's solution? Kill the science by killing the scientists.
Meet Trofim Lysenko—a peasant turned "scientist" who claimed genetics was bourgeois propaganda.
His "revolutionary" theory? Plants of the same class would never compete with each other because they understood socialist cooperation.
So he planted seeds so close together they choked each other to death.
But Lysenko had something real scientists didn't: Stalin's personal blessing.
When Lysenko spoke in 1935, Stalin stood up and applauded: "Bravo, Comrade Lysenko. Bravo!"
From 1934 onwards, geneticists started disappearing.
By 1948, Lysenko could declare: "The Central Committee has examined my report and approved it." Genetics was now officially "fascist science."
More than 3,000 biologists lost their jobs.
Hundreds were executed.
— Izrail Agol, 45. Executed as a "Trotskyist."
— Solomon Levit, 42. Shot as an "American spy."
— Georgii Nadson, 72. Founded Russia's microbiology lab. Bullet to the head, buried in a mass grave.
— Even Nobel laureate Hermann Muller had to flee the country.
Their crime? Believing in DNA.
Nikolai Vavilov’s case breaks your heart.
He was Lysenko's own mentor who taught him everything. When Vavilov realized his student had become a monster, he spoke up. He knew Lysenko's pseudoscience would cause mass starvation.
Arrested in 1940. Sentenced to death in 1941. Died of starvation in prison in 1943. The man who collected seeds to feed humanity... starved to death.
Soviet media went full dystopian.
They published articles titled "Siberia is transformed into a land of orchards and gardens."
They asked the crucial question: "Who do these so-called geneticists really serve?"
Anyone opposing Lysenko was labeled a defender of "mysticism, obscurantism and backwardness."
Sound familiar? When ideology replaces evidence, the first casualty is truth.
Lysenko's pseudoscience spread like a virus throughout the Communist world.
Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, China. It became the foundation of Mao's "Great Leap Forward." Result? Tens of millions died in famines.
One charlatan's ideology. An entire planet's tragedy.
Today's campus thought police aren't (yet) executing professors.
But the pattern is identical: declare objective truth "reactionary," silence dissenting voices, destroy careers of those who resist.
The method changes. The mentality remains the same. When ideology trumps evidence, people die—sometimes literally, always intellectually.
Ready to learn how to resist intellectual tyranny on your campus?
The first step is understanding how to defend truth when ideology tries to replace evidence—so you never have to choose between truth and survival.
Check out our free College Survival Kit: 8 lessons on staying intellectually free.
A Czech playwright predicted the Soviet collapse 11 years before it happened.
While CIA analysts studied missile counts and economic indicators, Václav Havel explained why communist regimes would fall from moral exhaustion, destroying itself from the inside.
The experts dismissed him. History proved them wrong. 🧵
In 1978, The Soviet System Looked Permanent
Western analysts treated communist rule as unchangeable fact. Military power. Total surveillance. Complete control.
Political scientists predicted gradual reform at best. Revolution seemed impossible.
But they were missing one important factor.
Havel Understood What The Data Couldn't Capture
In his underground essay "The Power of the Powerless," written in 1978, Havel identified the regime's hidden fragility.
Communist systems didn't survive through force alone. They required mass participation in obvious lies.
Every citizen had to pretend the system worked. Every worker had to attend celebrations for policies they knew were failing. Every student had to repeat slogans contradicting observable reality.
This created exhaustion that military strength couldn't cure.
Ronald Coase set out to prove that Socialism was superior to the chaos of the market.
So he went to America to see how giant industries were actually managed.
What he found destroyed his worldview. And won him a Nobel Prize.
This is the story of how a young socialist became one of the most important economists of the 20th century by following evidence over ideology. 🧵
London, 1929. A 19-year-old economics student at LSE calls himself a "soft socialist."
The intellectual consensus seemed obvious: markets were chaos, central planning was science.
His professors had a compelling argument: businesses are already mini-planned economies. If planning works inside firms, why not scale it to entire nations?
For young Coase, the logic felt inevitable. Scientific management promised order. The invisible hand looked like randomness.
But in 1931, he won a scholarship that would change everything: a chance to study American industry firsthand.
He went expecting to document techniques for improving socialist planning. He found something that shattered his worldview instead.
Everyone Wants Democratic Transition for Venezuela
But how do you restore democracy in a kleptocratic state captured by criminal elites?
To understand the problem, you need to understand how Venezuela got here. This story is a stark reminder that freedom isn't lost overnight, but slowly dismantled, one piece at a time. 🧵
The Liberation Myth: Venezuela Started With a Promise
In 1811, Simon Bolivar liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule. He dreamed of a unified, free South America built on republican ideals.
But Bolivar's revolution created a nation, not stability. What followed was a century of chaos.
A Century of Strongmen: The 19th Century Belonged to Caudillos
After independence came civil wars, military coups, and regional warlords fighting for control. Venezuela cycled through dozens of governments.
Power didn't come from elections. It came from controlling enough armed men to take Caracas. Whoever seized the capital claimed to speak for the nation.
“I'm against Maduro, but I think what Trump did was wrong.”
This sentence sounds reasonable, balanced, and mature. The kind of thing a serious person would say to avoid seeming radical.
The problem is that this sentence is, morally, one of the worst possible positions on Venezuela. 🧵
Not because it's moderate. But because it's a conscious escape. That "but" isn't prudence. It's a silent plea for moral exoneration.
The attempt to appear sophisticated while avoiding the thing that morality often demands: to hierarchize evil. To say what is worse. To choose.
Let's be clear about what we're "balancing" here.
Under Maduro's "socialism of the 21st century," Venezuela collapsed into hyperinflation exceeding 1,000,000%. Systematic scarcity created mass starvation. Venezuelans resorted to eating dogs and scavenging trash to survive.
These aren't political talking points. These are documented atrocities.