Bigot Colleges rushing toward Irrelevance

According to a news story published today on CNN.com, hundreds of American Colleges and Universities are abandoning the SAT test because it favors highly intelligent white men. The racist/sexist administrators at most colleges and universities have abandoned scholastic excellence in favor of anti-white racism and anti-men sexism. “Connecticut College, is one of a growing number of colleges and universities that are making the SAT optional in the admissions process. In May, two highly selective schools -- Smith College in Massachusetts and Wake Forest University in North Carolina -- decided to drop the SAT and ACT, which some students take as an alternative to the SAT, as requirements for admission.” Read Story

The stated reason given by Wake Forest University is, “as part of its efforts to increase socioeconomic, racial and ethnic diversity.” Translated, that excuse means that allowing white men to show very well in their admission policy test will not allow them to admit as many less qualified non-whites and underachieving females as they intend to admit. A SCOTUS decision a decade ago involving the University of Michigan ruled that a university can not admit a lower score applicant based on their racist prejudice against white men. The solution that many universities have found to the requirement of non-discrimination is to eliminate the test scores from consideration. Without any factual data regarding the capability of applicants, the racist universities can use prejudicial mumbo-jumbo to “determine” that the female applicant, or black applicant is the “best qualified.” If the evidence doesn't suit the racist/sexist goals, eliminate the evidence.

Over the past two decades, college attendance by men in the United states has gone from 60% men to just over 40% men, and continues in free fall decline. Graduation rates for men are even lower because many of the men who now attend are low-achieving “minority” men who were admitted based on their race and not on their qualifications.

Over the past several decades, universities and colleges across America have raced toward lower standards and irrelevance in the 21st century. They waste time on hate, mind numbing indoctrination, and mental masturbation. They reject the best and brightest students in favor of admissions based on race or sex. Many have one or often more departments designed to teach racist and/or sexist hate. A quick glance through a list of the “Duke Hate 88” shows all the hate departments.

The best and the brightest have never gone to colleges anyway. Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, Abraham Lincoln, Ben Franklin, William Shakespeare, didn't become great by absorbing mediocrity. None of the best of men throughout history have been college graduates. In recent decades the situation at colleges has gotten much worse. With the few exception of small technical colleges, feminazi and racist fascist liberals have taken over the administrations and are driving their once proud institutions into the gutters as inevitably shit runs down hill. For more reading on the irrelevance of Universiteies, read Universities are Irrelevant

The latest step downward, the elimination of rigorous testing of applicants with the SAT or similar examinations, and substitution of racist/sexist bigotry to select less qualified applicants based on skin color or sex continues their headlong slide down hill. Young men should eschew their irrelevant institutions, and vote “no” on any politician or candidate who supports them. Racist/sexist hate does not deserve our support.

Save a KW, kill a kid.

Beginning in 2004 the US government effectively outlawed clothes washers with hot wash cycles and outlawed clothes washers with warm rinse cycles. According to government estimates their 2004 regulation increased the average cost of a clothes washer by about $50. But that's not the end of their government tyranny. New and much more horrendous intrusion into our laundry rooms came in 2007 when all hot water washing is now banned and you can no longer use enough water to effectively rinse the dirt or soap from your clothes. The 2007 regulation is estimated by the government to cost an additional $250 dollars per machine over the already increased cost of machines meeting the 2004 regulations, $300 total additional cost. Read PDF regulation here. Under the new government regulations, you now have the freedom to select any wash cycle you want as long as you want warm-cold or cold-cold, with the top half of the clothes not even in the water. The government intended to outlaw top loading washers altogether, according to their report published in the Federal Register, see link above.

The primary reason for washing clothes in hot water is to sanitize the clothes and kill bacteria before they go back into your closet. Washing in lukewarm or cold water does not kill bacterias, it distributes them throughout all the clothes in that load. It also contaminates the machine so that deadly bacteria will be distributed to the next load too. Currently marketed clothes dryers manufactured under he government “Energy-Star” requirement do not get hot enough to kill bacteria either. Beginning in 2004, these new low energy consumption, non-sanitizing laundry machines have been the only ones sold in the United States, and its getting worse after 2007.

Even if you are unconcerned about the additional $300 that it will cost you to purchase a clothes washer, and unconcerned that your clothes will contain residential soap and dirt, you should be very concerned about the rapidly spreading resistant bacteria that is being created and distributed by the nation wide lack of sanitation. We read in our news this year, “Drug-Resistant Staph Killed More Americans Than AIDS in 2005.” It came out of hospitals where the AMA and their medical industrial complex breeds noxious diseases so they can be paid to “treat” us. But it was generally confined to hospitals for years because it didn't spread among healthy sanitary homes. But today many of our homes no longer are sanitary. Our home laundry spreads disease rather than prevents disease. Even new hospital laundry equipment doesn't clean and sanitize sheets and towels as well as it once did. Hospital laundries have to use the ineffective government mandated “energy saving” equipment too. We the people are left with unsanitary hospitals breeding horribly deadly diseases in huge new quantities, and unsanitary homes without clean sanitary towels or clothing. Sanitization of our clothing, towels, and bedding is now effectively outlawed by our government.

In small towns all across America school children are getting sick and dying from resistant staph infections, e-coli outbreaks, and thousands of colds, flus, and other diseases that they need not get. Schools are being closed to be disinfected to fight the spread of disease. But the next week another child brings the resistant staph back to the school. Towel laundry facilities at school gymnasiums no longer use hot water either, being confined by tyrannical government bureaucrats to “save energy” while killing our children. Every year it will get worse and worse as more and more older laundry equipment wears out and is replaced by the new “energy saving” non-sanitary laundry equipment.

In the food industry we have seen a huge rise in the number of e-coli contaminated food products from food processing plants all over America. Once again, clean laundry, aprons, shirts, etc., are the first line of defense against the spread of contagious diseases. Infectious disease contamination of food has increased sharply since 2004 when the government stopped allowing laundry manufacturers to supply machines that clean and disinfect our dirty laundry. Food processing employee's clothing, aprons, etc., are not being properly laundered in hot clean bacteria killing water. The government prohibits it.

The government's lack of concern for the health and safety of American men, women, and children would have been unthinkable in the first half of the 20th century when parents were all terrified of polio and even our polio stricken President FDR promoted sanitation as the first defense against infectious disease. Not today. Sanitation and the health of our people has been ignored as power hungry bureaucrats promulgate oppressive regulations to exercise their authority over the people. Sickness, disease, and death in schools and homes is the inevitable result of outlawing sanitary laundry facilities.

One way to fight them on a personal level is to eschew all new and unsanitary laundry equipment and use refurbished machines from a previous era. Having clean laundry at home won't protect you from all the dirty disease spreading unsanitary conditions in other places like hotels, hospitals, and schools, but it's all you can do with the government working to kill the people by crippling effective sanitation. How many hundred thousand children will die of resistant staph before the people take notice?

Universities are Irrelevant.

I heard that on a MEN's discussion the other day. Some female psychologist was flaunting her degrees and several of the men pointed out that her field of study amounted to little more than nonsense repeated endlessly. Several of the men observed that a university education has become irrelevant to a man's place in the world. They suggested that millions of young men are getting educated elsewhere and the result of their turning aside is showing up in declining male enrollment at universities.

The notion of universities becoming irrelevant intrigued me. If they are irrelevant, were they relevant previously? What does it mean for universities to be relevant or irrelevant?

Universities that we now know are pretty much a creature of the 20th century. Most of them were created as small schools in the late 19th century and became large and prosperous in the 20th. Sure there have always been centers of learning and teachers. Socrates held discussion classes for a group of students. Throughout the middle ages monks held classes and led discussions in letters. Oxford University is several centuries old, but until recently it was small and consisted largely of a few students getting together with some professor to discuss a particular topic. Harvard was founded in the 17th century as a seminary for Puritan ministers, and indeed most of the colleges of that day were primarily seminaries for religious studies. The great universities we know today began with the late 19th century ideas about universal education and blossomed into huge institutions in the 20th century. We who grew up in the late 20th century are tempted to believe that a university is the only way to get an education, but that is not the case.

Prior to the invention of universities people still got educated and conducted their affairs quite well. For example, in the early 19th century, Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer by apprenticing with a senior lawyer. My own grandfather had a long and successful career as a lawyer and judge after taking an undergraduate legal education at the University of Michigan. A century ago three years of "law school" following a 4 year university degree was virtually unheard of. Over the past two centuries, universities have been marketing their services by continually stretching out the number of years you have to devote before you are able to practice most "professions." But it was not always so, as Abraham Lincoln ought to teach us. In fact, universities have made their requirements so onerous that it's almost impossible to succeed, and so costly that many graduates are saddled with huge debts. Enough already!

During the men's discussion mentioned above it was pointed out that psychobabble degrees offer almost no useful information. None of theories and "knowledge" has any more factual basis than someone's opinion, which, if you track it down, is based on someone else's opinion in an endless circle. Many other university departments consist of "scholarship" which is nothing more than being able to cite other opinions who in turn cited someone else. If you follow the chain they have no actual knowledge or facts other than a closed group citing each other and calling that "research."

The bimbo flaunting her psychology degree displayed a complete lack of knowledge of the feelings or emotions of the men with whom she was discussing. That brings up another aspect of "relevant," it works both ways. For the entire history of formalized psychology the focus of their "research" has been on females. Almost all of Freud's customers were women, and today over 95% of psychology customers are female. They cater to their customers, females, and have NEVER investigated, understood, or cared about the psychology of men. Men, to the practice and teaching of psychology, are a side issue, not their focus, not in their database, irrelevant.

The English Department teaches literary theories. Among various literary theories is "feminist theory" but not "masculist theory." Several courses in the English Department are cross code listed with the Women's Studies department, but none cross code listed with the Men's Studies department. When English Department professors go to scholarly conference such as the Modern Language Association's annual conference, there are many papers presented on women and women's issues, but NONE on men and men's issues. They write doctoral dissertations on medieval women's rhetoric, but do you see any on men's medieval rhetoric? Sure, they still have some men studying English literature, but the Department, and the whole field of study has turned it's back on men. Men, men's issues, men's theories, men's needs, men's feelings, and about everything else, it seems, are irrelevant.

Of course English Department professors would deny that they have branded men irrelevant, after all they still have lots of men taking classes (a diminishing number that gets smaller every year). A man can still enroll, and get an English degree along with a Women's Studies like poor Jeff. He has several degrees, including Women's Studies, but really struggles trying to fit in when he's out with MEN building a home.

An then there are the speech codes, sexual harassment training, and Office of Men are Bad. They all have a "Women's Center" or equal, but not one has a "Men's Center." And their "Diversity Office" practices racist, sexist employment and only hires black women. Men are irrelevant at the Diversity Office, and men's feelings and needs are irrelevant to the administration.

If men are so irrelevant to be below the management radar at universities, how are men supposed to feel about spending 4 to 10 years of our lives and umpteen thousand dollars, going into massive debt, purchasing what they are selling? Is a university degree the only way for a MAN to become educated? Is a degree in Women's Studies an education at all for a MAN? Or the psychology of women? Or feminized filtered history?

We might also ask why people sacrifice years and a small fortune to get that degree? Half a century ago we were told that a university degree was the key to a good job and a successful career. Since then we have seen that promise turn to dust. Many companies now hire only women in many of the office jobs where college educated men once worked. My own former employer hadn't hired a man in an entry level position in 20 years, nor promoted a man from within. The few old men who still did most of the actual work were dying off or retiring. Can a university promise a good job to MEN when graduates face flagrant sexist discrimination in the after graduation job market? Not really, and the false promise shows that men have become irrelevant.

There are many ways for a man to get educated, and many kinds of knowledge that constitute education. The university monopoly would like us to believe that they have a monopoly and control the keys to education, but that really isn't so. The Internet, for example, has made knowledge universally and widely available. On-line chat rooms and discussions of all kinds can replace the discussion groups that have been part of universities for centuries.

A century ago feminism looked out and saw that many successful men were getting college education, and began trying to take over "education." Without knowing what it was about the college experience that made men successful, feminists wanted it for themselves. More yet, they wanted to change university education to feminize it. Over the past century the feminists have pretty much taken over the university. From the lowest professor to the halls of the President's office the university is all about catering to feminist females. Men, in the management or teaching have become -- irrelevant.

But, MEN are never going to go away and vanish. MEN will still be the ones who do all the real work of the society. MEN who don't graduate from college often still dominate industries. Bill Gates is an often mentioned example. In fact, a college education often only restricts a man to a modest level bureaucratic job of mediocrity and mundane plodding. Huge numbers of young men have learned that the university itself is the one that is becoming irrelevant. Huge numbers of men are voting with their feet and letting the university administrators know that they may be selling their feminized crapola, but we aren't buying. Enrollments by men are way below 50% and are rapidly declining as more and more men tell them to take their "education" and stuff it.

Does any man need to learn "feminist theory"? Does any man need female psychobabble? Does any man need the Women's Center and Women's Studies Department promoting anti-men hate? Are any of those relevant to the future of a young man?

For a century women have worked hard to take what men had in universities, and to take it away from men. They have succeeded, but in taking it away and turning it into something that is irrelevant to men's success. It's an empty accomplishment. It won't make their lives happier, nor make them successful. In the end, it isn't the circular citations that were the basis for a good education at universities several decades ago. It was the MEN who came and shared together that made it all relevant. MEN will always be the ones who make the society work, who create the homes, the food, the fun electronics, and all the good things of life. It will always be the MEN who are the center of relevance of a society. When men are cast aside and turned away, the institution itself becomes irrelevant, a shell of its former greatness. In the 21st century universities will decline, are already declining, as they have become irrelevant.

Bob