How do companies get invaded by social justice warriors?

Having followed for like a decade the invasion of the neo-Marxist social justice ideology, and having watched an innumerable amount of critical videos, it's sometimes hard to comprehend that the social justice ideology and its tactics are actually not completely widespread knowledge among the wider population. Many, many people just don't follow politics nor things they consider trivial and unimportant to them, and aren't even interested in them. As hard as it may be to believe, some people have never even heard of "social justice" or its talking points. Many others may have encountered some of it, but just dismissed it as something silly or uninteresting, some random people bickering among themselves, none of their business.

It is, in fact, surprisingly common for company owners, CEOs and the people running the company, to have actually never heard of the whole social justice thingie, nor their talking points, or what they are doing and claiming. This especially so for slightly smaller companies (those employing a couple hundred of people at most) which are in a business that has absolutely nothing to do with sociopolitical issues of any kind.

So what happens is that graduated university (and other similar educational institution) students are hired by the company as a completely normal procedure, and then after a while these indoctrinated drones start doing their activism inside the company. They may, for example, start sending companywide emails about the various "problems" at the workplace and in the company organization, using all the favorite social justice buzzwords about "inclusivity", "discrimination", "representation", "privilege" and so on and so forth. And such rants will usually end with a list of demands. (One thing that social justice warriors really love is making long lists of demands. They just love demanding things.)

The problem is that the bosses, the owners, the CEOs, the people running the company, often have never encountered these words and terms, they have no experience about this kind of activism (and thus they don't recognize it as activism), and thus it comes as a surprise to them, and they often get worried and scared that something really wrong is going on in the company that they have never noticed before. In many cases this kind of rhetoric and accusations are their very first contact with social justice activism, they have never seen nor encountered it before, and thus they aren't prepared for it, and they are fooled into taking it seriously.

If any of the employees ever does anything even remotely objectionable (by social justice standards), that's a jackpot for the activists who are trying to infect the company, as they can use and abuse that event for their goals. However, even if no employee ever does anything they can use, that doesn't matter because they will still allude to nebulous undetermined "problems" in the company about "lack of inclusion", "lack of representation", "discrimination" and so on and so forth. If the bosses ever ask them about specifics, the activists have been trained to spout mental diarrhea full of social justice rhetoric and buzzwords at them as a diversionary tactic.

Thus, in many instances the people running the company will start acquiescing to (at least some of) the demands and "doing something" and changing their company policies and investing in bullshit that the social justice warriors come up with.

And once the social justice warriors get the upper hand in the company, they will start pestering the other employees until they submit or quit. They will cause division and infighting. Their ultimate goal is, of course, to gain complete control of the company. For one of them to get to be the CEO, perhaps even get ownership of the company. At a very minimum they will start demanding the company to invest large quantities of money to "social justice causes" (that have absolutely nothing to do with what the company does).

There have been a few commendable cases of company owners either knowing in advance what's happening and being prepared for it, or in some cases them smelling something fishy going on, researching the subject, finding all the material out there about social justice, their tactics, and the criticism, and then becoming prepared to deal with the troublemakers. (For example in one rather awesome recent example the CEO just told all the social justice activist employees to shut up about politics and do their work. A third of the employees quit because of this, and the CEO just happily let them go, finally getting rid of them, not even having to fire them.)

Unfortunately, these are extremely rare exceptions. The vast, vast majority of companies are not prepared for the invasion, and thus get invaded and infected.

Why do people allow themselves to be indoctrinated in universities?

I have commented many times in this blog about how most universities, especially in the United States, the United Kingdom and in an ever-increasing amount of western countries, have become social justice indoctrination and activism training camps, pumping out thousands and thousands of brainwashed drones into society (who then go to infest and infect every company and institution).

But one could ask how this is possible. Why do all these students allow themselves to be indoctrinated like this? Why do the go along with it? Can't they think for themselves and be critical of it?

It's easy to ask this as an older person with a lot more life experience and having encountered and researched copious amounts (in fact too much) of social justice ideology and its criticism. It's easy to get detached from the average young person and think that everybody thinks like oneself and is aware of the same things.

However, you have to take into account that these students are still young and impressionable. They enroll in university quite typically by the age of 20, give or take. They don't have much life experience outside their home town or city, and what they have seen in TV and the internet (which, in the case of most people, does not include social justice criticism).

For the vast majority of them this is their first time moving out of home, to a far away place, often to a far away city and sometimes even a different state. This is all new to them. It's the big unknown. They have absolutely no idea what university is like. Their only "knowledge" of university is the highly stylized dramatized version shown in movies and TV series. But they have absolutely no idea what university is actually like for the just-enrolled first-year student. This is a completely new, prestigious, even intimidating higher learning environment, with big fancy buildings and big fancy professors and doctors, and a whole new culture that they have never experienced before and know very little about.

On top of that, they are often under great pressure from their parents and family to succeed. After all, usually their parents are paying hefty sums of money to get them into university, or they have taken huge life-crippling loans to do so, and thus they are under tremendous pressure to not let them down and to succeed and graduate. Thus they are pressured into and willing to learn the ropes as quickly as possible, and to get into the university life, and to conform and start advancing in their studies.

Thus, when the first introductory classes start, they are eager to listen to everything that's being said, to follow all the instructions, to learn all the facts being told in order to help them settle into the university and start their academic life, in this new and scary environment.

Thus, when the professor starts talking in weird ways and asking the students to do weird things, most students simply accept and conform to it, because they want to get into the university life as quickly and painlessly and possible, and don't know any better. When the professor asks them to do weird things, like get into groups to greet each other and describe each other and where they come from, most of them don't question it.

When the professor starts laying out rules of speech, rules of conduct, what is allowed, what is banned, what is required, most students don't question it, because they don't know any better. They don't know that this is actually not what universities should be like, because they don't know what university should be like. When the professor starts talking about "preferred pronouns", "microaggressions" and all the other jazz, and when the professor instructs them to watch each other's words and behavior and rat them out if they don't conform, most students don't question it because they don't know any better and think that this is normal.

And even when a few of them do question it a bit inside their heads, you shouldn't underestimate the human instinctive need to belong, to not be rejected, to not be a cast-out. When everybody around them is using these speech codes and words, when everybody around them is behaving in a certain manner, saying certain things, when everybody around them is constantly watching each other and imposing these speech and behavioral rules onto each other, even these few doubters will start doing it too, because they don't know any better and they have the strong instinct to belong. They don't want to be the odd one out, they don't want to be criticized and rejected. Thus they start doing what everybody else is doing, and they start imposing these rules onto others because it gives them a feeling of accomplishment, importance, approval and belonging. Group behavior is a strong phenomenon.

Surprisingly quickly all these strange words and rules become second nature to most of them. They become completely normal. They stop sounding strange and artificial, and start sounding self-evident. These impressionable students start repeating the buzzwords and the doctrine, and start watching each other and imposing the rules on each other, because it has become completely normal to them, and they don't know any better. They are, after all, living a life that's completely sheltered from the outside world. The only environment they know is the university. The university has become their home, their community, and they have been raised to belong to this community and to act like everybody else in the community.

In other words, they have been indoctrinated, because they just don't know better. They just don't know anything else, and they have never been prepared for this, and it's all new to them.

Of course given that there are hundreds of thousands of university students in the United States alone, there are always the few who don't submit to the indoctrination, who actually do have the knowledge about it and what it is about, or who are smart enough to understand that something is not right here and start openly questioning it (even if they don't yet have the experience to oppose it with good strong arguments).

However, these few dissenters will very soon find themselves on the receiving end of ever-increasing pressure, shunning, discrimination, verbal attacks and harassment. If they become loud and infamous enough, the harassment will start worsening and worsening until it's a daily occurrence, often unprompted.

This kind of persona non grata will find himself completely helpless because nobody will come to his help or defense. If he goes to the professors or the university staff, it will be him who will be blamed. In fact, quite often the university staff itself will engage in harassing him, and discriminating against him, because he refuses to conform. (I think that violent physical assaults are usually discouraged against a student because the staff doesn't want the police to become involved. They don't want outsiders into the situation.)

You might easily think that you could just withstand all this harassment, to tell Truth to Power, to be a rebel and a non-conformist. However, you underestimate how extraordinarily psychologically tiring it is to be the target of constant harassment from everybody around you for years and years. You might be able to be the rebel for some weeks, even some months, but when the relentless harassment and discrimination just continues and continues for years, when you start failing classes because your professors discriminate against you and you have no recourse against it because the university staff refuses to intervene, when you just can't live anything even resembling a normal life and you can't have any peace, at some point you will have no psychological stamina left to continue. Never underestimate the devastating psychological effect of harassment that continues non-stop for months and years. You might think that you can withstand it, but you won't.

So even the very few dissenters who do not submit will eventually be intimidated and harassed into silence and conformity, or even quitting university.

Maybe students who enroll in STEM fields might be able to avoid the worst indoctrination, but more and more universities have made sure that they too will get their share of it, whether they want it or not.

How social justice "wokeism" destroyed the atheist skepticism movement

During the 1990's and especially the early 2000's there was a kind of "mini-age of enlightenment" period going on, with many very famous an popular secular skeptic philosophers and scientist influencers making a quite great impact on western society as a whole by bringing up to the public consciousness a more rational logical evidence-based thinking that exposed the fallacies of religion and pseudoscience.

This is what has been called the "New Atheism" movement. Philosophical and scientific rational skeptic heavy-hitters like the great Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett ("the four hosemen" of skepticism") and many others were getting the spotlight on televised debates, discussions, interviews and so on. Their goal was to bring rationality, logical thinking and scientific skepticism to the wider public, to raise awareness of the fallacies of pseudoscience and religion, and why not only do they logically fail but are in fact detrimental to society and humanity.

This "New Atheism" movement raised to its peak somewhere around 2007, when "The Four Horsemen" held a broadcasted debate, which gained much attention and popularity, and it really boosted the notion of rational skepticism into the public consciousness.

Today, in the decade of the 2020's, you don't hear about them or these ideas and this movement almost anywhere anymore. Very rarely is the subject brought up in television and publications. While in 2007-2010 the amount of rational skeptic YouTube videos exploded, nowadays you'll be hard pressed to find any.

What happened to it? What killed it?

The answer is quite clear: The social justice ideology killed it, and it killed it so badly that almost nobody has been interested in it for like a half decade now, and almost nobody is bringing up the subject and the discussions anymore.

The main problem with scientific rational skepticism is that it's highly academic. Which means that it's centered in and mainly originates from the cradles of scientific epistemology, ie. universities. And since universities have been completely taken over by a totalitarian fascist sociopolitical ideology that's utterly unscientific and puts politics ahead of everything else and forces everything to submit to its politics at gunpoint, it's no wonder that it very quickly killed the "New Atheism" rational skepticism movement that was gaining traction.

The main problem with the social justice ideology is that it doesn't stand scrutiny, it doesn't stand criticism, it doesn't stand skepticism. In many aspects it's highly unscientific, engaging in blatant pseudoscience in many aspects (eg. when it comes to biology). It also absolutely and categorically cannot allow any form of dissent or opposing opinions.

Thus, as the social justice ideology quickly took over universities and converted them into social justice activism indoctrination and training camps (which is not an exaggeration or hyperbole, as more and more social justice professors are starting to openly and unashamedly admit and promote the idea), the rational skepticism had no place in its area of influence (which at increasing rates has been the entirety of society).

A big part of the "New Atheism" movement was completely overtaken by social justice political ideology, even to the point that many of its members relegated the main impetus of the movement, ie. atheism, to the background and put identity politics on the forefront. In fact, so much so that a good portion of this new revamped "social justice atheism" stopped and discouraged the criticism of most religions, most prominently Islam. (Indeed, many members of this social-justice-infested "atheist" community tread on eggshells when dealing with Islam, and a few even openly discouraged any sort of criticism of it.)

Unsurprisingly, the majority of this new "social justice atheism" movement was absolutely tyrannical, totalitarian and oppressive, forcing all members of their community to submit to the identity politics or face shunning, discrimination and harassment.

A small portion of the old "New Atheism" movement remained apolitical and even skeptical of the social justice ideology, and has been under constant attack and been the target of harassment campaigns by the "tolerant" far left, especially from the academia.

But all in all, the social justice ideology, which completely took over universities, the media and most of society, successfully smothered and killed the once-thriving "New Atheism" movement. As mentioned earlier, the mainstream media rarely talks about it anymore, rarely interviews the people involved, rarely raises awareness of these ideas. YouTubers who used to make copious amounts of videos on the subject in 2010 have either stopped, have become insufferable social justice bigots who can't shut up about it and rarely criticize religions anymore, or alternatively have become anti-SJWs who likewise don't make any secular-skeptical videos anymore, but just talk about the social justice ideology and little else.

There exist a few such YouTubers who have held on, and still make videos dealing with pseudoscience and religion, but they tend to be relatively small channels (usually with subscriber counts in the low tens of thousands) without much visibility nor influence.

Also some of the original big philosophers and scientists are out there, still trying to promote rational thinking, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who have not succumbed to the indoctrination, harassment and discrimination, but they have been mostly silenced to the point that they have not much reach except among their most avid fans.

Is it any wonder that irrational thinking has been on the raise during the past decade or so?

"Black Hammer City" is absolutely hilarious

If there's one thing that the extreme leftist radicals love, it's LARPing. And not in the sense of deliberately and consciously group-acting for fun and as a game, but seriously pretending that it's all real and realistic, and that they are actually doing something and achieving something that they actually are not. They love to pretend, and convince themselves that it's not just pretending but real, and that it actually works.

There are many, many examples of this, but perhaps one of the most hilarious recent examples of this is a group of black activists who call themselves "Black Hammer Org", and who have this plan to build a "Black Hammer City". (If you google it, you'll get all the details.)

What are their goals? From their official site:

There are so many things to comment about this.

For starters, notice that first point. Do you see something conspicuously missing in that list between parentheses? The one thing that's usually included in such "no discrimination" lists, but is glaringly missing here? That's right. The one term that's missing is "race" (or, alternatively, "ethnicity").

I don't think it's mere coincidence and carelessness. I think "race" is missing from the list on purpose and deliberately. This is, of course, confirmed by the third point: "No white people."

Way to create your egalitarian free Utopia... with racial discrimination right from the get-go. If you happen to belong to a particular race, you will be banned from entering. And they aren't even trying to hide or excuse it. They aren't even trying to claim there will be no racial discrimination in their Utopia. Because that's exactly their plan from the very onset.

You know, because racial discrimination has always worked so well in the history of humanity. And it's the very thing that these people are trying to combat. Combat racial discrimination with more racial discrimination.

There is, however, a subtler but at the same time even more glaring contradiction in their goals. And that's the fourth point list: "Returning the land to the indigenous people."

If you look at their material, you'll notice that they are pretty much all black, of clearly African descent. (Some might be from some other places.) What you don't see, or at least I haven't seen, is many native American people among them.

As pointed out in the list, they are not doing this somewhere in Africa. They are doing this in the United States. They seem completely oblivious to the glaring contradiction of building a city "for all people of color" (which quite clearly includes themselves) but also with the intent of "returning the land to the Indigenous people".

The indigenous people in the United States are Native Americans ("Indians" if we allow the more antiquated term). African people are not indigenous to North America. Colorado is not their land, has never been their land, and has never in the entire history of humanity been the land of any of their ancestors, ever. These lands were originally populated by Native Americans, not by Africans.

If their intent truly were to "return the land to Indigenous people", then they would have to leave, because it's not their land. However, that's not their stated intent anywhere. Instead, their stated intent seems to be (assuming it even were realistic) to build a city for themselves, and stay and live there forever. On lands that don't belong to them (if they are indeed serious about "returning the land" to their original owners. Who aren't them.)

Do you know what it's called when foreigners come to some other people's lands, appropriate them for themselves, and build cities on those lands for themselves to live in forever?

It's called colonization.

And that's the greatest hilarious irony of this entire fantasy project. Their stated intent (as stated on their official website) is to "liberate colonized people", and their plan to do that is to... that's right, colonize the lands of native Americans, build cities on them, and live there themselves.

And they seem completely oblivious to this glaring contradiction (and hypocrisy).

(Part of this mentality stems from the curious fact that many, perhaps most, far-leftist activists seem to think that all non-white people own every land on Earth equally. As in, that Africans have the same ownership rights to North American territories as Native Americans themselves. They seem completely ignorant of the idiocy of this concept.)

I actually hope that they get some shanty town built in that land plot, just to have it completely crumble in just a few months due to crime, mismanagement, poverty and violence (including very much gun violence). They will, of course, try to keep it up by e-begging, which is what they are doing right now (ironically enough), but I don't think any amount of e-begging is going to keep a crime-infested shanty town up for very long. If there are no cops, as they promise, it's a wild west where it's every man for himself. Expect lots of shootings.

Some "trans" people are just attention seekers

If you have followed the speedrunning scene in any way, you might know who I'm talking about, but either way I'm not going to name any names. It's not important.

Many years ago there was a speedrunner who was specialized in speedrunning a particular popular game, and who was really beloved by the community. He held the world record for that game for a time, he was a regular participant in the Games Done Quick charity events and other similar streams, and overall he was really liked by both speedrunners and the audience alike. He was a regular Twitch.tv streamer, and his number of followers and subscribers was in the tens of thousands (which, when we are talking about a speedrunning channel, is quite a lot). One of the pinnacles and most famous events of speedrunning this particular game was his last world record of its any% category, which he got some years ago. Fans of this game's speedrunning scene remember this event fondly. Whenever he appeared on any event (such as Games Done Quick), the number of viewers peaked.

Then, at some point, he seemed to take some kind of hiatus from speedrunning. This happened somewhere around when he got his last word record. I suppose people thought that he's just taking some time off from speedrunning after this record.

Then, one day, he announced that he had decided that he's a woman now, rather out of the blue. Since the speedrunning community, for some reason, is largely quite left-leaning, many people were gushing all over this announcement.

His demeanor changed quite radically. He started streaming on twitch.tv again... but not to speedrun. Instead, his streams were very self-indulgent. Essentially he did nothing else than to lay on a couch and talk about himself, for hours and hours.

He started hemorrhaging followers. First slowly, then faster and faster. The number of followers to his channel started dropping quite rapidly. Literally thousands and thousands of them stopped following the channel.

Unsurprisingly, his reaction and attitude to this quick drop in followers and viewers was mostly egotistical and self-indulgent, highly dismissive and even derogatory of his own audience who where leaving in droves. He quite quickly stopped making these streams.

As far as I understand, at least by that point he hadn't gone through any surgeries or anything (this was quite some years ago and things might have changed, I have no idea; it's not like I'm interested in knowing or have followed the story). He merely declared himself to be a women, changed his name, and started cross-dressing, and started acting in a really self-indulgent self-serving smug manner.

But of course since the speedrunning community, as with so many other communities, has been completely invaded and overtaken by social justice warriors, and thus has become a completely fascistic totalitarian oppressive regime, everybody in the community takes his word as gospel, and ignores or justifies his attitude and behavior, use his new chosen name and refer to him as "she".

In a manner of speaking there's also a bit of historic revisionism going on, as every single time some speedrunner refers to his achievements in speedrunning, especially to his most fondly remembered highlights (such as his then-world-record run), they will use his new name and use his new pronouns, even though he didn't go by that name nor by those pronouns back then.

Most probably if you were to refer to him as "he" and use his old name, you would be banned from Twitch and from the Games Done Quick events (if you happened to be one of those people who go there). His word is the Holy Gospel, and anybody who dares to not obey it is a heretic who must be harshly punished and excommunicated.

Antifa is an actual bona fide international terrorist organization

There's an adage recited in the 1995 movie The Usual Suspects that goes like: "The greatest trick the Devil pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" (which is based on a similar line written by the author Charles Baudelaire in 1864, although that too may be based on similar earlier adages).

This sentiment could be applied to the international group of people who call themselves "Antifa". One could arguable adapt the sentiment as: "The greatest trick that Antifa pulled was convincing the world that it isn't actually an organization."

Indeed, whenever the leftist mainstream media, politicians or other influencers want to defend the group against accusations of organized terrorism, they will often argue that it can't be a "terrorist organization" because it's not an organization at all.

Of course this is just playing with semantics. And the fact is that not only is Antifa a terrorist organization, it's a very organized terrorist organization with branches, connections and communication channels all over the world.

During the summer of 2020 Antifa protesters rioted in Portland, Oregon, every single night, without fail, for over 2 months straight. Seven days a week, for over two months straight. Since then the rioting has not been daily, but has continued at a quite regular pace for over half a year now (intensifying during the past month or two).

One could ask: How exactly can these people riot all night long, every single night, for over two months straight? They have to eat. They have to pay rent. Where are they getting the money to do that? Most certainly they cannot have a normal dayjob if they are just rioting every single night, all night long. Where are they getting the money to survive and live, to buy groceries and pay rent?

And that would be a great question. A few of them might have rich parents (ironically enough) who are completely oblivious and keep sending their son or daughter free money. Some of them might have some kind of scholarship in a nearby college with which they can afford doing nothing to earn their living.

But those would be a quite small minority.

The fact is that they get funded to riot. They are professional rioters, in that they get money to riot. They make a living out of rioting.

The fact is that the international terrorist organization that's Antifa has their channels to collect money from many sources, such as donations made by brainwashed social justice warriors, and donations made by companies who think they are donating to something else, ie. they are being defrauded of their money, and so on and so forth. There are also very rich people who deliberately and intentionally fund Antifa activity. All this money gets distributed to Antifa cells all over the world, especially the United States, to fund their rioting. The rioters live off this money that is sent to them, so they don't have to go to work or get other sources of income. In other words, they are 100% 24/7 professional rioters.

And because the rioting and violence is done 100% for political reasons, that makes them by definition professional terrorists.

But their greatest trick, which they have succeeded in pulling off, is to convince the world that they are not an international terrorist organization. Which means that governments won't interfere, won't fight them, won't dismantle the organization and arrest the criminals belonging to them.

The fact is that Antifa are terrorists, 100%, through and through, beyond even the shadow of doubt. There's no ifs, buts or maybes.

Terrorists who nobody does anything about.

The "abolish the police" crowd doesn't even understand what it means

Some time ago there was a viral video making the rounds of some protesters marching for abolishing the police. In the video, a car passes by and apparently the driver makes some threatening remarks to some of the protesters, who start saying "call the police".

From the expressions and the tone of voice of these people it's quite clear that they are actually being serious. In other words, it doesn't sound like they are, like, saying it ironically, or with the meaning of "let's use their own weapons against themselves". They sound completely genuine, and their facial expressions and demeanor look like they are being completely genuine, being worried about their safety and instinctively telling each other to call the police to help them against this potential assailant.

I get the impression that the average brainwashed social justice drone doesn't even fully comprehend what she's actually advocating for when she goes out there to shout "abolish the police!" at the top of her lungs, or write a tweet about it. There seems to be a comprehension problem. A disconnect in their brains between the notion of abolishing the police, and the notion of getting help from the police when they are in need.

This isn't an isolated instance either. Speaking of tweets, this blue checkmark tweeted recently this:

The funny thing is that this person also seems to have a notional disconnect between the idea of advocating the abolishment of the police, and getting the police to help her when she is in need, as she had not so long ago also tweeted this:

As mentioned, I get the strong impression that these brainwashed drones just can't make the connection in their heads between the two things. They act as if the two things were completely distinct and separate, not connected to each other in any way. They consider it completely normal and instinctive to go to the police when they are in danger, even while at the same time advocating for the abolition of the police, and they can't seem to comprehend the cognitive dissonance between these two things.

It's like when the far-leftist rioters target their property, their stores, their homes. Their brain just cannot comprehend how this is possible, given that they are on the right side, on the good side. They get completely shocked when it happens to them.

Except that in this case the cognitive dissonance is a hundred times worse.