Robin Meade

Happy Birthday to the former Miss Ohio!

The Big Idea: California Is So Over

DRIP, DRIP…

04.19.1512:01 AM ET

California’s drought and how it’s handled show just what kind of place the Golden State is becoming: feudal, super-affluent and with an impoverished interior.

California has met the future, and it really doesn’t work. As the mounting panic surrounding the drought suggests, the Golden State, once renowned for meeting human and geographic challenges, is losing its ability to cope with crises. As a result, the great American land of opportunity is devolving into something that resembles feudalism, a society dominated by rich and poor, with little opportunity for upward mobility for the state’s middle- and working classes. 

The water situation reflects this breakdown in the starkest way. Everyone who follows California knew it was inevitable we would suffer a long-term drought. Most of the state—including the Bay Area as well as greater Los Angeles—is semi-arid, and could barely support more than a tiny fraction of its current population. California’s response to aridity has always been primarily an engineering one that followed the old Roman model of siphoning water from the high country to service cities and farms.  

But since the 1970s, California’s water system has become the prisoner of politics and posturing. The great aqueducts connecting the population centers with the great Sierra snowpack are all products of an earlier era—the Los Angeles aqueduct (1913), Hetch-Hetchy (1923), the Central Valley Project (1937), and the California Aqueduct (1974). The primary opposition to expansion has been the green left, which rejects water storage projects as irrelevant. 

Yet at the same time greens and their allies in academia and the mainstream pressare those most likely to see the current drought as part of a climate change-induced reduction in snowpack. That many scientists disagree with this assessment is almost beside the point. Whether climate change will make things better or worse is certainly an important concern, but California was going to have problems meeting its water needs under any circumstances.  

Not Meeting the Challenges. 

It’s not like we haven’t been around this particular block before. In the 1860s, a severe drought all but destroyed LA’s once-flourishing cattle industry. This drought was followed by torrential rains that caused their own havoc. The state has suffered three major droughts since I have lived here—in the mid ’70s, the mid ’80s and again today—but long ago (even before I got there) some real whoppers occurred, including dry periods that lasted upwards of 200 years.  

This, like the threat of earthquakes, is part of the price we pay to live in this most beautiful and usually temperate of states. The real issue is how to meet this challenge, and here the response has been slow and lacking in vision. Not all of this is to be blamed on the greens, who dominate the state politically. California agriculture, for example, was among the last in the nation to agree to monitoringof groundwater. Farmers have also been slow to adjust their crops toward less water-dependent varieties; they continue to plant alfalfa, cotton, and other crops that may be better grown in more water-rich areas. 

Many cities, too, have been slow to meet the challenge. Some long resisted metering of water use. Other places have been slow to encourage drought-resistant landscaping, which is already pretty de rigeur in more aridity-conscious desert cities like Tucson. This process may take time, but it is already showing value in places like Los Angeles where water agencies provide incentives. 

But ultimately the responsibility for California’s future lies with our political leadership, who need to develop the kind of typically bold approaches past generations have embraced. One step would be building new storage capacity, which Governor Jerry Brown, after opposing it for years, has begun to admit is necessary. Desalinization, widely used in the even more arid Middle East, notably Israel, has been blocked by environmental interests but could tap a virtually unlimited supply of the wet stuff, and lies close to the state’s most densely populated areas. Essentially the state could build enough desalinization facilities, and the energy plants to run them, for less money than Brown wants to spend on his high-speed choo-choo to nowhere. This piece of infrastructure is so irrelevant to the state’s needs that even many progressives, such as Mother Jones’ KevinDrum, consider it a “ridiculous” waste of money. 

We are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation. 

And there needs to be, at least for the short term,an end to dumping water into San Francisco Bay for the purpose of restoring a long-gone salmon run, or to the Delta, in order to save a bait-fish, the Delta smelt, which may already be close to extinct. This dumping of water has continued even as the state has faced a potentially crippling water shortage; nothing is too good for our fish, or to salve the hyper-heated consciousness of the environmental illuminati. 

The Political Equation 

The biggest reason California has been so slow, and uncharacteristically feckless, in meeting this existential challenge lies with psychology and ends with political power. The generation that built the sinews of modern California—most notably the late Governor Pat Brown Sr., the current governor’s father—sprang from the old progressive spirit which saw in infrastructure development a chance not only to create new wealth, but also provide opportunity to working- and middle-class Californians. 

Indeed, if you look at California’s greatest achievements as a society, the Pat Brown legacy stands at the core. The California Aqueduct turned vast stretches of the Central Valley into one of the most productive farming regions in the world. The freeway system, now in often shocking disrepair, allowed for the construction of mass suburbia that offered millions a quality of life never experienced by previous generations. At the same time the development of energy resources—California still boasts the nation’s third-largest oil production—helped create a huge industrial base that included aerospace, semiconductors, and a host of specialized industries, from logistics to garment manufacturing. 

In contrast, Jerry Brown has waged a kind of Oedipal struggle against his father’s legacy. Like many Californians, he recoiled against the sometimes haphazard and even ugly form of development that plowed through much of the state. Cutting off water is arguably the most effective way to stop all development, and promote Brown’s stated goal of eliminating suburban “sprawl.” It is typical that his first target for cutbacks this year has been the “lawns” of the middle-class suburbanite, a species for which he has shown little interest or tolerance.  

But it’s not just water that exemplifies the current “era of limits” psychology. Energy development has always been in green crosshairs and their harassment has all but succeeded in helping drive much of the oil and gas industry, including corporate headquarters, out of the state. Not building roads—arguably to be replaced by trains—has not exactly reduced traffic but given California the honor of having eight of the top 20 cities nationally with poor roads; the percentage of Los Angeles-area residents who take transit has, if anything, declined slightlysince train-building began. All we are left with are impossible freeways, crumbling streets, and ever more difficulty doing anything that requires traveling.  

The Road to Feudalism 

These policies have had numerous impacts, like weakening California’s industrial sector, which cannot afford energy prices that can be twice as high as in competing states. Some of those who might have worked in the factories, warehouses, and farms of California now help swell the numbers of the welfare recipients, who remarkably make up one-third of the nation’s total. As recently as the 1970s and ’80s, the percentage of people living in poverty in California wasbelow the national average; California today, based on cost of living, has thehighest poverty rate in the country.  

Of course, the rich and entitled, particularly in Silicon Valley have achieved unprecedented riches, but those middle-class Californians once served by Pat have largely been abandoned by his son. California, long a relative beacon of equality and opportunity, now has the fourth-highest rate of inequality in the country. For those who, like me, bought their first home over 30 years ago, high housing prices, exacerbated by regulation, are a personal piggybank. But it’s doubtful either of my daughters will ever be able to buy a house here. 

What about “green jobs”? California leads in total number of green jobs, simply by dint of size, but on a per-capita basis, a recent Brookings study notes, California is about average. In wind energy, in fact, California is not even in first place; that honor goes to, of all places, Texas, which boasts twice California’s level of production. Today even  The New York Times has described Governor Jerry Brown’s promise about creating a half-million green jobs as something of a “pipe dream.” Even surviving solar firms, busy in part to meet the state’s strict renewable mandates, acknowledge that they won’t be doing much of the manufacturing here, anyway. 

The Cost of Narcissism 

Ultimately this is a story of a state that has gotten tired, having lost its “animal spirits” for the policy equivalent of a vegan diet. Increasingly it’s all about how the elites in the state—who cluster along the expensive coastal areas—feel about themselves. Even Brown knows that his environmental agenda will do little, or nothing, to combat climate change, given the already minimal impact of the state on carbon emissions compared to escalating fossil fuel use in China, India and elsewhere. But the cosmopolitan former Jesuit gives more priority to his spiritual service to Gaia than the needs of his non-affluent constituents.  

But progressive narcissism is, as some conservatives assert, not the main problem. California greens are, to be sure, active, articulate, well-organized, and well-financed. What they lack is an effective counterpoint from the business class, who would be expected to challenge some of their policies. But the business leadership often seems to be more concerned with how to adjust the status quo to serve privileged large businesses, including some in agriculture, than boosting the overall economy. The greens, and their public-sector allies, can dominate not because they are so effective as that their potential opposition is weak, intimidated, and self-obsessed. 

What we are witnessing the breakdown of a once-expansive, open society into one dominated by a small group of plutocrats, largely in Silicon Valley, with an “amen” crew among the low-information donors of Hollywood, the public unions, the green lobby, and wealthy real estate developers favored by Brown’s pro-density policies. This coalition backs Brown and helps maintain the state’s essentially one-party system. No one is more adamant about reducing people’s carbon footprint than the jet set of Silicon Valley or the state’s planning elite, even if they choose not to live in a manner that they instruct all others.

This fundamentally hypocritical regime remains in place because it works—for the powerful and well-placed. Less understandable is why many Hispanic politicians, such as Assembly Speaker Kevin de Leon, also prioritize “climate change” as his leading issue, without thinking much about how these policies might worsen the massive poverty in his de-industrializing L.A. district—until you realize that de Leon is bankrolled by Tom Steyer and others from the green uberclass.

So, in the end, we are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation. True, it has some virtues: greener, cleaner, and more “progressive” on social issues. But it’s also becoming increasingly feudal, defined by a super-affluent coastal class and an increasingly impoverished interior. As water prices rise, and farms and lawns are abandoned, there’s little thought about how to create a better future for the bulk of Californians. Like medieval peasants, millions of Californians have been force to submit to the theology of our elected high priest and his acolytes, leaving behind any aspirations that the Golden State can work for them too.

Joel Kotkin is the RC Hobbs Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange, California, and director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His last book, The New Class Conflict, was published by Telos Press Publishing in 2014.

What Is A Social Justice Warrior (SJW)?

October 6, 2014

Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.

The true definition of SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists and liberals who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda, censor speech, and punish individuals by getting them terminated from their employment. They have also been successful at positioning themselves in the upper echelons of universities, media organizations, and tech companies.

SJW’s do not view all humans as equal

Using a “privilege” hierarchy, SJW’s calculate the worth of a human being based on perceived injustices or wrongs that group has suffered since the time of ancestral man, using selective and narrow interpretations of history. SJW’s elevate groups that they believe have received the least amount of “privilege” in the past, and then use internet activism in the form of mobs and community purges to target those who are determined to have greater amounts of privilege. The idea of privilege is so essential to SJW ideology that a common debate tactic they use is to say “check your privilege,” which roughly translates to, “you must immediately halt or change your speech because your ancestors may or may not have done bad things to women or minority races.”

For example, if a notable white American male makes a joke about a lesbian black woman who practices Islam, SJW’s will coordinate using a combination of blogs, Youtube, and social networking to dox him (publish his personal information, including where he works). They will then pressure the man’s company by flooding it with calls and messages with the goal to remove his source of income while engaging in a mass reporting campaign to get his online accounts suspended.

Their ultimate goal is to silence all speech that they don’t like and which they find offensive while also punishing the speech offender by removing his source of income. As they grow in power, the acceptable range of speech that would trigger an SJW witch hunt is becoming more narrow, and those who are high up on the privilege hierarchy (white men) have to speak through a careful filter if they don’t want to be subject to an SJW attack.

Former Mozilla CEO was subject to a successful witch hunt for his past support of traditional marriage

They believe consensus is more important than objectivity

SJW’s do not believe in objectivity. Instead, speech and ideas must be viewed relatively depending on the source and its intended audience. The feeling of the statement must also be taken into account, which can be affected by current news, cultural moods, and pop trends.

For example let’s consider the statement “Asian people are nerds.” If a famous white man uttered this phrase on Twitter after a major Japanese earthquake, a punitive SJW witch hunt may be triggered, but if a popular gay black female Youtuber said the exact same statement, no action would be taken. The reason is because the black woman is low in the SJW privilege hierarchy and therefore has a greater range of free speech that she could give before triggering a witch hunt. The white man, who is at the top of the privilege hierarchy, has no leeway to make a joke about any race since he is not in a protected SJW class. He would be decried as racist and a bigot, in spite of the fact that a statement like “Asian people are nerds” has low ambiguity regardless of the race or status of the person who said it.

The lack of such objectivity in SJWism is by design. It’s borrowed from Cultural Marxist thought, which argues that objectivity and the idea of right or wrong is less important than consensus. The reason is that consensus can be easily accomplished by controlling the narrative—cultural facts, ideas, and memes that are possessed by a specific population. If one can manufacture consensus by controlling this narrative through domination of the media or by swiftly eliminating speech which goes against what “should” be believed, specific beliefs can be held even if they go against proven scientific thought or basic rationale. SJW tactics evolved by necessity to keep their ideology alive in a modern climate where science—even 100-year-old science—contradicts the bulk of their ideas.

For example, a basic tenet of SJW thought is that there is no difference between men and women besides their physical bodies, that evolution stopped at the neck for human beings and gave both sexes an identical brain. Human biology can not sustain this notion [1] [2] [3], so when a person tries to state that men and women are different to a large audience, the SJW does one of three things:

(1) Attempts to censor the speech through mob action
(2) Calls the person a misogynist who hates women to inoculate the general population from considering the accurate information presented
(3) Destroys the livelihood of the person by contacting his employer so that he is less able to exercise his free speech

You’ll often encounter SJW debate tactics trying to use consensus to persuade you: “How can you think X when so many people think Y?” As you may already know, consensus is a poor judge of facts or morality. Consensus used to believe that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Sadly, many great men were imprisoned or executed for going against consensus on beliefs that we know are true today. Consensus in America also supported the institution of slavery, which of course didn’t make it right. And not long ago consensus believed in segregation between whites and blacks, even in the north where slavery was not practiced. Consensus has been shown to be a dangerous method to validate ideas or behavior.

Observers will note that information control is a huge component of SJW ideology. They have no other choice—their ideas do not hold water to basic science and logic so SJW’s evolved mechanisms where they must control and censor speech which goes against their beliefs. By controlling what arguments or ideas people are exposed to, they have a greater chance of convincing others through manipulation and outright bullying of their world view to create the consensus they need to affect societal change. Some individuals buy into their cause because opposing viewpoints were hidden from them, often labeled as “hate speech.”

An SJW writer implores readers not to pursue an area of study that conflicts with her world view

Cultural Marxist thought promotes subjectivity

The messenger is more important than the message

A big chunk of their activism depends on subjective feeling and perceived value of the parties involved. Before an SJW can make a decision on what is right or wrong, she must first know the race, gender, and sexuality of the involved participants so that she can decide whether or not to be outraged. A statement or idea in isolation is not enough for them to come to a conclusion on the acceptability of a statement. For example, consider the following statement:

“Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control.”

An SJW could not definitively respond to this statement unless they knew who uttered it. If I—a Caucasian man—published this statement on a popular site like CNN, the outrage would be immense. Most comments would accuse me of hating women and wanting to control their bodies. A petition would be started to prevent me from ever writing on CNN again. On the other hand, if a popular feminist like Jessica Valenti said this statement in the same publication, the response would be more balanced. She would receive some criticism but even support from individuals who would try to destroy my life had I said the exact same thing.

A person who believes in the scientific method would not be swayed by the messenger. They would analyze the statement and attempt to either verify it or not based on logic. SJW’s avoid such objective behavior.

A Harvard university student urges we replace academic freedom with her sense of social justice

Some groups are more deserving of equality than others

SJW’s make a big show of wanting “equality,” but as the Animal Farm quote goes: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” They absolutely do not believe that a man deserves the same treatment that should be given to a woman of his same race. When they say “equality,” what they really mean is to apply special benefits to protected groups in order to create equality based on their subjective perception and feeling. They even go so far as to claim that women and non-whites can not possibly be racist against white men. If a black woman calls a white man a cracker, honky, redneck, hick, or peckerwood, she’s correcting historical wrongs and injustices, not being a racist individual.

Since they have no objective measure or guide of equality, it is only achieved when theyfeel it has been achieved, but then that would destroy the very reason for their existence, meaning that their war on inequality is similar to the war on drugs or terrorism. It’s a perpetual war that will never be won in their minds because there will always be the creation of a new group needing privilege and equality. If you substitute the word “power” whenever they use “equality,” you’ll come to a more accurate descriptor of what motivates their activism.

If you want to do a simple test that hurts an SJW’s argument that she is about equality, ask her the following: “Do you believe a black woman is equal to a white woman?” They will squirm mightily and may look to the left and right at their SJW friends to know what they think first before giving you a muddled answer that is inconsistent with their other stated beliefs.

Rape jokes are okay against those groups who have no protection in the SJW privilege hierarchy

SJW’s are human label machines

If censorship is not an option, SJW’s attempt to destroy the reputation of the speech offender by labeling him a racist, misogynist, creep, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, or transphobe. This is one of their most reliable tactics to prime the general public against listening to individuals they don’t like because of the negative weight that such terms still carry. I personally have been called every label under the sun and a site I operate, Return Of Kings, was denounced in mainstream blogs sympathetic to SJW’s and then put on blacklists.

While labels are still effective today, SJW’s are diluting the power of them through overuse. If the majority of men are decided to be “misogynist,” the general public will become desensitized to hearing it. We are already seeing signs of this whereby SJW’s have to escalate the labels to outright crimes. A tactic I have been seeing lately is accusing men of “sexual harassment,” which is often when a man did nothing more than factually criticize a woman or flirt with her.

Even worse, SJW’s have started labeling men as rapists based on anonymous internet allegations, even when the supposed victims never reported the crime to police. It doesn’t matter that a conviction is not present via due process of law, and “rapist” labels persist against men even when authorities refuse to file charges. This eradicates the presumption of innocence whereby an individual is innocent until proven guilty, a basic right used since Roman times and included in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s possible that we may reach a point where all men are presumed to have raped a woman, and when a men says something improper, this label will be used against him to limit his speech.

When SJW corruption was revealed in gaming journalism, the “misogyny” label was used to marginalize the speech of concerned gamers

Buzzfeed published an anonymous rape accusation against a man who was subject to a massive SJW witch hunt on Youtube (the alleged victim never went to the police)

A female at the University Of Chicago publicly posted a “rape list” denouncing men who have never been accused or convicted of rape

An SJW does not believe that men should get due process

Unwilling to engage in open debate

Another feature of the SJW is their total unwillingness to engage in a civilized one-on-one debate instead of mob action through what they call “campaigns” or “pressure groups.” Unable to take criticism or consider factual evidence, a lone SJW will respond to having her arguments defeated by playing the victim card (“Stop attacking me!”, “Stop triggering me!”, “Stop shaming me!”) or engaging in one of numerous argumentative fallacies. These tactics are used to buy time before fading back into the power and safety of her large mob group.

SJW’s avoid engaging in debate because they do not have the logical tools that an objective discussion requires. If your beliefs are held together by subjectivity, feelings, and the perceived worth of an individual based on an imaginary scale of privilege, it would be impossible for you to debate someone else who uses facts. The lack of educational rigor in SJW communities means they are more comfortable re-blogging content on Tumblr or sharing funny images than sifting through scientific data to find proof of what they claim.

On university campuses, it’s common for SJW’s to obstruct speakers they can not defeat with facts. To some observers, this behavior may resemble a child putting his fingers in his ears and yelling as loud as he can. They have no choice but to silence someone else’s speech because their own speech can not properly counter arguments that go against their world view. They simply don’t have the intellectual rigor to do so.

SJW’s shout down a university speech and then halt it completely by setting off a fire alarm, possibly breaking local laws in the process

SJW’s at the University Of Toronto push and shove in an attempt to cancel a speech by a speaker they disagree with

Feminist professor steals protests signs that she disagrees with and then assaults the protester (she was later charged and given probation)

Complete absence of fixed morality

Thanks to the subjectiveness of their ideology, SJW’s lack morality or virtue. The reason this is a feature and not a bug to the SJW is because accumulated knowledge, morals, and wisdom of the past was developed and promoted by white men, who are seen as the harbingers or pain and doom to the classes that they want to protect.

Even if Aristotle, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Thomas Aquinas, or Henry David Thoreau had valuable wisdom that continues to help how millions of people live today, the information derived from their work must be completely discarded since they were white men. Since white men were at the forefront of advancing humanity for the past several centuries, especially after the decline of the Egyptian, Persian, Mongol, and Ottoman empires, this precludes the bulk of moral guidance that we can use to determine right and wrong. SJW’s invent their own moral code but it is often based on what they are upset about in the present moment. It does not serve as a guide for more than a month or two, suggesting that their book of code would have to be written in pencil.

The biggest exception I’ve found to their discrimination against white men is Steve Jobs, inventor of the iPhone, a gadget that SJW’s prefer to use. The irony of this is that SJW’s are against “greedy” capitalism in favor of socialism or communism, but iPhones are made with low-cost labor in Asia where some workers have committed suicide in the very factories the phones are produced because of horrid working conditions. SJW’s are capable of applying blind spots to their most cherished ideals so that their consumer lifestyle is not inconvenienced.

SJW’s don’t believe in god, have no belief in the heterosexual nuclear family as the principal unit of human organization, and have no sense of local community as opposed to ones that exist solely on the internet. Instead of reading historical texts for guidance, they read Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, and Reddit. A significant amount of them gets their information from image-based memes that they share enthusiastically on Imgur and Facebook. They are pagans who worship women, minorities, homosexuals, and other non-capitalistic or non-Catholic features of humanity. Since their belief system is based on trends and feelings, an SJW will display rapidly shifting thought from one month to the next depending on what is “hot” or not in SJW discussion forums.

As of late, homosexuality—an alternative lifestyle at best and the disseminator of HIV at worst—seems to be the centerpiece of their activism, especially as the homosexual marriage issue has become suddenly more urgent in America in the past five years. Some predict that the bulk of their activism will now move onto transsexuality, and one must wonder how the movement will handle so many fringe groups that are angling for least privileged status.

A convention for the Tumblr platform, the principal online home of most SJW’s, displays how alternative the lifestyles of these individuals are

SJW’s are sexually confused and admittedly mentally ill

Many SJW’s readily admit to serious mental illness and being bullied or mocked as a kid. They have gone on to be bullies themselves on the internet, a platform where physical strength, courage, or defined identity is not needed to be an effective activist. Even though they are confused about how to live their own lives thanks to the lack of values they possess, and many deal with suicide, cutting, or other mental issues that prevent them from reading certain articles without a “trigger warning” to act as a disclaimer to reality, they have no problem telling society how to live. It’s unclear why they respond to their life problems in such a manner instead of seeking professional help or reading self-help, but we can speculate that they seek to control others to compensate for the lack of control they have in their own lives. SJWism is a form of treatment to their problems because they can focus on the perceived problems of other people instead of their own.

A common problem SJW’s have is confusion about their own sexual identity or outright biological sex. Most of them find out about SJWism when they are in their teen years and not yet absolutely certain of their sexual preference. Once exposed to SJW writing that presents the theory that two sexes don’t exist, proven biology is wrong, and that you are free to place yourself on a kaleidoscope of gender including multiple kinds of homosexuality and transsexuality, the newly SJW activist mixes and matches her sexual identity to seek approval within her new group.

SJW’s have invented new sexes and sexual preferences, the most popular of which being pansexual, the definition of which can vary depending on which SJW you ask but which comes close to bisexuality. Other inventions include polysexuality, genderqueer, pangender, skoliosexual, and the most curious one of all which assumes a new mammalian life form that science has yet to describe—trigender.

While many of their members are plain vanilla heterosexual, they despise any sexuality or behavior that comes from the straight male. A male is someone exhibiting offensive privilege when he rates a girl on her attractiveness, exhibits a preference for thin women, or flirts with a woman he wants to have sex with, but when a woman does the same things, she is making an empowered display of her sexuality and must therefore be encouraged. The male sex drive is considered dangerous and oppressive to women but the female sex drive is wonderful, natural, and deserving of firm praise.

It’s worth noting that some in the SJW community believe that all penis-in-vagina sex is rape, even when the sex is consensual. Masculinity exhibited by men is dangerous and criminal, but masculine behaviors in women (cutting their hair short, becoming burly in body size, cursing, sexually pursuing other women) are promoted. Again, this highlights the subjectivity and inequality of SJW thought.

A popular website tries to persuade its readers with images that homosexual marriage is “better” than traditional marriage

Youtube is full of young SJW’s coming out to declare their pansexuality

How did SJW’s become such a powerful force?

We can only speculate why an ideology that is so removed from science and Western values has established roots in America. One theory is that their ideology is soma for confused people who have been disappointed in life or have failed in achieving their goals. It’s easy for these sub-performers to flock to an ideology that says, “You failed because you were held down by the white patriarchy, who still maintains invincible privilege and is robbing you of your daily bread and happiness.”

Obviously, it’s a much easier job to blame others or play the victim card than to solve the individual problems of your life. Hard work is not as valued in today’s society as in the past, so when you give someone a choice between expending effort on one hand to complaining and mob bullying on the other, it’s not hard to see how many (as in millions of people) pick the latter option. It’s also more satisfying to their egos from a power standpoint.

That leads to the question of why straight white males become a part of the SJW movement, since it would be similar to a Jewish person joining the Nazis. Most of these men are shy with low confidence and low muscle mass. They have social anxiety issues and simply want to be part of a co-ed group that increases their access to women. It turns out that white men are carrying the water of SJW’s who would denounce them in a second all for the hopes of getting sex. The male sex drive is so strong that a man is willing to throw his entire race and sex under the bus in order to possibly fornicate with a woman.

Even though men are usually the targets of SJW’s, it is not uncommon for them to turn on their own. For example, if a white woman, a protected group in SJW ideology, offends a transsexual, who is more protected on the privilege scale, SJW’s may attack the white woman, even if they may have defended her previously (this happened with Laci Green, a protected feminist who once used the word “tranny” and was threatened with death by transsexual SJW’s). Since SJW’ism is so subjective, at whim to constantly shifting winds, an SJW who is on the right side of SJW thought today may find themselves on the wrong side tomorrow.

Video shows how a video game organization was infiltrated by feminists

Infographic shows how popular image forum 4chan was infiltrated by SJW’s (click here for full image)

A parody image suggesting that anything can be considered offensive to an SJW

What do SJW’s want to achieve?

Their goal is power and domination over the Western cultural narrative to manufacture a consensus that is aligned with their extreme far-left ideology. Since their ideas are so far removed from science, logic, and rationale, this requires a complete control of information to disseminate their immoral world view along with the complete silencing of those who contradict them. It is not clear what their end game is when it comes to the white men who they believe are a bane to planet Earth, but it’s not a stretch to predict violence in the future assuming their mobs grow in size, anger, and power, which would put them close to being classified as terrorists according to the FBI. Currently their main strategies are bullying, spreading propaganda, and censoring opponents.

A growing way they have been accomplishing this goals is by installing SJW activists in prominent institution and communities. Many are now active moderators on popular forums, leaders in campus groups, tenured professors, or popular bloggers and entertainers who have huge audiences they spread SJW propaganda to. Some SJW’s, like Zoe Quinn, simply achieved prominent status by having heterosexual sex with men who have access to information that they want to modulate. Since most feminists, progressives, and liberals are sympathetic to the SJW cause, it’s easy to see how they have reached a stunning amount of influence in America to spread their message.

SJW’s threaten violence if they don’t get their way

SJW’s have co-opted games journalism to review video games as sexist, misogynist, and racist

Prominent SJW Laurie Penny is humiliated at a conference after labeling a distinguished male historian as racist and xenophobic

Social Justice Warriors are a threat to Western values

SJW’s utilize censorship, discriminate against white men, and disagree with basic human rights concerning due process that has existed in the Western legal canon for centuries. They are against free speech as granted by the US Constitution and don’t believe that all men are created equal. They disregard science and wrongly apply labels, accusations, and criminal allegations to those who dare cross their path. They have determined that some groups should be elevated to receive more benefits and speech rights than others, and have been successful in silencing the speech of those whom they disagree with through their internet witch mobs. They continue to infect every group, platform, and community that they come into contact with. Their goal is not to add value or to create, but to control the flow of ideas and thereby thought. Their values are opposed to Western values.

SJW ideas have reached a critical mass in America. University students are indoctrinated with progressive thought that is becoming aligned with SJWism, and even students in grade school are becoming exposed to SJW ideas through feminist-friendly teachers who read the same sites as SJW’s. My fear is that their efforts at censorship and cultural domination will become more onerous as they cement positions in prominent media companies, Silicon Valley, universities, and even in politics. If your belief system is against that of SJW’s, it would be prudent to take measures to protect yourself from their witch hunts, because there is no sign that they will be weakening in power anytime soon.