Warning to foreign students thinking of coming to Oxbridge

@DRUDGE_REPORT pic.twitter.com/ts6vUpT14W

— Frankus (@muegge_g) December 13, 2016

http://thetab.com/uk/oxford/2016/12/12/su-leaflet-tells-oxford-students-use-ze-rather-stop-transgender-discrimination-27606

There are more female undergraduates than there are male undergraduates in Britain.  This means  female undergraduates have taken over university life.

Why do women get more university places?

Because most children are badly and singly parented and boys don't have a role model.

Because the school curriculum is skewed to favour female preferences which boys instinctively reject as stupid and boring.

Oh, and most teachers are female, probably feminazi and hate the male sex. This might just have an effect on how these feminazis might mark down boys and mark up girls, simply because they can and bias is not easily provable.  

So, in Britain there are more female students than male students, and what male students there are are weak and hungry for pussy and cannot stop worshiping it, if they are not gay.

Oxford student politics is the operation of the matriarchy in microcosm, and how the West is run in macrocosm. 

Not only is the West run for the benefit of fornicating feminazi sluts by their running dogs and appeasers, it wants the rest of the world to ape this.

If overseas parents send their children here to this menstrual swamp, they will end up having their morals corrupted. Your children will then return home and corrupt the morals of your society.

Why even pay for this self-destructive crap?

Patriarchy protects men and the civilisation their male ancestors created from the degenerative effects of condoning fornication, which is what feminism promotes.

Matriarchy - what we have here in Britain - makes silly women believe, say and do disgusting degenerate things eg using gender-neutral pronouns in order to not offend transgender students - without being opposed by frightened beta males who are no better than stupid scared women.

If you don't watch out, your country will become the menstrual swamp that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland, where half the men are sex predators and the other half victims of child sexual abuse, where half the mothers are unmarried mothers and their children badly-parented knife-carrying bastards of low educational attainment more likely to stab and be stabbed.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2015/dec/10/londons-murdered-teenagers-knife-crime

Why do you think the British are bumping along the bottom of the international league tables? 

UK schools fail to climb international league table 

Because most British mothers are unmarried mothers of bad-parented illegitimate children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

Let's face it, British women are totally out of control and fornicating sluts who become single mothers have not been criticised since 1974.

Keith Joseph: "The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened."

After what happened in 1974 to Keith Joseph - generally considered to be Prime Minister in waiting, no senior male politician has dared criticise the egregiously low standards of sexual morality of their women.

The 1.2million dads who doubt child is theirs: One in six men from North-East are uncertain of baby's paternity

Not content with having utterly destroyed the masculinity of generations of men, the matriarchy of Britain now wants to destroy masculinity from boyhood. Notice that it is always always always some feminazi who is promoting this kind of stinking degeneracy.

Row over BBC transgender programme aimed at children

Do you want the politics of your country to be reduced to a spat between women about each other's clothes? Well, this is what has happened to Britain under its second female Prime Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4020918/The-Trousergate-Texts-Vitriolic-messages-reveal-Theresa-s-fixer-banned-MP-Nicky-Morgan-Downing-Street-sniped-PM-s-995-leather-strides.html

If you send your child to Oxford, it will bring back the filth of this degeneracy back to your country and make it go rotten too.

Be warned and avoid sending the flesh of your flesh to the menstrual swamp that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland, where all the men are lower in status than fornicating sluts with variously fathered feral bastards. Visit Britain by all means to marvel at all its quaintness, but don't send your children to have their morals corrupted here. If they are male they will probably be falsely accused of rape by some slut of a female undergraduate suffering from "regret rape" before the end of their first year.

If not, you might even lose him to transgenderism or gay marriage.

Even if your son does not go gay, get falsely accused of rape or decide to become a woman, he would have no idea about how to go about being a man. If you have given him any idea of how to be a man - such as having moral principles and standing up for them - he will have unlearned it by the time he graduates. 

Think of British academia as an open sewer squatted over by feminazis about to defecate and urinate on it and avoid, avoid, avoid.

Oxford University union denies telling students to use pronoun 'ze' https://t.co/z0ZsZuCeDf

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 13, 2016

This denial by @UniofOxford came *after* I posted https://t.co/vvJ0SPsghK https://t.co/cavA8nOyY6

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 13, 2016

Cambridge University is making similar moves to encourage the use of gender neural pronouns, it has been reported.

Sophie Buck, welfare officer at Cambridge University students’ union, said: “Events start with a speaker introducing themselves using a gender neutral pronoun. It’s part of a drive to make the union intersectional.”

Oxford University Student Union Officers
Just one weak looking white beta male obviously delighted to be in the company of so many women of influence.
I don't think he's going to stick his neck out to defend straight white male interests, do you?
https://ousu.org/representing-you/

Cambridge University Student Union has no white male representation at all, but would Oxford be any better if you were white and male? Probably not. http://www.cusu.co.uk/about/the-cusu-team

What about non-Oxbridge tertiary educational establishments? (I believe calling them ex-polys these days is rude.)

This is only white male student union officer at Plymouth University. Would you trust him to represent your interests if you were white and male?  There is something about him that suggests that he might represent your interests quite enthusiastically if you were white, male and gay however. https://www.upsu.com/studentvoice/exec/

Look how female-dominated @upsu is! https://t.co/Rh4flEq4Ck …  Fat feminist @UPSUpresident censors @Daily_Express @DailyMailUK and @TheSun https://t.co/ogfjf6zDTH

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) December 5, 2016

http://ozconservative.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/the-culture-war-continues.html

OUSU:

We have not produced a leaflet implying that all students must use ‘ze’ pronouns to refer to others, or indeed to themselves. We believe the resources which are referred to within many of the articles could be support materials used by our student leaders and welfare representatives, which alongside other information and tips, reminds individuals of the importance of not assuming the pronouns of their peers while also aiming to normalise stating pronouns in introductions. Further to this, the assumptions made may in fact refer to a policy used with the Students’ Union Council, where it is asked (for accessibility and minuting purposes) that everyone who speaks states their name, college and pronouns. There is also a further possibility that our work and remit has been confused with the work of the wider University, whose Trans Policy and guidance does include a mention of neopronouns (pronoun sets like ‘ze/hir’, ‘ey/em/eirs’).

It's not exactly reassuring, is it? If you want to be in good standing with the Oxford University Student Union you have to start your presentations by stating your preferred pronouns. Even if most people get up and say they prefer "he" or "she," in doing so they will still be affirming the liberal idea that we get to choose our own sexual identity. It's a liberal win.

Will Professor John Dunn answer my questions on feminism and politics?

I have emailed him for the following questions.

1. How would you define feminism?
2. Is feminism a force for the good?
3. Has feminism been good for men?
4. Does feminism ever consider the long term national interest?
5. Is feminism really only the amoral and tribal privileging women simply because they are female?
6. What has feminism to offer men in the short term other than the false impression that sex is cheap because it affirms the right of women to have sex outside marriage?
7. Has feminism desecrated the institutions of marriage and family?
8. If we repealed the Equality Act 2010 and abolished no fault divorce, would we have cut off both legs of feminism?
9. What is there to stop any political party from proposing the repeal of the Equality Act 2010 and abolishing no fault divorce?
10. If you could, would you repeal the Equality Act 2010 and abolish no fault divorce? 

Professor Dunn says more sensible and interesting things at 

http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/john-dunn-2013-04-05

But his hair is untidy, his collar awry. Doubtless he could have been made to look less like an old tramp if his ex-wife, the delectable Ruth Scurr, had not abandoned him, but she had other ideas.  

I do hope Professor Dunn is not too old and ill to answer my questions. In answering them, I trust he will arrive at the answers to the points he himself raised, which was about understanding our own political and social structures so that we may change them if things go wrong, rather like a mechanic with a broken down car or a driver with a punctured tyre.  

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/a-battle-of-self-versus-state/153901.article

Dunn argues that politics is about struggles between individuals, or sometimes groups, in complex social orders to resolve competing views about the organisation and ends of society. It is about the "collisions between human purposes" commonplace in complex social organisations such as modern states - "an endless and highly unstable round of struggle and quest for understanding". He investigates the ways in which designers of political institutions have attempted to address the implications of this need to organise.

He does so with reference to influential alternative understandings of human motives - whether we are motivated by self-righteous individualism or by the logic of collective action, for instance. Do we think our individual judgements are the only ones worthy of respect, or do we recognise that making political choices is ineluctably a collective process?

Dunn emphasises the importance of accommodating individualism in designing institutions for political stability. He cites approvingly Aristotle's directive that "we need above all to analyse how human beings are best advised to live together, in order both to judge how their common life could go best and to give it the best chance which they can to go well in practice".

Poor old Dunn, hinting ever so delicately, ever so obliquely, about the patriarchy. I already know that hints dropped are not picked up by the deliberately deaf. I know even shouting at people saying the same thing again and again simplified to the point that it even rhymes and makes sense does very little to motivate or inspire a race of men who only want to be seen as not misogynistic and worthy of being given sex from a passably attractive woman not their wives from time to time.

Let us remember what Camille Paglia said about the Greeks.

Women played no part in Athenian high culture. They could not vote, attend the theatre, or walk in the stoa talking philosophy. But the male orientation of Greek culture was inseparable of its genius. Athens became great not despite but because of its misogyny.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

To be honest with you, I think it is too late now. All the establishment white males who would agree with me are already long dead and gone. The ones who might agree with me are now very old and frail, and, because if you are old and frail you look like an old tramp if you don't have anyone to look after you or at least tell you you need a haircut or that your collar is awry or your tie crooked, not matching your shirt or your cuffs frayed, people will just sneer at you and dismiss everything you say as soon as look at you or see you on TV looking like shit.  

The old men of UKIP do not discuss my ideas, probably because they are unable to access them, being so proud of their technophobia and technical incompetence. Those who access the internet might read my blog from time to time, but do not discuss it with each other.

As for the younger ones, they don't get it and won't get it because they fear for their careers and reputations for seeming to say anything that could be interpreted as misogyny. 

Also, if you are old, you don't like using new technology, which means you won't be able to communicate your message well or at all, having to rely on others to put people in touch with you or deliver your messages, and these people would  mostly be women and most women are feminists. 

I have already called him at his number but, predictably, there is no answer.  

Perhaps he doesn't even do email.