The DEI Scam: How America’s Corporations and Universities Were Duped by the Biggest Con of the Century

  • The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) movement emerged in the aftermath of the 2020 George Floyd protests, initially as a well-intentioned effort to address systemic inequalities. However, it quickly transformed into a bureaucratic initiative aimed at embedding social justice programs into the fabric of universities and corporations.
  • Fueled by psychological manipulation, ideological extremism and the threat of violence, DEI programs spread across institutions. This led to the creation of a bloated bureaucracy that enforced ideological conformity and promoted divisive rhetoric, often pitting individuals against each other based on identity markers.
  • By 2024, the flaws in DEI became evident, with major corporations like Ford, Walmart and John Deere rolling back their DEI commitments due to legal and political pressures. A growing number of employees and students criticized DEI for fostering division and mediocrity, leading to a widespread backlash against the movement.
  • As DEI retreats, proponents are rebranding their ideology with terms like “inclusive excellence” and “belonging.” However, critics argue that the underlying ideology remains unchanged, and the movement’s advocates are likely to adapt and continue promoting their agenda under new labels.
  • The collapse of DEI has prompted a shift towards merit-driven frameworks that emphasize objective criteria and measurable outcomes. This includes structured hiring practices, transparent promotion policies and collaborative decision-making processes, which are seen as more effective and less divisive than the top-down mandates of DEI.

(Natural News)—The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) movement, once heralded as a moral and business imperative, has been exposed as one of the most elaborate cons of the 21st century. What began as a well-intentioned effort to address systemic inequalities quickly devolved into a bureaucratic hustle, enriching thousands of ideological hustlers while sowing division and mediocrity across academia and corporate America. Now, as DEI collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, it’s time to reflect on how this con took root—and why its demise is a victory for common sense and meritocracy.

The rise of the DEI con

The DEI movement gained traction in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd protests, which sparked a national conversation about race and inequality. But as Stanley K. Ridgley, author of DEI Exposed: How the Biggest Con of the Century Almost Toppled Higher Education, explains, DEI was never about genuine diversity or inclusion. Instead, it was a “bureaucratic initiative designed to anchor a new raft of social justice programs as an inescapable presence on the campus.”

Ridgley recounts how DEI metastasized across universities and corporations, fueled by a combination of psychological manipulation, ideological extremism and the threat of violence. “It was violence and the threat of violence that opened the door for this effervescence of DEI,” he writes. College administrations, fearing the chaos of 2020’s summer riots, capitulated to the demands of activists, allowing DEI to embed itself deeply into institutional structures.

The result? A bloated bureaucracy of “apparatchiks and supernumeraries” who peddled racialist pseudoscience and enforced ideological conformity. DEI training sessions became notorious for their divisive rhetoric, pitting employees and students against one another based on race, gender and other identity markers. As Ridgley bluntly puts it, “It was weird and alien and hateful at its core.”

The backlash begins

By 2024, the cracks in the DEI façade were impossible to ignore. Major corporations like Ford, Walmart and John Deere began rolling back their DEI commitments, citing mounting legal and political pressures. A Fox News poll conducted in early 2025 found that 45% of voters believed it was “extremely” or “very” important for President Donald Trump to focus on ending DEI programs.

The backlash wasn’t just political—it was personal. Employees and students who had long endured the mediocrity and divisiveness of DEI initiatives finally began speaking out. Psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert, who has seen the harmful effects of DEI in his practice, told Fox Business, “The trend over the last few years has been to make DEI programs into political commissars, to go after people who have different viewpoints, and they end up, in many ways, sowing more division in the institution that they’re supposed to help.”

Even DEI advocates like Naomi Wheeless acknowledged the role of political pressure in the movement’s decline. “It is that [Trump] is a president with a well-documented history of vindictiveness,” she said. “He creates a sense of fear and the feeling that whether we want to or not, we better fall in line.”

The con story lives on

As DEI retreats, its proponents are already scrambling to rebrand. Terms like “inclusive excellence” and “belonging” are emerging as replacements for the now-toxic DEI acronym. But as Ridgley warns, the underlying ideology remains the same. “The Con Story will morph and adapt,” he writes. “Buzzwords will change, new slogans will be coined, but the underlying ideology will remain the same as it always has.”

This isn’t the first time America has fallen for a con story. From the pseudoscience of Karl Marx to the utopian promises of radical activists, history is littered with examples of ideologies that duped the credulous. Ridgley draws a chilling parallel between the DEI movement and the case of Luigi Mangione, a 26-year-old who murdered a man in New York City in 2024, driven by extremist ideology. “Persons who cheer the killer Luigi Mangione for his assassination of Brian Thompson also fully support DEI’s personnel, programs, policies and enforcement mechanisms on the college campuses,” Ridgley asserts.

A return to meritocracy

The collapse of DEI is a reminder that meritocracy and fairness are not just ideals—they are essential to a functioning society. As corporations and universities abandon DEI, many are turning to evidence-based, merit-driven frameworks that emphasize objective criteria and measurable outcomes. Structured hiring practices, transparent promotion policies and collaborative decision-making processes are proving to be more effective—and less divisive—than the top-down mandates of DEI.

The death of DEI is a victory for common sense, but the fight is far from over. As Ridgley warns, the con artists behind DEI will not go quietly. They will rebrand, relabel and repackage their ideology in an attempt to deceive a new generation of marks. But for now, America can breathe a sigh of relief that one of the biggest cons of the century has finally been exposed.

The lesson is clear: Ideological extremism and bureaucratic bloat have no place in our institutions. It’s time to return to the principles that made America great—individual merit, equal opportunity and the pursuit of excellence. DEI may be over, but the work of rebuilding trust and integrity in our institutions has only just begun.

source

Elon Finds 150 Year Olds, Quietly Collecting Social Security from American Taxpayers

Elon Musk revealed on Tuesday that his team at the Department of Government Efficiency found some supposed 150-year-olds on the Social Security rolls.

The multibillionaire entrepreneur and leader of the government reform project said in remarks to the media in the Oval Office alongside President Donald Trump that his team is discovering some “crazy things” as they open Uncle Sam’s books.

“Just a cursory examination of Social Security and we’ve got people in there that are about 150 years old,” Musk told reporters.

“Now, do you know anyone that’s 150? I don’t,” he continued. “They should be in the Guinness Book of World Records, they’re missing out.”

“So, you know, that’s the case where, like, I think they’re probably dead is my guess, or they should be very famous. One of the two,” he added.

story

The Tragedy That Is Greta Thuneberg

If you read this from time to time, sooner or later you get around to the facts I present on Climate/Global Warming and what is really behind it. If it offends you, either present me with facts how it is true (I’ll start with the movie Inconvenient (bunch of lies) Truth, or go away.

For most it is about money and control (kind of like Covid). I think Greta has been brainwashed and is being used by those who pull the strings. Knowing what I know about the autism spectrum, it is easy to do and is tragic that they’ve used her like this. They gave her a taste of fame and social media likes as a trade and there is no going back for her now.

Nevertheless, it provides me with meme material, so here it is.

This explains everything. It’s always a new scare or a threat that the world is going to end. It never does, nor do any of the predictions come through.

Climate Hypocrisy – On Rising Sea Levels (for Tim O’Reilly)

Tim is a publisher who holds conferences and is a name in those circles. Back when I was on twitter, I mentioned to Tim that sea levels weren’t rising when he was panicking. Florida is still there along with everywhere else. I got called a troll, but when I asked for evidence, he could only come up with that climate science is hard. In other words he had no facts.

It sure is hard when you keep changing the rules and all the predictions don’t work out.

Let me point this out to Tim, you are the troll now. I told him he was just another elitist, but it turns out he is a loser also. BFYTW.

Pfizer-Mectin, Because They Are Running Out Of People to Jab, And Profits Are Headed Down – Another Big (P)harma Scam

Both Pfizer and Merck are introducing pills that actually help cure Covid, unlike the Vaxx, which is proving to be both not effective and comes with more side effects and deaths than all others combined.

So they will now have a pill to cure them from Covid that their vaxx didn’t prevent. They’ll have to create another pill for the damage done by their jab. All of this and the cure, Ivermectin is being banned because they can’t make enough money on it.

Here is the crux of the story from The Last Refuge. You can scan this part because the selected comments really tell the story. They will be below. Note: they’ve used the Red Pill from The Matrix, like the one I have above (I took the Red Pill). Pfizer’s is a ruse.

The majority of prior studies for the COVID-19 vaccinations -writ large- generate an efficacy range around 60 to 70 percent in prevention of COVID hospitalization.  The efficacy for virus infection is essentially nil.   The vaccine does nothing to prevent infection or transmission; their only claims are now a reduction in hospitalization rates.

Therapeutics, preventative medicines and healthy lifestyle choices to avoid negative outcomes, have been mostly ignored, often ridiculed, and largely downplayed by politicians, media and Big Pharma.   Instead their preferred collective strategy has been a massive, overemphasized and almost exclusive effort to force vaccinations as the only medical option for SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The most studied and widespread therapeutic treatment on a global scale has been the use of an oral antiviral pill known as Ivermectin and a regime of supportive medications.   Japan and India have embraced the Ivermectin protocol with reported large scale success rates.

However, the U.S., Europe and Australia have focused exclusively on treating and chasing the SARS-CoV-2 virus with vaccines for the virus and boosters for the variants.

Today Pfizer, the #1 vaccine maker on a global scale, is introducing their version of a pill form of therapeutic.   With Ivermectin, a Merck product, costing somewhere around 30¢/dose, it appears Pfizer sees an opening for a $xx/dose pill option to enhance their growing profit margin.  It is interesting to note the Pfizer study for their pill was conducted on a non-vaccinated population.

(VIA ABC) – A course of pills developed by Pfizer can slash the risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 by 89% if taken within three days of developing symptoms, according to results released Friday by the pharmaceutical company.

The net of it is that the side effects of the Jab are about to be exposed, hurting their bottom line. They are down to jabbing kids because the dupes who got stabbed have done it and the educated have decided they don’t want it in their DNA, harming their immune systems.

Conversely, Merck doesn’t have a jab, but they have the actual cure, Ivermectin. Their problem is that it is out of patent and doesn’t make enough money. So they re-invent the same thing and voila, a new cure.

NOW THE COMMENTS

it is likely to rapidly lead to drug resistant viruses if used as a single agent (as has happened with HIV). Historically, serine proteases have problems with specificity and toxicity. that is all I can say for now.

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) November 5, 2021

Note: Malone invented the mRNA for Pfizer and recommends against it.

Grumpy Old Woman November 6, 2021 10:01 am Reply to  Farmkid

If ‘they’ had not repressed HCQ and Ivermectin(plus others)” then big pharma would not have been able to make billions of dollars on vaccines and boosters and thousands of people would not have died. Both outcomes were intended.

Wvvet November 6, 2021 12:30 am

I’ve read that both of these new drugs work in the same manner as Ivermectin. If you look at the chemical structure, they are similar to Ivermectin.

47Yinzer November 6, 2021 9:18 am Reply to  Big Earl

If true, Pfizer has advanced to Level Two of their financial scam. First they convinced the goobermint to mandate their jabs (and pay handsomely for each one). Now they may have de-generic’d a generic drug so as to patent it, jack up the price, and get the goobermint to mandate it as well. Crony capitalism pays off handsomely, does it not.

Jocko November 6, 2021 5:47 am

Repackaged Ivermectin at 100 times the price?

IF YOU DON’T READ ANY OTHER COMMENT, READ THIS ONE

regitiger November 6, 2021 6:31 am

Fluvoxamine ( “other name”: LUVOX)Last Updated: April 23, 2021
Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder and is used for other conditions, including depression. Fluvoxamine is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any infection.

the mouth jab “pill”

Considerations in ChildrenFluvoxamine is approved by the FDA for the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder in children aged ≥8 years.9 Adverse effects due to SSRI use seen in children are similar to those seen in adults, although children and adolescents appear to have higher rates of behavioral activation and vomiting than adults.10 There are no data on the use of fluvoxamine for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in children.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/pfizer-merck-the-era-of-anti-covid-pills-what-you-need-to-know-2601044

also this:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/immunomodulators/fluvoxamine/

also this:

also this:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext

and NOW, for the BIG LIST….check this out and see what is going down with actual phase three trials in the sidelines right now? spot anything familiar?

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04727424

Allocation:Randomized Intervention Model:Parallel Assignment Intervention Model Description:Patients will be randomly allocated to one of six treatment arms in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio:

  1. Fluvoxamine
  2. Ivermectin
  3. Doxazosin
  4. Peginterferon Lambda
  5. Peginterferon Beta
  6. Placebo We will use a centralized random allocation schedule, generated by computer and stratified by site and age.

I will circle back with some information about the drug

  1. Fluvoxamine

Then when time provided will do a full report on the other therapeutic drugs in the pipeline:

these specifically:

  1. Ivermectin ( THERE IT IS)
  2. Doxazosin
  3. Peginterferon Lambda
  4. Peginterferon Beta

regitiger November 6, 2021 6:42 am

LUVIX IS fluvoxamine

note the dangers with the drug

note also these dangers:

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Severe illness enough to require hospitalization or already meeting the study’s primary endpoint for clinical deterioration
  2. Patients who cannot take oral medication
  3. Pregnancy or breastfeeding
  4. History of the psychiatric disorder including major depressive disorder
  5. Patients who are taking or took selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, or tricyclic anti-depressants within 2 weeks
  6. Patients who are taking an anti-epileptic drug
  7. Patients who are taking co-prescribed drugs (as below) which are contraindicated by manufacturers due to drug-drug interaction
  • Alosetron, tizanidine, theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine (drugs with a narrow therapeutic index that are primarily metabolized by cytochrome P450 1A2)
  • Donepezil, sertraline (sigma-1 receptor agonists)
  • Warfarin (increased risk of bleeding)
  • Phenytoin (rationale: fluvoxamine inhibits its metabolism)
  • Clopidogrel (fluvoxamine inhibits its metabolism from pro-drug to active drug which raises the risk of cardiovascular events)
  • Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (linezolid, rasagiline, selegiline), triptans (sumatriptan, naratriptan, almotriptan, frovatriptan, zolmitriptan, rizatriptan), lithium, tramadol (rationale: to prevent the possible development of serotonin syndrome)
  • Alprazolam, diazepam (fluvoxamine modestly inhibits the metabolism of these drugs): The patient could be enrolled in case of agreeing 25% dose reduction of these medications.
  1. Already enrolled in another COVID-19 medication trial
  2. Medical comorbidities such as severe underlying lung disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary hypertension), decompensated cirrhosis, chronic viral hepatitis, congestive heart failure (stage 3 or 4 per patient report and/or medical records), chronic kidney disease, or end-stage renal disease requiring renal replacement therapy
  3. Immuno compromised (solid organ transplant, bone-marrow transplant, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, on biologics and/or high dose steroids [>20mg prednisone per day])
  4. Unable to provide informed consent (e.g., moderate-severe dementia diagnosis)
  5. Unable to perform the study procedures (self-assessment of oxygen saturation, blood pressure, and temperature using self-monitoring equipment)