Bird-Flu, Censorship, & 100 Day Vaccines: 7 Predictions For "The Next Pandemic"

 by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

Earlier this month the White House published its new “Pandemic Preparedness” targets.

hey are far from alone in covering this. Back in March, Sky News was asking: “Next pandemic is around the corner,’ expert warns – but would lockdown ever happen again?”

On April 3rd, the Financial Times asked something similar: “The next pandemic is coming. Will we be ready?”

Less than an hour ago, the Daily Mail invited us inside “the world’s deadliest cave that could cause the next pandemic”.

Just two days ago a professional panic spreader wrote for CNN:

The next pandemic threat demands action now!!!

OK, I added the exclamation points, but they are very much implied in the original text.

So, while Iran and Israel rattle their sabres on the front pages, I thought we should take a look at the quieter back pages to see what we can learn, and help us predict how “the next pandemic” will unfold.

WHAT IS “THE NEXT PANDEMIC”?

I mean…I feel like that’s fairly self-explanatory.

Seriously though, it’s the one they’ve been predicting from pretty much the moment Covid started. First it was going to be monkey pox – sorry MPox – but that fizzled.

Of course by “pandemic”, we really mean “psy-op”, because nothing about the next pandemic will be any more real than the last pandemic. Hell, given the leaps forward in AI technology, it could be considerably less real next time.

We don’t know any of the details yet, but there’s enough vague coverage to tease out some guesstimates.

WHAT DISEASE WILL THEY USE?

Probably the most important question. We already mentioned monkey pox, but that doesn’t look likely anymore.

Right now they are mostly talking about “disease X” – a term which caused a little panic in certain sections when it first appeared on the scene – but that isn’t some top secret gain of function super disease, it’s literally a place holder name.

And it’s a placeholder name which does its job, for the time being.

After all, they don’t really need an actual name yet, any more than they need an actual disease, they just need the idea of a disease to hold over people’s heads while they construct the legislative rules of their health-based tyranny.

Indeed, the vagueness “Disease X” provides is helpful, as it keeps the legislation vague too.

That said, they will likely want and/or need to produce an actual disease at some point.

When that time comes around, it will almost certainly be another respiratory disease, because they are easy to “fake” using pre-existing endemic diseases and their uniform symptoms.

The prime candidate is bird flu, which has been slow-boiling in the news for two years now and has recently got a big uptick in coverage due to it allegedly passing to people from cows.

The UN reports “pandemic experts” are “concerned over avian influenza spread to humans”. Just yesterday, Jeremy Farrar of the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that “[the] threat Of Bird Flu spreading to Humans is a great concern”

Prompting gleefully sensationalist headlines like this from the Daily Star:

New pandemic ‘expected’ as human-to-human bird flu of ‘great concern’ to WHO

Bird flu is a convenient pick because it enables them to push their health tyranny and their food transition at the same time. They can claim that dairy, beef, chicken and eggs have become “dangerous” as an excuse to ration them or at least force scarcity while they drive the prices up.

They will then push the idea that veganism and/or lab grown meat “prevents pandemics”. Something they’ve been claiming since at least 2021.

The Daily Mail reported just a few hours ago:

H5N1 strain of bird flu is found in MILK for first time in ‘very high concentrations,’ World Health Organization warns

The downside to bird flu is that it’s hard to work the climate change angle into the narrative, so maybe they’ll go with something else.

WHEN WILL IT HAPPEN?

Probably not until the winter, I would guess January 2025 at the earliest, for two reasons:

1. They need it to be flu season so they can co-opt normal seasonal deaths into their “pandemic” narrative.
2. I think they’ll want to wait until after the “big election year” is over so there are fresh governments in place.

That second point is not just a hunch, but based on the article from Sky I mentioned above. It asks “would lockdown ever happen again?”, and an “expert” answers [emphasis added]:

…if another lockdown was needed, the current Tory government would either have to minimise scandals over their own rule-breaking – or change hands completely to keep the public on board. If we had a new government, people would be far more likely to have faith in them because they would be less likely to say, ‘it’s the same bunch as before – why should we do it again?’

Which I think is correct.

That would also explain the raft of sudden political resignations – including Covid stars Angela Merkel and Jacinda Ardern – which swept the world in Covid’s wake. They were aware then, and are still aware now, their players were spent and they needed a fresh roster before coming back for the second leg.

So, elections first – with all the nonsense that entails – then maybe the “next pandemic”.

HOW WILL IT BE DIFFERENT FROM “COVID”?

Any future pandemic psy-op will be unlikely to follow the covid pattern beat-for-beat, for one thing the Covid narrative spent itself before achieving everything it was meant to achieve.

You can bet the farm that, in the four years since, there have been working groups and researchers poring over the pandemic data to figure out what went wrong and how they can fix it next time.

There seem to be three recurring themes.

1. Vaccines not lockdowns There will be a focus on securing vaccines rather than lockdowns. Indeed, part of the whole “aw shucks lockdowns were damaging who’d have thunk it” rigmarole is about setting up the dynamic that “next time” we need to do anything we can to avoid lockdowns.

Lockdowns will become a threat rather than a fact.

“We HAVE to mandate vaccines, because the economy can’t afford another lockdown.”

“Take the vaccine, you don’t want to have another lockdown do you?”

So there will be more testing, more masks and more vaccine mandates…and/or quarantine camps for the unvaccinated. And if they DO have lockdowns, they will be entirely blamed on the “anti-vaxxers”, of course.

2. Speed speed speed The main failing of the Covid narrative was that it ran out of steam. By the time the vaccines rolled out in early 2021 the pandemic fatigue was already setting in. And by the time the third boosters and fourth waves were in the headlines nobody really cared.

The propaganda blitzkrieg of early 2020 was arguably the greatest and most wide-reaching misinformation campaign of all time – and it was almost overwhelmingly effective. But it slowed, stalled, stopped and staled.

Next time, they know now, they need to be faster. Bill Gates said as much at the 2022 Munich Security Conference. They need to get the disease out the deaths up and vaccines in before people even realise what happened.

Hence the “100 day vaccines” plan. As the ever-reliably-hysterical Devi Shridar writes for the Guardian:

most governments are working towards the 100-day challenge: that is, how to contain a virus spreading while a scientific response, such as a vaccine, diagnostic or treatment, can be approved, manufactured and delivered to the public.

The “100 Day Mission” is the brainchild of CEPI, the Gates and WHO-backed NGO. Its main aim is to make it possible to produce new vaccines for previously unknown pathogens in 100 days.

In the US, the target is 130 days from pathogen discovery to nation-wide vaccine coverage.

It should go without saying that real, reliable, “safe and effective” vaccines cannot be produced in 100 days. Whatever they make, sell and force you to inject in that time…it won’t be a vaccine

3. Free Speech is Dangerous. The slow development of the narrative post-2020 may have hindered the health tyranny agenda, but it was the independent media that really hurt it. The impromptu network of dissident experts, independent researchers and social media movements spread “misinformation” faster than the powers-that-be could fact-check it.

We have seen perpetual messaging about the dangers of “misinformaion and disinformation” since then, including prominently at the most recent DAVOS summit earlier this year, where it was labelled one of the “three greatest dangers” facing the planet.

Last week, a UK Parliamentary Committee published “recommendations” headlined:

Government should learn lessons from pandemic to improve communications and counter misinformation

Only a few days ago, Gordon Brown was quoted in the news “warning” that:

“fake news’ risks preparations for next pandemic”

Which heavily implies they will move to counter this “fake news” before the “next pandemic” begins.

WILDCARD PREDICTION: The multipolar angle. Whatever form the “next pandemic” takes, they will likely avoid the monolithic messaging of 2020, where total global conformity to “the message” was one of the real telltale signs of deception. Next time prepare for countries like India, China and Russia to forge their own pandemic strategy – focusing on some new treatment or technology that the West refuses to endorse.

There are no sources to back this one, yet. It’s just a gut feeling.

*

So what am I officially predicting for the “next pandemic”?

1. It will won’t be launched until after the major elections this year, because they want new politic faces untarnished by Covid
2. It will likely be bird flu or some other respiratory disease, launched in the winter to hijack the real flu season again
3. The chosen disease will fit into one or more pre-existing agenda – either impacting food or originating from some forced “climate change” connection or both
4. They will move faster, producing “vaccines” in 100 days to stop people getting wise to the deception as they did with Covid
5. They will try and avoid lockdowns, but use them as a threat to enforce vaccine mandates more rigorously
6. They will clamp down harder on “mis- and dis-information” before launching the new narrative.
7. The next pandemic will have a multipolarity angle to establish a fake binary

That’s how I see it. Feel free to bookmark this post for future reference.

Even if I’ve guessed the details wrong here, there’s no question they are planning to roll out another pandemic at some point in near future. A covid sequel that learns from past mistakes.

While, in some ways, it will likely be worse than Covid was – the good news is that this time we can be ready for it.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/bird-flu-censorship-100-day-vaccines-7-predictions-next-pandemic

San Diego Official Says City Is "New Epicenter" Of Border Crisis

 by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

A San Diego County official has branded the city the “new epicenter” for illegal immigration and claimed that Border Patrol has become “the ‘Uber’ for migrants” entering the county.

“San Diego is the new epicenter for migrants and illegal immigration,” San Diego District 5 Supervisor Jim Desmond posted on the social media platform X on April 25.

“The surge in illegal crossings has propelled San Diego to the unfortunate position of leading all nine southern border sectors in April, a trend unseen since the 1990s.”

On Wednesday alone, Border Patrol apprehended 2,000 illegal immigrants within the San Diego sector, according to Mr. Desmond. Among them were 206 Chinese nationals, he said.

Since Oct. 1st, there have been nearly 215,000 apprehensions representing individuals from 75 different countries in the San Diego sector, Mr. Desmond wrote in the post.

“Moreover, the closure of the processing center has led to over 30,000 migrant drop-offs in the past two months alone, with projections of more than 1,000 drop-offs expected today,” he continued.

“This doesn’t account for the frequent occurrences of boats washing ashore, averaging three to four incidents weekly. ”

Mr. Desmond appeared to be referencing the $6 million Migrant Welcome Center that shut down in San Diego in February due to a lack of funding.

The District 5 supervisor went on to state that human smugglers have identified California—and in particular the San Diego border sector—as “the path of least resistance” for illegal immigrants.

“Border Patrol has inadvertently become the ‘Uber’ for migrants entering San Diego County, and the County is the travel agent,” he concluded.

Illegal immigrants ‘Just Walking Across the Border’

Speaking to Newsnation later on April 25, Mr. Desmond claimed that people are “just walking across the border” and Border Patrol agents “are not empowered to stop them.”

“All they’re doing is processing them once they ... walk across the border,” he told the publication.

The Epoch Times has reached out to San Diego Border Patrol for further comment.

Mr. Desmond’s comments come after he and other San Diego County leaders called on the state and federal governments to bolster security at the border and remove sanctuary city policies amid the ongoing immigration crisis.

Speaking at a press conference alongside several mayors on April 15 near Carlsbad State Beach, Mr. Desmond said more than 125,000 illegal immigrants have entered since September, of which more than 25,000 had been released onto the streets in the past two months.

The county official stressed those figures did not include known “gotaways,” those known to have entered the country illegally while evading Border Patrol.

He further blamed California’s sanctuary city policies for prohibiting law enforcement agencies from working with Immigration Customs and Enforcement to hand over illegal immigrants, even if they are identified as suspects in crimes other than entering the United States illegally.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, on April 17, 2024. (Travis Gillmore/The Epoch Times)

Newsom Praises Biden’s Border Efforts

Mr. Desmond criticized the state for providing “free health care to illegal immigrants,” along with “free legal defense to those here illegally seeking asylum ... no matter what crime they commit.”

He and other Republican county officials, including Carlsbad Mayor Keith Blackburn, Vista Mayor John Franklin, and San Marcos Mayor Rebecca Jones, called upon the state of California and the federal government to do more to address the influx of illegal immigrants while calling for harsher penalties on human smugglers.

“We need to make major changes for the safety of our people, the safety of all of San Diego County,” Mr. Desmond said. “We need the state and federal officials to bring more resources, whether it’s more Coast Guard or National Guard ... We’ve got to come together and allow law enforcement to communicate with ICE. We need to be able to deport criminals out of the country.”

In contrast, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has defended the state’s response to the ongoing immigration crisis while praising the Biden administration for providing millions in federal grants to address the issue.

“Let’s be clear: President Biden is doing all he can to fund border security and humanitarian efforts while Republicans in Congress are choosing border chaos for political gain,” he said in an April 12 statement.

The Democrat went on to accuse congressional Republicans of trying to “undermine opportunities to advance border security” and modernize the immigration system for political gain.

“The Newsom Administration is working in partnership with the Biden-Harris Administration and California Congressional leaders, along with state and local officials, to advocate for federal funding for communities as they support the federal government with a safe and orderly process, further enhancing border security,” the governor said.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/san-diego-official-says-city-new-epicenter-border-crisis

Pentagon Chief Trolls Iran On Effectiveness Of Weapons After Israel Attack

 US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Friday weighed in on the April 13 Iranian attack on Israel, which was the Islamic Republic's first-ever direct attack on the Jewish state.

It included some 300 drones and missiles launched at Israel - the vast majority of which were intercepted by Israeli anti-air defenses, but also with US and Western help, and the deployment of warplanes which shot inbound drones out of the sky. Austin in a press briefing appeared to mock the Iranian attack as weak and ineffective. This comes following Tehran officials deriding Israel's apparent 'limited' retaliation which came on April 19.

"They should be questioning the effectiveness of their weapons systems and their planning," Austin told reporters in reference to the Iranians and their military.

"Hopefully they don’t walk away from this over-confident that they can do this at will, because I think Israel has demonstrated that it has a significant ability to defend itself," Austin added.

While it's clear that some of Iran's ballistic missiles did hit a couple of Israeli airbases in the central and south of the country, many more were intercepted or fell harmlessly in the desert.

A fresh report in Jerusalem Post notes that people are still randomly finding nearly intact missiles in the Negev desert:

...the missiles launched towards Nevatim and other targets in the Negev fell in the South but far from the targets they were aimed at. When they are lying in the Negev devoid of the warheads, they are just metal scraps, which the IDF slowly collects for research and analysis of the enemy's capabilities.

Travelers who were walking in the Arad area of the Judean desert, enjoying the starry night, were surprised to find themselves standing next to a ballistic missile, a remnant of the major attack that Tehran launched against Israel, which included more than 300 suicide drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

This is not the first missile discovered in the south since the attack. Similar missiles were discovered nearby in the Dead Sea area immediately after.

Below via Reuters/JPost: A man stands next to the apparent remains of a ballistic missile, as it lies in the desert near the Dead Sea, following a massive missile and drone attack by Iran on Israel, in southern Israel April 21, 2024

Via Reuters

Despite Austin's criticisms and mockery aimed at Tehran, the Biden administration is breathing a sigh of relief that the whole thing ended in a one-off tit-for-tat which subsided after each side got its strikes in, and not runaway escalation leading to major war. Both sides telegraphed their responses and limited them, in order to ensure the likelihood of avoiding a bigger regional war.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/pentagon-chief-trolls-iran-effectiveness-weapons-after-israel-attack

Immunity For Me But Not For Thee

 by William Woodruff via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Whether Presidential Immunity is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing Shouldn’t Depend Upon Party Affiliation

“Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?” That is the question the Supreme Court will answer when it hears oral argument in Trump v. U.S.  on April 25, 2024.

Legacy media and the ladies of “The View” nearly lost their collective minds when the Court agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s decision denying him immunity for his actions surrounding the events of Jan. 6, 2021. However, even Jack Smith, the Special Counsel prosecuting the case, argued that it was of “imperative public importance” that the Court resolve the immunity question before trial.

But forget about Trump for the moment. The issue is bigger than Trump and his legal woes. As the partisan divide between the left and the right grows larger, there is a real risk that the criminalization of policy differences could raise our current state of “lawfare” to a new level.

Several retired four-star generals and admirals, as well as former cabinet officials, have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that granting immunity to former presidents for actions within the outer perimeter of their official duties would raise questions about the ability of the United States to peacefully transfer power from one administration to another, and thereby pose a grave risk to national security.

The retired officials’ brief also argues that granting immunity would undermine civilian control of the military and undermine trust and confidence in the military as an institution.

The “parade of horribles” in the retired officials’ brief assumes that a future president would instruct subordinate military officers to carry out illegal orders for which they, but not the president, would be criminally liable. The brief also suggests that an unrestrained incumbent would use the military to retain power and, thus, destabilize America’s diplomatic and military standing among nations.

Of course, none of the hypotheticals feared by the brief writers occurred in the case pending before the Court. Apparently, they are afraid not of Donald Trump but of some unidentified future president.

To analyze the pros and cons of immunity, however, there is no need to speculate about what some future president might do. We need only look at actual events from our recent history.

Situation #1

President Obama ordered a drone strike in Yemen to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and Islamic Imam critical of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Before releasing the drones that killed al-Awlaki and two others, the White House sought and received a Memorandum from the Department of Justice providing legal justification for the attack.

Several questions come to mind.  Should the memo from DoJ authorizing the killing of an American citizen abroad without judicial due process immunize President Obama for violating the federal criminal statute that imposes criminal penalties for the extra territorial killing of an American citizen?

Could a subsequent President, a member of the opposing political party, direct a new Attorney General to investigate whether the killing of the U.S. citizen by drone attack in Yemen violated federal criminal law? If an indictment is returned against the now former President for that killing, should President Obama be allowed to claim immunity or be forced to stand trial?

Situation #2

President Biden revoked many of President Trump’s Executive Orders addressing border security when he took office. He also halted construction of physical barriers intended to secure the southern border and stem the flow of illegal border crossings and the smuggling of dangerous drugs.

The number of illegal border crossings skyrocketed. Instead of remaining in Mexico until asylum claims were adjudicated, migrants were “paroled” into the interior of the United States and given a court date for their asylum claim years into the future.

The quantity of illegal drugs, and the deaths of American citizens from accidental drug overdoses smuggled across the southern border, escalated astronomically. Federal law imposes criminal penalties on those who enter the United States illegally. It also punishes conspiracies to violate federal law.

So, if the White House switches parties when President Biden leaves, should the new president’s Attorney General seek an indictment against Biden for conspiring with the Secretary of Homeland Security to violate U.S. immigration laws by facilitating the illegal entry of millions of migrants into the United States? Or should those policy choices be protected by a cloak of immunity?

Situation #3

Eager to deliver on a campaign promise, President Biden announced a policy to “forgive” billions of dollars in student loan debt. The Supreme Court struck down the President’s plan and held that Congress had not authorized the Executive to unilaterally forgive student loan debt.

Instead of seeking legislative authority, President Biden reworked his plan to rely upon a different statute for authority. Assume the courts dismissed lawsuits challenging Biden’s “Plan B” because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. “Plan B” went forward and billions of dollars in federal student loans became “grants” instead of loans that had to be repaid.

The federal Anti-deficiency Act imposes criminal penalties on anyone who authorizes the expenditure of federal funds without a valid congressional appropriation. When President Biden leaves office, can he be indicted and tried because his “Plan B” loan scheme violated federal law?

Presidential Immunity Analysis

Each of the foregoing situations illustrates how  a former President could be subject to indictment for actions taken within the outer perimeter of his official duties as President. Never happen, you say? Surely, no one would try to force these facts into violations of existing law. But Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, and Jack Smith have all engaged in creative lawyering to bring novel criminal charges against Trump. Apparently, some see creative lawyering as a feature and not a bug in our legal system.

While the former Presidents have substantive defenses to the charges and the novel theories advanced in the indictments may be rejected by the courts or nullified by a jury, should the former presidents and the country be put through the spectacle of a criminal trial?

One of the major attributes of immunity is that it avoids the trial in the first place. Instead of placing one’s fate in the hands of a jury and hoping they will accept one or more defenses or justifications for the alleged violations, immunity prevents the trial at the outset. In other words, if the process is the punishment, immunity avoids the process.

Presidential immunity for actions within the outer perimeter of official duties allows a president to make difficult policy and operational decisions without concern for his personal liberty once he leaves office. It also eliminates the temptation to exact a tit for tat when the next election goes to the opposition party.

On the flip side, the existence of presidential immunity may provide unwarranted protection for the actions and decisions of a president who does not really have the best interests of the country at heart. But the Constitution provides two significant checks on that unseemly circumstance: impeachment and the ballot box. Furthermore, the Constitution specifically provides that upon conviction by the Senate in an impeachment trial the person impeached “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

It is tempting to favor or disfavor presidential immunity in criminal cases depending upon the political or personal like or dislike one may have for the indicted former President. Republicans get immunity but Democrats don’t; or vice versa. But if we are to be a nation of laws every former president should be entitled to presidential immunity for alleged criminal acts committed within the outer perimeter of official duties, or no former President should be so immune.

The issue before the Supreme Court is one of first impression. While immunity has been litigated in the context of civil claims, no former President has been indicted for criminal acts while in office, until now. In an ideal world, the answer to the question presented in Trump v. United States would remain nothing more than an interesting topic of discussion among law professors.

But if the last seven or eight years have proved anything it is that we are not living in an ideal world.

William A. Woodruff is a retired Army lawyer who, as Chief of the Army Litigation Division, was responsible for defending Army policies, programs, and operations in federal courts around the country. He retired from active duty in 1992 and taught law for 25 years at Campbell University School of Law in North Carolina.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/immunity-me-not-thee

UCLA Med Students Forced To Take Mandatory 'Fat Positivity' Class

 by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

UCLA medical school is under fire for forcing students to attend ‘health equity’ classes where ‘fat positivity’ is promoted, and reading material claims that the medical term ‘obesity’ is a slur “used to exact violence on fat people.”

Yes, really.

The Washington Free Beacon obtained the  entire syllabus for the mandatory course, titled Structural Racism and Health Equity, which one medical expert who has reviewed it describes as “education designed to ideologically indoctrinate physician-activists.”

As part of the required course, all first year medical students are made to read an essay by ‘fat liberationist’ Marquisele Mercedes (pictured), who uses made up terms like “fatphobia” to argue that the medical profession is biased against fat people, and that trying to lose weight to be more healthy is a “hopeless endeavor” because it is a disability that cannot be reversed.

The essay titled ‘No Health, No Care: The Big Fat Loophole in the Hippocratic Oath,’ claims that weight has become “pathologized and medicalized in racialized terms,” and that fatties are discriminated against by the medical profession, particularly “Black, disabled, trans, poor fat people.”

Unhinged.

The syllabus states that the essay provides guidance on “resisting entrenched fat oppression.”

WFB writer Aaron Sibarium breaks down the syllabus, which is replete with extreme Marxist, gender ideology, and critical race theory positions, in this thread (click through to read):

The findings have been slammed by Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, who warned that the curriculum “promotes extensive and dangerous misinformation.”

Flier charges that UCLA “has centered this required course on a socialist/Marxist ideology that is totally inappropriate,” adding that “As a longstanding medical educator, I found this course truly shocking.”

“This is a profoundly misguided view of obesity, a complex medical disorder with major adverse health consequences for all racial and ethnic groups,” Flier further urged, adding that indoctrinating medical students with such “ignorant” notions constitutes “malpractice.”

Earlier this month, UCLA’s ‘Structural Racism’ course also mandated first-year medical students to sit through a crackpot lecture by a screaming masked up pro-Hamas activist who told them pray to ‘mama Earth’.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that when one student refused to participate, a faculty member “inquired about the student’s identity, implying that discipline could be on the table.”

The course also prompted a civil rights complaint back in January after students were separated into race-based discussion groups, with one for white students, another for African Americans, and a third for “Non-Black People of Color.”

It was only when a Wall Street Journal editorial publicised the complaint, that UCLA moved to cancel the exercise.

Last month, The Daily Wire also published portions of the course’s openly socialist syllabus, including units on “settler colonialism” where students were made to read an essay titled Decolonization Is Not A Metaphor that describes the “epistemic, ontological, cosmological violence” of “the settler.”

This is all just the tip of the iceberg as far as DEI on college campuses goes. Yale, Stanford and Columbia all have similar programs in place, to name just three institutions.

Imagine the fallout of this when today’s students become part of the fabric of the workforce and government of the country.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ucla-students-forced-take-mandatory-fat-positivity-class