Direct Link to Latest News


Margaret Mead - Cultural Icon Debunked

July 10, 2018


(left. Margaret Mead, 1901-1979) 

Margaret Mead was exalted because her book "Coming of Age in Samoa" (1928) idealized promiscuity and primitive life in general. It confirmed the teachings of her mentor, Franz Boaz who believed that morality "is the result of social and cultural conditioning".  Hence anthropology provided a license for the sexual promiscuity of the 1960's. 

 Here, Derek Freeman tells how by debunking Margaret Mead, he discovered that the

social sciences are controlled by the Illuminati bankers. (See Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique)   

"A whole view of the human species was constructed out of the innocent lies of two young [Samoan] women."

from Feb 17, 2013

by Derek Freeman

("Reflections of a Heretic," edited/abridged by

boaz.jpgOur term "heretic" is derived from the Greek word for "choice," and so refers to someone who chooses to think for himself.

A leading ideology of the twentieth century - in some ways not dissimilar to Marxism - is the doctrine that "all human behavior is the result of social and cultural conditioning". This doctrine can be traced to pronouncements in the 1890s, by Emile Durkheim, a Frenchman, and Franz Boas, left, a German, both of whom were born in 1858.

It was in an attempt to obtain evidence for this ideological stance that in 1925, Boas imposed on another of his students, the 23-year-old Margaret Mead, the task of studying heredity and environment in relation to adolescence among the Polynesians of Samoa.

Mead arrived in American Samoa on August 31, 1925. After two months of study of the Samoan language in the port of Pago Pago, she spent just over five months in the islands of Manu'a.

In 1928, in her book Coming of Age in Samoa, which became the anthropological best-seller of all time, Mead claimed that adolescent behaviour in humans could be explained only in terms of the social environment.

"Human nature," she declared, was "the rawest most undifferentiated of raw material." Then, she wrote of the "phenomenon of social pressure and its absolute determination in shaping the individuals within its bounds". This was cultural determinism with a vengeance.

In 1930, Mead's extreme environmentalist conclusion was incorporated in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, and, for those who went through college in the USA in the 1930s, Coming of Age in Samoa was "not only required reading but a classic of universal truths".

This was also the case in the University of New Zealand, and when I myself went to Samoa in 1940, it was with the objective of confirming Mead's conclusion. Indeed, so complete was my acceptance of Mead's claims that in my early inquiries, I dismissed or ignored all evidence that ran counter to her findings.

Thus, it was not until I had become fluent in Samoan, had been adopted into a Samoan family, and having been given a manaia title, had begun attending chiefly courts, that I became fully aware of the discordance between Mead's account and the realities I was regularly witnessing.

When I left Samoa in 1943, after a stay of three years and eight months, it had become apparent to me, through prolonged inquiry, that Mead's account of the sexual behavior of the Samoans was in egregious error. But I had no idea at all how this happened.

By this time, Coming of Age in Samoa had become an anthropological classic, and no one would take seriously my mistrust of its conclusions.

So, in 1965, after a meeting with Dr Mead at the Australian National University in 1964, I returned to Samoa for just over two years to research in further detail every aspect of her account of Samoan behaviour.

mmstamp.jpgBy this time Margaret Mead had become a major celebrity. In 1969, Time magazine named her "Mother of the World". She went on to become, in the words of her biographer Jane Howard, "indisputably the most publicly celebrated scientist in America".


Things reached their apogee in November 1983, when, during the 82nd meeting of the American Anthropological Association, a special session devoted to my refutation was held. It was attended by more than a thousand. The session degenerated into a delirium of vilification. One eye-witness has described it as "a sort of grotesque feeding frenzy"; another wrote to me saying "I felt I was in a room with... people ready to lynch you". This then is the kind of fanatical behavior that is released in the zealots of a closed system of thought when one of their principal certainties has been effectively challenged.

What's more, later that same day, a motion denouncing my refutation as "unscientific" was moved, put to the vote, and passed. Yet, as a moment's thought discloses, the notion that the scientific status of a proposition can be settled by a show of hands at a tribal get-together is unscientific in the extreme.

I now come to what was for me the most unexpected of denouements. When I arrived back in American Samoa in 1987 I was introduced by Galea'i Poumele, the Samoan Secretary of Samoan Affairs, to a dignified Samoan lady whom I had never previously met. During my previous visits to Manu'a she had been living in Hawaii where she had gone with her family in 1962.

episode12.jpgShe was Fa'apua'a Fa'amu, who, in 1926, had been Margaret Mead's closest Samoan friend. In 1987, at 86 years of age, she was still in full command of her mental faculties. Fa'apua'a's sworn testimony to Galea'i Poumele was that when Mead had insistently questioned her and her friend Fofoa about Samoan sexual behaviour, they were embarrassed, and - as a prank - had told her the exact reverse of the truth.

And so, a whole view of the human species was constructed out of the innocent lies of two young women. That one of the ruling ideologies of our age should have originated in this way is both comic - and frightening! All in all, or at least as it seems to me, it is one of the more spectacular stories of the twentieth century.

The aim of both Boas and Mead was to exclude biology - and particularly evolutionary biology - from the study of human behaviour. Although, as is now known, Mead's environmentalist conclusion in Coming of Age in Samoa was counterfeit and wholly misleading, it was enthusiastically accepted by Franz Boas.

We are, it is now utterly clear, the products of evolution. Or, to put it more dramatically, we are not fallen angels but risen apes. This key realization changes all of our long established assumptions about ourselves. In its light, human history, for the first time, becomes intelligible, and human behaviour understandable as never before. This radical transformation in human understanding - which has come to a peak in the mid 1990's - I shall call "the new evolutionary enlightenment". I confidently predict that, because it is based on fully tested scientific knowledge, it will far outshine the enlightenment of the 18th century.


Thanks to Andrew for sending this.

trashing_margaret_mead_cover.jpgFirst Comment from Richard

So Margaret Mead's role in providing "scientific proof" to boost the 60's sex revolution was a based on a hoax?  I'm past the point of wondering if there's anything that promoted after 1950 that wasn't a web of lies....Derek Freeman's experience of being blackballed as a 'heretic' for exposing Mead shows that the scientific establishment is just another form of Theocracy. 

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.                                                                                                            -- Arthur Schopenhauer,  (1788 - 1860)

Mead's Samoan sexuality hoax was still taught when I was in college.   Mead not only provided the only culture in the world that supported the 60's 'sex liberation revolution',  she also provided the only woman-dominant / men submissive model.   This is why she became the most towering figure in anthropology during the 60's.   Now academics know, but the academic truth doesn't matter because the MEDIA made it gospel, and MEDIA never retracts it's hoaxes.

"Behind every famous woman is a handler".  Margaret Mead's handler during those years was [husband] Gregory Bateson -  NWO social engineer and cyberneticist
(see Macy Conferences - These were the meetings of the Globalist's top technocrats after WW II to write the business plan for the final control of all humanity through applied sciences.   Technocracy is the new Theocracy. Nobel prize winning scientists are the new priesthood. )

Margaret Mead was there.

I read a great deal of Margaret Mead and anecdotes about her 40 years ago because I thought she was great for proving random sex is natural. Now I wonder if the story that she was lazy and based her work on questioning two little girls is true - or if SHE JUST PLAIN LIED. What do you think?

In my volunteer work the social debris of sex revolution and feminism on the working class is as real as the rubble in Libya.  I deal with the refugees and de-facto orphans of a few years of teenage promiscuity.   It is the greatest engine of perpetuating failure and poverty in the United States today.  Yet MEDIA no longer reports it that way.  They're still promoting it!

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Margaret Mead - Cultural Icon Debunked"

JC said (February 18, 2013):

The theory of evolution is based on "fully tested scientific knowledge"? In my opinion, this statement truly qualifies as "science as theocracy." Let such theocratic science explain and demonstrate the origin and existence of DNA. It can't.

Dennis said (February 18, 2013):

Your recent publication of Freeman's work ( presents only one side to a major anthropological controversy. (Search "MEAD FREEMAN CONTROVERSY") I live in Samoa and have engaged heavily with Samoans and their unique culture for more than three years. I have written nigh on a quarter of a million words about the Samoan culture from a biblical perspective at

I do not wish to address the NWO agenda in relation to Mead's work, nor the evolutionary influence. These are separate issues, and may very well have validity in their own right. Others can comment on this, but the one-sided post really needs clarification and exposing for what it is - only one component of what I would call another "tricky situation".

Please share the following points with your readers:

1. Simplisitc "good-guy/bad-guy" material like this is tempting to believe and easy to digest. It helps make us feel better, especially when it touches our truth-seeking or conspiracy hot buttons. Life though is a lot more complex than this. BOTH Mead and Freeman had some credibility issues/agendas.

There are very serious questions about Freeman's material, motive and conduct. The best summary I have found is the book Quest for the Real Samoa (1987). I own this book and have found it a thorough and helpful summary of both Mead's and Freeman's conduct. The take-homes are a) don't take Freeman's work as gospel. b) Mead may not have got everything right nor been the most experienced "operator", but don't write her work off entirely.

2. While there are certainly likely to be some differences between life in Samoa now and back then, from my observations of sexual freedom and practices in Samoa, I am reminded more of Victorian England than the Garden of Eden before the fall. I suspect in this regards nothing has changed much over the last century. Samoa is best understood in the context that appearances are everything - saving face and family honour reign supreme, but there is ALWAYS another side to things here! I will repeat that - there are ALWAYS two stories about everything in Samoa.

Lies are perfectly acceptable in this culture and outsiders (both the actors in this controversy) were very susceptible to misunderstanding, story-telling and getting things out of context. Taking a Matai title as Freeman did for example actually invites MORE politics and deception than otherwise, and does the opposite to what Freeman claims when it when he uses this to support his claim of understanding the Samoan culture.

Robert said (February 18, 2013):

Derek Freeman disappoints by debunking one modern myth based on poor science, but closing with a wholehearted endorsement of another of the same. But whether based on good science or bad, the correct response to evolution is a big "So what?" Its proponents act as though it changes things. (They act, ironically, as though the theory of evolution is their new religion.)

I would love to know what they think they have now disproved, what has given them this smug "Ah-ha!" moment. What has it supposedly overturned, changed? It doesn't disprove that we have a spiritual aspect to us, a soul. It doesn't disprove that a Supreme Being created us. It's a big to-do about one of the biggest nothings in history. We don't know exactly HOW He created us. If through evolution, who cares? Yes, we also have a physical aspect similar in some ways to the animals. Wow, that's big news. It doesn't preclude us being spiritual beings also. Man has a dual nature, and a free will to choose. He can descend to the depths of the animals, or soar to the heights of the angels. Sounds a lot like what Christianity has always taught.

David said (February 18, 2013):

When I went to college in the 70's, Margaret Mead was one of a slew of well-connected celebrities (Jane Fonda and Truman Capote were 2 others) who were brought to campus to mold our impressionable undergraduate minds.

After her speech, during the q-and-a session, an audience member asked how she reconciled her image as a proto-feminist and fierce maverick with the fact that her wealthy father had bankrolled her "career" and travels as an anthropologist.

She sidestepped the question but was clearly miffed that the carefully crafted illusion of Mead as independent thinker who did it all on her own had been shattered before such a large audience!

Marcos said (February 18, 2013):

I agree with the other readers. The next hoax that we will see exposed in the near future is evolution. Computer calculations and genetic theory are destroying any possibility that organisms may change themselves into another one.

Even micro-molecular changes are enough to provoke deadly mutations and kill the body. Minute proteins can't be tinkered with, unless they bring the whole system down. Scientists are perplexed but they carefully refuse to discuss the subject. There are now several non-religious, scientific books that discuss these advances in genetic theory.

There was no way Darwin could have predicted this, since genetic science in his time was primitive.

A pickup truck and a car are very similar but didn't evolve from each other, the similarities only show the fingerprint of the same maker.

It is really funny that science itself will destroy the theory of evolution. That's why many "scholars" are already betting on an alien genesis of life. Everything but God, it seems.

Jesper said (February 18, 2013):

“I enjoyed the article up to this point. The author didn't take it far enough. He should have flushed the theory of evolution down the proverbial s**thole along with Mead.”

I had the exact same thought as Al Thompson when I came to that part! I might have expressed it more diplomatically, but he is 100% right.

Henry, the question of whether the soul can be made to function in a body other than that of the anatomically modern Homo sapiens is one thing (that we may never know for sure), but the claim that irreducibly complex molecular and biological systems can “create themselves” out of thin air is quite another, and, not surprisingly, nobody has ever proposed a remotely plausible mechanism for Darwinian evolution. Like utopian socialists, evolutionists expect us to accept their promises as de facto explanation and proof. Evolutionism is equivalent to hypothesizing that the wind blowing the letters of the alphabet around on the rocks for millions of years will eventually compose an elegant and witty 900-page spy novel .... and then a dozen sequels to it!

Unfortunately, despite Freeman´s laudable efforts to expose the charlatan Margaret Mead, Meadism and Freemanism are really just two bad apples.



Face it - man and the animal kingdom are intimately related. The only difference is that we are able to better perceive God, and we haven't put that to much use.


Richard said (February 18, 2013):

I minored in sociocultural anthropology in the last days of Franz Boas and Mead's credibility. Other "founding figures" whose theories we were taught was Lewis Henry Morgan (1818 – 1881). He remains lauded for his theory on kinship and social evolution.

In pure speculation, he wrote that the family evolved through six stages. Human society began as a 1., "fornicating horde living in promiscuity," with no sexual prohibitions and no real family structure. In the next stage a group of 2., brothers was married to a group of sisters and brother-sister mating was permitted. Later stages supposedly evolved during barbarism, characterized by a loosely paired male and female who lived with other people. In the next stage husband-dominant polygamy. The 6th stage was entirely forced by civilization and religion - the monogamous family, with just one wife and one husband who were relatively equal in status.

It doesn't take a Phd to see what Morgan thought was mankind's natural state - the fornicating horde. If you asked "was Morgan a Mason?" So did I, and the answer is YES. Gee, what a coincidence - and his father was too. Morgan himself founded the Aurora Lodge of New State. He was also a wealthy railroad lawyer during the Abraham Lincoln's railroad boom of the Civil War and after. He was also a Republican member of the New York State Assembly, and later a New York State senator.

He was a Darwinist who met Darwin in 1871.

Morgan's book, 'Ancient Society' was read by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, who wrote 'The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State', 1884)

Al Thompson said (February 17, 2013):

"We are, it is now utterly clear, the products of evolution."

This is the the kind of statement why I left college. I refused to sit in class and listen to crap like this statement. Anyone who believes in
evolution at any level is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. They are so dumb that it probably takes them two hours to watch 60 Minutes. I enjoyed the article
up to this point. The author didn't take it far enough. He should have flushed the theory of evolution down the proverbial s**thole along with Mead. The reason is that he has no facts to prove evolution and he never will because it does not exist. It is all based upon grand presumptions and assumptions that have no basis in truth and no facts to support the decrepit theory.



I think our ape-like bodies may have evolved while my souls are Divine. Evolution doesn't
preclude the existence of soul.


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at