The Democrats’ Social-Justice Hoax

Slap “justice” on just about anything, and Democrat voters will go for it

Did you know that there’s a whole “progressive” group called the “Justice Democrats”? Well, now you do.

I remember the first time I heard the term “Climate Justice.” I realized that something big was happening, but I couldn’t grasp its significance. I was watching some TV program hosted by two women. One of them was obviously reading from a script when, in the midst of a sentence, she stumbled across this term. She seemed baffled as she read the words hesitantly, as though she had no idea what they meant. Her co-host looked bewildered. I too was flummoxed.

I shouldn’t have been. I should have realized immediately that the Democrats had humanized their Climate Change agenda by creating yet another social-justice hoax: they had tacked the word “justice” onto the word “climate,” and in so doing they’d created a story that their voters could grasp.

It’s all about the story

Why did Democrats create “Climate Justice,” which just a few years ago was nonexistent, but today is in every online dictionary? What was the point, when they already had perfectly good terms like Climate Change and Global Warming?

The problem is that Climate Change and Global Warming aren’t perfectly good.  They have a problem: they’re not stories. “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” are just phenomena, whether real or imaginary. Low-functioning voters don’t relate to phenomena. The Democrats’ target audience reads People Magazine, which features the latest exploits of the Kardashians. Low-functioning voters want stories, not phenomena, and stories are what Democrats give them.

Most people don’t relate to facts or data or statistics at all. They relate only to stories. Climate Justice is a story. Someone, somewhere, you see, is being wronged, and Democrats are coming to the rescue. Democrats are superman, only without the cape.

How do Democrats get away with maintaining an open southern border? Well, you see, it’s about justice. Illegal aliens are actually climate refugees seeking asylum from the climate crisis that we here in the USA have created by driving around in our cars, and so it is our responsibility to take care of them. Suddenly, asylum seekers no longer need to prove that they are running from political persecution elsewhere because they are really seeking asylum from us. Wherever they came from, no matter where it is, their former homelands are now unlivable because of intolerable weather conditions caused by temperatures that, 100 years from now, will supposedly be two degrees warmer than today. Not only that: their homelands will soon be underwater.

It all makes sense when you consider the political effects. You can’t delude clueless parents into forcing their kids to march in the streets because of some weather phenomenon, but gosh, make it into a story about desperate refugees escaping the horrible weather we’ve caused, and you’ll have an endless line of suckers waiting to do your bidding.

Recently potty-trained people, advising us on problems that real scientists with supercomputers can’t solve

This is why we have Climate Justice - it’s so that Hillary Clinton, who likely cannot distinguish a thermometer from a barometer, can claim that half a million people died last year (especially pregnant women, no less) due to man-made CO2 emissions. In one swoop, she’s talking not just about one, but two, count ‘em two, social justice issues: Climate Justice and Gender Justice. Two for the price of one! (Strangely, though, she has no statement yet on how men competing in women’s sports denies women “justice”.)

Josef Stalin supposedly said, “One death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic.” Climate Justice is a story, but Climate Change and Global Warming are just statistics. Like Stalin, Democrats know how to grab the attention and devotion of the sheeple.

Everything is now about “justice”

Democrats are much better than Republicans at reaching insipid voters. Democrats realize that the U.S. population is full of people who fancy themselves as saviors. They know that the word “justice” works magic on the sheeple, so they’ve created a tapestry of “justice” causes to enlist folks from all walks of life. Democrats have armies of self-imagined heroes who think they’re working for:

• social justice

• racial justice

• climate justice

• LGBTQXYZ++ justice

• health care justice

• voter justice

• gender justice (formerly “women’s rights”), including pay-gap justice

• immigrant justice

• housing justice

• you-name-it justice

Good heavens, you can walk into Walmart and buy a whole line of “Justice” clothing for your daughters. Really, you can tack “justice” onto almost any word or phrase, and some subset of the population will be dumb enough to fall for it. Democrat strategists spend their days cooking up new “justice” initiatives with which to enlist you. They know you’ll buy it, and if not you then certainly your kids.

Rule by Coalition

The Democrats’ justice franchise is a natural extension of their decades-old election strategy, which derives from the fact that the only large ethnic voting bloc in the USA is white people:

and white people tend to vote Republican:

Democrats must contend with a registered-voter pool that is 71% white and tends to vote Republican by a ratio of about 60% to 40%. That’s a tough nut to crack.

They’ve solved this problem for decades by forming a coalition of small voting groups. To overcome the Republican-voting majority, Democrats must galvanize members of these small groups to be inordinately politically active. Their method is simple: convince members of these groups that the Republican majority has committed grave injustices against them, and that Democrat leaders will right those wrongs.

Converting a self-sufficient society into a dependent one

To implement their social justice strategy, Democrats must appeal to people who imagine themselves as underdogs. This works better if those people’s self-perception is actually correct.

Democrats are socialists, and they are increasingly open about it. As Lenin informed us, the goal of socialism is communism. In self-sufficient (i.e. capitalist) societies, power is distributed among producers, so capitalism frustrates megalomaniacs who seek absolute power - particularly those who have no aptitude for production and who therefore gravitate toward positions in government. Humans are naturally inclined toward open markets, as evidenced by the ubiquitous presence of such markets (at least local ones) in even the poorest societies. Democrats must therefore force populations into the non-productive communist model, but they’ve discovered that the relatively affluent  U.S. population cannot be suddenly tricked into communism; the change must instead occur gradually over generations.

Democrats’ primary method of disabling us is their promotion of social liberalism, which paints a pleasant face on self-destructive behaviors. Social liberalism has been popularized to the point where even “conservatives”, who seek to maintain a façade of “tolerance” and even libertarianism, now claim to be social liberals.

Despite being the most injured victims of social liberalism, women, especially young women, seem most inclined to buy into it. Democrats are apparently very good at courting women:

This is no accident. Women, due to their innate tendencies to nurture children and protect them from harm, are probably more susceptible than men to “social justice” messaging.

Consider the typical lower-class socially liberal woman:

• She gets lots of abortions that she can’t afford.

• She and her partners get a lot of STDs that they can’t afford.*

• Despite her past abortions, she likely has multiple children by multiple males who are not around.

• As a female head-of-household, she is unlikely to be able to support herself, much less her children.

• She and her children suffer a hopeless, subsistence existence, living primarily from government handouts.

• Failing to understand the real source of her problem, she is amenable to the idea that someone must be oppressing her.

Her personal destruction and the destruction of her children are somehow invisible to more affluent Democrat voters, who actually celebrate our societal collapse. As erstwhile hippie Neil Young attests, “Welfare mothers make better lovers”, much to the delight of well-heeled male predators (Young became a multimillionaire by selling his self-serving ideology to the sheeple).

More than ever, Democrats are slipping socialist initiatives into our economy, both via their obvious “welfare” system and also via less obvious means, such as their “Community School Model,” which eliminates the family as a child’s source of support, while conveniently providing a backdoor for Planned Parenthood to provide its “services” to a captive audience. Year after year, government-supplied benefits increase (“free” school lunches for all, anyone?) while self-sufficient families disappear, all in the name of justice.

The enemy of Democrats is the self-sufficient family. The ideal Democrat citizen is a wholly captive “welfare” recipient who is completely at the mercy of government. Once you are rendered helpless, you will need (and you will vote for) a champion, a social-justice hero, to save you. What more likely Democrat voter could there be than a child who was raised in a socially liberal “household,” mostly under the care of the friendly folks at the local “community school,” a child who looks (with envy) upon his/her few peers who know who their fathers are?

Using linguistic tricks to become indisputable

Consider these terms:

• fact checker

• hate speech

These have become nouns that you can find in online dictionaries. These did not arrive by accident; they were designed. Do you really believe that there are “fact checkers” who somehow possess indisputable “facts” and who are therefore qualified to judge whatever subject is at hand - just because they refer to themselves as “fact checkers”? I would laugh, except for the frightening fact that so many people actually buy this.

Similarly, the average person hears a term like “hate speech” and immediately imagines that the accuser has some indisputable authority to condemn someone.  The linguistic trick works because everyone has some reasonable conception of “hate,” and also holds the misconception that all who use that word share that conception. Democrats understand this and  use it to their advantage.

Were you aware that there is an organization that calls itself the “Center for Countering Digital Hate”? Its purpose, apparently, is to censor the Internet - in other words, to limit or eliminate your access to “alternative” voices. The Center for Countering Digital Hate (hereafter “CCDH”) claims to know the truth about subjects like “climate change” and “vaccines” and such, and wants to protect you from “misinformation” that might lead you away from mainstream narratives.

CCDH seems very much like the older Media Matters - another bunch of “good guys” looking out for our best interests. A primary strategy of both the CCDH and Media Matters is to dissuade advertisers from running ads on anything other than mainstream media. You’ll never hear a disparaging word about “vaccines” or “climate change” on CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN, BBC and such, and these two aforementioned “nonprofit” organizations are here to ensure that you have no other options.

As George Orwell wrote in “1984”:

“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.”

The key, then, is to ensure that the masses are not permitted to have any standards of comparison.

The end game

Media Matters was formed in 2004, presumably to rid Democrats and globalists of the competition that the Internet was providing for their wholly-owned mainstream media. In 2018, the same sorts of folks seem to have doubled down by creating the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

From the difference in the two organizations’ names, we can see that they’ve learned a lesson. It's hard to make a story out of the name Media Matters; the name is more of a policy statement. But there’s a story in the name Center for Countering Digital Hate. Somebody bad is hating some victim. There are good guys and bad guys, and we are going to enlist you, the average dupe, in the good fight. This is a matter of social justice.

How can Democrats demonize people who don’t subscribe to their Climate Justice hoax, most especially those who publish alternative opinions? Well, simply have the Center for Countering Digital Hate attack them. Now it’s not just a matter of policy or science; it’s a matter of hate and justice. There’s a story here. And, of course, at the end of the story the “haters” get punished.

For decades the term “hate crime” has been foisted upon us, but the intent was never just to create a new dictionary entry; the purpose has been to put people in prison. If you are convicted of a crime you might go to jail, but if the prosecution can frame that same conviction as a “hate crime”, you’ll probably go to jail for longer. According to LA law firm Greg Hill & Associates, converting an ordinary crime into a “hate crime” can result in extending one’s prison sentence by up to three years. So you see, there are more than just words at play here.

It seems pretty clear where we are heading with the Center for Countering Digital Hate and the Democrats’ social-justice hoax. It’s about more than just words, and it’s not about merely affixing the word “justice” to every Democrat initiative. It goes beyond merely extending prison sentences for convicted criminals. It’s about criminalizing non-criminal behavior.

You cannot yet go to jail for opposing the climate-change narrative. But people are already going to jail and being financially ruined for questioning the “vaccine” narrative or the election narrative, and in fact, the Center for Countering Digital Hate has a whole list of things which, if you question them, now somehow implicitly constitute “hate”:

• “Anti-vaxx misinformation”

• “Climate change misinformation”

• “Election and state-media misinformation”

• “Sexual and reproductive rights”

This list is straight off the Center’s  “About Our Work” page.

What will it mean when anyone questioning Democrats’ deep-far-left ideology is labeled as a “hater”? Well, it means that you’ll be heading to prison or worse if you dare to challenge their mainstream narrative. And that, ultimately, is the Democrat Party’s end game.

Coming soon to a country near you

====

* Note the absurdity of the narrative in the  CDC’s STD report, which illustrates our federal government’s clearly intentional complicity in the rise of STDs.

There is not the slightest mention of the fact that personal behavior is the central causative agent in contracting STDs, or that failed personal ethics are the central causative agent in knowingly spreading them; instead, STDs are discussed as though they were unavoidable airborne pathogens striking people at random. There is not the slightest discussion of the most effective STD prevention method, which is avoidance of sexual promiscuity. There is no hint that the disparities among reported groups’ cultural norms could have anything to do with some groups’ inordinate incidence of STDs.

In a final display of preposterous irony, the CDC puts forth the social-justice notion that some groups’ high STD rates are due to a “failure to provide access to quality sexual healthcare to everyone who needs it.” Yet the report data are based on “reported rates,” which are collected via patients’ direct contact with the healthcare system, implying that the groups with the highest incidences of STDs are likely having more contact with healthcare providers than those with lower rates.

Imagine the depravity of an agency that knows (with indisputable certainty) that refraining from promiscuous sexual behavior is by far the most effective way to avoid STDs, and which intentionally refuses to even hint at this fact. No doubt the people who control the CDC are highly motivated by another fact: there is no money in having us largely prevent STDs by teaching us to engage in safe, free, and effective behaviors.

==== ADDENDUM OF 2/3/2024

The “Climate Justice” hoax is going to be bigger than you could possibly imagine. Are you ready to absorb half the world’s population into the USA and Europe? The globalists and the Democrats don’t really want your opinion on that matter, because their plan is already well underway: Get Ready for the Next Great Anti-White Swindle

==== ADDENDUM OF 1/13/2025

The CDC moved its STD report since the publication of this article. The latest archived version of the page I originally referenced above is here: Reported STDs in the United States, 2020. The new link above, at this writing, is the CDC’s 2023 report. Apparently, nothing in the CDC’s philosophy about providing useful information to the public has changed.

==== ADDENDUM OF 7/18/2025

I must give Democrats credit - the hoaxes with which they regale their voter base just keep coming. Their latest is “food apartheid”, their replacement term for “food desert”. It’s the same schtick they pulled with “climate justice” replacing “climate change”.

In this latest scam, we are expected to believe that the greedy capitalists who run grocery stores are so possessed of White Supremacy and Systemic Racism that they are foregoing their profits in order to stick it to the BIPOCs who live in Democrat-run urban hellholes by refusing to open stores there. Apparently, the old term “food desert” was too ambivalent-sounding to rile Democrat voters. With “food apartheid”, Democrats can rally their sheeple into approving their latest socialist boondoggle, namely government-run groceries, now being pushed in NYC and Minneapolis.

The most plausible reason that high-poverty areas tend to lack grocery stores is that few residents choose to buy the foods they offer, despite having SNAP benefits and EBT cards. Eating "healthy" requires a lot of work. You must invest in a kitchen with some basic cooking tools: pots, pans, spatulas, knives, cutting boards, etc. Then after buying fresh produce you must spend hours per day using those tools to cook meals. Grocers have learned that there is little market for their offerings in high-poverty areas, even though simple carbs, raw meats, and fresh fruits & veggies generally cost far less per calorie than packaged foods. Even far-Left “Salon” admits that even the cheapest of low-cost food stores (Aldi) cannot seem to operate in low-income high-crime areas like North Minneapolis. My guess is that lack of demand is the driving factor; I doubt there are many criminals targeting grocery stores in search of expensive salable loot or piles of cash collected from EBT-card transactions.

City leaders know perfectly well that they cannot operate successful grocery stores in places where private businesses cannot succeed. The purpose of government-owned groceries is to force the public to subsidize yet another corrupt money-laundering operation disguised as a public benefit. I’m pretty sure I know whose bellies will be filled from all this, and they won’t be those of the neighborhood residents.