Commentary: The University Grant System Fosters Social Change


Given 14-Aug-21; 11 minutes

description: (hide)

The university grant system plays an important role in the Federal government's programs dedicated to bringing about social change. Under this system, the government selects peer-approved experts in the physical and social sciences (as well as the arts) to conduct studies, most of which focus on issues revolving (at least generally) around national health or national defense. Government agencies, typically the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, fund these studies. The government uses the output of these studies, which it avers to be 'scientific," to justify the modification of rules, regulations or laws which in turn change the way Americans live. It is the rank-and-file American citizen who ultimately pays for these studies through taxes and higher costs for consumer goods and services. The planned effect of the university grant system is that the woke remain woke.



In my comments entitled “Living Among the Ruins” a while back, I stressed how governments, both ancient and current, instigate social change. You might remember that I mentioned how the policies of Jeroboam I determined the direction Israel’s apostasy was to take for generations. As one current example, I mentioned the role the United States’ Supreme Court has come to take in bringing about social change. Evincing more power than the dreadnaught Leviathan of which Hobbs conceived, that Court has spread evil into every corner of American life—every single aspect.

Today, I want to elaborate on the second example I cited; I pointed out how the university grant system, wherein various sectors of the Federal government commission university researchers to study into this or that area—how that system has encouraged social change over the years. Under this system, the government selects the researchers who will most likely concur with its agenda; to ensure their cooperation, it pays them, and then it uses the so-called “evidence” provided in their so-called “scientific” studies to justify changes in rules, regulations and even laws.

Peer reviews, which are in reality little more than a procedure where blind artists evaluate the work of other blind artists, are said to lend credibility to these studies, but in reality, peer reviews only serve as a selling tool the government uses to con citizens into accepting what are, in some cases, outlandish and foolish changes—and worse, just plain harmful. In the end, these changes ultimately work to foster the big-government, socialist agenda which the Federal government has come to support. In other words, these studies ensure that the "woke" remain "woke."

Well, the internet is full of lists of such studies. Here are a few salient ones to help you “cry and sigh”:

1. The National Institutes of Health granted 3.4 million tax-payer dollars to study “aggression and anxiety in more than 1,000 male hamsters.” This study features the edifying work of “pitting juvenile male hamsters against each other.”

2. The National Institutes of Health also granted $5 million to study the drinking habits of college undergrads, learning, to everyone’s surprise, that frat members drink more than regular undergrads, and that they all drink more on days when there are games than on days when there are finals.

3. NASA gave almost $1 million to learn if astronauts on their way to Mars could cook their own food rather than eating prepackaged foods, resulting in “dietary fatigue.” Researchers at the University of Hawaii got that money.

4. Researchers at New York University studied the best ways to blow bubbles. The National Science Foundation financed that one, but the cost seems to be “top secret,” probably a matter of national defense!

5. One of the more infamous studies dates back to 1939 and took place at the University of Iowa. Orphans who stuttered are the subject of this research. The idea was to determine if stuttering was the result of “psychological distress.” The test procedure was to create “an environment where young subjects were repeatedly badgered and harassed.” As late as 2006, the State of Iowa was settling claims from participants in the study, which is now termed “the Monster Study,” because of the psychological damage the researchers caused to the children.

6. Another example of a study-gone-wrong is the famous Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971, wherein college students played the roles of either prisoner or guard. The plan was to study antisocial behavior, but the university shut down the study, originally planned to last fourteen days, after only six days due to abuse on the part of the students. The Office of Naval Research funded this study.

7. The National Institutes of Health got back into the act by granting almost $11 million in 2012 so that scientists at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor could untangle the connection between cat bites and depression on the part of their owners. Women, it turns out, were the most susceptible to becoming depressed when Max bit them.

8. The U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research saw fit to fund a study to show that the first birds to evolve had black feathers. Do not forget that fact—that is very important. The first birds to evolve had black feathers.

9. In 2002, the National Institutes of Health—who else—funded research at Caltech to create phosphorescent mice by injecting mouse embryos with a virus containing a jellyfish gene for green fluorescence. “Since then, researchers have … created other glow-in-the-dark creatures like fish and cats.”

10. In the area of medical studies, I mention two:

A. In 2011, clinicians swabbed over 5,000 hands before and after graduation exercises at a large, public university to determine the rate of bacterial transmission due to handshaking. This is the sort of study which led to Anthony Fauci’s comment that he would never shake hands again. He obviously prefers to live in a bubble—and to force bubbles on other Americans as well.

B. In another study relating to viruses, scientists put “a tracer virus”—it was supposed to be a harmless one, and I think it was—on a push plate on a door leading into an office building where 80 people worked. Later, they determined that “within four hours [the virus] ended up on over half the people's hands, and … on over half the surfaces that people touched in that building… . … The virus could be detected on a majority of commonly touched surfaces such as light switches, coffee pot handles, phones and computers.”

It is of interest to me that the authors of these clinical studies make no mention at all of the established fact that healthy immune systems can effectively repel unfriendly viruses and pathogenic bacteria, thereby throttling disease transmission. Of course, they did not mention that: Doing so would damage, if not destroy, the standing they enjoy in the much-touted “scientific community,” that club of liars all around us.

Well, the government tells the grandest lie about all this: Taxes paid by American corporations pay for the bulk of these—and many, many other—asinine studies. But, the truth of the matter is that funding does not really come from corporations at all. True, American corporations, in aggregate, do pay billions and billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year. Some avoid taxes, most do not. But, in reality, these taxes are just a cost corporations pay for doing business: pay them or else. So, corporations simply pass the costs of these taxes on to the consumer, resulting in significantly increased costs for goods and services. In other words, corporate tax accountants have become adept at building the Federal tax burden into corporate product and service pricing models. It is the American consumer who pays for these studies. Make no mistake about that: It is the American consumer who pays corporate taxes—in addition to all the other taxes Americans pay.

In other words, Americans pay for these various studies out of two pockets:

  • As taxpayers, they pay income (and other) taxes
  • As consumers, they pay corporate taxes every time they go to McDonald’s, the filling station, the food market.

The bottom line is that these researchers—no matter what their respective field—are de facto “change agents” who give those wishing to “take charge of change” the ammunition they need to subvert long-standing traditions and behaviors—like handshaking—in this nation. Truly, they are modern-day iconoclasts who want to smash American culture. It is the government which ramrods these changes, and it is the common, everyday citizen who pays for them.