How Margaret Mead’s Bad Science Set Anthropology Back By A Century

Margaret Mead was an academic celebrity; basically the Madonna of anthropology. She’s best known for utopian tales of life in the South Seas, depicting pacifism, matriarchal societies, and free love. Her cultural impact in the Western world is easy to underestimate (particularly as one of the voices leading to the Sexual Revolution), though there’s more to her story than that.

She got her master’s degree and Ph.D. at Columbia, home of many other interesting students and faculty over the years. She was married and divorced three times. Today, that’s still in the “you’re doing it wrong” range, but back then, even one divorce was a bit scandalous; likewise her bisexuality. However, she contributed significantly toward remaking society in her own image with the help of the right circumstances and connections. Specifically, she was studying under Professor Franz Boas, a man with an agenda.

The myth

No awkward adolescence, not much hierarchy, little religion, no jealousy, not a single luxury…

Mead’s literary debut in 1928 was Coming of Age in Samoa. The year before she got her doctorate degree, she described village life on Ta’u Island, focusing on adolescence. As she told it, basically it was a carefree tropical paradise, lacking our uptightness thanks to free love. Here’s a telling excerpt from chapter 3:

And so the boy is faced by a far more difficult dilemma than the girl… [I]f he would win a sweetheart, he must have prestige among his fellows. And conversely, his social prestige is increased by his amorous exploits.

So while the girl rests upon her “pass” proficiency, the boy is spurred to greater efforts. A boy is shy of a girl who does not have these proofs of efficiency and is known to be stupid and unskilled; he is afraid he may come to want to marry her. Marrying a girl without proficiency would be a most imprudent step and involve an endless amount of wrangling with his family. So the girl who is notoriously inept must take her lovers from among the casual, the jaded, and the married who are no longer afraid that their senses will betray them into an imprudent marriage.

But the seventeen-year-old girl does not wish to marry—not yet. It is better to live as a girl with no responsibility, and a rich variety of emotional experience. This is the best period of her life… She has very little baby-tending to do. Her eyes do not ache from weaving nor does her back break from bending all day over the tapa board. The long expeditions after fish and food and weaving materials give ample opportunities for rendezvous. Proficiency would mean more work, more confining work, and earlier marriage, and marriage is the inevitable to be deferred as long as possible.

So for a Samoan guy to get taken seriously, he had to have real accomplishments (and social proof) under his belt. However, for a girl, lacking adult skills is no barrier to carousel-riding; continued “as long as possible”. This utopian social model seems rather one-sided to me! Now how does this seem so familiar?

At the time, it was rather groundbreaking for an anthropologist to hang out with the locals for several months to learn about their society. Unfortunately, she got most of it wrong. On the whole, her observations may well suffer from anecdotal generalizations; further, they seem colored by her own wishful thinking; but the worst part of it started out as a joke.

The reality

Anthropology: You’re doing it wrong.

Actually, the Samoans were puritanical, and she got several other details wrong too. As for the girls she got the information about their free love customs from, they responded to her probing questions by telling her what she wanted to hear, finding it deliciously funny to mess with this cub scientist from afar.

Derek Freeman, an anthropologist from New Zealand, moved to Samoa in 1940 to become a teacher. He stayed for three and a half years, learning the language, and becoming part of their local community. He’d read Mead’s book, but found society there much different. An irascible sort, he criticized Mead and clashed with her at a conference. She asked why he hadn’t brought his thesis over to her house the day before; he replied:

Because I was afraid you might ask me to stay the night.

Ooh, burn! That quip brought down the house. Still, the worst was yet to come.

In 1965, he returned to Samoa for two years. He did some fact-checking, visiting the island where Mead had stayed. Word got around about her book, and the people there didn’t care for her descriptions. Worse, she had hooked up with one of the locals, giving herself a very bad reputation. So she offended their morals, cheated on her husband, engaged in pretty questionable professional ethics, and then misrepresented their society to the world. Freeman was floored by this.

The revelation

When the three hour tour doesn’t go so well…

When Freeman returned to academia, he spilled the beans on Mead’s “research”. That led to a three decade long tempest within the anthropological community. So controversial was his takedown of their great celebrity that at times he had difficulty finding a publisher. Mead’s many defenders accused him of being the one making up stuff. However, since Freeman was a lot more familiar with Samoan society (she stayed perhaps eight months), the evidence speaks for itself. If that’s not enough, take it from one of the locals:

We girls would pinch each other and tell her we were out with the boys. We were only joking but she took it seriously. As you know, Samoan girls are terrific liars and love making fun of people but Margaret thought it was all true.

So it was all for the lulz. Mead herself noted how hard it was to get a straight answer out of anyone there; more caution and less wishful thinking might have done wonders. As a scathing article concludes:

How could Mead get it so wrong? Simply put, it appears her desire to eliminate restrictions upon her own sexuality determined her conclusions about that of the Samoans. For Mead, science was a form of autobiography, as is clear from her own life. She was married and divorced three times, apparently with the ease which she falsely claimed was characteristic of the Samoans; she engaged in numerous affairs with the same casualness of the fictional youth slipping off to the palm trees at dusk; and she was also bisexual as were the Samoans in her fantasy work Coming of Age.

How ironic that Margaret Mead’s anthropological myth, masquerading as science, could help to bring about a real sexual revolution, leading the west not only to casual sex and casual divorce, but the scourge of abortion. Such are the ways of the culture of death.

Mead’s agendas

Academic types aren’t always dispassionate, objective observers of the human condition? Say it isn’t so!

That wasn’t all. After the Samoan adventure, Mead wrote several more books in the tribal gender studies genre. One was Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, which had a pacifist angle. She said she discovered a female-dominated tribe in Papua New Guinea. That one became a big feminist hit for obvious reasons, though once again another anthropologist visited later and found things much different. Still, many took these idyllic yarns as the truth, concluding that this is how we should model our own societies.

Her greatest legacy was the Samoan fairy tales of free love. This book had a good bit of influence on young Baby Boomers, especially since it was all the rage on campuses. The same was true for Eros and Civilization by Herbert Marcuse, who later came to Columbia along with his Frankfurt School buddies. These two books, the latest hits in American academia back then (and still considered classics) contributed to the 1960s counterculture getting as wild as it did. That, in turn, led to today’s deregulation of the sexual marketplace, unleashing a host of other social ills.

Mead’s books generally push the social environment-cultural determinism line in opposition to hereditarian-biological determinism ideas. This puts full emphasis on upbringing in the “nature versus nurture” debate, denying that biology has anything to do with national character. (An off-the-wall example might be that ants act like ants because they grow up in an anthill.) This follows Rousseau’s “blank slate” idea, stating that people are whatever their society makes them. Thus, genetic influences count for little to nothing.

“Society is a social construct”

This is what happens when you tell your professor that people aren’t all the same.

Nature versus nurture might seem like a dry, scholarly debate, but it has far-reaching implications. Cultural determinism is a cornerstone of liberalism, more so for Communism. It implies that social engineering is good, and human nature presents no barrier to that. It also is a pat explanation to brush aside facts inconveniently contradicting their ideology.

Further, extreme cultural determinism means an individual’s woes are all society’s fault; personal choices are irrelevant. Therefore, dysfunctional societies cause crime, not criminal behavior. That illogical notion contradicts free will; a rather robotic conception of the human mind. It can’t explain why there are honest poor people or rich crooks. Much money has been spent sprucing up bad neighborhoods, with little effect. Handout programs don’t work either. The only thing that helped was getting tough on crime beginning in the 1990s. Holding people accountable for their behavior works.

Also, extreme cultural determinism reinforces the idea that immigrants from anywhere in the world will easily adapt to their host societies. (If a cat has kittens in a stable, are the kittens horses?) Some foreign communities do fit in, if they’re compatible with the people already living there, but others turn into an imported underclass. Whenever that happens, society is blamed for being intolerant. When the facts don’t fit the theory, they double down with the theory and break out the guilt stick. Thus, haphazard mass immigration proceeds at full speed, all according to plan.

Franz Boas, Mead’s consigliere at Columbia, also pushed the “societal influence is everything” line, as did some of his other front-men. (Further, he was one of the pioneers of the “race is only a social construct” meme.) Like Mead, it was later discovered he faked his research. Another proponent of extreme cultural determinism was Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko, who put the USSR’s biology research far behind. Later, it was discovered he faked his research. Are we seeing a pattern yet?

Analogy and conclusion

“Hey, about your TPS reports…”

Suppose an American visits the remote jungle and meets a local tribesman, and they discuss their lives. The tribesman talks about stalking game for hours, and an unsuccessful hunt means they go hungry. Then the American describes working forty hours a week in a cubicle, enduring a traffic jam both ways. He must kiss up to the petty tyrant of a boss, lest he lose his job, which might happen anyway if the bean counters “offshore” his division. All this is so the rent, car loan, credit cards, and other bills get paid on time.

The American is grateful the constant risk of starvation doesn’t haunt him; he can just go to the grocery store! The tribesman wonders how in the hell anyone would want to live like Americans. In any event, introducing ISO-9001 standards for spearing gazelles won’t be helpful for the tribesman. Likewise, bringing a spear to work and praying to the voodoo gods won’t help the American fill out TPS reports, though it might liven things up at the office.

It’s good to study other cultures and learn from them. However, it doesn’t follow that features of one society’s way of life (even real ones) will always work just as well if you transplant them elsewhere. There indeed have been cultures with free love in various times and places, even if Mead’s Samoa wasn’t one of them. Because Western civilization is highly K-selected, libertinism is unnatural to us. Problems arise if you haphazardly throw out all of society’s moral rules.

A culture includes a constellation of folkways and traditions that work together and basically make sense to the people accustomed to them. Even aspects that people might dislike are at least familiar and a known quantity, unlike the unforeseen consequences of implementing exotic concepts haphazardly. Changes have to be carefully considered, and Plato would have agreed.

Finally, Mead once said:

Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

She was right about that one. Now it’s our turn.

Read More: How Social Justice Warriors Have Been Infecting Science For Half A Century

196 thoughts on “How Margaret Mead’s Bad Science Set Anthropology Back By A Century”

  1. Good article, as always. “Specifically, she was studying under Professor Franz Boas, a man with an agenda.” Let’s not forget that Boas was jewish, and Mead was the public face of the boasian school.

      1. may i ask why did you name yourself after a Jewish character then? or is it hidden sarcasm i didn’t get

        1. I made this avatar years before I took that Red Pill. I’ve only started thinking seriously about Jews in the last few months.
          The point of Clark Kent is that you can take the greatest man of the highest virtue and he will be reduced by conforming to the modern world.
          Now that you mention it, that pretty much is the Jew’s wet dream.

    1. You’re really obsessed with this, aren’t you Jewseph?
      What kind of name is Curwen, anyway. Sounds vaguely Semitic to me…

      1. 1) you are a troll, possibly a paid troll, b) your lack of intelligence and knowledge is bottomless.

        1. This guy has been a jew apologist, and made anti-white commentary, for some time here. Just block the punk like I did.

  2. Anthropology and primatology are 2 sciences that have been absolutely ruined by the feminism’s vaginalysis

    1. vaginalysis has been stolen for future use summerwalk. I thank you

  3. The only thing that helped was getting tough on crime beginning in the 1990s. Holding people accountable for their behavior works.
    It should have raised more eyebrows when the term ‘criminal justice reform’ started to pick up steam as the latest buzzword in the last election cycle. As these things always go, the term obscures the true intent of the policies behind it.

    1. I believe I’ve seen it somewhere that if the Dindu population was removed, the US would have lower crime rates than combined Europe.

      1. I’ve seen those stats too. We’d be statistically in the same ballpark as 1970’s Switzerland.

      2. In the county I live in I believe there have been about 3 murders last year and so far this year, none. We’re armed to the teeth, so based on the Left’s logic this should be the old west. Weird right?

        1. Plus, your county is full of evil white men.

          Must be the russians interfering with proper reporting of evil violent white gun owners in ohio.

          Thats the only thing that makes sense.

        2. Then look at Chicago with the tightest gun control in America yet the countries highest murder rate..
          Mostly blacks killing other blacks.

        3. That’s their problem. If you’re going to vote for suicide, then I’m not going to bitch when you get killed.

        4. The Leftists/Democrats ALWAYS claim that if legally armed citizens have firearms, then there ALWAYS be shootouts, armed robberies, and widespread violence and chaos. Seldom (if ever) happens, of course.
          OTOH, where firearms are heavily controlled or banned, there are ALWAYS widespread murders, armed robberies, and violent crimes of all kinds (LA, Chicago, Detroit, and New York City — all Democrat-controlled cities, incidentally — are just a few places that come to mind).

      3. Read Taleeb Starkes The Uncivil War….its by a black guy living in the ghetto trying to get out…..

  4. Very nice and informative article. The problem with anthropology goes back even further. (((Uri Boas))) was the man who made modern anthropology. He basically said that there is no difference between men from a culture that the most it can manage is to make a mudhut and men from a culture that can construct cathedrals.
    The reason for his success was the fact that he convinced his pupils to take places in the academies and promote people with the same ideas. The final boost was the defeat of Germany in WWII which dealt the deadly blow to the eugenicist movement. From the 50s the Boasians ruled the academies, which means that comparative anthropology became a religion.
    During the last 20 years anthropologists that do not believe in these nonsensical ideas started to appear and be far more influential even if they face persecution because their work is reviewable.
    The base of all this ideas stem from Rousseau’s blank slate, and the noble savage. These notions, respectively, ignore the inner quality differences between humans and the romantization of savage (i.e. uncivilized) peoples, subsequently basing the hate for civilization and, consequentially, the civilized man.
    The great fight all these years in all the sciences that have to do with humans is between environmentalists and innertists (forgot the correct word) : the first preach that differences in the environment matter to the development of man, while the second proclaim that differences between men occur due to their make-up.
    Environmentalists have paved the way with redistributionism, Political Correctness, Affirmative Action, Socialism and Multiculturism. All these are based on the false idea of the blank state, which means that humans have no differences between themselves culturally due to their makeup, making them interchangeable, like the parts of a machine. This idea was legitimized scientifically, due to Boas’s pseudo-science.

    1. Most pseudo-science seems to involve the tribe. With the resulting findings/claims/theories being nonsense targeted at and seemingly designed to undermine white Christian society (Western Civilization in general).
      I was actually surprised to find that Mead was not herself jewish. Guess there’s always the exception to the rule.

      1. White Christians gave the Jews a home and opportunity. And in return they received treachery.
        The Jews basically act like spoiled women.

        1. So has it been since time immemorial. In the Bible, we see it clearly:
          Old Testament
          – Calls them a “stiff necked people”
          – Chronicles the many times they abandoned their God
          – Has a prophet marry a whore as a symbol of God’s covenant with Israel
          New Testament
          – Calls their leaders a “brood of vipers” and “children of Satan”
          – Has a martyr speak: “You have received the word of God from the hands of angels, and you have failed to keep it”
          – Chronicles the problems with the church in Jerusalem and the faith among the many Gentile churches
          It almost is enough to evidence the Christian connection to God. For if we are His children and we care for the Jews, we see the same treachery and hatred that God has seen from his people for ages.

        2. So you’re basically saying the diaspora is kind of liking riding the cock carousel

    2. From the Boas Wikipedia page: “Boas vocally opposed anti-Semitism…”
      They gotta make sure they get that point in early…

    3. The slate is blank, unless someone is “born that way” or “living in the wrong body”. Then those genes matter. The rest is racist.

  5. Anthropology, Sociology, English…they’ve all been turned into a laughingstock to suit the female desire for attention whoring. History has been obliterated and turned into a seminar on the feelings of left-wing Western women. Absolutely pathetic.
    At this point, I view a clown car at the circus with more seriousness than a female “academic.”

    1. 100%
      I’ve read through feminist PhD dissertations and it is literally just women complaining.

      1. Dissertaton? Dis SIR tation
        sexist pig
        Dispersontation please

      2. They once complained that Barbie said math was too hard. Now they publish papers claiming that math and science are partriarchal structures designed to oppress women and people of color.
        There is literally no winning with these nags.

        1. So really, they’re just agreeing with Barbie, only with more words.

        2. they added ‘art’ is seems. Not sure this is specifically a feminist initiative, but it might as well be. Maybe engineers can draw their designs and schematics in pastels and acrylic in future

        3. As soon as the word “art” is added it becomes bullshit.
          I remember when I had “language arts” in 4th grade where my older brother had had “English” 3 years prior…

        4. I did art exam years and years ago. Yes it was toss. It was the only subject with course work, and I’m not sure it was possible to fail – maybe if you could actually paint

        5. To use ‘art’ to describe an art class is fine, but when that word starts creeping into subjects which are decidedly non-artistic it opens the door for all kinds of misinterpretation.

        6. Here is the rationale from one campaign group:
          “STEM is based on skills generally using the left half of the brain and thus is logic driven. Much research and data shows that activities like Arts, which uses the right side of the brain supports and fosters creativity, which is essential to innovation. Clearly the combination of superior STEM education combined with Arts education (STEAM) should provide us with the education system that offers us the best chance for regaining the innovation leadership essential to the new economy.”
          In theory it doesn’t sound too bad, but it can only weaken what is currently a guarantee of hard science quality i.e. whether it’s designed to or not it will serve to weaken the last remaining bastion of a real education (I wouldn’t be inclined to disrespect the humanities side of things but I know what they’ve become)

        7. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
          It seems to begin with the premise that STEM is a curriculum in itself. Is it not more than a shorthand notation for referring to, well, essentially non-arts degree programs?
          Any well designed undergraduate STEM related program will have some fraction of arts related credits.

        8. yeah. A decade or so ago I would probably have been quite sympathetic towards the idea. The novelist C P Snow came up with the idea that the sciences and arts / humanities represented two divided cultures, and that this division was unhealthy and needed to be bridged. I’d like to think that that is where that the STEAM idea is coming from. Back in the early modern period you have the idea of the renaissance man – da vinci for instance – who is characterised as being educated in everything – sciences, arts, languages – everything. He is a polymath by definition. From that period onwards perhaps things start to get more specialised, and it becomes increasingly difficult or possible to be become schooled in everything. I’m not sure where the division between those two cultures starts to occur, but taking a guess I’d say it would be in the 18th century, at the commencement of the enlightenment. Whatever the case it’s clear that by the mid 20th century when Snow wrote about the problem there had emerged to quite different kinds of academic domains, even if the social sciences had pretensions to bridge the difference. I don’t know that much about Snow, or where he was coming from but the problem today is slightly different. In social sciences e.g. psychology which I’ve studie, there’s a bit of war between say the qualitative side of things (methodology wise) and the quantitative / measurement side of things associated with and derived from the hard sciences. Feminism is generally very uncomfortable with the quantitative and where it has impacted on the social sciences in particular it has tended to seek to constrain the hard quantitative side of things, very often to its detriment. So from recognising back in the mid 20th century that there was an undesirable division between the two cultures of the sciences and humanities you now get an expansionist feminist / cultural studies push to take over the sciences so that that they will serve typical social justice imperatives. That to my mind is the great danger, and that’s why the ‘A’ in STEAM may well be a very extreme form of subversion rather than what could be the quite legitimate attempt to bring the two cultures of science and humanities back together again

        9. I remember when Language Arts was substituted for Englisgh. The first time I heard Language Arts was in the early eighties just as I was entering junior high school. I thought it was some kind of “upgrade”or some shit since I was out of elementary school. Within the first day I realized it was just a bullshit way of renaming the same old English class. I thought that was totally weird.
          When I signed up for Industrial Arts, I had to have someone explain to me that it was Shop Class.

        10. The idea seems to be to inject more “feelz” into the hard sciences and turn every last thing into a sociopolitical “construct” that can dismantled at will.
          Physics envy is a hell of a disease.

        11. Your suspicion is well warranted. This kind of linguistic hanky-panky opens the doors to the non-absolutes. Soon, the math ans science will give way to “awareness” and removing”implicit bias” and then they’ll be nothing but talking about science and math.

        12. Same here. And it was more than renaming; it was a way to dilute the proper study and discipline and insert Agenda in its place.

        13. It makes one more well rounded and keeps them from asking stupid questions later in life.

        14. I dropped out of art school. the abstract stuff was bullshit, but there were some people-mainly illustrator majors-that were doing realistic stuff.

        15. they should really differentiate b/w “art” and “illustration” in school….would weed out the faegs…

        16. Feminists claim the same thing about logic — which is pretty rich, considering how women prefer to be as illogical as possible.

      3. This story is true: in a local university a communist with a Harvard Phd was jury for the dissertation of another communist and said “This is not a dissertation, this is a pamphlet”.
        That’s the academia today (and everywhere): one big gigantic and sad joke.

  6. What gets me is she is still celebrated in colleges , long after her studies were verified as bogus.

    1. As an anthropology student myself, the idea I got was that Mead and Boas’ theories were basically fairy tales that they told to make themselves feel better about how the world “should” be.

      1. That kind of ties in nicely with the previous article about online dating and women.

      2. Like Mead’s quote, repeated ad nauseum, about small groups of people changing the world is self-congratulation. Of course, there’s nothing in her phrase about changing the world for the better.

        1. Mead’s quote reminds me of Obama’s statement to “fundamentally change America” — and he did. But he NEVER said about whether it was going to be for the better or the worse.
          But we have seen the result.

      1. I was in one once that was based solely around shellfish and taught us we didn’t need to fear the reaper.

        1. Oh stop showing your soft white underbelly to the public dude.

        2. yeah, I sub cashews for almonds sometimes. I like them better actually. However, there must be some insane cashew shortage they are like twice the prove.

        3. the world needs more nutritious and affordable nuts. Nothing wrong with a bit of lobster either

        4. Nope. I love lobs. I went out on a lobeter boat in Maine, pulled a trap out of the water, took the lobster out and cooked it plain on a Coleman grill on the boat. It was one of the best things I ever ate in my life. The price on nuts is so high….and cashews are just outrageous…near me at least, not sure if that is a national thing.

        5. no, there is clearly a nut cartel fixing the prices. Catching & cooking your own lobster sounds good. I live near the sea, and the fresh crab & fish available locally is pretty good, although I’ve not tried the local lobster. Yes I imagine there will be variation cashew wise

        6. Big Nut is a powerful lobby, you don’t cross them without paying the consequences.

        7. Fucking nut cartel is vicious. Like Albert “The Almond” Anastasia, Vito “Nigger Toe” Genovese and Joe “Pistachio” Profaci set up the five families they put a tight squeeze on the almond biz,

        8. I don’t have a nut allergy, but it seems there are many ways to choke on nuts. But can salted nuts ever lose their savour?

        9. Hate interrupt the jollification, but there is something of a almond cartel, as California produces 82% of the globe’s almonds, and there is a certain amount of price-fixing that goes on.
          Of course, their market control has nothing on the Macadamia Mob.

        10. I’ve no doubt. One thing I’ve learned running construction projects in NYC is that if there is any amount of money to be made on it, someone is taking a taste

        11. Nut prices are insane here too, and they grow locally.
          20 years back, nuts were cheap …… the world’s gone crazy.

        12. Almond growers alone take 5% of California’s water supply.
          (All agriculture uses 80%).
          Whenever, their cheap subsidized water is in danger of a price increase to near market value…they have their cucks in Sacramento scream “Drought!” and guilt us about how bad we are for taking 10 minute showers.

        13. Nuts come in just under inkjet ink in price per oz. Seriously inkjet ink at current prices comes out to something like $80,000 a gallon. For that price you could buy some stocks, shares in a silver mine, or several dozen llamas.

        14. i just be had a vision of a small nation like Kuwait being incredibly wealthy because of their enormous natural ink jet inn stores

        15. Sounds a lot like the old DeBeers diamond cartel and their control of the price of diamonds. (I LOATHE diamonds; the colored gemstones have more beauty and character.)

        16. I understand that California nearly has the market cornered on fruits, too…

    2. Academia is horrendously slow. They still teach nutrition theories from the 50’s that have been repeatedly disproved since at least the 60’s.

      1. it is true. The thing is, unlike law or medicine or other, lets say, relevant fields faculty members aren’t actually required to keep up with modern developments. A 27 year old who gets his PhD in 2017, should he begin teaching, get tenure and stay on, will, in 2057 will be a 67 year old teaching exactly what he learned in grad school between 2012-2017 and his students will be pandering to him for grades. He will publish articles here and there and most of it will go in professional journals. He might do highly specified panels and when he finally fucking retires he will be replaced with a crop in 2065 who got their phd in 2025.

        1. All the more reason to defund all the universities and start over. Eventually we’ll probably end up with the same problems, but that’s no reason not to act.

        2. The nuclear option doesn’t make full sense to me but I do agree drastic changes have been made

        3. I don’t particular like the nuclear option, but the incremental approach always get subsumed and subverted by the vested interests, and a lot of people are making a lot of easy money out of the college scam.

        4. My last pair of dud colleagues before I dumped academia were still rebelling against structural-functionalism. About 45 years too late. Before that, one of my professors in grad school was still writing articles slamming a guy who had been dead for 50 years.

        5. It would be funny if it wasn’t so ubiquitous. I am thankful every day for being rid of academia

        6. I spent a lot of years in academia before running away and never regretted my decision or looked back. I will say, however, that some knowledge is dangerous and the custodians of that knowledge are important—important enough to let the others live
          Don’t get me wrong, rounding them up for a quick question and answer sesh that ends with 80% of them swinging on a rope is a great idea — but that other 20% are actually important j think

        7. Just privatise the university system including most student loans this would force colleges to stand on their own merit and end the last bastion of unchecked liberalism.

        8. Problem is that bad ideas don’t seem to go away; Dracula keeps rising from his grave. Perhaps its an eternal vigilance thing.

        9. You must know the Orwell quote on intellectuals: :
          “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

        10. You cannot cure an infiltrated organization which lives on subsidies. Governemnt bureaus, Universities, Think Tank’s funded by criminal interests, UN, IMF, the Noble Prize Comittee, etc. When the Satanists get a hold of an organization it gets rotten and cannot be fixed.
          Businesses with bad ideas, who live at the mercy of the markets, self destruct. But parasitical organizations might even grow while spreading destruction.

    3. PhD
      Peddler of Human Dung
      THerein lies a huge problem. Call yourself “doctor,” and the whole world thinks your some kind of intellectual prophet, mostly because they barely graduated high school or college.

    4. This is terrible and absurd ! A female can get away with anything !! Don’t know for how long this will continue; to hell with the Daddy State, White Knights and Manginas.

    1. There were many “savages” who were noble. But their attunement with nature and spiritual enlightenment didn’t keep them from constant war amongst their tribes.

        1. Not to mention that they practiced torture (usually done by their women) of captives and prisoners.
          Many tribes also had ways of life that involved warfare as a way of gaining resources and new members by plundering and pillaging from other tribes (in many ways, resembling the medieval Vikings).
          The myth of the “one with nature”, “spiritually enlightened” “noble savage” is nothing more than ‘New Age’ Revisionism and wishful thinking.

        2. “Not to mention that they practiced torture (usually done by their women) of captives and prisoners.”
          Death by “Snu-Snu” comes to mind

      1. People overlook this. Read the history of any native group, Mayans, Aztecs, Incans, Comanche etc. All fierce warriors practicing human sacrifice and treachury on their neighbors.

      2. That was best exhibited by the fact that each tribe had their own Creation myth, and each believed that their tribe was the only tribe that were “human”.

  7. enjoyed this article. As we know feminism is fact cancer. It’s not accidental, as progressives and social engineers don’t give a damn about the world as it is, since they want to change the world. This means that progressive academia however sophisticated it may be tends to have a ‘constructive’ aspect’ even if it isn’t all creative writing or wishful thinking as appears to be the case with Mead & co. This shift in academia from discovering the world to inventing it will in the coming years require a root and branch review of the work of contaminated disciplines. Or if you prefer an extensive and probably quite unpleasant dose of academic chemo. People are starting to wake up about feminism, and now it’s time to look hard at academic feminism and the march through the institutions that has enabled it. In ten years time, every single gender studies unit in the west needs to be a distant and unpleasant memory, remembered in terms of cautionary tales as to how not to ‘do knowledge’

    1. My country, Hungary, is by present day’s Alt Right standards, a pretty decent country to live in.
      We do not allow rapefugees in, we built a wall on our southern border to the outcries of Racism and Fascism from the people of (((Liberal-Bolshevik))) persuasion.
      Our populist right-wing Government is hounding the (((“civilian organizations”))) financed by (((Soros))) out of the country.
      Our people never swallowed the PC BS, only pretended when they felt like their livelyhood depended on seemingly toeing the line.
      Our women are famous world-wide for their beauty and femininity and hotness.
      Imagine my shock when cca. one month ago one of the most prestigious Universities in the capital announced the opening of the very first Gender Studies Department on their Campus!!!
      I fucking could not believe it! And the government does not revoke its financial backing of the university? WTF going on?
      I felt this is an event which should not be allowed.
      We all have to draw the line in the sand somewhere, and end the Feminist nonsense for once and for all…
      What gives me hope, is the mass-ridicule and non-PC outrage of the locals at any notion of pushing the Gender-bender BS in Hungary.

      1. I like Hungary, at least from having visited Budapest, and have found it to be modern “cosmopolitan” city despite it’s press. I’m mixed race, so I have mixed feelings about the alt right, and I imagine the alt right, at best, would probably have mixed feelings about me, but that’s neither here nor there. Beyond Jobbik, which I hear is fairly hard right I’d say Hungary’s position, and Orban’s is mainly patriotic / self-interested pragmatic – Orban has for instance mimicked the Jobbik line on immigration, with the result that the Jobbik position is weaker than it might be and his party occupies a strong position. I’d say Hungary is stronger for it. My impression for what it’s worth is that Hungary’s main sin has been to step out of line on the immigration issue. It will be interesting to see how things work out. In a sense that isn’t so different from Trump or even for that matter Theresa May in UK (at least in terms of respecting Brexit and giving the nod to populist feeling on the matter): depending how it’s handled I’d say a strong line on immigration & moderate patriotism does no harm (including for existing immigrants) and potentially makes for a nation with stronger self-esteem, even if that can sometimes get out of hand. I’d say the whole Visegrad group is moving in that direction to some extent, for better or worse.
        Re. Soros, it’s quite right that his actions and those of the organisations he supports should be properly scrutinised and if necessary checked. His role in Czech Republic (and Slovak) wasn’t an entirely bad thing insofar as he helped pave the way to their joining the West, but he does seem to cause trouble wherever he goes. The Ukraine situation is quite different in my opinion though. Re. Jews Hungary has a strong Jewish community which seems well integrated as far as I can tell. I am sure they are not like Soros, who of course is an atheist political activist, and probably doesn’t give a toss about orthodox jews or their welfare.
        Sorry hear to hear about the gender studies department, but if your country really has a will to survive then use it as an opportunity and penetrate it with the red pill. Where is it’s funding coming from? What are it’s declared aims? How does it reflect the needs of male students – use the lingo – how socially inclusive and representative is it? Is it’s curriculum balanced, and reflect a range of viewpoints beyond the usual marxist queer bullshit? Don’t oppose; rather commandeer

        1. The Alt Right is not about the person, or a person’s race. It is reactionary politics against white genocide. Do you support white genocide? If not, why should anyone on the Alt-Right care about the colour of your skin?
          As a matter of fact, Jobbik was radical right, but those days are over. Vona the party leader even tried to suck up to the Jews, failing miserably. No self-respecting rightwinger will vote on them.
          As for the Jews, they are kind of integrated, but their role under Communism is not forgotten. Communism in Hungary was a dictatorship of the Jews, both in 1919 and for a long time after 1945. Take our feelings towards them from there…
          About Gender Studies: I think society should say an effective no, thanks for all kind of Gender-bending BS.

        2. Fair enough, although I’m not sure all would agree with such a definition, and indeed as far as I’m aware as a movement it is still somewhat disparate not to mention evolving.
          I will have to read up on hungarian history and politics, which interests me. I am aware of the Bela Kun episode, but not so much what happened beyond that. The history of that period still seems to be very raw in quite a few places
          Re. gender studies, turfing it out may work, but can’t in itself be an anti-dote to the poison. Personally I think it can all be challenged and where necessary neutralised, but not of course on the terms of its proponents

        3. Alt-Right is not about Racism, or the race of individuals. We (I consider myself Alt-Right) are not about hating or wishing to do bad things with people who do not have the approved skin color. Why should we, what would be the point?
          All I care about the interests of my own people. If there is conflict between my people and colored people, it is natural if I side with my folks, and I could not care less if some Jewboy calls me a Racist for it. But other than that? I wish all colored people a happy and meaningful life, best wishes to them

        4. I’m not that hung up on the issue, but while I accept what you say, I think the alt right is still quite a broad church, or if you prefer is still in the process of defining itself, and working out which amongst those who would represent it are the voices that should be taken seriously. Movements get defined both by their membership and from without. Likewise as recently as the US election campaign the alt right could mean anything from Milo Y ( a jewish-catholic gay conservative) to those verging on the storm-front side of things. I’m not making a judgement about that. There are more serious voices in the alt right, who have things to say about race and identity and the state of politics in the west and I think by and large they are worth listening to. My position personally is that every individual and every group has a right to express and look out for their self-interest in a constructive and responsible way and in doing so to argue their case. What that means in practice is another matter. There are some complex issues here that we don’t need to go into here but there are obviously some tensions with the notion of white identity and race-mixing. My position here is that it would be absurd for me as a mixed raced man to be against race mixing. I believe such matters should be at the discretion of individuals who should be free to make their own choices. On the other hand I don’t see why either miscegenation on the one hand or racial purity on the other should be promoted as any kind of social policy.

        5. The way I see it, the embezzled Jewish rulers of the West are carrying out a White Genocide, using Cultural Marxist subversion and political backstabbing and treason on the inside, and using Islamist mass immigration and terror as proxies on the outside.
          Compared to this, do you think it matters who fucks with whom?

        6. I see the concept of white genocide as deliberately mirroring “the holocaust narrative”. Hitler, according to the latter, deliberately and with malice of forethought set to eliminating the jewish people as a race from God’s earth. Those who see white genocide in the promotion of multiculturalism, immigration and miscegenation, likewise attribute similar hostile intent to those who promote such things as policy in western countries. Jews are often identified as being the most prominent supporters of such policies.
          Personally. I have sympathy with any people, white or otherwise, who see their interests and identity threatened by other groups, but I think the question needs to be asked as to whether the best way to approach such concerns is by attributing the worst possible motives to the political actors (historical or current) who may be involved. That would be the case, even if there were some truth to the idea that the white race or ‘whiteness’ is under attack. I’ve seen Babs Spectre talking about immigration and – I forget his name – the beardy jewish professor discussing whiteness as a problem that needs sorting. They are are two people amongst many who have had influence on immigration policy / multiculturalism etc. Sure Jews have been at the forefront in the ‘fight against racism’ (and I would probably at this point have to concede that I and my tanned brothers have benefited from that in material ways) but I doubt that most of those type of politically activist jews would recognise even amongst themselves that the aim was the destruction of the white race. Even with that professor who spoke about abolishing whiteness, I’ve heard the explanation that what he was talking about was challenging the concept of whiteness i.e. as something that has historical associations with racism (whether you believe that or not isn’t the issue here – merely the fact that that argument has been made). So the question arises whether jews as a (cohesive?) group are trying to destroy the white race (white genocide) or whether some activist jews (leftists in particular presumably) are attacking what they are regard as a racist concept in such a way that an (anti-social) ‘way of thinking’ is eliminated in a way that should not physically threaten white people individually or (in theory) as a group (i.e. in this case by ‘elimination’ through strategic miscegenation)
          Now, I am not arguing one or other case, merely pointing out that the white genocide argument like the holocaust depends upon attributing an exterminatory purpose to one or other party. My own personal suspicion is that a lot of the truth of the matter is available in the open, so to speak. Sure there is cultural marxism and jewish competition with whites etc, but even with the former – adorno and horkheimer and the like you get a very real jewish neurosis about anti-semitism / racism. For the last century or so ( I would say even longer probably) you have a jewish preoccupation with existential threat, and specifically with anti-semitism, and that preoccupation (whether it is combined with competition / ambition etc) has often worked quite effectively to try to create the conditions that would eliminate that existential threat. That’s not to say that jews are the only people or groups involved with anti-racism / multiculturalism / pro-immigration etc – for those things are common to the whole left platform – but sure, they have been notably prominent.
          You can acknowledge the above though without necessarily attributing the worst possible motives. Whether you do so or not is up to you, and of course that may depend on how you weigh the evidence for motive etc. But equally there is an issue of pragmatism here as well. There are probably a great many jews right now – many of whom probably have their own anxieties about immigration – who to the extent that they may have approved of multiculturalism, immigration etc – may right now be realising that the policies of the last century or so may have at least in part have been mis-judged, or taken too far: if the point of mass immigration for some jewish policy-makers was for instance to create a society where jews stood out less and were less threatened then equally the kinds of tensions that mass immigration is creating right now may be seen to be less than advantageous, and an existential threat in its own right. Making such an argument would probably be more effective in the public realm than simply pushing the idea that the white race is being (effectively) exterminated.
          What I’m trying to say is that to think only in terms of white genocide (versus jewish holocaust) may be to over-dramatise what most people, including non-whites, and maybe even quite a few jews – could see as legitimate concerns that indigenous (white) people may have about their future in countries affected by mass immigration. I both do and don’t have a dog in this fight (to use Mel Gibson’s terminology). I don’t really have ‘an ethnicity’ that I want to ‘win’ over above or against others, but equally I don’t want to see a society become embroiled in race wars, and attempts to roll back a history of immigration that I am inescapably a part of. Whether we get better or worse outcomes in the years to follow, whether things play out as a zero-sum game (which is what white genocide vs holocaust really amounts to) or whether we are able to construct more nuanced debates that allow legitimate grievances and concerns to be put forward without precipitating world war 3 (possibly literally!) may depend on the ability to look pragmatically at the situation before us, and indeed at the evidence one finds oneself weighing up. You know it’s possible to stick a puppy’s snout into its own faeces and say ‘bad dog’ until the message gets through. You don’t necessarily have to have it put down.

      2. I admire your country. I hope Poland can out-rightwing you since they do NOT admit rapefugees also…I hope Poland can keep it up.

    1. The final paragraph of the article was a real kicker.
      She now is the author of several books and is a green campaigner, writing about environmental issues. She is an active member of the Green Party and has twice stood for Parliamentary election.
      What’s the bet she goes off to Africa to “help” some poor Googles.

  8. The sad truth of ugly Ms. Mead is she follows a long long tradition of Political Correct Junk Science to make her ‘studies’ fit a desired political outcome, in her case feminism. She isn’t the first, for generations before her ‘scientists’ and men of education created similar studies to justify their own racist beliefs of white supremacy which were Politically Correct back in their times.

    1. SO true! Our view of history is incredibly warped and distorted by the cultural views of the historians, and controlled by the orthodoxy of those that interpret and write the history.
      Read Charles Fort’s “The Book of The Damned” to see how much we don’t know of mankind’s history, because self-appointed ‘censors’ omit evidence which doesn’t fit with their views of history.

      1. I remember some years ago some clown wrote a book claiming back during the colonial days Americans didn’t have many guns and the armed citizen soldier was more a myth than a reality, got raving reviews from gun control pushing liberals and a lot of bad words from the NRA. Somebody eventually went and examined his ‘facts’ and the sources he listed and found many to be either fictional or selectively chosen, proved he was completely bogus.

  9. Womyn – science – ignore.
    I was fortunate to experience the annual dance conpetition in Tahiti. Beautiful.
    Captain Cook wrote “keeping time to a nicety”
    Apparantly the missionairies prohibited dancing for 150 years. So the difference between then and now is unknown.
    Certainly impossible to determine acurate traditional culture.
    And new guinea, stone age men with spears and clubs. Run by amazons? Dont think so.
    The yacht club in port moresby had security guards with bow and arrow…
    cute women bar tenders-tribal tattoos on faces. Small and cute

  10. Excellent article. well written and researched.
    Side note: heard on tv years ago a Jamaican police sergeant explain to the American reporter that, no, brutality is not inappropriate or counter-productive because the nature of the criminal there responds to nothing less.
    And he admonished western virtue signalers for applying their standards to his culture.
    From the mouths of babes.

  11. I never heard of her before. I would like to learn about earlier anthropologists and even European men who documented the wildlife of different countries. I am not a expert on Polynesian cultures but I would be more incline to assume they believe sex should only be within marriage. How America got Hawaii is interesting. I learned about the last queen of Hawaii (who from what I read was married to a white guy). The only thing she got right was they lived somewhere we consider paradise in appearance.

  12. These so called “anthropologists” like Mead have a jaundiced left wing fairy tale view of the world they project on their savages.
    Like all things if you want the truth on a subject not someone’s “feelings” on it you look to a man’s work.
    “Nobel Savages” by Napolean Chagnon is such a work. There was an article a while back where the author so I went and ordered it.
    Urge you gentleman to do the same.

    1. And then the Left wing import those savages to our countries, in order to show us up close their much superior, albeit non-existing, fairy-tale ways.
      The prime example is Sweden, where the Government said there is no such thing as Swedish culture, so Swedes must learn from the colored 3rd world rapefugees how to be proper human beings… Sad!

  13. Much like Rachel Carson, Mead the Liar became a cultural icon & hero.
    May they both burn in Hell.

      1. Great line; I think I’ll use that on some uppity princess sometime before I show her who her daddy is. Thanks. This is gonna be great.

  14. I think her mistakes were probably genuine. It’s hard to get out of the western ‘truthful’ culture mindset and understand other places are different.
    When I first moved to Thailand, it took me nearly two years before I understood that the locals believe it is polite to tell you what you want to hear. Casual lying is endemic, not from malice, but from politeness.
    It’s hard to even get accurate road directions, if you ask any question and demonstrate any indication of preference, they will agree with you.

  15. Beau Albrecht,
    “Because Western civilization is highly K-selected, libertinism is unnatural to us.” So explain how come some people behave that way?
    The behaviour of living things is a facet of life, meaning it’s an evolved thing (evolution being the only means through which any facet of life has to come into existence). Therefore, libertinism is an evolved behaviour, and therefore it’s natural.
    Your conclusion it’s unnatural is a baseless assertion made out of prejudice.

  16. There is only one “academic” whose name make my blood boil when I hear it more than Magraret Mead’s, and that would be John Money.

  17. Derek Freeman’s book came out in the early 198os. I remember getting it from some Libertarian book club back them. Any conjectures on why, more than 30 years later, any one takes Meade’s work as anything other than creative writing. I note that Freud never won any medical award, or award at all, except the Heine prize previously awarded for literature. Freud too has been pretty much refuted, both for his biology, and his ad hoc conjectures.(pace Popper). Yet both Frued and Mead are intellectual currency still accepted in college today. Is it purely political,, ignorance having such inertia, or a kind of Gresham’s law where bad memes drive out the good?

Comments are closed.