University / College 2018-02-02T11:24:00+00:00

University / College

NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. The NIA’s team of expert Austrian economists produced a documentary titled ‘College Conspiracy’ about higher education in the U.S. and exposes the facts and truth about America’s college education system. Watch it below…

 

Education and Learning should be a lifelong mission. We should educate our minds on as much truth as possible. Universities used to be a good place to continue our education, but are they still? For doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. there is no getting around a college indoctrination… um, I mean – education. College used to look like a good “investment” because earning a degree usually entailed at least some serious work and having done it set the individual apart. Having that degree was a competitive advantage in landing a job, but success always depended on personal performance rather than educational pedigree. College itself isn’t an investment, just one way of increasing your value.

These days, with the labor market saturated with college graduates, the time and money spent on college is often wasted. Read More...

What young Americans should think is, “How can I raise my value and demonstrate it?” That might best be done in college, but not necessarily. As Mike Rowe, former TV host of ‘Dirty Jobs’ points out in 2013, “Hell, there are 155,000 janitors with bachelor degrees right now, according to Bob Morse, who is the director of data research at U.S. News and World Report — the magazine that produces its definitive college rankings every year. That’s more people than there are chemists.”

The Daily Caller sat down with Rowe, and he had some strong words on the culture, the government and PETA:

TheDC: The federal government is deeply involved in education. Do you see any role they play, or something you’d like to see from them to try and change in the United States how skills are pursued and how they’re portrayed?

Rowe: You know, not really. Only because I don’t think a big, splashy, traditional approach will work, and I also think the taxpayers have spent enough money. I think there’s enough NGO stuff that can push this forward. I think there’s enough for-profit stuff. Organizations like Tech Shop, which are springing up around the country now. Imagine Thomas Edison’s garage — if it existed today it would be filled with laser cutters and every state-of-the-art machine there is. That’s what they have, and they sell very modest memberships, and the invention that’s coming out of Tech Shop is amazing. Skills USA, it’s kind of like the Boy Scouts only smaller, but it’s focused on school trades. There are chapters all over the country. Just knowing about those organizations would be a huge help. I’d take federal money to buy media if they said, “Here’s some, tell the message in the way you wanna do it,” but that’ll never happen, so I’ll never ask.

Are most Professors Atheist?

In spite of perception, believers actually outnumber atheists and agnostics, a 2006 survey finds, and many professors regularly attend religious services.The abstract for the 2009 academic journal article The Religiosity of American College and University Professors which was published in the journal Sociology of Religion (which is published by the Oxford University Press) indicates:

For more than a century most U.S. colleges and universities have functioned as secular institutions. But how religious are American college and university faculty in their personal lives? We answer this question by analyzing data from a new, nationally representative survey of the American professoriate. Contrary to the view that religious skepticism predominates in the academy, we find that the majority of professors, even at elite research institutions, are religious believers. We go on to examine the distribution of faculty religiosity across institutions, fields, and other variables, and identify a number of issues that future research—sensitive to the fact that religious faith and academic life, at least in the American context, are by no means mutually exclusive—should take up.

Harvard Magazine indicated in 2007:

Though comparatively low, the percentage of nonbelievers in academia is still much higher than the percentage of self-described nonbelievers found among the general public. That figure is only about 7 percent, according to the nationwide General Social Survey, issued by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago…

Just as surprising to the researchers was the range of belief across institutions and fields of research. Although nearly 37 percent of professors at elite research schools like Harvard are atheist or agnostic, about 20 percent of their colleagues have “no doubt that God exists.” At community colleges, in contrast, 15 percent of professors are atheist or agnostic, and 40 percent believe in God. These differences exist because of professors’ backgrounds and inclinations, says Gross. Professors who come from higher socioeconomic classes and are drawn to research over teaching or service—characteristics more common among academics at elite institutions—tend to be less religious.

A professor’s field of research or discipline is also predictive, he adds: psychologists and biologists are most likely to be nonbelievers (61 percent are atheist or agnostic), followed by mechanical engineers, economists, and political scientists. The most likely believers are professors of accounting (63 percent have no doubt that God exists), followed by professors of elementary education, finance, art, criminal justice, and nursing.

So, most professors are not agnostic and Atheist, thus the problem must lie elsewhere because our schools are certainly removing everything Godly about them.

Christian-based Moral Universities to now Atheist Universities

A study of the first American educational institutions will reveal a commitment to spread of the Gospel via Christian academics. One-hundred-six of the first one-hundred-eight colleges formed in America were formed by Christians and built upon Christian principles. Before the Civil War (1861-1865), scarcely half a dozen colleges were established without a commitment to biblical and Christian principles, and most of the presidents of Christian colleges were clergymen.

The deep evangelical convictions of the Christian founders of American education have been etched in various and numerous places, but perhaps none speak more eloquently of their piety and spiritual zeal than the spiritual expectations Harvard had for its young scholars—known as the Rules and Precepts of Harvard. These days, Harvard students are some of the most liberal students in the world and instead of on-campus seminaries, you’ll find the Skull & Bones and other secret societies as well as several Greek fraternities and sororities ( Alpha Epsilon Pi, Sigma Chi, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Kappa Alpha Theta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and Delta Gamma).

The Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were instrumental in the takeover of education in the US and throughout the world. This is laid out in the page on Education. In 1913, the Walsh Committee was created to review industrial relations and scrutinize US labor laws. In studying labor conditions and the treatment of workers by the major U.S. industrial firms, they eventually examined tax exempt foundations which were interlocked with them. “Starting with a study of labor exploitation, it [the Commission on Industrial Relations or Walsh Committee] went on to investigate concentrations of economic power, interlocking directorates, and the role of the then relatively new large charitable foundations (especially of Carnegie and Rockefeller) as instruments of power concentration,” wrote Rene Wormser, who served as General Counsel to the Reece Committee, which was a congressional committee that investigated the Tax-exempt Foundations from 1953 to 1955.

The final report of the Commission, published in eleven volumes in 1916, contain tens of thousands of pages of testimony from a wide range of witnesses, including scores of ordinary workers, and the titans of capitalism, including Daniel Guggenheim, George Walbridge Perkins, Sr. (of U.S. Steel), Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie. During the tenure of this committee, tax-exempt foundations were also examined. Partial findings were that,

“the lives of millions of wage earners are subject to the dictation of a relatively small number of men… The concentration of ownership and control is greatest in the basic industries upon which the welfare of the country must finally rest. This control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, herein- after designated “foundations,” by the endowment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds for the pensioning of teachers, by contributions to private charities, as well as through controlling or influencing the public press (namely, the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations). The following was revealed: “A number of witnesses testified that colleges had surrendered their religious identifications in order to comply with foundation requirements to receive grants…“

****

25(b). The abandonment by several colleges and universities of sectarian affiliations and charter clauses relating to religion in order to secure endowments from the Carnegie Corporation and pensions for professors from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. It would seem conclusive that if an institution will willingly abandon its religious affiliations through the influence of these foundations, it will even more easily conform to their will any other part of its organization or teaching.

****

To the support of the militant and aggressive propaganda of organized labor has come, within recent years, a small but rapidly increasing host of ministers of the gospel, college professors, writers, journalists, and others of the professional classes, distinguished in many instances by exceptional talent which they devote to agitation, with no hope of material reward, and a devotion that can be explained only in the light of the fervid religious spirit which animates the organized industrial unrest.

Then in July 1914, the philanthropic agenda of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations was made explicit again when the National Education Association passed a resolution at its annual meeting from July 4-11 in St. Paul, Minnesota. An excerpt follows:

We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.

During the crucial years of the school changeover from academic institution to behavioral modification instrument, the radical nature of the metamorphosis caught the attention of a few national politicians who spoke out, but could never muster enough strength for effective opposition. In the Congressional Record of January 26, 1917, for instance, Senator Kenyon of Iowa related:

There are certain colleges that have sought endowments, and the agent of the Rockefeller Foundation or the General Education Board had gone out and examined the curriculum of these colleges and compelled certain changes….

It seems to me one of the most dangerous things that can go on in a republic is to have an institution of this power apparently trying to shape and mold the thought of the young people of this country.

In 1952, following the Senate’s IPR investigation, Representative Eugene E. Cox (D-Ga.) succeeded in establishing a special committee in the House of Representatives to investigate the tax-exempt foundations in the US. The committee heard voluminous damning testimony from former top American Communist Party officials who had defected, such as Maurice Malkin, Louis Budenz, and Manning Johnson, as well as Soviet defector Igor Bogolepov. All told of their knowledge of the tax-exempt foundations’ funding of Moscow’s efforts to subvert our country. However, before the committee could finish its work, Chairman Cox died unexpectedly. Although the Cox Committee hearings took over 800 pages of testimony and evidence, the final report, a mere 15 pages, was essentially a whitewash that unjustifiably concluded the foundations had overwhelmingly conducted themselves in line with their obligations as public trusts. However, at least one member of the committee, Representative B. Carroll Reece (R-Tenn.), was determined to set the record straight.

The following year, Representative Reece headed up the newly formed House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, which became known as the Reece Committee. The final report released 6 months later after efforts by some democrats to frustrate and end the investigation were somewhat successful. The Reece Committee was a Congressional investigation of major tax-exempt foundations linked to the international money cartel and centered on the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and Guggenheim foundations. The committee was unable to attract any attention from the media – controlled by the same cartel.  Among those secondary foundations investigated were the National Education Association, the John Dewey Society, the United Nations Association and the Council on Foreign Relations   The Rockefeller Foundation was financing Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s studies on sexual behavior through the National Research Council to produce a series of untrue and unscientific reports promoting sexual freedom (promiscuity). The hearings were held for two weeks. Then, without warning, the committee stopped them.

Norman Dodd, Staff Director of the Reece Committee in a 1982 interview with G. Edward Griffin explains how these foundations conspired to take over the education system of the US and world:

NORMAN DODD: “We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity.

So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: “How do we involve the United States in a war?”

Well, I doubt at that time if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. Then, finally, they answered that question as follows: “We must control the State Department.” That very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying: “We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country.” And, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.

Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.

Finally, of course, the war is over. At that time their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914 when World War I broke out. At that point they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, “we must control education in the United States.” They realize that that’s a pretty big task. It is too big for them alone, so they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that that portion of education which could be considered domestic be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment. They then decide that the key to success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history.

So they approach four of the then-most prominent teachers of American history in the country – people like Charles and Mary Byrd – and their suggestion to them is: will they alter the manner in which they present their subject? And they got turned down flat. So they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, “build our own stable of historians.”

Then they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say: “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American history and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say-so?” And the answer is yes. So, under that condition, eventually they assembled assemble twenty, and they take this twenty potential teachers of American history to London, and there they’re briefed on what is expected of them when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned. That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association.

Toward the end of the 1920’s, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 for a study of our history in a manner which points to what can this country look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is: The future of this country belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency. That’s the story that ultimately grew out of and, of course, was what could have been presented by the members of this Congressional committee to the congress as a whole for just exactly what it said. They never got to that point.”

ED GRIFFIN: How do you see that the purpose and direction of the major foundations has changed over the years to the present? What is it today?

NORMAN DODD: Oh, it’s a hundred percent behind meeting the cost of education such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of the United States on the subject of our history as proving our original ideas to be no longer practicable. The future belongs to collectivistic concepts, and there’s just no disagreement on that.

The Committee shed light on the big foundations’ promotion of empiricism, centralized team research, big universities over small colleges, moral relativism, internationalism, and social engineering.

“In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda by supplying executives and advisors to government, and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote ‘internationalism’ in a particular sense – a form directed toward ‘world government’ and a derogation of American ‘nationalism.’

They observed that the major foundations ‘have actively supported attacks upon our social and government system and financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas.’ The Reece Committee clearly declared that the CFR was ‘in essence an agency of the United States Government’ and that its ‘productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting a globalist concept.’”

Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Endowment in Africa

By the mid-1950s, foundation officials had established a consensus with policymakers and business leaders “regarding the importance of the developing world for the United States.” In Africa, the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford Foundations undertook massive programs which led to:

the creation of lead universities located in areas considered of geo-strategic and/or economic importance to the United States; an emphasis within these institutions on social science research and related manpower planning programs; programs to train public administrators; (4) teacher training and curriculum development projects; and training programs which shuttled African nationals to select universities in the United States for advanced training and returned them to assume positions of leadership within local universities, teacher training institutions, or ministries of education.

The establishment of leading universities in Africa was the initial emphasis among the foundations. The Ford Foundation decided to concentrate its efforts in Africa “on the training on elite cadres in public administration, agricultural economics, the applied sciences, and the social sciences, and to strengthen African universities and other postsecondary institutions for this purpose, [as] a logical extension of similar emphases in the foundation’s domestic work,” in relation to the development of Area Studies and the shaping of political science in America, itself. The Ford Foundation’s most important projects in Africa were undertaken in “Nigeria, Ethiopia, Congo/Zaire, and in a combined university scheme linking the East African nations of Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. Rockefeller funds were concentrated on the East African interterritorial scheme” in Nigeria and Zaire.

In the 1950s, the Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation facilitated the development of African studies in American universities to create an American elite well-trained and educated in being able to manage a more effective foreign policy over the region. Another key project was in developing the Foreign Area Fellowship Program, where American social scientists would have overseas research subsidized by the Ford Foundation. The fellows also became closely tied to the CIA, who saw them as important sources of information to recruit in the field. However, when this information began to surface about CIA connections with foundation-linked academics, the Ford Foundation leadership became furious, as one Ford official later explained that the President of the Foundation had gone to Washington and “raised hell,” where he had to explain to the CIA that, “it was much more in the national interest that we train a bunch of people who at later stages might want to go with the CIA… than it was for them to have one guy they could call their source of information.”[26] It is, perhaps, a truly starting and significant revelation that the president of a foundation has the ability, status, and position to be able to go to Washington and “raise hell,” and no less, lecture the CIA about how to properly conduct operations in a more covert manner.

Between 1958 and 1969, the Ford Foundation spent $25 million in Nigeria, of which $8 million was used to underwrite university development, and $5 million of that went specifically to the University of Ibadan. Between 1963 and 1972, the Rockefeller Foundation allocated roughly $9 million to the University of Ibadan. As one official of the Rockefeller Foundation said, “our dollars will… be able to exert an extraordinary leverage.” The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations then placed enormous emphasis on developing the social sciences at the universities they supported, with the aim to bring about “rationally managed” social change; the same fundamental belief that led to the emergence of the social sciences in creating a “rationally managed” America in the beginning of the 20th century, emphasizing reform over revolution. The logic was that, “the key lay in the creation of technocratically oriented elites with social science competencies which could be applied to the alleviation of the problems of underdevelopment.” As Professor of Education Robert F. Arnove wrote:

The [Ford] Foundation’s fascination with social science research in large part has consisted of support for a certain breed of economists whose quantitative approach to development is safe and respectable. This favoring of economists, particularly in the early sixties, has accorded with the Foundation’s approach to treating development ‘in terms of economic growth, technological competence, and improved managerial competence.’

Kenneth Thompson, a one-time vice president of the Rockefeller Foundation, stated that, “66 percent of all East African faculty have been Rockefeller Foundation scholars or holders of Special Lectureships established with Rockefeller Foundation funding for returning national scholars.” Thus, the exchange programs established by the foundations between elite American universities and the foundation-funded African universities were of critical import in developing a national elite.

The Ford Foundation undertook major programs in public administration in Nigeria, East Africa and the Congo. The Congo was of particular interest, with its massive reserves of mineral wealth and resource riches. In 1961, Ford founded the National School of Law and Administration in the Congo, which was “designed to train an elite cadre of public administrators.” The objective worked quite well, as “by 1968, the 400 odd graduates of the school made up an elite corps of civil servants who [were then] holding important administrative and judicial posts throughout the Congo.” The first secretary-general of the school was a man named James T. Harris, who was also reportedly a CIA agent at the time.[19] This is of particular interest considering that at the time, the CIA was involved in a destabilization campaign against the Congo’s first democratically elected leader, Patrice Lumumba, who was advocating a decolonization process of political and economic independence from Europe and the West.

At the same time that the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations were funding universities and managing the social sciences of African education, the Carnegie Corporation became principally interested in the training of teachers, following on Carnegie’s earlier interest in shaping the colonial education system in the pre-war years:

A Carnegie-sponsored meeting in London in 1960, attended by representatives of Teachers College [at Columbia University], the [British] Colonial Office, the Carnegie Corporation, and the colleges or universities in Ibadan, Zaria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Rhodesia, Nyasaland, and Uganda, assured a continuing and significant role for the Carnegie Corporation in African education.[24]

In 1960, another major meeting took place attended by representatives not only of the Carnegie Corporation, but also the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the Department of State, the British Colonial Office, the African-American Institute, the International Cooperation Administration (the precursor to United States Agency for International Development – USAID), as well as representatives from Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. At the meeting, the focus was on how to organize the training of educators:

It was suggested that the foundations and the International Cooperation Administration pool their resources, identify a significant American teacher training institution as their agent, and support that institution’s efforts to train a large cadre of American teachers to work in the rapidly expanding secondary school network in East Africa. Because of its previous contacts with both the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation, it was not surprising that Teachers College, Columbia University, was designated as the training institution, and that Karl W. Bigelow (long a Ford and Carnegie protégé) was the chief negotiator securing the contract.

Thus, the ultimate effect abroad is the same as that at home: prominent and talented scholars and intellectuals are drawn into safe channels whereby they can aim and hope to achieve small improvements through reform, to ‘better’ a bad situation, improve social justice, human rights, welfare, and ultimately divert these talented intellectuals “from more realistic, and perhaps revolutionary, efforts at social change.”

Again, we have an image of the major philanthropic foundations as “engines of social engineering,” and agents of social control. Not only are their efforts aimed at domestic America or the West alone, but rather, to the whole world. As such, foundations have been and in large part, remain, as some of the most subtle, yet dominant institutions in the global power structure. Their effectiveness lies in their subtle methods, in their aims at incremental change, organizing, funding, and in the power of ideas. Of all other institutions, foundations are perhaps the most effective when it comes to the process of effecting the ‘institutionalization of ideas,’ which is, as a concept in and of itself, the central facet to domination over all humanity.

(Source)

Universities throughout the World

The Rockefeller Foundation also initiated several funding programs for universities in Latin America and Asia, notably in Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia. By the early 1980s, the Rockefeller Foundation had awarded over 10,000 fellowships and scholarships. From the Ford Foundation’s inception in 1936 until 1977, it had allocated roughly $919.2 million to “less-developed countries.” The Ford Foundation even maintained “a steady stream of scholarly exchange with the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern Europe since 1956, and with the People’s Republic of China since 1973.” Ford and other foundations had also played significant roles in channeling intellectual dissent in developing nations into ‘safe’ areas, just as they do at the domestic level. This has required them to fund several radical (and sometimes even Marxist) scholars. The Ford Foundation had also supported the relocation of displaced scholars following the military coups in Argentina in 1965 and Chile in 1973. However, such foreign ‘assistance’ has not gone unnoticed entirely, as in 1971 there was violent resistance by radical university students and faculty at the University of Valle in Colombia, “a favored recipient of Ford and Rockefeller monies.”[29] As noted in the book, Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism:

The power of the foundation is not that of dictating what will be studied. Its power consists in defining professional and intellectual parameters, in determining who will receive support to study what subjects in what settings. And the foundation’s power resides in suggesting certain types of activities it favors and is willing to support. As [political theorist and economist Harold] Laski noted, “the foundations do not control, simply because, in the direct and simple sense of the word, there is no need for them to do so. They have only to indicate the immediate direction of their minds for the whole university world to discover that it always meant to gravitate to that angle of the intellectual compass.”[30]

History Revision

Dodd explained above how the globalist decided “that the key to success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history.” He then explains that when the most prominent teachers of history in the country refuse to alter history in the manor proposed by the foundations, that they would “build (their) own stable of historians.” They find some promising young history students seeking doctorates and use this group of twenty historians to ultimately form the nucleus of the American Historical Association, and the rest, as they say, is history!!!

The failure to teach American history in public schools is reflected in a similar failure in colleges and universities. History courses now de-emphasize great people and events, often ridiculing them as DWEMs (Dead White European Males). The number of college history professors has doubled, but the growth has been in specialties such as women’s or gender history.

Many professors want to teach history the way they wish it had happened instead of the way it did happen. Students should learn about the accomplishments of America, its ingenuity, its freedom and abundance. We want our young people to become informed and optimistic, grateful to our ancestors, respectful of our values and institutions, proud of our heroes, and patriotic so they can pass this knowledge along to the next generation.

A new evaluation made by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni discovered that most elite colleges no longer require students to study American history. Colleges often allow students to take worthless classes to satisfy core curriculum requirements. For example, at California State University, Monterrey Bay, students can count the History of Rock and Roll as their required course in U.S. History. Emory University allows students to choose among 600 courses to fulfill the History, Society and Culture requirement, including one called Gynecology in the Ancient World.

It’s no secret that the people who control public schools are at war with our nation’s history, culture and achievements. Since taxpayers foot the bill, it is long overdue for state boards of education to correct many textbook myths and lies about our magnificent national heritage and achievements.

Pulitzer-prize winning historian David McCullough believes that the ignorance of American history among U.S. high school students and teachers is a threat to national security. He told a Senate committee that “we are raising a generation of people who are historically illiterate.” Thomas Jefferson said: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.” (Source)

University Research Funding Scam

Funding for most University research is controlled by the large pharmaceutical companies, the tax exempt orgnizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Endowment. Science that does not meet their agenda or cannot be controlled by them gets very little or no funding. Science research has become so corrupt. More and more studies simply cannot be replicated, so any false theories are not thrown out, but left floating as acceptable ‘fact’ in the hallowed scientific ethers, when they are nothing more than studies paid for and promoted by the companies who have a marked interest in proving their personal hypothesis.

Take for example a recent review of 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals.  A review of the studies found that three-fourths of them weren’t right. Bayer simply couldn’t replicate findings that were published in more than 75 percent of their drug trials. Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced – but the problem isn’t just in the pharmaceutical industry.

Even in physics, supposedly the most complex and most reliable of all sciences, two of the most flaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, as well as the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted. It has become the job of many professors to produce the desired results of the funders because that keeps the funding coming in, ultimately keeping them their job.

So, Is it Worth Going to College?  What are the Options?

In their book Academically Adrift, sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa concluded that more than a third of recent college graduates had coasted through without adding anything to their human capital. Reports that employers often find graduates applying for jobs to be weak in basic skills are numerous.

Nevertheless, higher education boosters continue to proclaim that college is undoubtedly “worth it” and “still a good investment.” A recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California is a good example of this sort of thinking. It purports to show that earning a college degree “remains a good investment.”

The technique of this study (and dozens like it) is to compare average earnings of workers who have college degrees with average earnings of workers who don’t and conclude that because the first group does significantly better, having gone to college was a good investment. The degrees are regarded as causing the “earnings premium.” That analysis is extremely misleading. The most glaring flaw is that it draws a conclusion about future conditions (earnings that people who go college now can expect) from data based on earnings for college graduates going decades back. Conditions today, both with regard to college academic rigor and the labor market, are much different than they were 40 years ago.

If a college degree were a regulated investment opportunity, it would have to bear the standard warning that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. The future won’t be similar to the past for many college graduates and telling young people that college will be a good investment is careless and irresponsible.

As Courtney Kirchoff points out in an article titled “Dear HS Students: Don’t Go to College. No, Seriously…

“College these days is nothing more than an expensive brain-washing apparatus, charging you thousands as they teach you to think less and feel more.

Brainwashing 101 is a provocative short documentary (46 minutes) showing how university faculty and administrators use tools such as “speech codes” to force their political views upon students. In this cutting exposé, documentary filmmakers Maloney, Browning and Greenberg shine a light on political correctness, academic bias, student censorship–even administrative cover-ups of death threats–at three schools: Bucknell University, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly).

Chronological History of Universities and their Corruption

 

Charlotte Iserbyt, former Sr Policy Advisor in the U.S. Dept of Education, Blows the Whistle on a Major Technology Initiative to Control Curriculum in America’s Classrooms.

Charlotte Iserbyt | written June 15, 2004 Although Ronald Reagan had made abolishing the unconstitutional U.S. Dept. of Education one of his most important campaign promises while running for President in 1979-1980, once elected he made a very strange choice for his Secretary of Education, T. H. Bell from Utah, who had not only been a former state superintendent of schools and United States Commissioner of Education under President Ford, but who also had lobbied hard for the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, the very Department President Reagan would require him to abolish. Fox in hen house ...
Read More

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on Communists: “They have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of activity: …T.V. and motion picture; church, …educational…; the press…”

FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, gave this testimony on 6 March 1961 before the House Committee on Appropriations regarding the communist conspiracy: “They have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of activity: youth groups; radio, T.V. and motion picture industries; church, school, educational and cultural groups; the press; nationality minority groups and civil and political units.”  ...
Read More

John O’Donnell on the Education System: “It is Simply to Reduce as Many Individuals as Possible to the Same Safe Level, to Breed and Train a Standardized Citizenry”

John O’Donnell, “Capitol Stuff,” From an article in the Daily News, May 12, 1954: The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues, and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else . . . Their purpose, in brief, is to make docile and patriotic citizens, to pile up majorities, and to make John Doe ...
Read More

“The General Education Board” was Established by “Mr. Rockefeller… to Gain Control of the Educational Institutions of the Country”

Dr. W. J. Spillman, former chief of the Federal Farm Management Bureau of the Department of Agriculture, stated in a letter to the New York Globe: "Nine years ago I was approached by an agent of Mr. Rockefeller with the statement that his object in establishing the General Education Board was to gain control of the educational institutions of the country so that all men employed in them might be 'right'. I was then informed that the Board has been successful with the smaller institutions but that the large institutions had refused to accept the Rockefeller money with strings ...
Read More

Senator Poindexter: “The Cult of Rockefeller, Carnegie…to be guarded against in the educational system of this country!”

During the crucial years of the school changeover from academic institution to behavioral modification instrument, the radical nature of the metamorphosis caught the attention of a few national politicians who spoke out, but could never muster enough strength for effective opposition. In the Congressional Record of January 26, 1917, for instance, Senator Chamberlain of Oregon entered these words: They are moving with military precision all along the line to get control of the education of the children of the land. Senator Poindexter of Washington followed, saying: The cult of Rockefeller, the cult of Carnegie…as much to be guarded against ...
Read More

NEA Annual Mtg: “the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations… control the policies,… menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy…”

The philanthropic agenda of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations was made explicit in 1914 when the National Education Association passed a resolution at its annual meeting from July 4-11 in St. Paul, Minnesota. An excerpt follows: We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as ...
Read More

Walsh Committee Created: Findings Later Concluded that “Colleges had Surrendered their Religious Identifications… to Comply with Foundation Requirements to Receive Grants…”

The Walsh Committee was created to review industrial relations and scrutinize US labor laws. The commission studied work conditions throughout the industrial United States between 1913 and 1915. The final report of the Commission, published in eleven volumes in 1916, contain tens of thousands of pages of testimony from a wide range of witnesses, including scores of ordinary workers, and the titans of capitalism, including Daniel Guggenheim, George Walbridge Perkins, Sr. (of U.S. Steel), Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie. During the tenure of this committee, tax-exempt foundations were also examined. Partial findings were that, "the lives of millions of wage earners are subject to the ...
Read More

The Monument of the Forefathers (The Matrix of Liberty) was Dedicated

Designed by Hammat Billings, the monument honors the Pilgrims Christian values and principles as a matrix of liberty with the necessary components to a free society, and a blueprint of how a free nation can be maintained. From the original concept in 1820 to the laying of the cornerstone in 1859 to its dedication in 1889, it was nearly three-quarters of a century in the making, and contains in simple imagery the great wisdom of the founding era. The components of this significant yet unknown monument teach us how we can preserve America as a shining city upon a ...
Read More

Dr. Benjamin Rush: “(Satan) never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity… than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.”

Dr. Benjamin Rush to Jeremy Belknap, July 13, 1789: “The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.” Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote in “Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical,” 1798: “I know there is an objection among many people to teaching children doctrines of any kind, because they are liable to be controverted. But let us not be wiser than our Maker. If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission ...
Read More

Yale Founded to Further Christianity by Ministers Unhappy with the Liberalism at Harvard

It may come as surprise that when Yale University was founded on this day, October 16, 1701, it was by Congregationalist ministers unhappy with the growing liberalism at Harvard. It wasn't called Yale then, of course, but rather the Collegiate School. The ministers donated forty books and declared their objective, that "Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences who through the blessing of God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State." The huge campus of today, with over one hundred buildings was not conceived. In fact, the first classes were held in ...
Read More

Harvard College is Founded as a Religious School to Train Clergy in the Christian Faith

Only eighteen years after the Pilgrims landed in the New World, Harvard College, the first of the Ivy League schools, was established for the sake of educating the clergy and raising up a Christian academic institution to meet the needs of perpetuating the Christian faith. All of the Ivy League schools were established by Christians for the sake of advancing Christianity and meeting the academic needs of the New World. No better summary of this effort can be offered than the one provided by the founders themselves: After God had carried us safely to New England, and we had ...
Read More